MPG Posted: Mar 15, 2007 5:59 AM >You're so cock-sure of yourself, your superiority, and >yet you can't parse Fuller.
Neither can you, Michael, but that is not the issue you raised. Your issue, which we are discussing, is how to interpret,
"Further, the state continues to create new education programs, most of which do not have any accountability mechanisms to prove their worth."
You seem to think you are back at the Six Gallery listening to an Allen Ginsberg reading of "Howl". I am telling you that math-teach is no poetry club, "nuance and multiple interpretation[s]" are failures of research, and even in education research technical terms have precise meanings.
You wrote that "lack of accountability mechanisms to prove their worth" can mean:
(a) they lack any accountability mechanisms, or
(b) they lack any accountability mechanisms that PROVE their worth, but they do have accountability mechanisms, or
(c) they have accountability mechanisms that prove their LACK of worth
I think you made up (b) and (c) in a puerile effort to undermine the original argument, by hook or crook. If not, then I challenge you to produce even one bona fide example of education research in which the most plausible explanation of "lack of accountability mechanisms" can be understood in either of those senses.
I think the education literature is vast (if of indeterminate quality), and that all references to accountability mechanisms fall into one of two categories:
(a) the absence of such mechanisms (and the need for them), or (b) the (in)effectiveness of such mechanisms (and the need for better ones)
Frankly, your proffering of (b) and (c) for serious consideration reveals a shocking immaturity of intellect. In our society, 300 million people's lives are defined by their education, we spend upwards of $500 BBillion on our schools, and to you this is all one big joke.