Proving once again that Wayne can't distinguish between the field of mathematics as pursued by professional mathematicians and K-14 mathematics education. It's for this very reason that he, Dom, and so many others continue to get just about everything about K-8 math teaching in particular so badly and completely wrong and why they and those who can only think in limited ways about what mathematics is and what it's for need to keep out of arenas where their lack of understanding distorts their views and biases them utterly against those who know these arenas and have the kinds of skills, experience, and, yes, education, necessary (if not sufficient) for judging how to better teach kids.
Sadly, nothing I or anyone, regardless of credentials, be it Alan Schoenfeld or Hyman Bass or Judy Roitman, or Alan and Tom Tucker, or Jerry Uhl, etc., has or could possibly say or do would keep Wayne & Company from gumming up the works. It's pathetic, it's an enormous drag on making things better, and in Wayne's case injects enormous hatred and bile into what might have been an enlightening collaboration between research mathematics and mathematics education. Not that these two areas must be kept separate, as evidenced by the fine contributions of those mathematicians I've mentioned, along with many others, to improving K-14 mathematics teaching and learning, but the negative input from people with Wayne's mindset is debilitating and unnecessary.
If one were to speak of curricula for, say, physics, in the same terms as Stuart Wachowicz speaks of math curricula, you'd be laughed at. Some concepts become outdated or are of interest more for historical value than anything else. I fear that while it's true that one could teach anything with the idea of promoting deep understanding of mathematical thinking, choices do have to be made in a finite school term (as Wayne usually likes to point out when it suits him).
But what else is new?
On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Wayne Bishop wrote:
> Excellent, Dom. Thanks, > > Wayne > > 05:35 AM 6/20/2007, Domenico Rosa wrote: >> The entire article is at: >> >> http://www.pims.math.ca/pi/issue3/page03-04.pdf >> ================== >> >> Perils of Modern Math Education >> by Stuart Wachowicz >> >> "Pride in craftsmanship obligates the mathemati- >> cians of one generation to dispose of the unfinished >> business of their predecessors." >> -E.T. Bell, The Last Problem >> >> The above statement most accurately describes the >> legacy of one generation of mathematicians to the next. >> However, on might be tempted to ponder whether this >> will continue to be possible in North America. The dis- >> cipline of mathematics, as we have known it, is clearly >> under threat. The threat is a consequence of allowing curriculum >> writers to change the centuries-old definition of mathematics and >> what needs to be learned based on utilitarianism, combined with >> the current practice of allowing unproven fads to influence pedagogy. >> ... > > >