> Michael Paul Goldenberg Posted: Jun 30, 2007 5:21 PM >> Almost as much as I enjoy thinking about your refusal >> to discuss teaching and learning school mathematics >> because you're utterly devoid of the ability to do so. > > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5791489&tstart=0 >> Michael Paul Goldenberg Posted: Jun 27, 2007 7:18 PM >> >>> People sometimes wonder why I rarely post about >>> serious issues of teaching here. > > In the past I have tried to explain to you that I am not Wayne.
I know. You're younger, have a much bigger head, live in Brooklyn, and post anonymously.
> Clearly my mistake. I should be trying to explain that Wayne is > not you.
I know. He's vile, ignorant, living in the Stone Age, is a backstabbing assassin of the worst kind, and apparently lacks some essential safety skills (or as we say in the 'hood, "Street smarts"). He knows nothing about how to teach mathematics effectively to children or, I suspect to those who will be teaching them, yet has been paid for doing so, while actually spending a lot of time propagandizing for a bankrupt view of school mathematics and its teaching. Swell guy whom I gather will be doing a little less direct damage to generations of future students via their teachers. > > People specialize in every profession. In medicine you have > cardiologists and ophthalmologists, etc.
Really? Proctologists, too, and you need one on call full time, as does Wayne.
> In mathematics mathematics you have geometers and algebraists, > theoreticians and applied mathematicians, and so on.
None of those would apparently apply to you, and while Wayne is an erstwhile algebraist of not particularly great ability or importance, his lack of publications in mathematics over a rather long period suggests that he's been busy doing something else to collect his check. Some folks would say he's been bilking his university for doing minimal teaching while spending huge amounts of his time plotting and scheming and generally doing evil.
> Even in the furniture moving business, you have to call a > specialist to move a piano. Well, people specialize in the Math > Wars as well.
Do they now? Thank you Mr. David, who has taken on a new area of expertise in which to offer disinformation.
> While some people get embroiled in the fine details of pedagogy, > Professor Wayne Bishop of Cal State LA entered the fray to work on > curriculum and textbooks.
No, what he did was to realize that he couldn't bullshit anyone with more brains than a bag of hammers that he knew the first thing about teaching kids, so he announced that pedagogy doesn't matter. Meanwhile, he continues to push a particular kind of pedagogy nonetheless. In case you've been more dead between the ears than I imagine, it's called "direct instruction." So no more of your bull, Lt. Scheisskopf. Keep it in your head where it's comfortable.
> Why he ignores minutiae of pedagogy
Or knows not a thing about it, though he weighs in on it when it suits his purposes, as again everyone who reads this list knows full well.
> I do not think he has said (that I can recall).
Well, we wouldn't expect the Prince of Darkness to actually admit the truth: that he's totally out of his depth when it comes to talking about real teaching in K-12. But he does occasionally bleat that pedagogy doesn't matter, and then more than occasionally makes clear that he believes nothing of the kind.
> In other words, you pick your fights and he picks his.
Yes, Wayne surely picks his fights. It's called: the entire spectrum of progressive education and politics.
> Perhaps he feels, as I do, that there are no interesting open > pedagogical questions on how to teach mathematics at the K-12 level.
If so, he really would have to do some interesting talking to explain what he's doing on a list called "math-teach" then, wouldn't he? As would you. Because this list, from it's name, would appear to be focused on the teaching of mathematics. Of course, it never has been, and with the pedagogically ignoramuses who long ago invaded it, it never will be. The real teachers tend to flee, with a few exceptions. > > On the other hand, it is a pressing political question as to why > elementary school teachers are required to teach math but are not > required to know it,
Well, it's a pressing question, political or otherwise, but it's hardly a NEW question, it's not peculiar to the New Math, the so- called "New New Math," the Math Wars, or anything of the sort. It's a question that begged to be asked for the entirety of American public education. You folks didn't think of it first, and the answers aren't anything to do with the Math Wars per say, but rather with the low esteem in which elementary teachers have been held in this country for well over a century. "Women's work," don't you know?
> and how former language artists, who know little if any math, get > hired to "coordinate" or "facilitate" or "develop" (or whatever > might be the latest fashionable verb) math education in the > schools, thereby considerably exacerbating the problem.
Sez you, Mr. David. And since your qualifications to comment on anything on this list remain a complete cipher other than your own anonymous assertions, who really gives a rat's ass what you say or think about anything? > > Let me put it this way. Wayne's clearly stated interest is > curriculum and textbooks,
Oh, and where did he say that? Seems like he's an "expert" on testing. But given his job, he is supposed to be an expert on mathematics for teachers. Some people, including many Ph.Ds in mathematics who teach such courses, think that means you have to know about how to explain the math to kids (and to teachers). If Wayne does not know these things, I would argue he's at best doing half his job and thus may owe his students and his university a huge apology. Of course, I think he does, regardless, for his shameless attitudes towards students, colleagues (or doesn't he think the folks in his department who are in mathematics education feel a tiny bit threatened, attacked, insulted, embarrassed, etc., by his statements about mathematics educators? And those charming calls for blowing up the schools of education? Some folks might consider that a bit "uncollegial."
> and he discusses those all the time. My interest is mainly the > political aspects of education, and I discuss those all the time. > It is you who claims to want to discuss the fine details of math > pedagogy, and you almost never do it. (See second quote, above.)
I rarely do it, and with good reason. But then again, I don't claim it's my only interest. When I do post on questions of teaching (an odd thing on a list called "math-teach," of course), you and the rest of the math fascists are either silent or predictably adolescent in your responses. Indeed, it's almost as if the last thing you'd like to see discussed here (you, Wayne, Greggie, et al.) would be how to help teachers teach. I know very few teacher-educators who would argue that curriculum materials suffice. Indeed, I know none. But to read the ranting of the MC/HOLD crowd, you'd think that if we had the right books, all would be well. > > As we say in the 'hood, "What's up with that?"
Let me check something. I'll be right back.
Hmm. No, I haven't developed an addiction to crack cocaine or any other narcotic substance. Hence, I am not in a drug-induced haze, harboring the belief that I give a fuck what you ask. And if you're in the 'hood in Park Slope, Ed, then I suppose living in Ann Arbor puts me right in the middle of inner city Detroit. > > > Haim > Je me souviens > >