When it becomes well known (hopefully very soon) that the prevailing curriculum's "sequence and order" are neither natural nor healthy ... and that the major reason why so few are "good at it" is because of how badly it is sequenced and ordered (it was designed by guesswork) ... and that a drastic reorganization produces dramatically improved productivity ... might we then ask what causes curricular myopia?
From: Robert Hansen Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:38 PM To: kirby urner Cc: Richard Hake ; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Martin Bickman On The Needless War Between Traditionalists And Progressives
On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:05 PM, kirby urner <email@example.com> wrote:
There's a huge amount of disagreement on "what's the best way" but also on "what's best to include?"
No, there really isn't. With teachers that have been tasked to teach every living soul algebra, there is disagreement, and I can understand that. They have been thrust into bizzaro world. But when you get to the places where all of this stuff bears fruit, there isn't a lot of debate. As I said earlier, the sequence and order is just natural. You are good at these things, or you are not good at these things. Too bad for all those children who were not good at these things but were good at other things. Too bad indeed.