On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > On Oct 8, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote: > > In this thread I have been talking about only MINIMUM standards > imposed on all, students and teachers, and how it is plain fact that > they have risen significantly since the 1970s, and he refuses to > acknowledge these facts. > > > And to clarify, MINIMUM standards was not what this thread was about. It was > about HIGHER standards and the inability of schools to implement them > because it would negatively affect struggling students. Specifically, is it > better for a society to teach algebra to all students at a low standard or > some students at a high standard? I claim that the societal benefit of > teaching algebra is in the later case. That does not mean that we should not > provide a path of assistance to any student wanting to embark on this > journey, but we must drop the politics and be true to what we teach, why we > teach, and what we expect. >
As far as I am concerned, the term "standards" means an objectively and formally given minimum floor that all are expected to be above to receive something in return (like say, a high school diploma), and so meeting a standard means meeting a minimum requirement that all are objectively and formally required to meet if they are to receive that something in return. (And so I should have said "minimum requirements" instead of "minimum standards".)
For example, think of how states use the term "standard" in their standards documents, like the CA Mathematics Content Standards: They use this term exactly as I just said.
So if you mean something else by the term "standards", then what is it? Some subjective ideal that only a small percentage of whatever group of people you are talking about ever live up to?
But your above tells me that you actually agree with me as to what the term "standards" means, and so you are wrong if you say that this thread is not about meeting minimum requirements that all who wish to receive a certain something in return are first required to meet.
So for now on, you need to explain yourself in terms of explaining what should be the minimum requirements for whatever it is you are talking about.
For instance, on Algebra I courses - do you really want raise the minimum floor such that only the gifted can get above it, making it so that only the gifted could ever be expected to pass even just a general Algebra I course? If so, I would think that those who wrote or who are in favor of such as the CA Mathematics Content Standards would disagree with you, since they wrote those standards for the whole population. Are you aware that Wayne Bishop was part of that movement that created these CA standards - this minimum floor - for all?
By the way, what's wrong with partitioning things so that we have even at the Algebra I level "honors" vs. "non-honors" classes, one for the gifted and the other for all. That way, you can have your higher "standard" in terms of "minimum floor" in the "honors:" version". This could even be done (if it is not done already) for high school AP classes.
But if you want to say that people like Wayne Bishop are wrong with respect to advanced math for all, that you want to make the minimum floor in these classes so high that no one gets to pass advanced math courses except the gifted, then just be up front about it.