On 10/17/2012 08:45 PM, GS Chandy wrote: > Responding to Greg Goodknight's post dated Oct 18, 2012 4:34 AM: > > Thank you for your detailed analysis. I shall study it and try to integrate your contentions with my current understanding of Jo Boaler's work. It is refreshing indeed to meet someone doing this kind of discussion,
You'd get more of it if you'd drop your own attitude down a notch. Reading some E.D.Hirsch might help.
> in stead of simply pontificating: > > "PUT THE EDUCATION MAFIA IN JAIL!" > > "BLOW UP THE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION!"
The President of Harvard said their "school of Education is a kitten that ought to be drowned" back in the 30's.
> > "LITTLE PIKANINNIES DON'T LEARN LIKE YOU AND I DO",
That last one is a fair characterization of what a past President of the NCTM said, and not all that off from what most Ed departments seem to still believe. As for the others, I'd not reject them as useful metaphors for fixing the problems in the US.
You see, "GS", to argue against inquiry/constructivist methods in the USA has in the past caused really ugly attacks from the NCTM "reformers", who have acted as thugs in the past to get their way. To be against Mathland or CPM you were assumed to be a racist or an extreme religious fundamentalist or from some other antisocial group; no joke, my wife was given handouts stating this from her National University (a certification mill) classes to get her credential. Personally, I'd never have gotten involved in the math wars or would have been forced to put my son in a private school, losing the 'free' education my property and state income taxes had already paid for had a choice of a traditional math curriculum been made available. Even with a classroom free Saxon books being available for a pilot, for the low price of testing the kids at the beginning, testing them at the end and making the results public, the idea of a choice was rejected by the Principal/Asst. Superintendent who exclaimed, "The NCTM Standards must be followed". To not agree was to *want* poor kids, girls, and minorities (real minorities, meaning the ones that aren't expected to do well and live up to expectations) to achieve less than white boys with good parents.
As it turns out, there were other benefits of the St.Sensible. No bullying, for example, the standards really were higher, and they were voluntarily using the SAT-9 tests for their own 'quality control' before the state schools were forced to use it. Only they'd give it at the beginning of the year to see where everyone was starting from instead of at the end of the academic year when the State thought the results would be better.