Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: Symposium - Growth and Success of "mathe 2000"
Replies: 4   Last Post: Oct 27, 2012 2:35 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Paul A. Tanner III

Posts: 5,920
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Symposium - Growth and Success of "mathe 2000"
Posted: Oct 26, 2012 12:39 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Haim <hpipik@netzero.com> wrote:
> Jerry P. Becker Posted: Oct 22, 2012 9:43 AM
>

>>For instance, in the US there have been, since
>>the launch of the NCTM Standards in the 1980s
>>(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
>>1989, 2000), highly emotional debates between
>>opponents and advocates of the reform-based
>>approach to elementary school mathematics;
>>between traditionalists, who still believe that
>>the emphasis of math education should be on the
>>direct teaching of fixed, step-by-step procedures
>>for solving various types of math problems, and
>>reformers, who favor a more inquiry-based
>>approach in which pupils are exposed to
>>real-world problems that help them develop deep
>>conceptual understanding, number sense, reasoning
>>and problem-solving skills, and positive affects
>>towards mathematics. Only in 2008, the National
>>Mathematics Advisory Panel, created by president
>>George Bush himself, succeeded, at least to some
>>extent, in stopping that national war (United
>>States Department of Education, 2008).

>
>...Is it worth pointing out, again, that...after more than 20 yrs, there is nothing left to discuss except how to jettison the Education Mafia out of the business of public education?
>


This is a non sequitur.

In

"Who Are The Education Mafia"
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7680196

you defined this so-called mafia such that all of public education is part of this so-called mafia:

Quote:

"All together, the people who depend on the existing system of public education, architects and drones together, are the Education Mafia.

That said, clearly some elements of the Education Mafia are more ideologically and politically active than others. The most ideologically active are the ed school professors. The most politically active are the unions. In general, when I think of the Education Mafia I think of ed school professors and teacher union leadership.

Therefore, Kirby, the litmus test you are looking for is as follows. When considering any one person or organization, does that person depend on the existing order (existing order: the public schools as they are currently constituted)? If yes, then he is a member of the Education Mafia. Otherwise, not. And, don't forget, when I write of the Education Mafia, I tend to focus on those elements of it that are most active politically and ideologically in support of the Existing Order."

You defined this so-called mafia such that every last public school teacher is part of it - even Escalante was part of it. And so to get this so-called mafia out of public education is in effect to eliminate public education.

Oh?

You claim that your definition of this so-called mafia allows for there to be public education that is not part of this so-called mafia?

Prove it. Point to any public education system on the planet that would not be part of so-called said mafia in that country.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.