On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Louis Talman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > But we disagree on what must be done. > > > So tell me what is wrong with examining what all of the successful > students do and working from that? > > In any other context this is exactly what is done, so why is that not done > here? >
In *any* other context? Really? In most contexts, I think we look at a problem from every possible perspective.
> > And I might remind you that I spent a couple years gathering data, that > spans 15 years, over 50 countries, millions of students and tens of > thousands of schools. I did this to establish without doubt that... > > 1) All students that are successful succeed in generally the same fashion. >
But you haven't explained what the unsuccessful students do wrong. Nor, perhaps even more importantly, why they miss the boat. And what do their teachers do wrong?
Is it even credible that we aren't missing kids who could, even *should*, be successful?
> 2) There is a natural order, a progression, to that success. >
There is only one road to success? That, on its face, is an unbelievable statement.
> 3) (1) and (2) are invariant to any and all dimensions (i.e. sex, race, > money, etc.) >
That's even more unbelievable. If it were so, the mathematically successful population would be demographically identical with the mathematically unsuccessful population. I think it can be easily demonstrated that this isn't so.
> > This might not provide an "easy fix" but it certainly provides us the > essential elements. It provides us with what "works" means. >
I don't want an easy fix. I want a *fix*. Examining what has never worked for any but the lucky and then proposing to replicate it isn't one.
--Louis A. Talman Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences Metropolitan State College of Denver