Haim posted Nov 29, 2012 8:15 PM (GSC's remarks at end): > Peter Duveen Posted: Nov 28, 2012 8:14 AM > > >What are "basics" that one should go back to? There > are > >differing opinions about that. I would like to say > that > >intellectual honesty is one of the basics we need to > > >move toward. Also, we might look toward the > >demilitarization of our schools, and the exiling of > >DARPA and highpowered military recruitment, unless > we > >explain to the students exactly what is going on, > and > >the dangers of entering the military, such as > exiting > >with a much higher than average suicidal tendencies, > etc. > > My thanks to Peter Duveen for making my point, > nt, viz, the troubles of American public education > have very little to do with curricula, textbooks, and > pedagogy, and a whole lot to do with politics. > > So, Mr. Peter Duveen, a New York (city?) teacher, > er, advertises himself as an "educator and writer". > When exploring the question, "What are the > e 'basics'?"---in a cybernetic forum on math > education---instantly his thoughts turn to things > political, with nary a word on things mathematical. > > Peter, at least one person in this forum is not > not surprised. It has been apparent for many years > that the Education Mafia have a great many things on > their minds, not including math education. Truly, it > is no wonder that math education in this country has > collapsed. > > Haim > No representation without taxation. > IF "*math education in (the USA) has collapsed*", it is clearly the stakeholders in math education who are responsible for the collapse. (*The validity of the claim "math education in the US has collapsed" has by no means been established*. There is, however, no reason to doubt that math education can and should be improved - and that the societal need for such improvement is huge).
The stakeholders in US math education are:
i) The students undergoing math education (who currently have negligible authority to modify/improve the system);
ii) The teachers providing math education (who have a fair degree of authority to modify/improve the system);
iii) The parents of students undergoing math education (who have a fair degree of authority to modify/improve the system)
iv) The administrators of the math education system (who have a fair degree of authority to modify/improve the system);
v) Other interested parties in the math educational system, e.g., Haim, along with his cohorts and consorts; other commentators; the politicians who control the financing of math education in the 'public system'. (Some in this group do have a fair degree of influence that could lead to system improvement)
UNLESS these stakeholders learn how to get together to put their good ideas into practice, there is no hope that the math education system will improve. As an outsider (being an Indian citizen), I see very little of stakeholders putting their good ideas together.
I note that the situation in India is very similar to that obtaining in the USA - i.e. stakeholders do not know how to put their good ideas together to improve the system.
The attached document describes some practical means to enable stakeholders in complex problem situations (such as that of 'math education' [in the US or in India] to put their good ideas effectively together.
GSC ("Still Shoveling Away!" - with apologies if due to Barry Garelick for any tedium caused; and with the observation that the SIMPLE way to avoid such tedium is to refrain from opening messages purporting to originate from GSC).