|
|
Re: Rotten to the Core: War on Academic Standards
Posted:
Jan 29, 2013 1:45 AM
|
|
I am willing to accept GSC's invitation ... for a bit.
Rosa & Greeno are not truly in opposition w/r CCSS, as such.
Below, Rosa does go off onto his own tangential negative judgments about
"psuedo education" and the residues from 1989. History is not so derogatory,
but that is not what this theme is about.
Far more pertinent are the four categories of beneficiaries that he
identified.
Until now, the main issue has been the need for identifying the highest
level of curricular standards on which most/all states can agree ... to
serve as a *minimum expectation*. How well the present version of the CCSS
can so serve is an aspect worth inspecting. There does seem to be some
evidence that for some states, the CCSS raises the bar higher than was
previously tolerable. There also is widespread belief that the CCSS do not
raise the bar high enough ... at least, not enough to serve as a *par*
level.
But Rosa surfaces the next step ... and another aspect that cannot safely be
ignored. For any state to officially "accept" or even "adopt" the CCSS is
merely for it to make a formal declaration ... that all of its schools
should do at least that well. But if that state then endeavors to actually
implement the CCSS (or any other statewide standards), the machineries of
implementation can be wastefully costly and even disastrous.
For a starter, we might anticipate that no two school districts ... no two
school officials ... no two teachers ... could possibly interpret the
printed CCSS in exactly the same meanings. Some directions of
"implementation" might even, in some important ways, be directly opposite to
each other.
AS Rosa surfaces, the issues of assessment cannot be avoided. Indeed, each
state's modes and mechanisms of assessment will be the force that orients
and unifies how its schools strive to implement the CCSS. Good tools can
help; poor tools can severely undermine progress. Our present technologies
for assessing learning and/or instructional productivity are far too
primitive to provide the needed guidance.
As Rosa says, any chosen modes of assessment surely will create markets for
goods and services. But there is grave danger that those elements could lead
progress in very unhealthy directions.
Our only hope seems to lie in accelerating the development of a genuine
science of instructology. It most likely would disclose that the very idea
of scheduling children's learning into age-levels is quite contrary to their
personal educational health.
Cordially,
Clyde
- --------------------------------------------------
From: "GS Chandy" <gs_chandy@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 9:20 PM
To: <math-teach@mathforum.org>
Subject: Re: Rotten to the Core: War on Academic Standards
> Domenico Rosa posted Jan 28, 2013 10:03 PM (GSC's remarks follow):
>> On Jan 25, 2013, Clyde Greeno @ MALEI wrote:
>>
>> > A strawman war!
>> >
>> > Rosa has his own "reasons", but ...
>> > Will the CCSS be "another abject failure"?
>> > Is the automobile an "abject failure" because it
>> > cannot fly?
>> >
>> > Have our universities sunk to the level where their
>> > math-representatives ignore the meanings of words
>> ...
>> > or do not recognize the difference between
>> > "necessary conditions" and "sufficient conditions?"
>> >
>> > The CCSS speak of conditions deemed *necessary* for
>> > all American schools to meet ... NOT of conditions
>> > which are *sufficient* ...
>>
>> In my opinion, the CCSS will do little more than
>> perpetuate the pseudo-education of American students,
>> as was the case with the national propaganda campaign
>> that launched assorted "stardards" and "math reform"
>> in 1989. As was the case with the "standards" and
>> "math reform," the sole beneficiaries will be:
>> 1. The people who prepare and administer assorted
>> "mastery tests."
>> 2. The owners of the scoring mills that grade these
>> tests.
>> 3. Consultants who will be offering workshops,
>> seminars and minicourses to train teachers how to
>> implement the CCSS and how to "boost scores."
>> 4. The writers, publishers and promoters of our
>> bloated doorstops who will be peddling their latest
>> editions as "meeting the CCSS."
>>
> The above are, as you have clearly stated, your opinions (which you have
> every right to hold).
>
> You have put up other aspects/ dimensions of your opinions at:
> - -- http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8140798 (the post that
> heads this thread);
> - -- http://mathforum.orgkb/message.jspa?messageID=8148228
>
> Further, there is undoubtedly some degree of truth in your opinions. They
> may even be gospel, but this we do not *know* for sure in all cases.
>
> Clyde Greeno has articulated his opinion(s), which in several ways are
> contrary to Domenico Rosa's - along with much sound reasoning for those
> opinions - at:
> - -- http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8146753
> - -- http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8175474
> - -- http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8150419
> - -- http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8177044
> and doubtless he would be able to provide yet more reasoning for his
> opinions if asked for it. (He has every right to hold - and even to hold
> on to - his opinions [unless, of course, they are proven monstrously wrong
> or evil; dangerous to public order; inimical to the safety and continuing
> existence of the Republic; contrary to morality and family values; or the
> like]. And the very same rights to you!)
>
> There is undoubtedly a good degree of truth in each and all of Dr Greeno's
> opinions. They may even be gospel, but this we do not *know* for sure in
> all cases.
>
> I have yet to see an adequate demonstration that the opinions of the one
> side are entirely correct or that of the opinions of the other side are
> entirely incorrect. If such is the case (that the one side is correct and
> the other side is incorrect), why not then proceed?
>
> If there is some degree of truth in the differing opinions of each side to
> the argument, then what we may need is a practical means to *integrate*
> those opinions into something that can help us move forward in regard to
> CCSS (and in regard to education as a whole).
>
> I observe that Lou Talman has (in
> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8181455 ) expressed
> something in line with more or less this sentiment.
>
> May we hope to anticipate that such airing of these sound opinions would
> help, now or later, to resolve the underlying issues? If not, why not?
>
> How may we move to ensure that the many important issues thus brought to
> light (related to CCSS; Academic Standards; doorstoppers instead of useful
> aids to learning for students; public school education; education as a
> whole) - how to ensure that these issues would be actively resolved?
>
> If not today, then at least tomorrow or the day after?
>
> I keenly await your further opinions on these issues.
>
> GSC
|
|
