On 05/09/2013 02:45 PM, kirby urner wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Greg Goodknight <firstname.lastname@example.org > <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote: > > On 05/09/2013 08:43 AM, kirby urner wrote: >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Greg Goodknight <firstname.lastname@example.org >> <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote: >> >> On 05/08/2013 09:16 PM, kirby urner wrote >>> Testing is integral. Performance gets reviewed. True in >>> scouting as >>> well. You get badges, like grades in some ways. >> >> >> The issue is whether the testing, whether integral or not, is >> revealing the same information for the new way as for the old. >> >> A teacher in the tank for hands-on approaches reporting how >> great the kids are doing isn't the same. The plural of >> anecdote is not objective data. >> >> >> You know what it means to rotate an object, such that its >> projected shadows alter on the various reference planes. >> >> Assuming a student's testable capabilities are projections, with >> the student a multi-dimensional object, you want to find optimal >> orientations for a kind of global growth. Like finding eigenvectors. >> >> Being "good at math" is a planar projection, a slice, and depends >> as much on the measuring tools as performance. >> >> School A and School B have different curricula and different >> tests. A "national test", if too important (say financially, to >> the school), skews the curricula to optimize relative to the >> national slice / plane / test, but perhaps at a cost to the kind >> of globally optimized growth we were seeking. > > Damned straight. In California, it wasn't until a reasonable test > was mandated statewide that the worst of the curriculums could be > rooted out and removed. > > > You went through some kind of Math War and now feel relieved that the > Mathlands of the world have been beaten back. Your son was falling > behind. New New Math was the enemy more than New Math, which had > already gone down.
Kirby, everyone's kids were falling behind, everyone at the district was in denial before the SAT9 was forced on them, and the New New Math is still here. For example, Phil Daro, one of the architects of California's whole math debacle is a prime mover of the Common Core disaster apparently in the making.
New Math was great stuff, just inappropriate for most math teachers. One can still buy the New Math inspired Dolciani Structure and Method series, and they were a godsend when even the St.Sensible fell short of my son's needs.
BTW, I'll cut the flogging of the dead horse to a minimum. I chose MIT as the real STEM baccalaureate institution to refer to because the two real STEM colleges that are ahead of MIT for the percentage of alums with PhD's are both in Los Angeles County and I didn't want to trigger any Ore-gone-ian Californiaphobia.
Most STEM cheerleaders are essentially just cargo cultists erecting poor imitations of science, math, and engineering hoping that good STEM stuff will drop in.