Wayne Bishop posted Jun 15, 2014 7:54 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9487160): > > Already violating my own usual solution to these > rants <delete>: > > At 03:06 PM 6/14/2014, GS Chandy wrote: > > (GSC): I do claim that Liping Ma has rather > > incoherently put forth her arguments for adopting the > > 'coherent' Chinese approach on elementary > > math education! > > (Wayne Bishop): Some of us have been in contact with > this clear mathematics educator > from Square 1: For example, she sent me her first > book while still in page-proof form and not yet > available. > Well, congratulations, Professor Bishop! I'm sure Liping Ma's vote of confidence in you was most heartening, and, probably, that she had much to support her choice of 'auditor' for her book (is 'auditor' the correct phrase?).
However, that - as best I understand - is NOT proof or evidence of any kind that Liping Ma had argued coherently in her 'Notice to the AMS' wherein she had (I think) favoured adoption by the USA of the 'coherent' Chinese approach to elementary school education.
I am NOT here suggesting that Liping Ma's suggestion is incorrect. I AM suggesting that she had not put it forward very coherently. > > She was an excellent teacher of teachers in her > native China who was sponsored to come to the US to > become an expert so entered the Masters in Math > Education program at Michigan State. > Is that proof or evidence that the Chinese approach to elementary school math education should be adopted by the USA? > > To her horror, most of her fellow candidates were not > even computationally competent at the arithmetic of > ordinary fractions level much less having the > ability to put such problems in the important context > of straightforward, everyday word problems. Far better > a degree in engineering, or some such, never having > taken a mathematics education > class (as was the case with my daughter's 7th and 8th > grade pre-algebra and algebra (at a Saxon Math school). > The above is, quite possibly, evidence to indicate that the US schools of education offering 'mathematics education' do need to change their programs of training math teachers probably quite radically.
Most of us are aware that Professor Bishop has adopted (from Reid Lyon [Reading Research Expert]) the most radical suggestion of all:
"BLOW UP THE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION!'.
(Before Robert Hansen jumps in with his recommendation that I need to acquaint myself with [American] English poetry, let me clarify that I'm entirely aware that both Reid Lyon and Professor Bishop were employing 'rhetoric'. My claim is that their rhetorical suggestion does not offer any hint even of what the 'schools of education' should do to rectify the weaknesses in their programs, which are doubtless many. I claim, further, that this 'rhetorical' suggestion is amongst the worst of the many bad ideas floating around the mindspace [see below]: it tends to prevent stakeholders in the math community from seeking good ideas to help the schools of education).
Professor Bishop's response also suggests that he - perhaps justifiably - admires 'Saxon math'.
It's NOT evidence indicating that Liping Ma's 'Notice to the AMS' was coherently or cogently put forth.
In my posts at this thread, I have - apart from my suggestion that Liping Ma had not put forward her suggestion very coherently - I've only argued in favour of one of Mark Saul's suggestions in his rejoinder to Liping Ma in the "Notices to the AMS":
Namely, that the US should seek to create a 'synthesis' of the positive aspects of the Chinese system of elementary math education and those of the US system.
Presumably Professor Bishop is against a 'synthesis' of the best in the Chinese system of elementary math education with the best in the US system? Why?
As I had suggested in one of my posts here, the US milieu of math education contains the possibility of a free and open discussion of issues, while the Chinese system is (probably) more of a 'command-and-perform' culture.
My claim still is that US stakeholders in education do need to learn how to put to practical use in the cause of effective math education (at the primary school level right through high school level) that culture of democratic discussion of issues. It is clear, from Professor Bishop's response, that at least some US stakeholders in education do not know how to develop effective Action Planning in complex systems from the good ideas available. They DO know how to enhance and strengthen the bad ideas that are always floating around the mindspace.