Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jul 3, 2014 5:05 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9509419) - GSC's remarks follow: > > I am not sure why you think the stakeholders can do > this. I would say that the reason we are here sharing > ideas on how to teach mathematics is because we know > what the stakeholders did and will do to education. > This is a democracy and we have the system of > education the stakeholders wanted. We (here) want > something much better than that for our children. > > Bob Hansen > For one thing, please try to understand just what I had stated and the IMPLICATIONS of what I'd stated;
For another thing, you clearly DON'T have the "system of education the stakeholders wanted". Check out the posts right here at Math-teach (not GSC's) to see clearly that this claim of yours is entirely untrue.
I agree that you do claim to be a 'democracy' (as do we in India), but you are only an 'electoral democracy' (like we are in India). This is quite a different sort of beastie. It's a long, LONG journey you (and we in India) have to travel before you or we reach 'democracy'. It's not quite as simple a business as putting a mark against someone's name and counting those marks. Democracy is not something so superficial.
You claim to be "sharing ideas". Except that simply "sharing ideas" in conventional prose as you claim to be doing is quite evidently not sufficient (or even adequate) to enable development of an Action Plan to resolve the problems, accomplish the aims that you claim to desire. "Sharing ideas" is not something so utterly superficial as you seem to think it is.
Your problem (like ours in India) is that you and we are 'embedded' within systems, and those systems are embedded within systems within systems... (practically ad infinitum) - and that it takes thinking of a slightly different kind - at a different level - to move towards:
a) understanding the issues and problems confronted in such 'intertwined systems'; and then to
b) begin to understand how to resolve them.
These complex systems are governed by relationships somewhat more complex than you are accustomed to or comfortable with.
The "PRECEDENCE" relationship in which you once placed such trust that you were led to put up 30-foor PERT Chants all over your offices simply will not help you to understand the complex systems of thoughts and ideas that you believe you want to change: what you were doing was a well-known discipline called 'Project MISmanagement', unfortunately.
As often suggested, you might check out the transitive system relationship "CONTRIBUTES TO" (and others such) to arrive at for a transitive relationships that could help lead you to a deeper understanding of the systems that surround you, all of us. When you've adequately understood "CONTRIBUTES TO" (and such others), you may then be in a position to investigate '2nd order system relationships such as "IMPLIES". But then you and your other 'experts' have already decided you know everything you ever need to about "IMPLICATION". By all means, have it just that way: it's a 'democracy', after all.
(I had recently posted a few crucial reasons indicating why "PRECEDENCE" is inadequate to lead anyone to an understanding of a complex system.
If you really wish to understand why I *know* > > the stakeholders can do 'this', i.e., >>the *stakeholders* in >>the educational system together have ALL (or >>practically all) the ideas that are needed.
I may suggest:
i) You should try to read up some of the documentation I have put up time and time again here at Math-teach;
ii) Try to understand some of it. (Help available if required);
iii) Do a few practical exercises on 'simple' issues of interest to you. (Help available if required).
If you're not willing to put in that much intellectual labour, I cannot provide any other suggestions.
It's like 'Rithmetic' (or geometry, to algebra, or calculus): You need to do a few 'live problems' to understand it.
GSC GSC's remarks to which RH was responding: > > On Jul 2, 2014, at 4:09 PM, "GS Chandy" > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > I claim that, most crucially, the *stakeholders* in > the educational system together have ALL (or > practically all) the ideas that are needed.