Date: May 26, 1995 3:03 AM
Author: Richard Fouchaux
Subject: Re(2): Applied Math
On Wed., May 24, Dan Hart wrote
[snip snip snip]
> Books do work real well, the kids actually learn and remember the stuff.
>Applied Math is good in that it really addresses the school-to- work issue
>head on, without all the fuzzy and PC stuff we're seeing in some of the newer
*** How long do they remember, how are you testing this long-term memory and
what is your documentation of this claim?
>BTW, has anyone read "Class Action"? It's sets out a real blueprint on how we
>can actually implement meaningful standards and institute both student and
>teacher accountability, something which is totally lacking in American
*** Could you be specific as to your definition of "meaningful" ? Also of
"real" in the following snip?
>Seems to me the NCTM standards don't have much to do with real standards.
>Every standard I've ever heard of means real objective criteria judged by
>standardized forms of assessment. And usually that means tests with real
>content that can be studied for. All I hear about lately is nonsense about
>portfolios which only show that a student once knew something some time ago.
I believe standardized tests only show that a student once knew something at
the time of the test, or knew how to study for that test, or knew what type of
question that particular examiner was likely to ask. The NCTM standards are
about concepts, which are about being able to solve "real" problems in any
guise, which is about being the one designing the "test", writing the books,
and pushing the standards forward.
Faculty of Education FirstClass Server EduServ.EDU.YorkU.CA via ExpressNet/SMTP