Date: Oct 11, 2012 9:43 AM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: "Curriculum" is NOT the same as "system" - some differences

Responding to Robert Hansen's (RH's) of Oct 11, 2012 6:14 PM:

Have it your way, RH. I repeat:

("Still Shoveling Away!" - with apologies if due to Barry Garelick for any tedium caused; and with the humble suggestion that the EASY way to avoid such tedium
is simply to refrain from opening any message purported to originate from GSC)

Robert Hansen (RH) posted Oct 11, 2012 6:14 PM:
> I posted the above in reference to the thread I
> STARTED dealing with curriculums. You asked me to
> explain what I meant by "systematic" and I did so. If
> you will note, I have never attacked the way any
> teacher plies their craft. It is the substance of
> what they are teaching that I find fault in. Just for
> example (not assigned to you), if you think kids
> learn better in groups than individually, fine, show
> me. When you show me kids in groups doing nothing
> more than letting the other kid answer the problems
> then I think you have fibbed or you do not understand
> the task you have been assigned. Teaching mathematics
> is actually training, not teaching. History is
> taught, mathematics is coached. If you think kids
> will be more engaged if you hire clowns to entertain
> them then fine, show me. But don't show me where the
> average was previously 50% and now it is 55%, that is
> BS, you are just playing the system (the way tests
> and curriculums work). Show me last year there were
> only 3 kids with 90% and this year there are 7 kids
> with 90%. I want more kids to be successful but if
> the essence of what you are teaching (not how) is
> wrong and lacks development then you have failed
> already.
> Bob Hansen
> On Oct 11, 2012, at 7:26 AM, GS Chandy
> <> wrote:

> > He had posted the above in the vastly mistaken
> belief that it represented a "system".