Date: Nov 13, 2012 2:51 PM
Author: kirby urner
Subject: Re: Petition by Jeremy Kilpatrick to Stanford in Support of Jo Boaler
What I'd consider a more interesting debate is the clash in philosophies
regarding the teacher's role.
Paul Tanner III and I are on opposite sides of what the Federal role should
be, but also agree that the homelanders get a raw deal as pre-college
A more successful reward package would include keeping up in one's field to
a more serious degree and authoring curriculum at the appropriate levels.
Unions say higher pay, the compromise is different job, less in front of
the classroom and more leaving an audit trail by other means. Teachers
have that portfolio to build, whether they're pulling classroom duty or not.
The Milgram-Bishop position seems to be that teachers cannot be expected to
perform at a high level which is why it's all about picking the right text
book and having it correctly presented. The real smarts are in the text
The Tanner-Urner position is that higher expectations for teachers is
commensurate with raising standards for students as well i.e. teachers
who've given up on role modeling "keeping up in their field" are not the
role models we need.
The question becomes, if buying Tanner-Urner: how radically shall we
change the teacher's role?
That may sound like an easy question but in the multi-dimensional game of
interlocking change rates, changing the teacher role means changing the
All talk of "change" is dangerous talk, in some walks of life. Lets see:
any hands for keeping it just like it is today? Anyone think that's even
Not everyone at once now.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:58 PM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Responding to Richard Hake's post Nov 13, 2012 3:29 AM:
> I wouldn't describe myself as a "math-educator" (rather, I am a "supporter
> of any move to improve math-education and its practices"), but I have
> signed the petition.