Date: Dec 19, 2012 1:04 PM
Author: Robert Hansen
Subject: Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?
On Dec 19, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote:
> Surprisingly, this discussion is very appropriate on math-teach. How many reforms follow this exact same pattern? You go in thinking that the point was to improve math education. You find methods that don't appear aimed at that point at all. You ask the teacher "What gives?" She responds "Our results are more equitable."
Just so my point isn't loss. I didn't mean to leave it at "Our results are more equitable." This is only one of many responses you will receive. Others are...
Our students are thinking more critically.
Our students aren't doing rote procedure.
Our student are more creative.
Our students are working collaboratively.
Our students understand more deeply.
Our students are...
... doing just about everything EXCEPT performing at a higher level in mathematics.
Which was (I thought) the original purpose.
When we talk about banning guns, is our goal to prevent or at least greatly reduce violence or is it just to ban guns? If it is the former, then I am interested, but if it is the latter, then I am not. And if it is the former but the former turns out to be too complex or unrealistic, and you switch back to the latter, then I am out.