Date: Dec 20, 2012 4:16 AM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?
Robert Hansen (RH) posted Dec 19, 2012 11:34 PM: (GSC's remarks interspersed):
> On Dec 19, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Robert Hansen
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
What is suggested is that you along with your cohorts and consorts (and/or the NCTM; and/or the 'Education Mafia'; and/or other teachers; and/or parents interested in how their children are learning; and/or the students; and/or other stakeholders in education) should decide just what it is you wish to work towards and then do just that - instead of all this perpetual gassification to no purpose whatsoever. You can choose such a thing as "to perform at a higher level in math", if that is what you want to do (and not merely gassify).
> Which was (I thought) the original purpose.
Whatever your purpose, just go and do it. Don't keep gassifying.
> 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.
> Bob Hansen
As far as guns are concerned, I'd suggest (with no gassifcation whatsoever) that heavily armed teachers with the clear mandate to shoot marauders in the head are hardly the right people to teach your children in the USA. (If you feel that they are, then please go ahead and do just that).
If on the other hand it is accepted that teachers should not be heavily armed in order to teach effectively, then "banning guns" should help to reduce gun violence against children in classrooms (the kind of gun violence you've just seen happen in Newtown).
In any case, just stop the gassification and go and do whatever you believe will get your children an education (or no education if that is what is preferred).
("Still Shoveling Away!")
Message was edited by: GS Chandy