Date: Jan 28, 2013 10:20 PM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: Rotten to the Core: War on Academic Standards
Domenico Rosa posted Jan 28, 2013 10:03 PM (GSC's remarks follow):
> On Jan 25, 2013, Clyde Greeno @ MALEI wrote:
> > A strawman war!
> > Rosa has his own "reasons", but ...
> > Will the CCSS be "another abject failure"?
> > Is the automobile an "abject failure" because it
> > cannot fly?
> > Have our universities sunk to the level where their
> > math-representatives ignore the meanings of words
> > or do not recognize the difference between
> > "necessary conditions" and "sufficient conditions?"
> > The CCSS speak of conditions deemed *necessary* for
> > all American schools to meet ... NOT of conditions
> > which are *sufficient* ...
> In my opinion, the CCSS will do little more than
> perpetuate the pseudo-education of American students,
> as was the case with the national propaganda campaign
> that launched assorted "stardards" and "math reform"
> in 1989. As was the case with the "standards" and
> "math reform," the sole beneficiaries will be:
> 1. The people who prepare and administer assorted
> "mastery tests."
> 2. The owners of the scoring mills that grade these
> 3. Consultants who will be offering workshops,
> seminars and minicourses to train teachers how to
> implement the CCSS and how to "boost scores."
> 4. The writers, publishers and promoters of our
> bloated doorstops who will be peddling their latest
> editions as "meeting the CCSS."
The above are, as you have clearly stated, your opinions (which you have every right to hold).
You have put up other aspects/ dimensions of your opinions at:
- -- http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8140798 (the post that heads this thread);
- -- http://mathforum.orgkb/message.jspa?messageID=8148228
Further, there is undoubtedly some degree of truth in your opinions. They may even be gospel, but this we do not *know* for sure in all cases.
Clyde Greeno has articulated his opinion(s), which in several ways are contrary to Domenico Rosa's - along with much sound reasoning for those opinions - at:
- -- http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8146753
- -- http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8175474
- -- http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8150419
- -- http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8177044
and doubtless he would be able to provide yet more reasoning for his opinions if asked for it. (He has every right to hold - and even to hold on to - his opinions [unless, of course, they are proven monstrously wrong or evil; dangerous to public order; inimical to the safety and continuing existence of the Republic; contrary to morality and family values; or the like]. And the very same rights to you!)
There is undoubtedly a good degree of truth in each and all of Dr Greeno's opinions. They may even be gospel, but this we do not *know* for sure in all cases.
I have yet to see an adequate demonstration that the opinions of the one side are entirely correct or that of the opinions of the other side are entirely incorrect. If such is the case (that the one side is correct and the other side is incorrect), why not then proceed?
If there is some degree of truth in the differing opinions of each side to the argument, then what we may need is a practical means to *integrate* those opinions into something that can help us move forward in regard to CCSS (and in regard to education as a whole).
I observe that Lou Talman has (in http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8181455 ) expressed something in line with more or less this sentiment.
May we hope to anticipate that such airing of these sound opinions would help, now or later, to resolve the underlying issues? If not, why not?
How may we move to ensure that the many important issues thus brought to light (related to CCSS; Academic Standards; doorstoppers instead of useful aids to learning for students; public school education; education as a whole) - how to ensure that these issues would be actively resolved?
If not today, then at least tomorrow or the day after?
I keenly await your further opinions on these issues.