Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Ideologs with heads of wood
Posted:
Feb 2, 1999 10:24 AM


What I don't understand is that with the examples of drastically falling scores on standardised tests why the pragmatic wooden headed constructivists don't, at least pragmatically, look for something else and discard constructivism. Of course they should be scientists, but failing that, why do they persist in empty failing idealism? Jack Jersawitz
On 02 Feb 99, Newton Leibniz wrote re. Preaching to the converted.:
> Jack is quite a card. Yes, Newton and Leibniz would indeed shake > their heads in sorrow. Falling scores are not necessarily related to > math instruction. However, if a state adopts a constructivist > teaching model and then their standardize test scores plummet, you > may conclude (all other variables equal) that the model is faulty. > > This is what happened in California in the early 1990's. The new > California framework is the response to faulty model that was in place > before. The framework is based on experimental studies (the type that > scientist like me love) and therefore is the most realistic document > I have read to date. It is challenging; they did not set the bar low > for any student in the state. And yes, it emphasizes rigorous > drilling of essential mathematical facts. > > I quote from the overview of the framework (chap. 2), under the > heading 'Achieving balance within Mathematics  three important > components,' > > "To achieve its goals, mathematics education must provide students > with a balanced instructional program. In a balanced program, > students become proficient in basic computational and procedural > skills, develop conceptual understanding, and become adept at problem > solving. > > All three components are important; none is to be neglected or > underemphasized. Balance, however, does not imply allocating set > amounts of time for each of the three components....." > > The passage continues in a clear, concise way devoid of any > educational babble. Notice that the three components are exactly what > Jack has been searching for on this forum. I encourage all readers of > this forum to read the California Framework. Reading it will give > everyone a benchmark to compare the NCTM2000. How does NCTM2000 > compare to the new California standards? Is it better? worse? What is > in the California standards that should be in the NCTM2000 standards? > > > As before, I leave you with more questions to think about. > > p.s. I especially would like Jack to read the California standards. > It might add some fuel to his fire. >



