The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Inactive » NCTM Standards 2000 B

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Helpppp!!!
Replies: 9   Last Post: May 18, 2001 7:48 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ] Topics: [ Previous | Next ]
Jack Jersawitz

Posts: 100
Registered: 12/8/04
Ideologs with heads of wood
Posted: Feb 2, 1999 10:24 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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

> 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

> before. The framework is based on experimental studies (the type
> scientist like me love) and therefore is the most realistic
> I have read to date. It is challenging; they did not set the bar
> 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

> solving.
> All three components are important; none is to be neglected or
> under-emphasized. 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

> Jack has been searching for on this forum. I encourage all readers
> this forum to read the California Framework. Reading it will give
> everyone a benchmark to compare the NCTM-2000. How does NCTM-2000
> compare to the new California standards? Is it better? worse? What

> in the California standards that should be in the NCTM-2000
> 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.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.