What I'd consider a more interesting debate is the clash in philosophies regarding the teacher's role.
Paul Tanner III and I are on opposite sides of what the Federal role should be, but also agree that the homelanders get a raw deal as pre-college teachers.
A more successful reward package would include keeping up in one's field to a more serious degree and authoring curriculum at the appropriate levels.
Unions say higher pay, the compromise is different job, less in front of the classroom and more leaving an audit trail by other means. Teachers have that portfolio to build, whether they're pulling classroom duty or not.
The Milgram-Bishop position seems to be that teachers cannot be expected to perform at a high level which is why it's all about picking the right text book and having it correctly presented. The real smarts are in the text book.
The Tanner-Urner position is that higher expectations for teachers is commensurate with raising standards for students as well i.e. teachers who've given up on role modeling "keeping up in their field" are not the role models we need.
The question becomes, if buying Tanner-Urner: how radically shall we change the teacher's role?
That may sound like an easy question but in the multi-dimensional game of interlocking change rates, changing the teacher role means changing the student role.
All talk of "change" is dangerous talk, in some walks of life. Lets see: any hands for keeping it just like it is today? Anyone think that's even possible?
Not everyone at once now.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:58 PM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Responding to Richard Hake's post Nov 13, 2012 3:29 AM: > > I wouldn't describe myself as a "math-educator" (rather, I am a "supporter > of any move to improve math-education and its practices"), but I have > signed the petition. > > GSC >