> The number of students in our developmental math program is at an > all-time high (overall student enrollment has declined a bit) and the > percentage failing developmental math has grown rapidly during the 90's.
He attributes this to "reform". Our enrollment is climbing; otherwise this statement would be true of my institution as well--and with "percent of FTE" in place of "number of students". "Reform" is only a year or so old in the public schools here in Colorado. Am I supposed to believe that it's so effective at destroying curriculum that we've gone that far downhill that quickly? And that it worked retroactively to cause the decline I've seen over the last three decades?
Perhaps we should be looking for other causes than a monolithic reform that doesn't exist and never did.
Jerry also wrote:
> Of course the advocates [of a program Jerry dislikes] still say > it wasn't done correctly. What are we supposed to do - try modifying > it and wait another ten years?
Several paragraphs later in the post, he wrote:
> I don't disagree with a statement of Lou's that traditional education > failed people - it has - but it has been the implementation of it and not > it's ideas which have caused the problems.