i'd like to thank ms. parker for delurking; her initial post http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/amte/chimphospu/B5C2AAAD.CB3%25ruthp@pacif icrim.net livened up what has been a pretty dull amte by making some actual charges of specific wrongdoing by professor bishop where our regulars generally prefer vague statements of extreme moral outrage. . that's about it; i'm pretty much a fascinated non-participant. if i've heard of ms. parker before now, i've forgotten about it. as for the quotes she objected to at http://www.intres.com/math/ruthquotes.htm . . . there's what appears to be a friendlier set of notes for what must have been a fairly similar talk at http://www.huffmantv.com/hartford/R_parker.htm ; my brief researches have also located a full length paper http://watt.enc.org/online/ENC2211/2211.html at the enc: "what will implementation take?". . oh, he(ck), i can't resist: >Instructional practices that align with the NCTM's curriculum standards vary >significantly from the common practice of teaching students correct procedures for >solving problems . . . you can't *invent* this stuff.