On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:12 AM, CCSSI Math <email@example.com> wrote:
> Dear Professor Talman, > > It took awhile to figure out where your email came from. > > If you read the mathforum thread fully and understand who Malkin is, > you'd understand the word ``ideology'' in context means political > ideology. Malkin and others often refer to sections of the US Code > that prohibit the federal government from mandating curriculum. > That's their sole basis for argument that Common Core should be > abolished and control of education returned to the states. It's an > anti-government, tea party-type argument, but is not based on content. > >
I don't usually identify as "Tea Party" but I could see where mandating that Washington DC keep out of curriculum standards would be good for everyone.
That city is way behind in technology, conceptualizing in general, and should not be trusted with the assets we carry, under the heading of "Educational".
Of course the museums, like Smithsonian Institution are fantastic and I'm not knocking some of the math that goes into USG bookkeeping and planning, but there's no reason to give this one particular city, not even a state of the union, any overwhelming or overbearing power in this area.
Why not Chicago IL or Rochester NY as a "Curriculum City"? Or split it up. I'd have my own candidate for "Algebra City" and I'd be looking outside the Lower48 for sure. Portland (Oregon) is capital of Open Source these days (Christian Science Monitor gave us that awhile back and we still run with it). Apachecon in progress as we speak (if you don't know what http is, don't call yourself a real school teacher?).
> As our blog states, we don't lay claim to math expertise, or expertise > of any kind. You kindly give us too much credit to take issue with > our opinions. If you support Common Core, why don't you speak out on > it, rather than hiding? You may not care, but the future of K-12 math > education is at stake, and if you teach undergraduates, you may want > to care. >
I think the Common Core is bunk because there's no mention of alternative models of 3rd powering (I gave a talk at the Systems Science program / Portland State just last week mentioning this, a long running theme for our faction, vocal about the NCTM logo back in the day, when it looked more promising (people seem to be getting dumber if you hadn't noticed, though IQ may be on the rise)).
I'm not saying I'm expecting ending Cubism before the freezing over of that place, but I do go with my bevy of friends (some within the Beltway by the way) who think the exclusion of late 20th century thinking from the Transcendentalist camp (talking Bucky Fuller) is egregious and we mock all curricula that are uninformed at this point.
Too square, sorry. And too late (there's a youthful "occupy" resonance -- our academic headquarters in Portland, Washington High School, hosted a Bucky Fuller revival a few months back):
"Not to be taken seriously" is our somewhat Onion-like response to the CCSS farce. My camp may be deemed "ideological" in the George Walford sense of "systematic ideology" (the study of ideologies and their transformations).
> You can attempt to engage us in private debate, but what's the point? > Feel free to comment positively or negatively, but publicly, on our > blog, where we attempt to expound on issues in math education. > Credentialed mathematicians speaking out for or against Common Core > will have a lot more credibility that the ``education pundits'' who > dominate the current discourse. >
math-teach is a public list and as such is entitled to be labeled as public as any private citizen blog or community blog.
It makes no sense to accuse Lou of being covert given his reply is publicly archived, as is mine.