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 » Education » math-teach

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

Topic: Re: meaningful standards (2nd try)
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List

Posts: 95
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: meaningful standards (2nd try)
Posted: Jun 3, 1995 2:27 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


You asked for specifics. Here's one for you to consider. The only new text I
have here at home representing the NCTM standards is the "Integrated
Mathematics" book from Houghton Mifflin. Very hot book in these parts. Some
things to recommend it, other ways not very teachable. This book appears to
be written by a committee for a committee. In my opinion, very unteachable,
but beautifully produced, pretty pictures, perfect for some textbook adoption
committee, probably more adept at politics than math.

Anyway, under "multicutural connections" there are 107 citations for
different pages. This appears to be the most listings for any topic, except
for "writing" which is pretty close. Typical of other listings: "slope", 10
listings, "square root", 7 listings, and "quadratic formula", 1 listing. Now
some people might think this is great; I don't really know. But my
proposition was that liberals have pretty much set the agenda for our texts.
And I haven't heard Newt, Dole, or Graham crying about diversity and

Can you imagine the moral outrage if there was a math book published with 107
listings under "patriotism" or "objective codes of morality and behavior"?

Is my example specific enough?


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.