"The specific curriculum that we've been discussing, IMP, was largely written prior to 1989."
An illustration of how little he knows on a subject he discusses extensively.
________________ Professor of Mathematics, San Francisco State University email@example.com Work phone: 415-338-2251 Home phone: 510-653-8520 Home fax: 510-653-7761
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002, Wayne Bishop wrote:
> At 08:18 AM 12/26/2002 -0800, Michael Paul Goldenberg wrote: > > >I have to ask: where are the research-based facts to support the > >historical effectiveness of "solid programs" prior to 1989 (obviously a > >date picked for a reason). > > The industry needs to quit pretending that the phony "Standards" of 1989 > had much, if anything, to do with the now discredited reform. They were a > culmination of a philosophical perspective that was driving like-minded > innovation throughout the preceding decade, actually much longer. Addison > Wesley's "Math Their Way" was already passe and the ideas were well > ingrained in middle schools and finally working their way up to high > schools. The sharp drop in ELM scores coming into the CSU, going from very > bad to horrible, in the early to mid-nineties was the culmination of an > entire pre-collegiate experience, most of which was prior to 1989. The > specific curriculum that we've been discussing, IMP, was largely written > prior to 1989; e.g., piloting at Berkeley High, and other California > schools, began in Fall 1989. > > Think of the Standards more like the Bible, written after events (or at > least believed to have been events by proponents) to explain and to glorify > them, not as a guidebook for future action. True Believers will disagree > with my interpretation of both of these Holy Scriptures, of course; that's > what makes religion so much fun. > > > Not that everything after 1989 has been cakes and ale, or that nothing > > before it was effective. But for Dr. Bishop to continue to hammer away at > > how poor other folks' arguments and facts are, when at least the project > > people affiliated with many of the curricula he reviles are providing > > data (regardless of his opinion of that data), > > The "data" as you call it are entirely analogous to that which held up > phonics-free reading instruction for so long - and still does among some > diehard chauvinists - spotty, highly selective bits of information, almost > always protecting the names of the sources of the data in order prohibit > other observers from being able to examine and offer independent > interpretation of the same data. When the sources are known, the studies > invariably turn out to be less than as they were presented. One concrete > example comes to mind, the Santa Barbara USD progress that MathLand used to > get its "Promising" rating from the feds even after the program had been a > California disaster. How could this be? Easy, only put forth the rise in > the district's standardized test scores after the first couple years (some > pilots and then one full year systemwide) of decline due to MathLand > itself. Having the name of the district made the evidence to be seen for > what it was, snake-oil sales. Without that information, however, it would > have been "data". > > Wayne. > > >