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: Proof, yet again
Replies: 22   Last Post: Nov 15, 2003 12:39 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Dan Fendel

Posts: 65
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Proof, yet again
Posted: Dec 27, 2002 2:10 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


Wayne does not know what he's talking about regarding the creation of IMP.

Dan Fendel

________________
Professor of Mathematics, San Francisco State University
fendel@math.sfsu.edu
Work phone: 415-338-2251
Home phone: 510-653-8520
Home fax: 510-653-7761

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Wayne Bishop wrote:

> I am sure that Dan knows when IMP was created and I'm sure that he knows
> that the 1989 NCTM Standards had nothing to do with the original creation
> of IMP (the point I was making) and little, if anything, to do with its
> guidance and writing along the way. It has been a useful marketing tool,
> however.
>
> Wayne's "goals" is actually singular, the goal of helping the country
> provide the best publicly funded education opportunity possible to all
> children. That "Wayne Bishop distorts any and all information to suit"
> this goal is a self-serving, Dan Fendel lie. That he [Fendel] will "no
> longer give him [Bishop] any" information does appear to be accurate except
> that it implies that at some earlier point in time he did answer my civil
> requests for information about IMP, something beyond no response or snide
> non-response. To my knowledge, any such implication is unfounded.
>
> Then IMP Director Diane Resek did once, however, in a letter of September
> 25, 1996:
>
> "To our knowledge, there are no schools that offer IMP as the only college
> intending mathematics program. We encourage everyone to offer students,
> parents, and teachers a choice of programs, including both IMP and a
> traditional mathematics program."
>
> Compare and contrast that information with the IMP website information
> http://www.mathimp.org/general_info/iis/section3_4.html :
>
> "IMP recommends that schools implement the program gradually, phasing it in
> slowly, one curriculum year at a time, until all four years are offered. It
> is important to keep the traditional college preparatory sequence at first,
> so that parents, students, and teachers retain choices. Continue to do so
> until the traditional curriculum is no longer a viable option, thereby
> avoiding unnecessary conflict."
>
> So, who distorts information again?
>
> Wayne.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 05:09 PM 12/26/2002 -0800, Dan Fendel wrote:
>

> >For those who don't know, I was one of the authors of IMP, so I know what
> >I'm talking about as to when it was created.
> >
> >Also, as most of you know, Wayne Bishop distorts any and all information
> >to suit his goals, so I no longer give him any.
> >
> >Dan Fendel
> >
> >________________
> >Professor of Mathematics, San Francisco State University
> >fendel@math.sfsu.edu
> >Work phone: 415-338-2251
> >Home phone: 510-653-8520
> >Home fax: 510-653-7761
> >
> >On Thu, 26 Dec 2002, Wayne Bishop wrote:
> >

> > > Oops --- Since "Sept 1989", obviously. If these were only a class or
> > two
> > > in each district, and with good parental information about the nature of
> > > what was underway, I have no problem with it. I just deeply believe that
> > > any program that has had as much federal money pumped into it as IMP needs
> > > a much more objective report of its history, a more cooperative sense of
> > > discovering what is or is not more effective and, if differentiation
> > > warranted in data, with what kinds of populations. The California
> > > experience with IMP has been an unmitigated disaster and that information
> > > should be readily available at the IMP website so that decision makers are
> > > only making informed decisions.
> > >
> > > Wayne.
> > >

> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > At 03:11 PM 12/26/2002 -0800, Dan Fendel wrote:
> > >

> > > >I won't do your research for you, Wayne.
> > >
> > > Nor will you answer questions in a civil manner, apparently, but here's
> > > another opportunity to carry on a real conversation. Berkeley HS and

> > Tracy
> > > Joint were, in 1995-96, reported by IMP as being California IMP sites
> > since
> > > 1995-96. Who better to ask than you as to what this might have meant?
> > >
> > > Wayne.
> > >

> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > >Dan Fendel
> > > >
> > > >________________
> > > >Professor of Mathematics, San Francisco State University
> > > >fendel@math.sfsu.edu
> > > >Work phone: 415-338-2251
> > > >Home phone: 510-653-8520
> > > >Home fax: 510-653-7761
> > > >
> > > >On Thu, 26 Dec 2002, Wayne Bishop wrote:
> > > >

> > > > > Are we also denying that Berkeley High piloted it starting Fall
> > 1989? I
> > > > > suppose it could have been just an gleam in some eyes and a good sales
> > > > job,
> > > > > with curriculum being written month-by-month, but there is
> > something less
> > > > > than ideal about that thought. Feynman wrote of being asked to approve
> > > > > book covers, based only on publisher reviews, because the books

> > were not
> > > > > yet available. Are you telling us that the Berkeley Board did the
> > > > > same? Were parents informed?
> > > > >
> > > > > On a separate but related theme, is IMP still an available option at
> > > > > Berkeley High? If yes, is it the recommended option for math-based
> > > > > academically-oriented students?
> > > > >
> > > > > Wayne.
> > > > >

> > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > At 01:28 PM 12/26/2002 -0800, Dan Fendel wrote:
> > > > >

> > > > > >Wayne writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Dan Fendel
> > > > > >
> > > > > >________________
> > > > > >Professor of Mathematics, San Francisco State University
> > > > > >fendel@math.sfsu.edu
> > > > > >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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >

> > >
> > >
> > >

>
>
>






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.