[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why Bush got votes


I understand your concern, but what would ever make you think that it is
universities that oppose NCTM and NRC science standards. These are near and
dear to the hearts of schools of education. They are the prime supporters
for these disastrous programs.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think the Bush administration
is moving too slow, but the main message of hope I got from the AEI meeting
on math instruction is that the government may be pulling away from their
support of NCTM math. Lee Stiff is already back pedaling, announcing that
the California math standards are based on PSSM standards. That got some

George Cunningham
University of Louisville

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Hays <shays@TELIS.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Why Bush got votes

> George Cunningham wrote:
> My context was education. My optimism centered around the commitment I
> heard from the new head of the NSF to clean up the mess in the human
> development and education section that up to now funds study mainly on the
> basis of their support for NCTM math. There is also a general support for
> more scientific approaches to making educational decisions. I realize that
> this is not a position held by the vocal members
> of this list, but that is what I believe and what I was talking
> Because deals struck/comprises made in adoption of ESEA (no child left
> untested I have seen thrown around on this bulletin board), the
> long-standing program that set-aside specifically allocated dollars for
> professional development in math and science (Eisenhower monies) has been
> eliminated. Then, instead of allocating $145 million to fill that void,
> promised, the power-brokers reneged and allocated only $12 million. As a
> result, NSF has opted to fly an RFP to institutions and organizations
> universities) who wish to work "collaboratively" with districts and/or
> sites to establish "model" professional development structures in math and
> science.
> To wit, I interpret this to mean (minus all the mumbo-gumbo):
> (1) Twelve million dollars will not go very far;
> (2) All providers of professional development will turn against one
> in competition for the shrinking dollars;
> (3) Less districts (and less teachers and ... in the long run ... less
> kids) will receive direct service;
> (4) Very expensive and non-replicable "models" will be established,
> benefiting a few and reminding the rest of us about how "bad" we are;
> (5) Professional development will return to its "rightful" place -- that
> is, top-down, university directed (and heck with all those independent
> thinkers out there who have been promoting not only the NCTM standards,
> also the NRC Science Standards -- there is no room in the new and improved
> NSF for people who would encourage children to think!)
> Scott Hays
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L

To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L