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

Re: a heads up at what seems to be the next issue



Victor,

You are right about NSF. The next big battle is over math education.

I was at the AEI meeting to which you referred. If you saw the video on
C-span, I was in the front row. It was David Klein an Mark McKeown vs Gail
Burrill (past president of NCTM) and Lee Stiff (current president). It was
a rout. Stiff kept insisting that NCTM was traditional math and that the
California math standards were based on NCTM standards. He is a great snake
oil saleman, but when he talks to long, and he does dearly like to talk, he
begins repeating the same bromides. His act got pretty tiresome. The human
development and education division of NSF was identified as a main problem
in math education. Drama was provided by the new head of NSF who stood up
to say that she believed that children needed to learn their multiplication
tables and know how to do long division. She promised to make some changes.

I certainly hope you are right about Lynn Cheney. She was the moderator and
she is great. I would love to see her clean out the snake pit at NSF and
OERI. Unfortunately, I don't think that is part of the job description for
the wife of the vice president. If it was, I am sure that Tipper would
already have attended to that chore.

George Cunningham
University of Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: Victor Steinbok <Victor.Steinbok@VERIZON.NET>
To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: a heads up at what seems to be the next issue


> At 9:34 AM -0500 3/31/02, kber wrote:
> >Rick
> >
> >this is not research per se - Educationnews functions as a forum,
> >and it is offered as a place for people to vent. Anyone who would
> >purport to use the results of this as "research" would have to be
> >out of their gourds. This is strictly anecdotal. I posted it
> >because one of the next areas of attack on behalf of the pro-testing
> >people is likely to be to attack projects as amorphous,
> >non-rigorous, and, worstof all, evidence of the fuzzy-headed
> >infiltration of "progressive" ideas that are distroting American
> >Education.
>
> It is true that this issue might have been generated from a
> discussion by the usual "scientific-based research" cabal, but I
> don't think it's anything serious. It's the same people who never
> liked projects and don't understand what is required of their
> children. They take the most exaggerated instances of poor classroom
> implementation by less-then-qualified teacher and then blow it out of
> proportion a la Reagan's "Welfare Queen". Don't mind these
> people--they are the same ones who think that multiple-choice tests
> are "objective".
>
> There is a far more insidious attack coming, which was the undertone
> of the AEI "symposium" led by Lynne Cheney. It appears that the same
> job she did at the NEA (the agency, not the union) she now wants
> someone to perform on the NSF. OERI is already under siege. I don't
> know the details, but rumor has it that there is a bill pending
> closing OERI and turning it into an education "academy" under the
> direct control of the White House (think "Lynne Cheney"). First they
> pretend that they want research-based reform, than they gut the
> research agencies to make sure that no research is done, lest it
> contradicts their opinions.
>
> VS-)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.