SK> Certain benchmarks that we would expect them to achieve. NCTM's
SK> Standards are more of a curriculum document for teachers to decide w
SK> they should be teaching in their math classes. It doesn't really dis
SK> student achievement or proficiency. If anything, it assumes that bec
SK> a topic was taught, students are capable in it, which is not necessa
SK> true. (It has been over a year since I seriously looked at my copy o
SK> the NCTM standards, so I suppose it's possible that I'm off here.)
 
Hi Sheila,
 
  Ah, no I have not looked at the NCTM standards so I don't have first 
hand knowledge of what they contain.  I mentioned them because they 
repeatedly came up as "the source" or the "reference point" for math 
standards (yes, as in the context that we'd been talking about here, so 
that is a little perplexing) I agree that just because a topic was 
taught, there is no guarantee the student will learn it.  I guess it's 
the difference between the teacher centered standard and a student 
centered standard.  My understanding of the issue is that we're 
searching for good student centered standards, a way to measure student 
achievement and proficiency. Now, as an outgrowth of the standards, I 
would expect some level of standardization in curriculum and teacher 
training as far as content goes.  Understandably though this is where 
the issue gets a little rough because you also must balance this with 
the needs of the district and schools so as not to micro-manage them to 
death. (at least that's the way I see it).
 
Dale
--- TriDog 10.0
---------------