CB>  SK>I have conversed with math teachers who claim that the Standards and
CB>  SK>California framework _state_ that grade school teachers should no 
longer
CB>  SK>teach fractions. Yet, I have both of these documents and have read 
them,
CB>  SK>and nowhere in them can I find such a statement.
CB>  Then how is that mistake made?  The teachers must know SOMETHING about
CB>  the frameworks, yet they have made such a major misinterpretation?
CB>  And so many of them?  Are the teachers stupid?  Is the frameworks flawed
CB>  because it does not adequately address the issue?  Something is amiss.
How is such a mistake made? Well, first of all, the language in these
documents is somewhat vague. The NCTM standards, for instance, call for
"demphasis" on 2-column proofs in geometry, and "de-emphasis" on conic
sections in 2nd year algebra. I know of some teachers who have decided to
completely eliminate any instruction on conic sections, citing lack of time
to cover everything that would be nice, and NCTM standards are supporting
their move, they claim. NCTM standards call for less paper and pencil drill
work. I had a conversation with one teacher on the Usenet, who claimed if
the authors of the standards had had more guts, they would've written what
was really in their hearts, and _banned_ pencil and paper drill.
So, even if the teachers read the documents, they put their own spin on the
vague language. But, a lot of the teachers don't even read the documents.
They are willing to go along with blurbs, quotes, summaries and paraphrasings
from co-workers, workshop leaders, professional journal articles, and
whatever they hear in the teacher's lounge.
CB>  I find the same is true of the NCTM standards - they are being adopted
CB>  all across the nation, yet the only understanding most teachers have of
CB>  them is the quick blurb they hear on the news or in a faculty meeting.
CB>  Few teachers, even those "following" the standards, have actually read
CB>  them and understand them.  And of course, my favorite complaint, they do
CB>  not stand as research based standards - based on repeated, large-scale 
stud
Sheila
 * SLMR 2.1a *
--- DB 1.39/004485
---------------