Responding to a message by Sheila, to Charles on ...
SK>How is such a mistake made? Well, first of all, the language in these
SK>documents is somewhat vague. The NCTM standards, for instance, call for
SK>"demphasis" on 2-column proofs in geometry, and "de-emphasis" on conic
SK>sections in 2nd year algebra. I know of some teachers who have decided to
SK>completely eliminate any instruction on conic sections, citing 
SK>lack of time to cover everything that would be nice, and NCTM 
SK>standards are supporting their move, they claim. NCTM standards 
SK>call for less paper and pencil drill work. I had a conversation 
SK>with one teacher on the Usenet, who claimed if the authors of the 
SK>standards had had more guts, they would've written what
SK>was really in their hearts, and _banned_ pencil and paper drill.
Fair enough.  This translates into "over-reaction" to non-specific 
guidelines.  Partly caused by poor standards and partly caused by 
teachers with a bent (a teacher who dislikes teaching conic sections 
will find an excuse in the standards to eliminate the topic from the 
curriculum).
SK>So, even if the teachers read the documents, they put their own 
SK>spin on the vague language. But, a lot of the teachers don't even 
SK>read the documents.  They are willing to go along with blurbs, 
SK>quotes, summaries and paraphrasings from co-workers, workshop 
SK>leaders, professional journal articles, and whatever they hear in 
SK>the teacher's lounge.
I like what you said and the way that you said it.  It lends 
credence to the position Al Shanker has taken, that standards MUST 
be specific, measurable goals.  If the NCTM wrote an evaluation 
device (a test of some sort) that forced teachers adopting the 
standards to look at the specifics of each goal, then they wouldn't 
be able to misinterpret the balance or the requirements.  Some 
serious damage may be done because of the misunderstanding.
Some of the same problems are becoming visible here as we see with 
the whole language program - the definition of the process is too 
easily opened to poor interpretation and that's going to lead to 
serious abuse.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* A mouthful of breath mints and no one to kiss.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------