| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Herbert H Gottlieb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:06:29 -0600 Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV> writes:
> The report does not seem to cite, for the most part, any of
> the so-called errors.
> Regards,
> Jack
Not too far before the end of Jane's reproduction of part 3 of the
Packard report,
she has, in parentheses, a statement that six pages of errors listed in
the report
have not been reproduced in her e-mail to us. Also, John Hubisz did not
include all the
errors that were found in the middle school science textbooks because the
report was
getting to be much too long. If you have a SPECIAL REASON see ALL of the
errors
So why is it a matter of all or none? The claim is that the books are
full of errors. The posting is a mish-mash of opinions to the effect
that the books represent poor pedagogy - quite a different matter. If
you want to speak credibly about errors it would help to provide a few
glaring examples.