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] |
Hi all-cut
John's son has evidently received a wonderful present. He has
been given the opportunity to do what many of my most gifted colleagues
have donehttp://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Animals/Animals.html, which is to take responsibility for his own learning. If he
takes advantage of this opportunity he will not be like that lackadaisical
st
Now my comment on the NCTM "Standards".
The NCTM "Standards" are much more than precatory statements. The
book is full of examples for different examples for use in teaching the
different topics at the various grade levels.
My principal opbjections to the standards are twofold:
1. I think that they lack a common theme. Just as the camel is a horse
that was designed by a committee, the standards seem to reflect
compromises inserted at verious stages to please competing interests.
2. It misses the whole point of mathematics as far as I am concerned.
The question that arose, which I have tried to answer, was: are there
existing standards? My answer is, yes, but they aren't much help to the
teachers of science.
Regards,
Jack
___________________________________________________________________________
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, John M Clement wrote:
The standards basically have little effect on the quality of teaching.cut
However they do have an effect on how much "stuff" is stuffed into
the curricula. In reality the average physics course is about as well