Ah, math ed. I hate it. Yes, I hate it. It has become a corporate tug-of-war for the hearts and minds of petty pedagogues, and your kids are in the crossfire.
Should it be Math-U-See? TERC, Singapore, Saxon, or one of the other over-marketed mind-usurpers?
I like math. I love math. I hate to see it co-opted by these impostors. OK, some are worse than the others. Before you say, “Hey, but Math Mojo is also trying to sell me something…” let me tell you now – you are correct.
But I’m not trying too hard, and I don’t want you to buy in to my “brand.” There is no “Math Mojo” math. Math Mojo is my own silly wording for the way I like to think about how I deal with math. It has helped me go from someone who was mathophobic to someone who really loves the heart of math and the art of math. I don’t propose that I know anything better than anyone else – I just happen to have some Ideas that seem to prove useful to some people.
I would NEVER propose that it be used as a “curriculum” for anyone. To me, “curriculum” means, “this is what I think is important for you to know, and you better damned well know it because we will test you on it.” At least that’s what it means in schools. Schools – the same places that define “scholarship” as “money for football players.” I fart in curriculum’s general direction.
Something I can tell you is that my judgement should never be considered final for anyone but me (and even I don’t do that), and that no one else’s judgement should be, either.
But there are degrees. And someone recently wrote me to tell me about some posts he had written which address some of the issues with different curricula currently being hawked to your schools.
It needs to be stated right now that the posts I am linking to here do not entirely express my opinions. I just feel that they make a lot of important points. I am offering links to them here simply for your consideration. If you need to debate them, please take them up with the author, not me.
I will say that I generally don’t find any value in “traditionalist” or “constructivist” arguments. I feel that either extreme is a sham, and the math wars behind them are about as useful as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I tried to engage in it at one time, but the mind-numbing natterings of the different sides are ….zzzzzzzzz… pardon me, where was I?
The following links actually argue against constructivism, but in a very, ahem, “constructive” way. I don’t find them fodder for the war, just well-reasoned essays, although they don’t entirely express my views. And that probably speaks for them
My views? Well ….zzzzz.
So hear are some links from Barry Garelick:
http://www.thirdeducationgroup.org/Review/Essays/v5n2.htm
http://ednews.org/articles/one-step-ahead-of-the-train-wreck.html
Tags:
