tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post5240659089473398171..comments2024-03-26T19:10:00.791-04:00Comments on West Coast Stat Views (on Observational Epidemiology and more): New Math: revisionist narrative watchJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10760453165301871031noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-86792961284928084832014-08-04T19:25:18.706-04:002014-08-04T19:25:18.706-04:00"I have not read the New York Times piece men..."I have not read the New York Times piece mentioned in your post. But it looks to me like her agenda is about improving teacher training."<br /><br />I wasn't addressing Green's whole article. I was just pushing back against a common and egregious bit of revisionism. Somewhat ironically, the Japanese educators Green is so taken with explicitly derived their ideas from Pólya.<br /><br />As for the part about teacher training, that depends on what you have in mind, Green appears to be a fan of the Relay GSE approach. I am not<br /><br />http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2014/05/id-like-for-you-all-to-take-look-at.html<br /><br />Having seen these techniques in practice, I believe this training may actually leave teachers worse off.<br /><br />"But do you really see the Common Core standards as being in any way similar to the New Math?"<br /><br />We have to be care with our definitions. If we are strictly referring to the standards and nothing but standards, not so much. Standards actually aren't that big of a deal one way or the other. If, however, we are talking about the whole package including rapid implementation, alignment, testing, creation of new resources, and suggested lesson plans, then yes. New Math was a massive and expensive initiative based on questionable pedagogical theories and prompted by misplaced fears of the US falling behind in STEM. All of those things apply with the larger Common Core package as well.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14705408455380402571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-18739283808768795582014-08-04T11:35:52.910-04:002014-08-04T11:35:52.910-04:00I assume it is the same Elizabeth Green who is int...I assume it is the same Elizabeth Green who is interviewed at: http://www.vox.com/2014/8/4/5959389/building-better-teacher-elizabeth-green-japan-teaching-math<br /><br />I have not read the New York Times piece mentioned in your post. But it looks to me like her agenda is about improving teacher training. I couldn't agree more that the New Math debacle isn't at all an example of something that foundered on training--it was a bad idea. But I think her more general point about teachers being undertrained for what they do is quite well taken.<br /><br />By the way, in your posts expressing reservations about Common Core you often refer back to the New Math as a cautionary tale. But do you really see the Common Core standards as being in any way similar to the New Math? If so, it would be helpful if you explained how, because, frankly, I just don't see it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com