I wonder how many on the CCSSI panels were/are also “consultants” for math textbook companies having the largest market shares?

How many of those had their R & D (and “implementation”) funded by tax payers through National Science Foundation grants?

It’s time for the Mathematical Sciences Education Board to do a follow-up to this report:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11025&page=R1

In response to our charge, the committee finds that:
The corpus of evaluation studies as a whole across the 19 programs studied does not permit one to determine the effectiveness of individual programs with high degree of certainty, due to the restricted number of studies for any particular curriculum, limitations in the array of methods used, and the uneven quality of the studies.

Therefore, according to our charge, we recommend that: No second phase of this evaluation review should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of any particular program or set of curricular programs dependent on the current database.

WOULD TAX-PAYERS AGREE?
“NO SECOND PHASE…SHOULD BE CONDUCTED”

GGW — Thanks for convincing me more that we could really use more Core Knowledge schools. : ) And yes, Joseph had a coat and became a favorite of the Pharaoh, but eventually successive Pharaohs forgot about what the Jews had done in loyal service to their regime and decided to enslave the Jews. The lesson is that you can’t rely on the good will of a dictator because over time the dictator changes.

To be competitive in the hunt for an RttT grant states and local districts who want their share of the loot must commit in advance to the CC Standards. The first applications are due in January so they are essentially agreeing to adopt standards without really knowing how they will work.

Weak national standards hit taxpayers multiple times. We have to pay the costs of ARRA as federal taxpayers and we have to pay the costs of operating the poor schools as state and local taxpayers.

It appears that ARRA was designed to federalize how local schools operate in a way no one would agree to without the current funding crisis.

That is quite possible…of course.

I should note that the constructivists I knew were in political science and international relations – not education. I don’t think it is any different.

Logic, rationality, emperical evidence bad. Emotions and intentions good.

Logic, of course, was constructed by men to keep women down.

Even in MA they are discovering that new regimes can take the system in a very different direction as the ed leadership is now pushing for Project 21C.

What happens when there comes a Pharoh who knows not Joseph?

What if the national standards look kinda like what Massachusetts has now?

Would you support it?