>This is NOT PJ’s comment, but MY comment, which you can see posted under the headline “Pro BOE reader…”I DID NOT address the comment as “Hello Everyone” – this intro was inserted by PJ.MY intro was “Hey, bbwool,” responding to bbwool’s accusation. So my “basically” pokes fun at his use of the word “basically.” And, of course,the “lie” refers to what bbwool claimed and the liar is, of course, bbwool.thanks a bunch, pj, for making it look like i was calling “everyone” a liar.
*My mistake PJ
Hello Everybody .
I found that letter from Frances to Brooks and she DID NOT tell him not to come. so what YOU said was…ummm…”basically” a lie. which makes you “basically” a liar.
in fact, she gave him a heads up on the math discussion in our district. furthermore, her polite communication enabled Brooks to respond in kind. it gave him a chance to publicly explain his position and i must say, he did it well and graciously.
bbwool, why did you say the Ridgewood Blog “proudly” posted her letter but not tell us the whole truth, that it also posted Brooks’ response??
but hey, everyone, you don’t have to take MY word for it because here is the parent’s letter and Brooks’ response from the May 9, 2007 blog:
“Dr. Mr. Brooks,
I am a Ridgewood parent of three children in our public schools and I, like many others here, have been made aware of your pending position as our new superintendent. Our Board may not have advised you of this, but you should be aware of the present climate in our district with regard to the “Investigation” math curriculum. Several articles and ‘letters to the editor’ have appeared in our local paper over recent weeks. If the Board kept you in the dark with regard to this protracted circumstance, there may be little left for you to do but to give it your deepest contemplation. The link below is but a sample of the present discussion underway.
“Dear Ms. Edwards:
Thanks for this note. I’d like to make a few comments about the link you attached. The math wars, like the whole language wars of the past decade, are based on a false dichotomy: traditional education v. progressive education. Good instruction focuses on the needs of the child – every child, one by one – and no one approach meets the needs of all children.
The math issue is interesting in that the battle seems to be pitched around algorithmic fluency v. conceptual understanding. They are not mutually exclusive. Both are essential for mathematically literacy. Students who learn algorithms procedurally without conceptual understanding aren’t truly fluent because although they are able to answer questions correctly on tests (when the questions are posed in the precise format the students are used to seeing), they often have difficulty knowing whether to (and how to) apply that algorithm to new and different situations. Teaching for conceptual understanding helps children develop efficient strategies for computing. Understanding the concept that underlies the algorithm helps students know how and when to apply it, helping them to become more proficient in solving new, differently presented problems and/or more complex problems.
Programs don’t teach children, teachers do. Good teachers vary their instruction – and their materials – based on student response.