>I would be interested to know precisely what Interim Superintendent Brennan means by the term “the people who are the consumers of this product”. For example, does he presume to dilute the well-documented, well-articulated, and by now urgent needs of parents and taxpayers by blending those needs together with what he and the district would like to think are the “needs” of students that like to learn math by playing games, writing sentences and themes, and displaying their artistic skills? If it is not his intent to take the time between now and September 2008 to talk district parents and taxpayers out of their distaste for reform math, or to do an end run around the problem, then he may have bought himself some good will with his full statement to the board.
As I heard his statement, it had a bit of an edge to it. He indicates that, based on his review of the historical record, the long drift or transition toward the implementation of reform math curricula and materials that started a decade or so ago appears to have taken place in the absence of any specific actions, deliberative processes, or official decisions undertaken by the Board. This buttresses the negligence argument that many on this blog have been raising.
The kicker, though, comes in the last ten seconds of this video. Ms. Brogan’s feeble, almost fearful, response to Mr. Brennan’s statement is embarassing, and reveals her emotions-based, fact-allergic style of non-analysis. At this point, I’d just as soon she politely remove herself from the debate, and start planning what she’s going to do with the extra free time she will soon have on weekday evenings.
