>I just got it in the mail today, and I thank you very much for sending it. It confirms what I know has been a major problem. The newspaper, perhaps inadvertently, set up the debate as between reform and traditional math (in the call-out box), never mentioning that the findings of the NMPanel do not support what reformers call reform. The battle for a solid math curriculum is lost if the reformers get their appealing description into the public eye as reform, and traditional math is described in totally negative terms. The battle is at its core about the intellectual content of the math curriculum and its adequacy. Reform math simply teaches much less math, and incoherently to boot. Can you get in something to correct what is a common misunderstanding, maybe even by this alert reporter? Can you get something on record somewhere that the Board has purposely excluded anyone who could bring a research perspective to the discussion.
Fishbein is another story. Right now, 3 of the 4 consultants are clearly on the Reform side, and Posamentier and I are not on the same page in most respects. He is a math ed prof, and I’m into education research. I’m the only one who would bring that perspective, and that seems to be the one perspective the Board does not want. I have no idea what Fishbein is insinuating about costs for me. All I ever indicated was plane costs, and I would even waive that if the Board was open-minded enough to want to know what is supportable by rational evidence. I’d pay my own way, if necessary. I find the Board’s approach to be reprehensible–they seem to be totally opposed to even finding out what is supported by research. I doubt they would do that if medical care were an issue.
Sandra
