Talk:Principles and Standards for School Mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Since 2 Extremely disappointing article 3 Neutrality tag? 4 Link check 5 Refs

[edit] Since

Since we are supposed to check on "neutrality", I am going to suggest that the article is neutral on some minor points (it selectively quotes one of the standards documents correctly) but not overall. More to the point, it is defamatory, since it completely distorts a number of very plain points clearly spelled out by the NCTM, which is the author (as well as the copyright and trademark holder) of both the PSSM document and the Focal Points that the article falsely claims "nullify" the PSSM. Furthermore, the links to the article were initially distributed to a small list of zealots (by one of their members) who have been undermining the message of NCTM and its standards documents. The present article is one of many in a campaign of defamation, distortion and falsification conducted by the present-day heirs of the Back-to-Basics movement that decimated US math education in the 1970s and early 1980s. Great care must be given here when presenting issues of major controversy and allowing such a biased analysis would be a travesty.

Consider a couple of very simple points. The PSSM is in fact a single document. However, it is not the 1989 document. There have been multiple editions of the NCTM Standards and there is a substantial library of related documents. The original Curriculum Standards were indeed published in 1989. This was followed by Professional Standards and Assessment Standards. A revision of the 1989 document published a decade later is the one that usually is referred to as "Principles and Standards" or the PSSM. The fact that the original author of the Wiki article repeatedly refers to the wrong document, fails to recognize existence of multiple Standards documents and is missing a large number of citations suggests that the author is 1) biased and 2) insufficiently familiar with the topic to pen an encyclopedia article on it.

216.165.176.250 (Talk)

May I point out that the original presentation was almost a complete NCTM propoganda piece, and that nearly all of the opposition is precisely from the people that this author would evidently call POV by defintion. It is not at all hysterical to point out that many of the curricula that are used by a generation of Americans omits any instruction of any time-tested arithemtic methods, yet dares to call itself mathematics instruction when any recognizable arithemtic content has been deleted in favor of a curricula entirely invented for these standards. The Wikipedia is one forum where truth is not determined by the PR budget of the proponents. --Sugarcaddy 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The text has been edited in an attempt to fix some of the more technical concerns I expressed above. However, the patches have been applied unevenly and hardly rescue the document from general failure. For example, a sentence was added concerning the 1989, 1991 and 1995 Standards documents. However, nothing changed at the top, still claiming that PSSM was published in 1989--in fact, it was the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards and not the Principles and Standards document that appeared in 1989.

Other language, such as the "nullify" comment have been tempered, but, once again, only in spots and patches. In other places in the document the biases remain as glaring as they have been prior to the patches being applied.

To be honest, I do not understand Sugarcaddy's concern about the "NCTM propoganda" (sic). As the author and copyright and trademark holder, NCTM has a right to describe their own work and certainly has the right to state unequivocally its intent in publishing the PSSM. Critics should then create their own section on "Criticism of PSSM" without destroying the original NCTM description. What I found on the page yesterday was a simple case of intellectual vandalism. Whether the motives might have been higher, the outcome was just that--nothing more and nothing less. 31 Oct 2006 23:39 EST

To OCNative I can understand your desire to eliminate the flag I added at the top of the page, warning readers that the article is badly mangled. The fact is that my claim that the article is, as currently construed, factually incorrect is based on rather close familiarity with the document in question and its implementation. The very first warning should come to you from the first line that claims that the document was created in 1989. In fact, a different standards document was created in 1989--the PSSM title was adopted with the 2000 document, which was a major revision (aka 2nd edition). But it is far worse in the details. The original article that was placed in Wiki was fairly neutral. It was substantially modified by a manic user Arthur Hu (arthurhu)and another (or possibly the same) user Sugarcaddy. You should be familiar with the latter, as you've previously reverted his changes in other articles. Hu's and Sugarcaddy's additions were, to a large extent, simply false and inflammatory. Rather than undoing the damage one line at a time, I tried to warn potential users that the article is not accurate. I suppose, there are other ways to make such a warning. Nonetheless, your deletion of the flag is a mistake.

[edit] Extremely disappointing article

I rarely see Wikipedia articles as disappointing as this one. There is no doubt that the "Math Wars" have created tensions and intense debate. However, that debate should not overflow into a Wikipedia article. Articles should be neutral and report on controversy from both sides. As the article currently stands, it is heavily biased and inflammatory, not to mention all the factual errors and omissions. I do hope someone will take the time some day to rewrite this article in a more informative manner. Seberle 18:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought about editing this page myself, but in the end I could not see how to do it. As others have pointed out in previous discussions, the whole article is simply wrong from the start. Most of the writing about controversy and Math Wars concerns the original 1989 Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, and NOT the PSSM, which was published in 2000. These "Math Wars" discussions do not belong in this article, which is about the 2000 PSSM. Such discussions should either go to the "Math Wars" article, or else a new article should be begun with the title "Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics."

Therefore I have reverted the article back to the last correct version and added three details. Seberle 12:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The ambiguity should be noted. Most of the linking articles reference the 1989 document, not the 2000 document. Jd2718 12:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag?

This is basically just a definition of the Principles and Standards document. The controversies are in the "Reform Math" article now. There hasn't been discussion about the article in many months. Seems like the neutrality tag can be removed. Roseapple (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The POV template clearly specifies "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute." Most of the POV discussion is dated 2006, which hardly counts as an ongoing dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link check

I have a very battered copy of Raub's Complete Arithmetic in hand, but I thought that the link to the Google book page might be more useful to the reader. Can someone verify that it actually works for them (i.e., that you don't have to be logged in as me for that URL to work)? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It works. Jd2718 (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

I'm compiling basic descriptions here, mostly from the NCTM website. Eventually, we need to expand these to include other information and sources, but I thought this was the simplest way to get started. Please feel free to add information, or to leave me a note about possible refs here on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A useful bit would be to attribute throughout. Instead of saying that the "Equity standard is..." the article should use neutral language that credits NCTM: "NCTM designed the Equity standard to..." or "NCTM says ..."

Combined with the link back to Math Wars, this would obviate the need for 'balance.' Jd2718 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't think readers will be annoyed if we remark in every paragraph that the NCTM's equity standard is the NCTM's equity standard? It sort of implies that they might not otherwise be bright enough to recognize the possibility that the NCTM's equity standard is not be the only equity-related standard in the history of the universe. Right. Excellent point. I keep assuming that all readers have at least half a clue, despite ample evidence to the contrary. I'll make a mental note to update it tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about a clue - it's about an ongoing dispute (real world). The does not contain revealed truths. It is a contested policy document. The style of the writing should reflect this. The alternative, would be introducing balance into the article via rebuttals, controversies, and critiques. I do not think that best. Jd2718 (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I must be too tired to being editing, because I'm not grasping your concern. Don't you think that the average critic believes that the PSSM represents the NCTM's position? Or is your concern that the average critic will think that the Wikipedia article on this book isn't about the contents of the book?

We have an article on the PSSM. The article says that the PSSM announces six core principles. The lead names the six principles. The first named principles is Equity. A couple of inches lower on the screen, the encyclopedia article has a bullet point labeled "Equity." I guess what I need from you is this: What could that bullet point possibly be about, if it's not about the specific equity principle explained in the PSSM?

Let's ignore the utility of writing defensively for political purposes. Do you think a normal reader might expect such a bullet point to be about equity as a general concept? We can (and probably should) wikilink to the Equity article, but I really don't think that an average reader is going to forget that this article is an explanation of the PSSM's contents instead of the only True™ belief about equity. Why would anyone expect the PSSM article to explain a non-PSSM idea?

This is not Math wars or Critical analysis of mathematics education. This is What does this book actually say?. Eventually it might(!) expand to address issues like "Do its critics seem to have read the actual policy document?" and "Can we legitimately blame the policy document for the recent wretched textbooks just because that the publisher's marketing department slapped a "based on the NCTM's book" sticker on the front?" -- but right now the article only covers really, really, really basic stuff: "What are the names of the chapters in this book?"

You seem to be trying to solve a particular problem, but I can't figure out what your problem is. I must be missing something. I'm going to sign off for a couple of hours. Hopefully, when I'm back, you'll have seen my request for clarification, and I'll be better able to understand your answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about what the document says. It was sliding into an article that presents the document's content as fact. Jd2718 (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote me an example. You might try this recent version, since I think it immediately predates your first message. Please also explain (or dramatically exaggerate, if that might be more clear than a precise explication) how you think an average reader might misinterpret it, and consider providing an improved version so I can see the kinds of changes you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)