Sunday, November 22, 2009

Dianetics in education

You have to read this nonsense to believe it. It's sort of like reading Dianetics or similar mishmash. But, and this is big, unlike the Dianetics mishmash, this nonsense IS the nonsense that is taught to educators, who bring it into your child's classroom. -- Jim


From the Marxists over at TCRecord, the propaganda arm of the Teachers College of Columbia University:

Culturally Responsive Mathematics Education

reviewed by Kathleen Nolan — November 02, 2009

Title: Culturally Responsive Mathematics
EducationAuthor(s): Brian Greer, Swapna Mukhopadhyay, Arthur B. Powell, and
Sharon Nelson-Barber (eds.)
Publisher: Routledge, New
York
ISBN: 0805862641,
Pages:
400,
Year: 2009

As I pondered the title of this admirable collection of essays, I could not help but ask the pertinent question at hand: What, exactly, is meant by (a) culturally responsive mathematics education? Decidedly, this is precisely the question addressed by each of the chapter authors, albeit in ways that are embedded in stories of identity, cultural artifacts, curriculum development, social justice, computer design, semiotics, the environment, and the historical, anthropological, and highly politicized perspectives on mathematics as socially and culturally constructed. I quickly discerned that such a diverse collection of perspectives focused on the topic of diversity does not readily lend itself to a cursory review process— striving to
encapsulate the flavor of a rich text such as this in 1500 words or less is akin, I suppose, to striving to encapsulate what it means to be culturally
responsive in mathematics education in 370 pages or less!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thank you, TCRecord, for informing me of the "highly politicized perspectives on mathematics as socially and culturally constructed".

I had no idea that the history of mathematics was so steeped in forces other than the provability of theorems and the relative success or failure of their application.

Now that the TCRecord has suggested such drama has occurred in the history of mathematics--and I'm no scholar on the history of mathematics--it must be true. I don't have the time to research thousands of years of mathematics history to challenge their assertions, so I must accept their premise as true.

Every time I read something from the TCRecord I can't help but ponder why they use such tortured language. Is it because these EdD's feel so inferior because they know their field (a non discipline) is as phony as Scientology and they feel a need to make it appear as a real science (the "science of education"), or do they infuse their nonsense with a bunch of big, obscure verbiage to give it a legitimate, scholarly sheen. I guess it doesn't matter because it's all nonsense, the same.

And people are surprised that our kids are receiving a poor education?