Talk:Principles and Standards for School Mathematics

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Check the redirects to this article. Some of them probably need to go. Right now, the redirects imply that this book is by definition the only possible standard for math. One can certainly hold teachers to a standard without using this particular standard. 72.40.45.79 (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples

About this removal of information, I think it's very important for this article to provide examples, because the examples are much more accessible to non-specialist readers. "Analyzing and representing linear functions and solving linear equations and systems of linear equations" is not plain English.

It is not necessary for the examples to be quoted from the PSSM. In fact, it's probably not appropriate, because it might cross the line into a WP:COPYVIO. It is, however, necessary that they not actually contradict the PSSM. Would you please identify the specific examples that you believe contradict the PSSM? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. First, I agree examples do not need to be quoted from the PSSM. The assumption might have been they were from the Focal Points, but they could be paraphrases of suggestions from the Focal Points. Second, the Focal Points do not actually give examples, but they do give adequate descriptions of the kinds of activities that are envisioned and the examples could be based on those descriptions. (They were not.) More seriously, the list as a whole contradicts the general spirit of the NCTM standards, which the Focal Points are intended to support, as well as the descriptions in the Focal Points. The examples were all of simple, close-ended tasks, whereas the Standards have always pushed more open-ended tasks and the Focal Points describe a rich mixture of both kinds of tasks. Therefore the Simple Examples list gave a rather misleading impression of what NCTM was proposing. You ask for specific examples. I'll limit myself to one in my area of specialty for lack of time this morning. You can read the Focal Points yourself for more. The document is free, short and easy to read. The Focal Points have no examples, but they do have good descriptions of the kinds of instruction and activities they suggest. The Pre-K Geometry Focal Point is "Geometry: Identifying shapes and describing spatial relationships Children develop spatial reasoning by working from two perspectives on space as they examine the shapes of objects and inspect their relative positions. They find shapes in their environments and describe them in their own words. They build pictures and designs by combining two- and three-dimensional shapes, and they solve such problems as deciding which piece will fit into a space in a puzzle. They discuss the relative positions of objects with vocabulary such as “above,” “below,” and “next to.”" The "Simple Example" that had been given was "What is the name of this shape?" Notice that geometry vocabulary is not envisioned at all in this Focal Point. In fact, there is an enormous amount of literature about the delicate problem of geometric vocabulary at this young age and this Focal Point is quite appropriately trying to lay the ground work for a better understanding of vocabulary rather than focusing on geometric names. The title of this Focal Point suggests shape identification tasks of the type "Color all the squares" would be an acceptable example, but that is not the real heart of this Focal Point, and tasks that ask "What is the name of this shape?" is not included here at all. Some simple examples of this Focal Point could be something like "Put the book below the red block" or "Describe the shape you feel in this bag" or "Put these shapes together on the puzzle board" or "Build a house with blocks" or "Which shapes belong together?". I think it would be a great idea to have some good examples, but this should of course be done by someone with expertise with the research underlying the NCTM standards and familiarity with the PSSM and Focal Points. At the very least, the examples should be based on the actual descriptions in the Focal Points. --seberle (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I think that your examples are much more interesting, but I think that "their own words", at the Pre-K level, will very likely include words like "circle" and "square", and thus "describe them in their own words" would very likely lead to "It's a circle" -- but the example, as written, might also be mis-interpreted as implying higher-order shapes (i.e., that "their own words" will include octagons or dodecahedrons, which is nonsense). Perhaps "Can you find an object that is round?" would be a simple example.

WP:There is no deadline. I'd be happy to have your thoughts on each one, as we both have time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Higher order shapes are not envisioned here. (Just to be clear: everything in italics above is the full quoted text of that particular Focal Point. I think they consider it a description or definition of the Focal Point, not an example. "In their own words" is NCTM's own recommendation.) "Can you find a shape that is round?" would be an excellent example of this Focal Point. Each Focal Point is based on research and should be interpreted in light of descriptions of sample activities in NCTM publications, which are numerous. Yes, "in their own words" might include "It's a circle", but this is tricky because young children usually have erroneous ideas about shapes, especially rectangles and triangles. They might say, "It's a circle" when speaking about ovals, for example. If the exercise ends there, progress is not being made. And in fact, I'm fairly certain that's not what NCTM has in mind. In light of research examples, I think this Focal Point is asking teachers to push children to describe the shapes beyond the name. And in fact, young children will not only say "It's a circle", but also things like "It is round", "It looks like a sun", "It is curvy." For other shapes they will say, "It is pointy", "It is long", "It is broken" -- seemingly invalid geometric ideas, but actually quite valuable as children become aware of shape properties and work towards valid, non-holistic definitions of shapes. Look at the research of Douglas Clements for examples that are strongly in line with NCTM Standards and that echo this particular Focal Point. For all I know, Clements himself wrote this Focal Point -- it sounds just like him!

Well, I'm willing to go through each one, but actually it would take less time for me to simply come up with new examples than to have to explain each one. In any case, it will take time because my time is short (though Wikipedia editing always makes for a nice break). I'm glad there is no deadline! Is there some way to collaborate on this sort of thing? Or perhaps set up a blank column we fill in bit by bit, as people seem to be doing for other parts of this article? I'm not a heavy Wikipedia editor and am still learning my way around here. --seberle (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, it might not take so long. I forgot there are only three grade levels to describe in this article. --seberle (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the fastest thing (which I've just done) is to restore what was there. Some of them seem to be acceptable, and then you can update, delete, or change whenever you feel like it. You might first scan through them and simply remove items that you think are the most likely to be wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've quickly modified most of them, using the descriptions from the Focal Points and reflecting the PSSM background. Some of the changes were made to acceptable items, but I tried to improve them to accord with NCTM descriptions. Let me know if the reason for any of these is unclear, or just modify the examples if you think I've missed the mark. --seberle (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they're good enough. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

New new math

I was looking for information on "new new math" and was redirected to this PSSM-article, where the word new new math is not mentioned at all. Why is there no article on "new new math", the history and controversies around it? Is "new new math" a synonym for "math accordng to PSSM"? Then, why not tell the reader?88.78.31.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

"New new math" is not an official term. It is one of many humorous, somewhat derogatory, terms that have been used to describe standards-based mathematics by its opponents. It was coined in the 90s and was referring specifically to the 1989 Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. At one point in the history of the present article (Principles and Standards for School Mathematics), contributors erroneously began describing the 1989 Standards instead. It was probably during this time that "new new math" got linked to this article, but it should be linked to 1989 Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics instead. Any references to the name-calling ("new new math", "fuzzy math", "rainforest math", etc.) should probably be placed in that article, not this one. "New new math" should not be redirecting to this article. Someone should fix this. --seberle (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've now changed the New new math to redirect to Math wars which seem the best target.--Salix (talk): 21:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Salix. That redirect makes the most sense, though I don't believe either Math wars or any other Wikipedia article currently explains these various terms. I know of at least two articles that used to discuss the name-calling, but those edits no longer exist. The Math wars article would be the most appropriate place for it. --seberle (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)