PJ BLOGGER

Blog Readers Question Math Panel

In Uncategorized on October 9, 2008 at 11:56 am

These people are begging to have their heads handed to them.

Do they really think that we are so stupid that we would not Google their panel of experts.

This is pathetic. They are going to have a full blown revolt on their hands.

And Daniel Fishbein, what the hell, are you just playing the fool? Have you had your head in the sand for the past 18 months? You live in Ridgewood, hasn’t it dawned on you yet that the parents are far more formidable than the BOE or Regina give them credit for.

Your exalted panel has already been discredited and it is only day two of the release of their names.

This is such a travesty. But unfortunately, par for the course in Ridgewood.

You allowed Regina Botsford to pick this panel and you did nothing to ensure its balance. Your leadership skills are shown to be wanting.

With a start like this Mr. Fishbein, I predict that your will not serve out your contract.

What say you?

Bunny Shop - 20% off Costumes

Advertisements
  1. the parents are far more formidable than the BOE or Regina give them credit for

    The parents are the ones who voted Sheila Brogan & Laurie Goodman onto the Board of Ed. Mr. Fishbein is listening to the wishes of the parents.

  2. "The parents are the ones who voted Sheila Brogan & Laurie Goodman onto the Board of Ed. Mr. Fishbein is listening to the wishes of the parents."

    Those parents were "point and click" parrots. They did not research the math issue. They'd rather that there wasn't a math issue at all. How many of them even read the Math Panel's report?

    Every town has its warm and cozy share of sycophants and Sheila knows how to exploit their insecurities. After all, she's one of them, too.

  3. A superintendent who’s a wallflower. Great!

  4. 9:26 purports to know more about what’s best for our schools than a majority of Ridgewood voters.

    Nice elitism, 9:26. Very nice.

  5. Everyone that has a vested interest (parents and tax-payers) in this math issue should most definitely attend Oct. 27th’s meeting. We need to expose the blatant stacking of the deck while the RW newsreporter is there. I think I’ll shoot an email to the gals at the Record who cover ed. issues. Our top admins. and BOE should be ashamed of themselves. Their ineptitude is astounding! The newspaper readers should be aware of this nonsense and we all know Cottage Pl is only interested in giving a snipet of info to the public. Always making everything appear to be rosy and in the best interests of the district. NOT!!!

  6. The residents voted and believe it or not – there were more issues than just math. The math crazies lost and can’t get over it. Their candidates have not spoken out since.

    To the person who started this thread – who is going to hand them their heads? It will be a nice meeting with a sharing of ideas.

  7. 3:19PM

    The “math crazies” are a bunch of parents who think that their high taxes aren’t getting their kids the best possible education.

    There is nothing wrong with asking for a top quality education considering the high taxes we pay in Ridgewood.

    We have a right to ask questions, and hopefully some of the more savvy parents in this town will continue to do so.

    Even if dopes like you label them “crazies”.

  8. Math crazies? Well, your sarcasm shows us all what is important to you now, doesn’t it?

    Obviously not much, and certainly not the most pressing issue before our school district.

    How easily you write off the future of our village’s children.

    But I guess to you, all who have sounded the alarm throughout history are crazies, huh?

    And of course, you have done your homework, understand the issue and the background of those involved, right?

  9. I don’t think there is one single answer to the district’s math problems. As many mentioned before, many would prefer saxon math or singapore. I, personally prefer artofproblemsolving, which I have introduced to this blog a while ago, however, many people claimed that our public schools’ goals were not to produce “phd’s in math.” Instead I think our honors classes should use something like artofproblemsolving while regular classes can use the regular curriculum. Personally, I don’t believe in the notion of being a “math person.” I believe anyone can learn math at the highest level given that they are willing to spend time(by this I mean a hour a day) practicing. I think if the kids are willing and motivated, it is a crime to hold them back from acheiving top notch (and I know our schools are not here to produce “phd’s in math”)results no matter what school they go to. Go on artofproblemsolving’s resource page and have your child spend an our a day on the usa amc 10/12(the easier contests) and you will be surprised at the improvement after a few weeks (you can check back at my posts from a few weeks ago if you don’t remember the url). After all, if math talent was innate, why would we have practice problems on the internet. I also don’t understand how parents complain about their child not being good at math but reject a curriculum that would train their child to the level of those math majors at schools like MIT. Also as you can see http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Focus_article.pdf artofproblemsolving is supported by the mathematical association of america as well so it is not one of those curriculums that mathematicians speak out against.

  10. 3:19 PM,

    One couldn’t agree with you more when you write, “It will be a nice meeting with a sharing of ideas.”

    Your use of the word “nice” is an apt description on what the “math crazies” fear.

    The original meaning of the word “Nice” in the English language is defined as:

    1. Foolish; silly; simple; ignorant; also, weak; effeminate.

    2. Of trifling moment; unimportant; trivial.

    With the math panels stacked in favor of Ms. Botsford’s determined effort to save face and thus her philosophical preference for constructivist math, your uncanny prediction of the Oct. 27th meeting, is spot on.

  11. Name calling is childish. This issue is strictly business and cuddly feelings have no place in this environment. It is the business of educating our children, the future. For what we pay in taxes we should not be experimenting on our kids. Since there IS NO CLEAR evidence suggesting that constructivist math proves to be the best program in meeting the needs of the majority of our children, then it has NO PLACE here in Ridgewood. Regina get over it!!!! You have lost this credibility because you have nothing conclusive to bring to the table. Either move on by bringing a solid, proven math program that includes a textbook or leave. We pay you way too much for anything less than doing what is in our children’s best interests… not yours or Nancy Shultz’s!!!!

  12. Nancy Shultz and her ilk still cannot articulate an acceptable reason for preferring constructivist math over conventional and proven options. Their conclusions that 1) it is for ALL children (a weak mask for veiled prejudices) and 2) that it better supports teachers (another weak mask for the surrender inherent in a unionized workforce maintaining failing employees) are abhorrent presentations to taxpaying parents.

    At this upcoming meeting, which I will attend, I will be pressing this issue to see what other excuses they will divine from their gospel according to Mao and Marx: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

  13. I will be pressing this issue to see what other excuses they will divine from their gospel according to Mao and Marx

    Oh, now *there* is a helpful idea for resolving the math curriculum — turn it into a political ideology ax-grinding session.

    Smart thinking, 8:11.

  14. 8:11 is quite right, 10:09.

    The philosophy for this silly math is predicated on egalitarianism. For those of you living in Roi Linda, that means Marxism.

    And by the way, this constructivist math is a political ideology. You saying it’s not, doesn’t make it so.

  15. 10:09 said, “Oh, now *there* is a helpful idea for resolving the math curriculum — turn it into a political ideology ax-grinding session.”

    You should stand corrected 10:09. I did not turn the teaching of math into an ideological issue. This was undertaken and completed by the constructivists themselves. The very people “invited” to promulgate their leftist ideology to unsuspecting parents who want nothing more but a competent math education for their children.

    What, pray tell, do you want? Peace under conditions tantamount to a surrender? If so, you’re in the wrong country — we are the “live free or die” people. Get used to it.

  16. “Math crazies? Well, your sarcasm shows us all what is important to you now, doesn’t it?”

    It shows what I think of you. All math all the time.

    I certainly don’t think that you are important.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: