Laurie said: “We are pretty far into the process (as the email writer says, 2 years) and the administration may feel that to bring in new participants now might bog things down, require backtracking, etc.”
This is the third excuse offered by either a board member or the administration for not inviting Dr. Stotsky. So far, this is the most disingenuous one. The math team has only had 2 visits from its 4-member panel. Neither Daro nor Posementier has been here yet and they are both only booked for 30 minute sessions. Are we too far into the process to bring them in now? What is this Goodman person up to? Something really doesn’t smell right about this whole thing.
She also says: “The Math Planning Team’s experts are also learned and experienced. One could argue that they may be more math-focused than Dr. Stotsky…” Well, if they are so learned and experienced and more math focused, how come they weren’t picked to sit on the national math panel and Dr. Stotsky was? Is Goodman just someone to spout idiot nonsense as it suits her?
Goodman next adds: “the more I learn about the politics involved in the National Math Panel, the less I view its report as the 10 Commandments, nor its participants as the high priests of math.”
Please Ms. Goodman, enlighten us oh high priestess of our math team. What “politics” are you referencing? Are you actually saying that because diverse views on math education and a wide array of math experts sat on the President’s panel that this inherently constitutes a political assembly whose research and work need to be dismissed out of hand? Are you kidding me? And I suppose from where you sit (or are you lying down as you wrote your screed) you can detect no “politics” from the Ridgewood BoE’s attempt at managing this process to a predetermined outcome to reform math. Let’s just ignore the fact the the entire Ridgewood math team of experts are proponents of reform math. Let’s just conveniently ignore this so you can spout even more nonsense to the public. Oh, and let’s keep your religion out of it.
And this from you is precious and a classic example of misinformation: “Like many mathematics experts, she is also a consultant to a textbook company (Sadler-Oxford Mathematics).”
She serves on the board of Sadlier-Oxford and is not a consultant to the company. In fact so does Posementier. How come he’s ok in spite of this fact but somehow she isn’t. And haven’t you forgotten our dear friend Nancy Schultz who proselytizes reform math for Prism and earns her living being a cavalier follower of this creed. Somehow, she’s ok too. This is beyond hypocricy. Perhaps you are intellectually challenged.
Goodman next says: “The misinformation email says there’s “no end in sight” in our math effort. That’s not true.” First, where’s the email? Why not share it with us? How is it being distributed? Are you the only person to get it? Frankly, Laurie, there is no end in sight. After you settle on Regina’s choice of a reform math program, we will all be right back where we started… with dumbed down math, retraining of our smart teachers, poor results from our students and very angry parents.
Ridgewood will become a textbook study for How to Screw Up Math Education Without Really Trying!