LOGO-L> right v left, curriculum

[Tom Woods <woods@moose.ncia.net>]

Whether a person goes to a calculator or to pencil and paper to solve a
division problem, both methods might be viewed as being equally valid
division algorithms. In my view, the important thing is that the person is
able to judge whether the answer they get is reasonable. 

A more worrisome concern of mine is the point Mike raised when he wrote:
     > The last thing politician's want is a "thinking public." 
     > What they need is a citizenry that is just above literacy, trainable, 
     > controllable, obedient, and gullable...

We may all be unwitting accomplices to this "conspiracy." Consider this:

     Traditional notions of basic mathematical competence have been outstripped
     by ever-higher expectations of the skills and knowledge of workers; new
     methods of production demand a technologically competent work force.
                                        Curriculum Evaluation Standards for 
                                        School Mathematics. NCTM (p.3)

This belief is one of the  NCTM's big reasons for developing its new
mathematics standards which are so widely accepted throughout the US. I
would feel much more comfortable if I knew that "skills and knowledge of
workers" and "technologically competent work force" do not equate to
"trainable, controllable, obedient, and gullible." 

Should we be talking about production skills and workers, or should we be
talking about people? I'd love to hear what others think.

Happy New Year,

Tom

---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.