• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
National Math Panel Emailed Public CommentsTeachers
(The following emails appear in reverse chronological order from June 2007 to May 2006.)
1
DateAuthorSubject
May 31, 2007Shacter, JohnMy Reactions to the ContinuingMath Panel DeliberationsApril 24, 2007Schell, TimHigh Quality ProfessionalDevelopmentJanuary 30, 2007Wray, JonNational Mathematics AdvisoryPanel's Teacher Task GroupDecember 29, 2006Askey, RichardSuggestionsDecember 16, 2006Koepp, CarolineCommentsNovember 9, 2006Palisano, KatherineLetter to school boardOctober 28, 2006Gilliland, KayNCSM Public CommentOctober 25, 2006Litvin, GaryRE: Written Comments For TheMath Advisory PanelOctober 22, 2006Carthel, ChrisComments for the National MathPanelOctober 12, 2006Gill, Lisa BradyNatMathPanel_TIcommentsOctober 02, 2006Khatri, DaryaoEducate EveryoneSeptember 11, 2006Kra, IrwinBoston National Math PanelMeetingSeptember 1, 2006Beck, BertREVISED Paper Submitted for National Mathematics AdvisoryPanelAugust 29, 2006Mowers, KathyRe: Deadline for Math PanelCommentsAugust 29, 2006Jaffe, Cheryl H.Comments for NationalMathematics Advisory PanelJuly 26, 2006Zellmer, Barbara JeanneOur Child Was Left BehindJune 19, 2006Cantrell, Marsha H.Comments for June 29thJune 14, 2006Becker, JerryWho will speak for us?June 14, 2006Cantrell, Marshateaching mathMay 14, 2006Socha, SusanSpecial Education Teachers andMathematics
 
National Math Panel Emailed Public CommentsTeachers
(The following emails appear in reverse chronological order from June 2007 to May 2006.)
-----Original Message-----
From:
John Shacter [mailto:jsplg@comcast.net]
Sent:
Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:09 AM
To:
Graban, Jennifer 
Subject:
My Reactions to the Continuing Math Panel DeliberationsHi again Jennifer -As you know from my prior messages to the National Math Panel -- when I list main institutionalcauses of our failing educational system -- including but not limited to math -- I generally listcolleges of education at or near the top.The following sentences refer to an item which was published today.As you may know, Arthur Levine has recently resigned from his position as president of ColumbiaU.'s Teacher College.The results of his comprehensive study on the effectiveness of this nation's teacher andleadership training, as well as in research, have been announced today.You can get reports which summarize his findings from the Goldwater Institute or the AmericanDaily of Phoenix, AZ.(http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/AboutUs/ArticleView.aspx?id=1597)Levine makes drastic suggestions for a sweeping recasting of teacher and leadership training inthe U.S.So much for the charge by the Administration to the National Math Panel to base their work on"research-based" evidence.Whose research and which evidence?As I have asked before, are these "experts" willing to prove themselves by demonstrating their effectiveness in a real public-school classroom?As you know, I have spent a number of years doing so. This would be the only real-lifedemonstration of relative teaching effectiveness -- namely student gains in two randomly splitclasses of students -- say in the crucial elementary or middle-school grades.I also feel that the public and professionals have been totally misled about the supposed benefitsof ever-smaller classes. So I would be willing to take on a much large group and compete with theexpert's or professor's much smaller group.In any case, you'll have to forgive me if I do not expect much more from this panel than from themany past ones on all kinds of subjects, including math. Naturally, I hope that they will prove mewrong.Please send copies of this to the members of the National Math Panel.Cordially - John
2
 
National Math Panel Emailed Public CommentsTeachers
(The following emails appear in reverse chronological order from June 2007 to May 2006.)
-----Original Message-----From: Schell, Tim [mailto:tschell@waunakee.k12.wi.us]Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:35 AMTo: National Math PanelSubject: High Quality Professional DevelopmentAt the Friday morning open session at IMSA in Aurora, Illinois, Diane Jones posed the question on whatconstituted high quality professional development. To my knowledge, the best research on this questionwas carried out by Michael Garet, Andrew Porter, Laura Desimone, and their colleagues. Their workcould be particularly pertinent because it was part of a national evaluation of the Eisenhower ProfessionalDevelopment Program for mathematics and science teachers. A quick summary of their findings is that high quality professional development is characterized byactivities that are sustained, content specific, promote active learning, are coherent or aligned withinstructional practice, and are collective or cohort based. I have attached one of their papers so you mayhave a more complete representation of their research and analysis. Andew Porter and Laura Desimone are both at Vanderbilt currently, and I believe Michael Garet is still atAIR. Your work is vitally important to the future of mathematics education in our nation. Your scope is muchbroader than the charge for the National Reading Panel, so your task is quite demanding. I appreciatethe time and effort each of you is contributing to the work of the Panel and thank you for your service. Best wishes for your work over the remainder of your commission. Timothy C. SchellAssistant Director of InstructionWaunakee Community School DistrictCommitted to Children, Committed to Community, Committed to Excellence101 School DriveWaunakee, WI 53597
"070424garetaerj.pdf"
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...