View in EDS

Four Reactions to 'Principles and Standards for School Mathematics.'

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Four Reactions to 'Principles and Standards for School Mathematics.'
Language: English
Authors: Addington, Susan, Clemens, Herbert, Howe, Roger, Saul, Mark
Source: Notices of the AMS. Oct 2000 47(9):1072-1079.
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2000
Document Type: Journal Articles
Descriptors: Elementary Secondary Education, Mathematics Curriculum, Mathematics Instruction, National Standards
Abstract: This essay presents four reactions to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) "Principles and Standards for School Mathematics" (PSSM). The four respondents include three university mathematics professors and one teacher. The first author describes the publication as refreshingly free of mathematics education jargon, carefully organized, and written with significant input from mathematicians. The second author states that PSSM is a responsible, insightful, balanced, and inspiring document. The third author acknowledges the strengths of the document but argues that there is too much emphasis on curriculum and insufficient emphasis on teacher training. The final author imagines the document being read 100 years after its publication and concludes that it is an important, if flawed, document, particularly in the area of geometry. (MM)
Entry Date: 2002
Accession Number: ED463139
Database: ERIC
Description
Abstract:This essay presents four reactions to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) "Principles and Standards for School Mathematics" (PSSM). The four respondents include three university mathematics professors and one teacher. The first author describes the publication as refreshingly free of mathematics education jargon, carefully organized, and written with significant input from mathematicians. The second author states that PSSM is a responsible, insightful, balanced, and inspiring document. The third author acknowledges the strengths of the document but argues that there is too much emphasis on curriculum and insufficient emphasis on teacher training. The final author imagines the document being read 100 years after its publication and concludes that it is an important, if flawed, document, particularly in the area of geometry. (MM)