Response to article

One day last week, as I was researching an educational topic, I inadvertently came upon a March entry of Ned Vare’s blog, in which he made a misleading statement, characterizing me as “an apologist for the public schools.” Sadly, he has misinterpreted the disinterested dissemination of information for a political position. He has demonstrated a woeful unfamiliarity with most of my writing, because he clearly mistook my explanation of the constructivist (aka Everyday Math, Connected Math, etc.) for an endorsement of it. I question whether he actually perused the entire article, “New Math,” for he neglected to mention my conclusion: American test scores are deplorable, and this new undertaking is uncertain at best, so why should we experiment with our students?
I have written several articles about the math program currently in use in several Shoreline districts, and not one favors it. See my July 1 entry, “Math: myth versus reality.” Moreover, in “Politics, Education, and Everyday Math” I further elucidate my position.
While I understand that anyone can be misinterpreted or misconstrued, I’m saddened that Mr. Vare has chosen to engage in ad hominem attacks. My sole intent remains to edify readers rather than to proselytize. Our children’s (and our nation’s )best interests should be the focal point dispassionate discourse and erudite discussion.

Leave a Reply