Thursday, November 29, 2007 - Posts
-
sponsorship
On Monday, I wrote about the legal policy advisers for the major presidential campaigns. The Edwards campaign sent me six names, one of which was Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren. After the piece posted, I got this e-mail from Warren:
I noted that your recent post listed me as a supporter of Sen.
Edwards. I long have admired the Senator and have had a continuing
dialogue with him and his staff on issues important to all of
us. I've had the same kind of dialogue with a number of the other
presidential candidates and their issue staffs. Contrary to the
suggestion in your piece, however, I have not endorsed any candidate
in the Democratic primary.
The Edwards campaign says they checked with all the advisers they named before giving me the list, and that the problem is that I characterized Warren as "standing with" John Edwards rather than advising him. I guess this is the political equivalent of nonexclusive dating: Warren is free to see other candidates.
-
sponsorship
Does anyone remember that ubiquitous ad from the ‘70s: "If they would just stay little till their Carters wore out"? I'm humming that refrain today as my oldest gets ever closer to kindergarten and my fears about the state of public education increase. As if all that talk a while back about birth control for middle-schoolers wasn't enough, via Michelle Malkin I've discovered that in some places, elementary-school children aren't learning math in a recognizable form anymore.
"Everyday Math" was developed starting in the mid-1980s, and its authors "believe that it is crucial to begin laying the groundwork for mathematical literacy at an earlier age than offered in traditional programs. ... The authors also firmly believe that children are capable of learning a great deal more than previously expected."
Especially if they use a calculator. Or take a simple multiplication problem and turn it into a "cluster" of five other, simpler problems. Or make a pretty "lattice" box and input numbers. Apparently, like Barbie once said, "Math is hard!" and we have to dumb it down for everyone rather than figure out ways to let the smartest kids excel and provide help to those who need it. This video that Malkin posts is long but well worth watching. The woman in the video--who went back to school to facilitate a midlife career switch and was startled to see the youngsters in her class struggling--shows how bizarre and convoluted this "new new" math is.
As critics are pointing out, kids are not learning better with these techniques. Children aren't learning multiplication in third grade, since they are repeating the addition and subtraction they should have learned in first grade. And check out this sample question from a fifth-grade text:
A. If math were a color, it would be --, because --.
Seriously, that's a math question? It sounds like an Internet-dating questionnaire. (Math also likes walks on the beach and romantic dinners.)
-
sponsorship
Courtesy of Feminist Law Professors, a grain-of-salt study that suggests something pretty interesting: Little girls may want to play with boy toys more than Bratz or Barbies. Yeah, yeah the focus group was funded by Bob the Builder and his bosses. But I’m not all that surprised to see little girls wanting to play with things that do stuff. I saw the same thing in action last week over Thanksgiving: My sons and nieces happily kicking it with the boy toys, while the Hello Kitty paraphernalia slid between the sofa cushions.
Unlike Ann Bartow, I myself was an inveterate hair-brusher. And if they ever build a Sandra Day O’Barbie, I will style her ‘til the cows come home. But this is something that bears watching, I think.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?