Let me emphasize that I am not making the case here against using other teaching strategies, quite to the contrary, I am making the case here for a balanced application of various teaching strategies. Unfortunately, the 1992 Mathematics Framework takes the view that lecturing by a teacher is something which should be avoided at all costs. Obviously they need to be both, not one at the expense of the other. This has been one of the most disastrous consequences of the 1992 Mathematics Framework. Common sense would indicate that the prescription of one teaching strategy over another is wrong, but this is exactly what the 1992 California Mathematics Framework does.
Different teachers excel in different teaching strategies.
Every teacher should be allowed to use the strategy with which he or she feels most comfortable. To force a teacher to use a strategy clearly not appropriate for him or her can only negatively impact the learning of students and should, therefore, be strenuously avoided. As a teacher, I am able to show the students within a single lesson how a concept in first-year Algebra allows us to develop and understand a concept in Geometry which in turn is vital to a concept in Trigonometry. This brings me to my second example, which I consider the most important deficiency in the 1992 Mathematics Framework, namely to make clear what the goals of mathematics instruction are. They were very well stated in the opening paragraph of the 1985 Mathematics Framework.