Talk:Reform mathematics

message: Under "Dumbing Down or Raising the Bar?" we find this statement: "Even the 2006 revision to NCTM guidelines lauded Singapore Math, though they would downplay headlines that that the standards had retreated back towards basic skills." This needs to be rewritten. There is no such thing as NCTM Guidelines. If you mean the standards, note that there was no revision to the standards in 2006. If you mean the 2006 Focal Points (which was not a revision), note that there is no mention of Singapore Math in the Focal Points. At the very least, include some sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.184.57 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the controversy section is written without sources.  Maybe everything that isn't sourced should be removed, since right now it's only someone's very biased opinion.  Roseapple (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me, or it could be copied to math wars for sorting out later (and/or by other editors).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of many errors 

message: ::::Does this article seem more balanced now?  Perhaps the neutrality tag can be removed. Roseapple (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your kind words.  I need to get back to the PSSM.  Also, what I've been doing with PSSM is all about the NCTM's views, and I need to get some higher-level summaries and criticisms in.  I'm thinking about taking the text out of this article's PSSM section as a starting point.  Do you have any other suggestions for sources?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything by Van de Walle represents the reform/NCTM position well. Reliable sources are certainly needed for the criticisms.  Roseapple (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what you did to this today.  It reads very well.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your note.  Whenever you see a problem in an article like this, please feel free to fix it.  If you'd like to draw attention to the need for a reference, just type  at the end of the sentence.  That will alert everyone to the need for a citation.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually someone had already added a  tag before me, so I guess I'm not the first to note a problem here. If no one comes up with a citation in the near future, I'll probably just delete the sentence, but I wanted to give others a chance to fix it. seberle (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: Robofish correctly moved the Unbalanced tag from the talk page to the main article. However, the unbalanced tag was from 2008 and the article has changed extensively since then. It was definitely unbalanced in 2008. I don't believe it is any longer. If anyone believes the article in its current form is unbalanced, they need to list their concerns on the talk page before reinstating the Unbalanced tag.
I question the title of the article, "Reform mathematics". Mathematics education has gone through extensive reform in most Western countries (and I assume the rest of the world as well). Finland, for example, credits its modern success to extensive research-based reforms in the 80s and 90s. England went through reform similar to the U.S. And so on for France, Australia and all other countries I am familiar with. The modern emphasis on inquiry and student-centered instruction is often referred to as "reform mathematics" or very similar terms in many countries' research literature. However this article is only about the North American reform. This is correctly clarified in the introduction, but it leaves the impression that similar reforms did not occur in other countries. The only difference I am aware of is that reform was more controversial in the U.S. than in most other countries, which accepted the reform with less criticism. Perhaps this article should be retitled "Reform mathematics (North America)" or "Reform mathematics (United States)"? Any other suggestions on how to fix this problem? --seberle (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for raising this point. My understanding is that the term "reform mathematics" refers to a particular reform movement in the U.S. Seems like the alternate title you suggested would be fine. Or there could be a separate article titled "Mathematics reform" that would include mathematics reform movements in other countries. TimidGuy (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance and Title