Talk:Principles and Standards for School Mathematics

message: I rarely see Wikipedia articles as disappointing as this one. There is no doubt that the "Math Wars" have created tensions and intense debate. However, that debate should not overflow into a Wikipedia article. Articles should be neutral and report on controversy from both sides. As the article currently stands, it is heavily biased and inflammatory, not to mention all the factual errors and omissions. I do hope someone will take the time some day to rewrite this article in a more informative manner.
Seberle 18:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely disappointing article 

message: This is basically just a definition of the Principles and Standards document.  The controversies are in the "Reform Math" article now.  There hasn't been discussion about the article in many months.  Seems like the neutrality tag can be removed. Roseapple (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right.  The POV template clearly specifies "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute." Most of the POV discussion is dated 2006, which hardly counts as an ongoing dispute.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality tag?

message: I have a very battered copy of Raub's Complete Arithmetic in hand, but I thought that the link to the Google book page might be more useful to the reader.  Can someone verify that it actually works for them (i.e., that you don't have to be logged in as me for that URL to work)?  Thanks,  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It works. Jd2718 (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Link check

message: I was looking for information on "new new math" and was redirected to this PSSM-article, where the word new new math
is not mentioned at all. Why is there no article on "new new math", the history and controversies around it? Is "new new math" a synonym for "math accordng to PSSM"? Then, why not tell the reader?88.78.31.98 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "New new math" is not an official term. It is one of many humorous, somewhat derogatory, terms that have been used to describe standards-based mathematics by its opponents. It was coined in the 90s and was referring specifically to the 1989 Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. At one point in the history of the present article (Principles and Standards for School Mathematics), contributors erroneously began describing the 1989 Standards instead. It was probably during this time that "new new math" got linked to this article, but it should be linked to 1989 Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics instead. Any references to the name-calling ("new new math", "fuzzy math", "rainforest math", etc.) should probably be placed in that article, not this one. "New new math" should not be redirecting to this article. Someone should fix this. --seberle (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I've now changed the New new math to redirect to Math wars which seem the best target.--Salix (talk): 21:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Salix. That redirect makes the most sense, though I don't believe either Math wars or any other Wikipedia article currently explains these various terms. I know of at least two articles that used to discuss the name-calling, but those edits no longer exist. The Math wars article would be the most appropriate place for it. --seberle (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New new math