It would be interesting to see the backgrounds of those on the NCTM (National Council of Teachers in Mathematics).  The math curricula by the NCTM was so fuzzy that I would bet that none had a background in math!  “Dr. Good” selling snake oil!

Readers might also want to take a look at this link
at Mathematically Correct (from our links list):

http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com

Here is a site by one of the educrats, why educators without a background in math should never be in charge, especially the ones who believe social justice should become the highest priority in educating our youth.

“RadicalMath.org was launched in April 2006 by Jonathan Osler who at the time was teaching at a public high school in Brooklyn, NY. Since then this website has had over 1 million page views.

Radical Math Teachers are educators who work to integrate issues of economic and social justice into our math classes, and we seek to inspire and support other educators to do the same.

We believe that math literacy is a civil right, and that our nation’s failure to provide students, especially low-income youth of color, with a high-quality math education, is a terrible injustice.

We are committed to making sure our classrooms are places that are nurturing for all students, that celebrate different cultures, histories, and styles of learning, and that reflect the just societies we are hoping to bring about through our own lives and teaching practices.

We encourage our students to ask the question: “What are the problems that my community is facing, and how can I use math to understand and help solve them?”

We seek to foster a love of mathematics in our students and to ensure they become mathematically literate.  We also prepare our students for math-based college majors and careers.

We believe that it is possible to teach math from a social justice perspective and at the same time cover state and national standards, prepare students for standardized tests (which we don’t necessarily support), and allow for the exploration of mathematical ideas on abstract, theoretical, experimental and artistic levels.”

http://www.radicalmath.org/main.php?id=about

I came upon another forum, on Everyday Mathematics, by parents who want to stopped the insanity of it. On page 63, is the radicalmath link, and a posting on what is an educrat.

“WHAT IS an educrat? The word is a hybrid, combining the Latin part of educator with the Greek part of bureaucrat, an educrat. I didn’t invent the term, although I wish I did.

I use it because it captures a special kind of person in the education world: pinheads who are so process-oriented that they are more excited in the process of learning than the myriad wonders that can be learned.

Simply put, educrats believe in process—as opposed to educators, who believe in results. Educrats focus on how children learn. Educators focus on what they learn.”

http://s6.zetaboards.com/Livonianeighbors/topic/8653720/63/

Very interesting, as usual, Nancy, and scarey!  I went on the NCTM site as well, and could find absolutely nothing about the regarding this boards educational background.  I suspect that they’re not qualified to be writing math curricula, and that they know it, so they’re deliberately hiding the fact from the gullible public. Yesterday, I sent the NCTM an email asking why the board member’s credentials aren’t listed.  Haven’t heard anything back yet.

Simply put, educrats believe in process—as opposed to educators, who believe in results. Educrats focus on how children learn. Educators focus on what they learn.”

Nancy,this is remarkable-is this yours?

The NCTM, I bumped into them early on. This group is responsible for the low achievement in math across North America. Canada jumped on the bandwagon early on, starting in the 70s where math curriculum is more or less the same as in the United States. Ditto for instruction.

On this page the Statement of Beliefs. I see that they have change to include equity concerns. Note the language:  “Every student deserves an excellent program of instruction in mathematics that challenges each student to achieve at the high level required for productive citizenship and employment”  Reading between the words, that statement tell me, no longer interested in the nuts and bolts of mathematics. And as one reads down the list of beliefs, no one has to wonder why mathematics is being dumbed down at the high school level.
http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=210&LangType=1033

If you have not check out the Canadian page, two provinces are missing. New Brunswick and NL. I don’t know about New Brunswick, but NL appears to be going in a different direction, concerning math, based on my own observation and the small amount of information available to the public. The local high school alone, is doing quite a bit of remediation in the basics and arithmetic foundation needed to do any advance math with ease. Between reading and math, it does appear that NL is moving towards a different direction, to prevent the costs of remediation after high school. And in NL, the money could be better spent in other areas, rather than the remediation of skills that should have been learned in the K to 12 education system.

http://www.nctm.org/resources/content.aspx?id=11382

And on the Ontario site, the OAME has a direct voice at the ministry’s level and throughout the system.

“•To maintain an active and representative mathematics educator’s voice with the ministry that is responsible for education in the Province of Ontario, the various other educational bodies in Ontario, and the public.”
http://www.nctm.org/resources/content.aspx?id=11382

Are they qualified to write, developed curriculum and planned lessons? I too was curious,back when my child was in grade 3 and I contacted the head math professor at the local university, and he laughed and said no. It was than I discovered the differences between professors who worked under the teachers’ colleges and the professors who do not. And how a teacher’s certificate gives them the qualifications to design curriculum regardless if they have a background in math.

If you get a response, I would love to read it.

No Bev, the line belongs to someone on the Zeta link that is provided. Scroll down until you see Sour Apples on the left side of the page.

Worth repeating - “Simply put, educrats believe in process—as opposed to educators, who believe in results. Educrats focus on how children learn. Educators focus on what they learn.”

And as well on the Zeta page, and on other American forums where parents gather, there is truth in the gems of parents’ statements, that speaks of the educrats obsession with process, and not the results.

Nancy & Joanne, with all due respect, there’s still a bottom line here regarding the NCTM (or at least until proven otherwise, I’m strongly suspicious of this) that the people sitting on the above board don’t understand math well enough to grasp that it’s the results that one must focus on.  Anyone with university level math would know that results—getting the right answer—are the absolute.  These people are making a lot of money pushing their totally incompetent math curricula.  Too many people in the field of educaiton are doing work that they have no business doing.  It would never work in industry.

OT I remember a chemistry professor who went into industry, promising the sun, moon and stars.  After several years, he had produced absolutely nothing, and was booted out.  Unfortunately in government, we have no such checks and balances…

btw, Nancy, I shall look at the Zeta pg.  Thanks

I’d like to talk a bit about the stages I see well educated parents, professionals, going through with math the way it is currently taught in Toronto.

The beginning: kindergarden and grade 1.
Since the parents I know at least have usually taught their children the numbers and a lot of times addition and subtraction by 1 and by 2 and they expect kindergarden and early grades to be more play like everything is hunky dory. There is a bit of concern as to why there are so many words in math, but hey there is more than one way to skin a cat.
The first elementary years, grade 2 to 4. After some waiting - anywhere between 6 month to 1 year - for the school to teach addition and subtraction to mastery most parents I know have either worked with their children at home or have sent them to Kumon. Problem solved;for a while at least.
Middle school, grade 5 to 8. By now most parents I know have asked the school one way or the other: “where is the math?”. When are the students going to learn their multiplication tables, when are the overly wordy problems going to end, when are they going to learn long division .. Having come to the realization that they have absolutely no say in what the school does, they try to keep supplementing their child’s math knowledge at home.

And now all the hell breaks lose. The children are resentful for having to do extra work. The children are confused and angry at their parents because the extra math - either at home or at tutoring - is different from the one at school. As children crave certitude they don’t understand how one set of adults can say one thing and how another set of adults can say another.
Because they spend so much time at school and because by the nature of their role a school teacher projects knowledge and authority, it is the school’s fuzzy math that gradually starts winning.
Parents, at least the ones whose math is good enough to understand what’s going on, at this stage face some stark choices.
The first choice is to be unpopular with their children pretty much every other day and get their children to do additional work in the hope that they would be at least minimally competent in math.
The second choice is to try and supplement what the school does with just a little more math taught along the same lines as the math at school. They try to find textbooks or workbooks similar to the handouts they see coming home from school - if any - and they help their children do a bit more work. A lot of confusing effort for not much better math skills.
The third choice, is just make sure my son or my daughter does his or hers math homework, and hope for the best.

By grade 7 or 8 most parents I know are doing the third choice. Unless a parent started teaching or having his child tutored in math early and has the determination and money to keep at it at least twice a week, week after week, year after year, the third choice is the only one that does not destroy your relationship with your child.

So you tell yourself that your child is doing what all the other children are doing and as long as he or she does the homework and has good grades in math that’s ok.

My point is that because the school’s influence over the students is so strong even the parents with awareness and skills tend to give up on math skills (and English skills, and .. skils) in order not to damage their relationship with their child.

Interesting post, Europe. 
I was fortunate enough to have had my children begin school in Asia.  They began seeing the differences in their education themselves, so they co-operated with us when we tutored them in both math and grammar.  (Their reading was fine, but it took years to get my daughter hooked on reading as she was a bit younger when we left Asia.) 
If the children knew their number facts, then the math curricula wasn’t bad in the 90’s—it was just getting the teachers to settle down and actually do the work, and then mark   I would sometimes have to go right to the ministery of ed to get my way about having the teachers teaching 200 minutes/wk, which was designated at that time in the education act. 
My point:  the peer pressure here was far worse than it was in the private schools in Asia, and my theory is that this is because of inadequate supervision, which in turn leads to bullying:  if the children feel they don’t fit in, it frightens them, so they’ll balk at being different.