Gene Mechtly wrote:
>
> In April of this year, I submitted an article for publication during
> Metric Week in October by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
>
> Sandy Berger, Managing Editor, School Journals, NCTM, responded by a letter
> dated August 12. The *complete* body of her letter is the following:
>
> "The consensus of the Editorial Panel is that your manuscript, submitted
> as an '[italic] In My Opinion', 'Teaching Metric Measurement Skills,'
> #02-04-013-7MN (2957), is not appropriate for TEACHING CHILDREN MATHEMATICS.
> Understanding and using metric units of measurement is important for students
> in the United States. The panel feels that many of the activities are familiar
> to our readers. There is not enough information on how the activities help
> students learn.
....
> No written statements by members of the Editorial Panel were included with
> the letter by Ms. Berger, as is customary when articles are reviewed for
> possible publication.
The subject publication is obviously not peer reviewed by anonymous
reviewers. That would have resulted in comments which would, hopefully,
have been forwarded to you. I suspect that the Editorial Board met en
masse and, after all had been given a chance to read the submissions
available, gave articles an Up or Down vote. Perhaps they had some
discussion, which may be the basis for Ms. Berger's comments.
> Is my "opinion" not appropriate because it proposes student activities
> which utilize *only* the SI; an "opinion" not shared by panel members?
I tried reading Mx. Berger's comments literally and taking them at face
value, rather than trying to read between the lines. Gene, do you think
you could strengthen your discussion of the hows and whys teaching with
only SI units will strengthen the teaching of math to students, as
opposed to the "bilingual" approach now used? It sounds like they are
looking for a "compare and contrast" approach in discussing these two
methods. Perhaps you could take those familiar examples and show how the
non-metric approach is more difficult and also how using both methods
leads to confusion, or at least less time spent on the use of only one
method (hopefully SI!).
> How many members of the Editorial Panel consider SI units and non-SI units
> of equal importance for the education of students in the US? Ms. Berger
> does, as she declares in her previous statements to me by e-mail.
I suggest that you are mis-reading her comment. She did not say that
both were important, though I strongly suspect that to be the truth. She
merely stated that teaching metric units was important and she did not
rank that against teaching non-metric units in her statement. As for the
preceding question, what would you do if you had the answer to that?
Suppose the answer is 4. Or is it merely rhetorical to wonder how many
prefer the bilingual approach? My guess is that nearly all if not all of
the board members favor bilingual measurent teaching as opposed to
non-metric only teaching and thus think themselves quite liberal. I am
tempted to bet that there are absolutely no NCTM editorial board members
who favor the SI-only approach. But that's a guess and I'm not sure what
I would do with the truth were I to be told.
> Were members of the Editorial Panel offended by my earlier provocative
> piece: "Are You Qualified to Teach Metric Units of Measurement?"?
Perhaps, but that is spilt milk.
> How should I react to Ms. Berger's letter of rejection?
I suggest dropping the familiar examples she alludes to (perhaps a
phone call might result in her identifying them), strengthening the
point about the weakening of math teaching by trying to use two
disparate sets of units (division of effort), and strengthening the
pedagogy (even if that means resorting to educaionalese).
Good luck! As was reported in the Metric Today article, we were not
tremendously pleased with the response the NCTM President and Director
of Publications gave us last fall. You might wish to review that article
before you take them on again.
Jim
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, LCAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone: 843.225.6789
