BS

This article was sent to me earlier today.  Take a minute to at least skim it.

The biggest problems with the ideas this article espouses are money, time, and effective facilitators.  Money for the training and technology (which they admitted technology wasn't the deciding factor, but that's what people will get out of it), time to allow for the explorative approach (which is what they try to get us to do in math especially, but there's time enough for one lesson per day, tests per chapter, and approximately three to four weeks of review with our current curriculum--who has time to make kids figure it out on their own?), and effective facilitators who actually understand how this teaching approach is conducted.

It's nice that they're trying to make a big deal of interactive learning.  But it's what we've known has worked best for years and years.  It's time for the curriculum and the test-focused expectations to reflect that.  And it's offensive to say that there's nothing magical about a teacher, or that the lecture style is always far less effective.  A bored instructor who knows how to facilitate will be less effective than an interesting and invested teacher who lectures.  I've experienced it from both sides.

Education has no magic tricks, instructors are important, and we're continually bombarded with more to do, so much so that we can't even apply many of the things we know work.  That is what I would like to read an article about.