Take *that* you heathen!
-
http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4452&Itemid=1
Two teachers accused of sprinkling holy water onto an avowed atheist colleague have been removed from the classroom, and may be fired.
The teacher who was allegedly sprinkled filed a complaint with the Broward County school district, which is investigating the incident as an act of bullying.
Further reading
-
And that is a curious perversion in information technology how?
-
@pbean said:
And that is a curious perversion in information technology how?
The atheist had an iPod
-
On March 11, Rodriguez was in her classroom discussing her disbelief in God and the Bible with students when the alleged incident took place.
Are you even allowed to [b]do[/b] that? All of my old high school teachers would respond with the formulaic "We're not supposed to talk about that in the classroom" if a student asked the teacher what the tearcher's beliefs (religious, political, operating system) were during class. Outside of class, nobody cared (officially, at least), but it was pretty forbidden for a teacher to express his/her opinions on those things while teaching a lesson and in a position of direct authority.
-
@North Bus said:
On March 11, Rodriguez was in her classroom discussing her disbelief in God and the Bible with students when the alleged incident took place.
Are you even allowed to do that? All of my old high school teachers would respond with the formulaic "We're not supposed to talk about that in the classroom" if a student asked the teacher what the tearcher's beliefs (religious, political, operating system) were during class. Outside of class, nobody cared (officially, at least), but it was pretty forbidden for a teacher to express his/her opinions on those things while teaching a lesson and in a position of direct authority.I'm sorry to say but that sounds so typical of the United States of Freedom. Over here we talk about our beliefs when we want and where we want and there are not many restrictions in place.
-
@DOA said:
Makes sense; a lot of atheists are filthy hippies.@pbean said:
And that is a curious perversion in information technology how?
The atheist had an iPod
-
@pbean said:
And that is a curious perversion in information technology how?
Because more things make us ask WTF than just code
-
@bstorer said:
Makes sense; a lot of atheists are filthy hippies.
Hippies can afford iPods?
-
@Lingerance said:
@bstorer said:
Their parents can.Makes sense; a lot of atheists are filthy hippies.
Hippies can afford iPods?
-
@Lingerance said:
@bstorer said:
Makes sense; a lot of atheists are filthy hippies.
Hippies can afford iPods?Most hippies aren't terribly poor, and they certainly have money for frivolity, like drugs. They also don't tend to own much outside of a bong and some phish CDs, so they don't have car payments, etc. Sometimes they don't even have rent if they're just couch surfing. If you're good at it, you can easily pull in a few hundred dollars a day by begging, so an iPod isn't out of the question.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Not to mention the question of priorities. To a hippie, Apple products are more important than, say, utility bills or rent.@Lingerance said:
@bstorer said:
Makes sense; a lot of atheists are filthy hippies.
Hippies can afford iPods?Most hippies aren't terribly poor, and they certainly have money for frivolity, like drugs. They also don't tend to own much outside of a bong and some phish CDs, so they don't have car payments, etc. Sometimes they don't even have rent if they're just couch surfing. If you're good at it, you can easily pull in a few hundred dollars a day by begging, so an iPod isn't out of the question.
-
Those christians aren't very good at logic.
One teacher talks in class about atheism, the religious teachers response was to spray holy water on her.
The atheist teacher's reaction was to file a complaint.Now the religious teachers are confused why they got removed and not the atheist teacher.
Pro-tip for them next time. Don't spray holy water, but file a complaint.
Also, while I am not familiar with the exact rules of talking about religion at schools in the US, unless talking about the absence of religion is banned there really would be no problem with explaining atheism. The equivalent of not carrying a knife at school, not collecting stamps or not stealing.
-
@stratos said:
Also, while I am not familiar with the exact rules of talking about religion at schools in the US, unless talking about the absence of religion is banned there really would be no problem with explaining atheism. The equivalent of not carrying a knife at school, not collecting stamps or not stealing.
I was with you up until this point. Talking about atheism and talking about Christianity are the same thing. Personally, I don't really know what to think. On the one hand, people are too sensitive about shit like this. Having a teacher talk about their religious beliefs is hardly going to traumatize the little bastards. On the other hand, isn't there actual teaching to be done? The public schools are churning out kids who can barely read, write, communicate or do remedial math, but apparently there's plenty of time to get into stupid debates with the class. There's a time and a place for long, tedious and pointless philosophical debates; where every smug asshole can derail every class--regardless of subject matter--by expounding on their idiotic beliefs that nobody really gives a shit about; and that's college. College-aged dipshits already think they are precious, unique little flowers and that everyone wants--nay, needs--to hear whatever half-formed theories they found floating in the bong water. At least we can keep this pathetic, intellectually-weak self-love out of primary schools; your job there is to shut the fuck up and learn how to add, kids.
-
@bstorer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Not to mention the question of priorities. To a hippie, Apple products are more important than, say, utility bills or rent.@Lingerance said:
@bstorer said:
Makes sense; a lot of atheists are filthy hippies.
Hippies can afford iPods?Most hippies aren't terribly poor, and they certainly have money for frivolity, like drugs. They also don't tend to own much outside of a bong and some phish CDs, so they don't have car payments, etc. Sometimes they don't even have rent if they're just couch surfing. If you're good at it, you can easily pull in a few hundred dollars a day by begging, so an iPod isn't out of the question.
Ignorance. You aren't a real hippie until the ineffable jam breeches the cosmic chasm and arcs directly into your skull; until the music is inside, always. That's what the headbands are for... adjusting the acoustics.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@stratos said:
Also, while I am not familiar with the exact rules of talking about religion at schools in the US, unless talking about the absence of religion is banned there really would be no problem with explaining atheism. The equivalent of not carrying a knife at school, not collecting stamps or not stealing.
I was with you up until this point. Talking about atheism and talking about Christianity are the same thing. Personally, I don't really know what to think. On the one hand, people are too sensitive about shit like this. Having a teacher talk about their religious beliefs is hardly going to traumatize the little bastards. On the other hand, isn't there actual teaching to be done? The public schools are churning out kids who can barely read, write, communicate or do remedial math, but apparently there's plenty of time to get into stupid debates with the class. There's a time and a place for long, tedious and pointless philosophical debates; where every smug asshole can derail every class--regardless of subject matter--by expounding on their idiotic beliefs that nobody really gives a shit about; and that's college. College-aged dipshits already think they are precious, unique little flowers and that everyone wants--nay, needs--to hear whatever half-formed theories they found floating in the bong water. At least we can keep this pathetic, intellectually-weak self-love out of primary schools; your job there is to shut the fuck up and learn how to add, kids.
Not really the response I was expecting, but I pretty much put that in there because someone was bound to start foaming at the mouth when reading that.
I also pretty much disagree with you. Schools aren't factories, focing children to remember stuff is useless, you have to get them to think. If you can get them so far as to think longer then 5 seconds about something, then maybe they will be able to actually figure shit out. Also I didn't read in the article what class it was, for all you know it was a class about civil liberties.
-
@stratos said:
Also I didn't read in the article what class it was, for all you know it was a class about civil liberties.
From the first link:According to sources close to the investigation who requested anonymity, the alleged incident involving the holy water at Blanche Ely arose from a boisterous discussion Rodriguez was having with her students about the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti.
On at least one social networking website, Rodriguez described herself as an “Atheist” and “change agent.”
In response to one student’s remark that the disaster in Haiti happened because of God’s wrath on the island nation over a pact its leaders made with Satan more than 200 years ago, Rodriguez reportedly began refuting Christianity.
[...]
In response to the lively discussion, Rainer and Robinson entered the room.
“Sounds like somebody needs some holy water,” a student remarked before Robinson retrieved and displayed a small bottle of liquid from the doorway.
-
-
@PJH said:
From the first link:
You're ingoring the parts where students say that no sprinkling of water occurred at all (though it may have been asked of christian students only -- we don't know), and the article also states that R had lunch with R & R before filing the complain, though the article mentions nothing of the state of the discussion they were having. R described herself as a "change agent" which sounds a little odd to me, and gives a motive to paint her fellow teachers as crackpots.
In other words, it's a RAH RAH article with nothing but He Said She Said "evidence", and I find it this topic void.
Ugh.
-
@stratos said:
Schools aren't factories, focing children to remember stuff is useless, you have to get them to think. If you can get them so far as to think longer then 5 seconds about something, then maybe they will be able to actually figure shit out.
Of course, but religious debate and arguments are hardly going to get people to think. Besides, you're treading dangerously close to modern education theory, which is a complete failure. You know, the whole "help their self-esteem" and "encourage debate" movement. For one thing, memorizing facts may not be the biggest goal of education, but it's still better than the fuzzy-headed nonsense which currently drives schools; at least the kids come out knowing something. And instilling critical reasoning and problem-solving skills doesn't come from stupid religious or philosophical debates.
@stratos said:
Also I didn't read in the article what class it was, for all you know it was a class about civil liberties.
I'm not saying religion should have no mention in school. Religion makes up a lot of history and understanding is useful. I don't see why that would ever require the teacher to lecture on his own beliefs, though. Any class where the teacher tried to provoke philosophical debate (even college classes) ended up the same way: students came away more entrenched in their own beliefs. And they hadn't been taught critical thinking and factual historical analysis (which could then be turned inward and used to dissect their own beliefs) but instead simply learned that their opinions were equally valuable and that they were all unique little snowflakes. They learned to talk and argue about what they believe long before they learned to actually think about it.
-
@dhromed said:
In other words, it's a RAH RAH article with nothing but He Said She Said "evidence", and I find it this topic void.
They should probably both be fired, but since teachers' unions have convinced the government that the purpose of public education is to provide jobs for teachers and not to actually educate children, that will never happen.
-
I think a grown up teacher can stand a little bullying, no matter how stupid those "Christians" might have been. I also think the teacher should have had enough sense to just shut up and let the little twerp believe whatever he damn well wanted to believe.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
They should probably both be fired, but since teachers' unions have convinced the government that the purpose of public education is to provide jobs for teachers and not to actually educate children, that will never happen.
This.
This is particularly a problem in the Northeast, but I think it's common across the whole United States. Teachers who can't do their jobs (not just those who have made mistakes, but those who are flatly incompetent) are so difficult to get rid of that they end up getting shuffled around from school to school. In extreme cases, employees have been told to just stay away from work, while still getting paid, to limit the damage they can cause.
And it's not just teachers. I work for an educational support agency with similar practices, and several of the people I work with are completely incompetent for the jobs they're in, but no one can get rid of them because of seniority, union support, and the insane difficulty of hiring a replacement through the civil service process. The DBA, in particular, has absolutely no idea what he's doing, but no one can do anything about it because he's the president of the union local.
The fact that this is my third-to-last day working here may be partly responsible for this rant.
-
@Lingerance said:
@bstorer said:
Makes sense; a lot of atheists are filthy hippies.
Hippies can afford iPods?I find that Hippies, most of them in their sixties now, spend their money driving Priusses. It's a 100% score among the 5 colleagues I have that fit the description "beard, sandals, over 60", a small sample size, but still...
-
@morbiuswilters said:
At least we can keep this pathetic, intellectually-weak self-love out of primary schools; your job there is to shut the fuck up and learn how to add, kids.
QFT. Thanks Morbs.
-
In response to one student’s remark that the disaster in Haiti happened because of God’s wrath on the island nation over a pact its leaders made with Satan more than 200 years ago, Rodriguez reportedly began refuting Christianity.
The appropriate response to that is not to refute Christianity, but to simply point out what a dick God is. He's punishing millions of impoverished people, most of them devoted followers of Him, for something a few of their leaders did 200 years ago? I mean, not only is he being a dick punishing people who have no relation to the ones who He actually thinks did something wrong, but he's slow! Pssst....God...it's been 200 years. The folks you're wrathfully punishing are dead already, and presumably already being punished in Hell for eternity.
-
@pbean said:
I've moved the thread to General Discussion. Definitly a more appropriate place for this WTF.And that is a curious perversion in information technology how?
-
@Someone You Know said:
Growing up in Arlington, Massachusetts I can speak for this. Half the kids I went to school with could not read by the time they got to high school. Some kids were still doing remedial math their senior year. It also didn't help that our town had a huge elderly population that was rather bitter and would actively mobilize to vote down any spending that was educational in nature. Basically all the town spent money on was senior centers. Now it has a ton of nursing homes and the school system is starting to rebuild about decades of neglect.This is particularly a problem in the Northeast, but I think it's common across the whole United States. Teachers who can't do their jobs (not just those who have made mistakes, but those who are flatly incompetent) are so difficult to get rid of that they end up getting shuffled around from school to school. In extreme cases, employees have been told to just stay away from work, while still getting paid, to limit the damage they can cause.
-
Learning to think is good. However, unless you know hard facts to use in your thinking, you're likely to do more harm than good. I was homeschooled throughout my whole academic career up through high school. The first 10-12 years of my life were spent learning facts. Cold, hard facts. 2 + 2 = 4, every single time. 2a + 4 = 6 means a = 1. The first president of the United States was George Washington. The Magna Carta was signed in 1215. The contrapositive of a true statement is always true. Every sentence needs a noun and verb. Was it mind-numbingly dull? Sometimes--but it also gave me a large knowledge base to draw from when I started learning how to apply logic to the material that I knew. I'm constantly amazed at how many collegiate students can't seem to use proper grammar, but think that "it's not important as long as I get the meaning across"--completely missing the point that grammar exists as a standard method of conveying meaning. Asking children (especially younger children) to perform complex emotional, mental, or logical calculations without giving them the foundation with which to do so is useless. One cannot determine the value of 2 + 2 if one doesn't know what the + symbol means.
-
@Someone You Know said:
This is particularly a problem in the Northeast, but I think it's common across the whole United States. Teachers who can't do their jobs (not just those who have made mistakes, but those who are flatly incompetent) are so difficult to get rid of that they end up getting shuffled around from school to school. In extreme cases, employees have been told to just stay away from work, while still getting paid, to limit the damage they can cause.
Blame the unions, which have a far tighter hold on the school systems in the Northeast (Pennsylvania, for example, is notorious for having an insane teacher's union), for the bad teachers. Blame standardized testing, which results in a generation of kids taught how to pass a series of standardized tests. Blame affluent parents, who are far more likely to complain (and get litigious) for cowardly school systems. Blame our educational system, which insists on educating everyone, regardless of whether or not they're fit for it. Blame the theory of education, which swings wildly back and forth between extremes in the search for a silver bullet that doesn't exist.There's plenty of blame to go around. Sturgeon's Law applies to education just as it does to programming or any other topic. I mean, we can rant and rave about how stupid it is (and what a dull site this would be if we didn't), but at the end of the day, there's no fixing it. Well, short of the cleansing power of fire, there's no fixing it.
-
@bstorer said:
Blame our educational system, which insists on educating everyone, regardless of whether or not they're fit for it.
I agree! It would be great if the system would stop pandering to the lowest common denominator. Some kids are just destined for rewarding careers in the lawn care business.
-
@Smitty said:
@bstorer said:
Blame our educational system, which insists on educating everyone, regardless of whether or not they're fit for it.
I agree! It would be great if the system would stop pandering to the lowest common denominator. Some kids are just destined for rewarding careers in the lawn care business.
I sort of disagree. The vast majority of bad students aren't stupid, they just have a home life that places no value on education. Successful magnet and charter schools have shown time-and-again that bad students can do quite well if they are simply made to focus. It's not the amount of money (we spend too much on education as it is for the mediocre product we get) and it's not class size; it's whether the student values the education and whether they have teachers who actually teach and a home-life that is conducive to learning.
-
@Smitty said:
@bstorer said:
A quick note: I am a strong proponent of educating everyone. All I wanted to bring up is the fact that, when comparing us with the world, one must take into account the countries which drop kids into tracks at 12 or 13. It's apples to oranges.Blame our educational system, which insists on educating everyone, regardless of whether or not they're fit for it.
I agree! It would be great if the system would stop pandering to the lowest common denominator. Some kids are just destined for rewarding careers in the lawn care business.@morbiuswilters said:
I sort of disagree. The vast majority of bad students aren't stupid, they just have a home life that places no value on education.
I agree. Socioeconomic background is one of the best predictors of performance in school. Sad but true.@morbiuswilters said:
Successful magnet and charter schools have shown time-and-again that bad students can do quite well if they are simply made to focus.
And the overwhelming majority of magnet and charter schools have shown quite the opposite. For example, see Stanford CREDO's study which shows that, in aggregate, charter schools result in lesser academic growth than traditional public schools. Now, there are groups for whom charter schools outperform public schools; and I'll address them later. But for now my point, once again, is simply that Sturgeon's Law applies here, too.As to magnet schools, I guess it depends on what definition you're using. Drawing imaginary boundary lines on a continuum from heterogeneous to homogeneous grouping, there are subdivisions of magnet schools (these names aren't standard or anything, I just made them up):
- Diversity-oriented: those magnet schools meant to create artificial diversity into a school, with little or no regard to ability grouping. These have mostly fallen by the wayside. Result in a heterogenous grouping.
- Encapsulated: a homogeneously grouped magnet school operating within a traditional school population. The magnet program will provide specialized classes in their focus area, but may or may not mix with the traditional population for other classes.
- Pure magnet: completely homogeneous, with no traditional population.
Now, having discussed all that stuff, let me address what I think morbs was actually getting at, which is homogeneous grouping not on ability groups but on socioeconomic groups, especially in at-risk groups. As I mentioned above, there are areas where charter schools outperform traditional public schools; the two major ones are: English language learners and, more relevantly, students in poverty. It appears that we can improve these students by moving them out of a traditional setting and providing focused education tailored to their situations. This, too, is not without criticism. For example, the similar composition to some of the lower tracks in studies of ability grouping suggest that self-esteem problems may manifest here as well. There is also the potential for negative reinforcement of being surrounded only by other at-risk students.
I don't know that this has even been attempted on a large scale, perhaps out of concern for charges of racism I know of no extensive studies on the matter and I'm not equipped well enough to judge for myself. There are a variety of problems in education that have come from meddling by people who lack the information necessary to judge, but do so anway. Still, my feeling here is that these students are already doomed to failure if nothing changes, so maybe it's worth a shot.
- Diversity-oriented: those magnet schools meant to create artificial diversity into a school, with little or no regard to ability grouping. These have mostly fallen by the wayside. Result in a heterogenous grouping.
-
@bstorer said:
And the overwhelming majority of magnet and charter schools have shown quite the opposite. For example, see Stanford CREDO's study which shows that, in aggregate, charter schools result in lesser academic growth than traditional public schools.
Which is why I used the qualifier "successful". There have been many successful charter schools. Your later points are also true: charter schools show the best improvement when implemented in impoverished areas with shitty public schools. I'm not for getting rid of traditional public schools across the board, but high-risk, low-income areas they have shown great results. I also don't think looking at them in aggregate is all that useful since there are vast differences between methodologies, management and student composition.
There are also simpler factors, such as vacation time: students tend to drop significantly in performance over the summer, particularly low-income students. Many of the successful charter schools have shorter summer vacations and longer school days (7am to 5pm is not uncommon). That level of immersion helps keep at-risk students focused. Finally, there's simple competition: charter schools have to show results or else they risk losing funding. Increased, managed competition in public education is one of those things that has shown great results but which has been strongly opposed by teachers' unions and their bought politicians.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Which is what I credited you with saying. But I felt it necessary to discuss that, just like traditional public schools, there are tons of charter schools that fail, too. The key is not to, as many vocal advocates do, simply throw up one's hands and shout, "charter schools!" The key is to figure out what the successful charters (and successful traditional public schools, and successful magnet schools, and successful private schools) do to be successful, and distill that essence. I don't recall if I mentioned it in my previous post or not, but educational theory rushes wildly between extremes. One of the best quotes on the subject is this:@bstorer said:
And the overwhelming majority of magnet and charter schools have shown quite the opposite. For example, see Stanford CREDO's study which shows that, in aggregate, charter schools result in lesser academic growth than traditional public schools.
Which is why I used the qualifier "successful". There have been many successful charter schools. Your later points are also true: charter schools show the best improvement when implemented in impoverished areas with shitty public schools. I'm not for getting rid of traditional public schools across the board, but high-risk, low-income areas they have shown great results.
@Bill Page said:
The pendulum is a perfect, oft used educational analogue. Once started, the pendulum swings freely from its pivotal point, increasing speed, building momentum, swiftly moving along its predetermined path, gradually slowing and coming to a complete stop at the height of its swing. Momentarily frozen, the pendulum now begins moving slowly back toward whence it came, gaining speed, moving ever faster, becoming unstoppable slashing through its apex, swinging upward, decreasing velocity, once again coming to a stop. Here it pauses reversing directions. then begins sweeping back along an arc with powerful impetus, retracing its course once again and then again and again. Educational movements are like pendulum swings, traveling with an irresistible thrust; then, unheralded, a new campaign drives yet another educational cause back the other direction, gaining momentum. Each new crusade, at first invincible, soon succumbs and is superseded by an opposing force just as powerful and relentless as its predecessors, until it too is supplanted with a new fervid impulsion.
The only thing I'd add is too often those movements end without the lessons learned carried forward into the next movement. Instead, those movements get wrapped up in new names and rolled out again in opposition to each other over and over again. Who do you blame for that? Not the teachers: they're tied to a curriculum and standardized tests. Those decisions are made at a higher, more political, more bureaucratic level. Gee, what a shock that a bureaucracy causes stagnation...
@morbiuswilters said:
I also don't think looking at them in aggregate is all that useful since there are vast differences between methodologies, management and student composition.
The same is true of the public schools they're compared against. That's why there's some relevance to the comparison, I think. As I've said: I understand your thoughts on the matter, and I mostly agree. But I didn't want to leave it unsaid that there's no panacea. Have I mentioned that, yet?@morbiuswilters said:
There are also simpler factors, such as vacation time: students tend to drop significantly in performance over the summer, particularly low-income students. Many of the successful charter schools have shorter summer vacations and longer school days (7am to 5pm is not uncommon). That level of immersion helps keep at-risk students focused.
These aren't specific to charter schools, though. Many schools with high at-risk populations adopt similar strategies. My wife's school (she's a student there, obviously), for example, has such a population. They have extended day programs, Saturday academies, expanded summer school programs beyond remediation (focusing on reinforcement and preparation), and so on. Sadly, these are the first things cut in the current budget shortfalls. But the school system is still giving laptops to all the teachers, because they signed a contract for them a few years ago (why it takes years to deliver laptops, I'm not clear). If you were to ask the teachers, they'd tell you the at-risk programs are vastly more important, but the teachers' union probably disagrees, because they likely negotiated for those laptops. It probably doesn't help that her school is a bit of an outlier in an otherwise incredibly wealthy jurisdiction.
-
Another unwanter opinion on the subject:
My children are students at a charter school having moved them from a "regular" public school into the charter school in hopes that I would see vast improvements over the brick-and-mortar schools. The school that they attend is a cyber-school, the miracle of modern technology that it isn't... The concept of charter schools, cyber schools, magnet schools, etc. is great however the implementation fails miserably. It certainly is not the students, my kids ace their courses with no problem and have time to do further research and question things. For *MY* particular kids, the school hours and the flexibility of completing their work are their advantages - it is sad that they do not learn a god damned thing in school. A lot of the problem with the schools is the way that their funds are distributed, they concentrate all of their effort toward Language Arts courses (yes, I agree grammar and spelling are extremely important) with a neglect math and science in order to comply with the minimum State aptitude tests so that the school can get funding next year. And yes, I absolutely agree that the labor unions are to blame as well as academics, Congress, and the unelected bureaucrats who create the idiotic curriculum. As well, those same morons promote the “level-playing-field” approach that has removed competition and failure from the learning process because life is fair and everyone needs to play nice so that we can all get along.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>To deaf ears I have argued if math and science were taught in an intelligent manner that required students to begin to perform research and detailed analysis from an early age that the skills of their language competence could be measured within the instruction of the, in my jaded opinion, more important courses. So, as a result my kids are working their asses off to master the basics of science, math, and history while completing their required studies - making the point of the socio-economic advantage combined with the flexibility of the charter schools. It's really sad in a way but I say fuck it, my kids will need good laborers someday. The facts remain, the school systems are all fucked, teach your kids the best way that you can so that social darwinism can prevail.
-
This all seems fishy to me. Someone named Rodriguez who isn't Catholic?
I'll believe it when I see it.
In other news, this site uses Joomla, and it is very non ashamed of it.
-
@LinuxRulez said:
To deaf ears I have argued if math and science were taught in an intelligent manner that required students to begin to perform research and detailed analysis from an early age that the skills of their language competence could be measured within the instruction of the, in my jaded opinion, more important courses.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover.html
Also more broadly on the subject. To make a programming analogy. You can implement all the new fangled paradigms and best practices you want, but if the programmers suck the code will suck. Having good/great teachers has a far greater influince then whatever teaching methodology is used.
