Talk:Core-Plus Mathematics Project
Encyclopedia style in the lead
There are currently some issues in the lead that we should work on. Editor 126.96.36.199 has added material that may not fit the guidelines for a lead and may violate other guidelines.
There are instances of the use of ad populum arguments such as "critics say . . ." in violation of Avoid Weasel Words. It's best just to state the criticism rather than make the general ad populum statement. The use of words such as "however" and "in fact" detract from the neutral tone an article should have. See Words to Avoid.
Also, the lead is supposed to be a general, neutral description of a topic, summarizing the article. Arguments themselves that are related to a particular point of view should properly come later in the article, especially since this article has a section devoted to the debate. It's appropriate to allude to this debate in the lead, but the argument itself should be presented later.
Also, writing Wikipedia articles generally entails finding and summarizing sources. In contentious articles, editors with a POV tend to find and insert the most damning quotes into the article. You won't find this style in a Featured Article.
I'm going to revert the changes by the anonymous editor and will try to properly integrate the added material later in the article.
I don't have a POV here, other than to want this to be a good article. TimidGuy 11:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Storing deleted material here for integration into article
However critics of controversial NCTM based approaches have called for removal of these texts, including parents, mathematicians, and educators. Such critics have stated that it relies heavily on specific models of calculators, covers a large number of advanced topics not required by colleges or careers, and does not promote mastery of basic algrebra concepts. Entire units and a seperate index are devoted to topics such as shoes, or global warming. Several studies have concluded that graduates are less prepared for college level math and more likely to require remedial math than traditional approaches.  In fact, according to Steven G. Krantz, Chairman of the Department of Mathematics at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, "Instead of textual substance, instead of explanation,
instead of examples, instead of drill on basic skills, this text concentrates on 'Investigations' conducted by group work." He went on to say that "It seems tobe more concerned with social questions than with substantive mathematics. It sets a poor example for students because it uses language imprecisely, often not even defning important terms." In short, his view is that "You would be doing your students, and your school district, a great disservice to adopt this book as your primary text. It may be fashionable to teach from such a book, but it is not effective." 
Seems like Milgram should go in the Andover section of the article. The unsigned letter from the Mathematically Correct web site could go in the section that mentions this organization. We'd still need sources for some of the info. TimidGuy 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)