>Los Angeles Daily News
May 31, 1996
HOW EXPERTS DUMB DOWN MATH EDUCATION
by David Klein and Jerry Rosen
Education experts, university administrators, and professors bear a special responsibility for the problems in our public schools. As math professors at California State University, Northridge, we have been confronted with policies and ideologies which mediocritize K-12 mathematics education.
We have the highest regard for public school math teachers and in no way do we diminish their abilities, dedication, and achievements, under adverse circumstances. But it is difficult to attribute their successes to the kind of undergraduate education they would receive at CSUN.
CSUN has five sets of course sequences leading to a bachelors degree in mathematics. One such sequence is designed for future secondary teachers. It is the weakest of the five. The courses required for the “secondary teaching” B.A. degree in mathematics are watered down versions of the courses for the other non teaching options. The capstone course of undergraduate mathematics, which explains why calculus “works,” is required of all students seeking a Bachelors degree in mathematics, except from those who intend to become secondary school teachers. These future teachers may very well teach calculus in high school, yet they are not required to understand it at the same level as the other math majors. The future teachers we have had in our classes compare favorably with other math majors. It is an insult to the teaching profession to impose these lower standards and one not unique to CSUN.
The 1992 Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools governs, to a considerable extent, the mathematics curriculum in California’s public schools. It is a model of mediocrity. The Framework recommends that calculators be issued to kindergartners and used in all K-12 grades; it strongly discourages placing students by ability or achievement; it advocates that teachers do more “facilitating” and less “teaching;” it discourages testing, and promotes portfolios, “authentic assessment,” and “holistic scoring rubrics;” it de-emphasizes basic skills and promotes “cooperative work” over individual responsibility. In short, it is the bible of “fuzzy math.”
Although university level education experts support it, many courageous high school math teachers denounce the “new new math” or “fuzzy math” of the Framework. During a recent meeting at CSUN with eight high school math teachers, we learned that they re-bind their heavily used traditional math books because they don’t want to use the new texts which incorporate the principles of the Framework. Students at other schools may not be so lucky.
Why is this kind of mediocrity promoted by so many education professors and education experts? We suggest that it is simply good intentions gone awry, resulting in institutionalized “liberal racism.” Liberal education experts fear that minority students can’t learn real math because of “cultural differences.” They recognize that it would be preposterous to lower standards only for those students while maintaining high standards for other groups. Thus, the education experts lower standards for everyone, with “authentic assessment” replacing hard-core, standardized tests, and so-called “higher order thinking” supplanting basic skills.
The clearest refutation of the racism disguised by the Framework comes from the work of Jaime Escalante, the teacher who was immortalized in the movie, “Stand and Deliver.” Mr. Escalante proved beyond any doubt that minority students from poor neighborhoods can do as well in mathematics as any other group. His methods were traditional and “non fuzzy.”
As with “Whole Language Learning,” education professors will indoctrinate pre-service teachers in the “new new math.” As time goes on, it will be harder to undo the damage. A component of this “fuzzy math” approach is to encourage unearned self-esteem and some students, parents, and even teachers may be misled into a false sense of achievement.
More than 2,000 years ago, Ptolemy asked Euclid if geometry could not be mastered by an easier process than by studying the Elements. Euclid gave his oft quoted reply, “There is no royal road to geometry.” Though education experts might wish it otherwise, learning mathematics requires hard work and hard work has no substitute. Teachers and students in other countries understand that time-tested principle better than we do and this bodes ill for our future. For the sake of our children and our society, for the sake of our future, it is time to demand real standards in our schools and universities.
>Excellent article choice. This past fall the Wall Street Journal spoke out about reform math as well. Ridgewood’s concerns are not unusual – many local papers across the nation publish articles on controversies surrounding reform math.
Not every child is guaranteed to have that “a-ha” moment, when all the clues fit together. For many, group work and investigative methods are frustrating. Also, for those who do get the concepts quickly, the program pace of discovery math is slow and not challenging enough.
If you think of math education in terms of golf lessons, would you rather an instructor who shows you how to stand, move your arms to swing and hit the ball or one who just watches while you “discover” what works? While you make have success if you’re a natural, if you’re paying for lessons you probably want the benefits from direct instruction and someone showing you specifically how to move your arms.
Parents should be aware of what is happening in their child’s classroom just as they would if they were paying for piano lessons, golf lessons or any other education.
>What’s driving me crazy (among many things concerning reform math) is that these ill-taught teachers are then empowered by their place of employment to make decisions about curriculum and even to train other teachers.
Then too often I hear folks in our camp say this isn’t about the teachers and that it’s not the teacher’s fault.
Fine, but on some level, are they not accountable for buying the stupid math?
Reform math has reached such levels of absurdity that a math background is no longer necessary for a teacher to declare themselves a specialist in math, to choose curriculum, implement it, and train other teachers in it.
Constructivist teachers value child development, not math.
How is it that a teacher can train another teacher in reform math instruction, and in the end, the newly trained teacher doesn’t understand negative numbers?
These things are real. They really are happening in our schools.
This is a serious crisis, and most parents are blissfully unaware.
>Elementary teachers are not required to have taken much math course work. With that said, a new or lesser experienced teacher may not be able to fill the gaps of the Investigations programs as a more seasoned educator would. So to some extent it is important that a school district provide the same tools for all teachers, to prevent disparity among classrooms and schools.
If the basic math program is lacking, yet teachers are expected to use it, is it really the teacher’s fault?
Administrators should be monitoring classrooms and schools to ensure quality across a building and a district, sharing best practices. Examination of test results can show the deficiencies.
BOE are elected officials who should be representing the children’s best interests and making sure the best possible education is happening. Parent feedback is an important consideration.
What goes on at the kitchen table in the evening is a good indication of what education the children are receiving. If kids are confused and parents can’t explain math homework that doesn’t really resemble math homework, steps need to be taken to fix this.
>Agreed. But if teachers are going to be given so much power that the administrators heed the advice of the teachers (which is what has happened here), do we let the teachers go scot-free?
If the educators realize they may have made a mistake, shouldn’t they admit it to their superiors as quickly as possible?
I do hold teachers accountable, not to the degree that I hold the administrators and BOE accountable, but I do hold them accountable. They’re not children.
>This article was written 11 years ago. Think of the indoctrination that has been accomplished since. Now it is happening in suburbia. The egalitarians want all of our children to be equally stupid.
Problem is, other countries, including those of the third world, are teaching their children math the way we used to.
How long before Rome falls?
>If the Egyptians had to rely on TERC, there would be no pyramids.
>There are teachers that are very supportive of constructivist views and programs like Investigations since that is what they have learned in grad school as the best practice in teaching.
Which is fine, as long as at the end of the day, the kids know everything they need to and can multiply, divide, add and subtract with fluency and proficiency.
But that doesn’t seem to be happening.
Travell’s test scores have gone down the Investigations drain. The poor performance supports a major change in the math program. Whatever they are doing there is NOT working.
Why continue with a program that isn’t working?
Sign the petition and make sure the Investigations virus doesn’t spread to a school near you. Especially with an impending superintendent who wrote the book on constructivism.
https://www.petitiononline.com/Math4VOR/petition.html
http://www.vormath.info has a link to the petition also