Social Justice in Math??

Glenn Beck is right. As he said on his program this week, the two words we need to know are "social justice" (defined as "the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society"). But who would have thought those words would apply to the math curricula across the United States – and may well be the reason we are losing our competitive edge as a nation.

This year in third grade math, we fell off a cliff! Thanks to our new program, enVisionMATH by Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley (Pearson), every homework page was taking an hour to complete with a parent helping – and the pages only had at most 10 new problems and 8 review. Every math test had what we suspected would have been a failing grade, except that our rather progressive district (Pine-Richland) had decided to replace real grades with indicators (e.g. D for developing a skill). But after a bit of research, I found that enVisionMATH could be considered a constructivist program - also called reform, fuzzy, progressive, with much discovery and student-centered teaching methods – as in all-word-problems-all-the-time, as in every concept must be presented as something you can visualize. I never knew there have been "math wars" engaged throughout the country for many years now, between angry parents who realize the math their kids are learning is not the same math they learned and not of the quality needed for future college-level math success, and their school districts, who seem to believe they know best, that everything must change, and to hell with the will of the parents. Traditional math includes practicing, memorizing and learning abstract concepts first before applying them to the concrete, and is often derided as "Drill and Kill". Constructivist math has taken over the educational system and is math based upon solving real world problems and developing conceptual understanding, but largely neglecting the teaching and practice of foundational skills (such as addition and multiplication): more words than numbers (e.g. write your own word problem…explain why 3/5 is greater than 2/5…). The schools oftem implement supplemental programs to compensate for the lack of arithmetic rigor. Some kids – the geeks, introverts, left-brain, Asperger's (think Bill Gates and Albert Einstein) – struggle with and sometimes even fail constructivist math programs.

But this is not about using a new and better way to teach math to ensure success for our country. Or the result of a bunch of liberal arts majors screwing around with our math. According to the Investigations in Math (or TERC by Pearson) website, teachers are aware that some children struggle mightily with their reform math, but because their goal is "equity" they have to address these kids' needs too. Unfortunately the publisher and school districts across the country have not yet done so (even though this post is from 2001) and the establishment is displaying a cynical satisfaction at the impact:

Equity is a core principle of the current mathematics education reform movement. "All students, regardless of their personal characteristics, backgrounds, or physical challenges, must have opportunities to study -- and support to learn -- mathematics." (Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, p. 11.) Much has been written about our need to reach minorities, girls, and inner city children -- populations that have been underrepresented in advanced math classes in high school and college. But there is another population that I think we are in danger of leaving behind, a population that used to do well in school mathematics: tidy math fans.

What is tidy math? Worksheets containing orderly rows of computation problems, all essentially the same problem, but with different numbers. Textbooks or teachers that cleanly demonstrate a method step by step and then ask students to do thirty problems using that same method. These are examples of tidy math.

Who are tidy math fans? Students who are neat and well-organized. Students who may not be too creative, but who pay attention and follow directions well. Students who are satisfied with knowing how and who are not bothered by not knowing why. Students who grow up, meet math teachers like myself at parties, and say "Oh, I've always liked math. I love how there's always one right answer to a problem." These are tidy math fans.

Tidy math fans do well in what we now call "traditional" math programs. But as some schools adopt new programs like Investigations, some of these students face a sudden drop in status, from one of the best math students in the class to an average, sometimes struggling student. Their self-esteem about their math ability plummets. It's no wonder that some of their parents (who themselves grew up with tidy math) put up a fuss about the new program and teaching style that is causing their children's loss of confidence...

We need to recognize how hard the adaptation to "messy math" is for a few children. To achieve our vision of equity, we must support these children too, but how? I would love to hear from Investigations users on this issue. (emphasis added)

How common is this theme of social justice in math? Well, the Pennsylvania Council of Teachers of Mathematics (PCTM) annual meeting in November 2009 had three workshops about "social justice" and three workshops about "equity". A total of six workshops were devoted to this topic at this one event. How common are the constructivist math programs in school districts today? According to Pearson, enVisionMATH is the number one selling elementary math curriculum in the country

Is "social justice" a good idea in math? Does math really discriminate against minorities, or is math a universal language transcending race, color, creed, and gender? And what is the impact of this new way of doing math? Hung-Hsi Wu, a professor of mathematics at Berkeley, writes:

"The reform also raises a grave concern in a different context. The economic and social well-being of our nation is critically dependent on the existence of a robust corps of technicians in science and technology: the competent mathematicians, scientists, and engineers who evolve from school students gifted in science and mathematics. Because the reform favors weaker students, the top students end up being shortchanged, and the continuous supply of this technical corps is put in jeopardy. This problem is becoming so serious that it has alarmed the U.S. Department of Education. In a refreshingly straightforward document [17], it offers a criticism of the reform:

Ultimately, the drive to strengthen the education of students with outstanding talents is a drive toward excellence for all students. Education reform will be slowed if it is restricted to boosting standards for students at the bottom and middle rungs of the academic ladder. At the same time we raise the "floor" (the minimum levels of accomplishment we consider to be acceptable), we also must raise the "ceiling" (the highest academic level for which we strive). (emphasis added)

Wise people have been warning of the dumbing down of America for decades now, which may be the main thing that math equity has accomplished. In Pine-Richland school district, 21% of the students going to community or state colleges need remedial math and/or English.
And as discussed on the website for the Pennsylvania Coalition for World Class Math Standards, 43% of all students at public two-year institutions had enrolled in a remedial course and 29% of all students at public four-year institutions had enrolled in a remedial course. While the Government will say we need more standards and more tests (e.g. high school graduation exams, national standards), and new curricula to exactly match the new standards and tests, it seems to me that further reform in education will only continue the downward spiral.

References:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+justice

http://investigations.terc.edu/library/implementing/qa-1ed/tidy_math_fan.cfm

http://www.pctm.org/conference/conferencebooklet2009.pdf

http://www.pearsoned.com/pr_2008/102708.htm

From "THE MATHEMATICS EDUCATION REFORM: WHY YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED AND WHAT YOU CAN DO" by H Wu, (Amer. Math. Monthly 104(1997), 946-954)

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/education/18873477/detail.html

http://paworldclassmath.webs.com/