Source: http://oilf.blogspot.com/search/label/math%20wars
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The conspirators that keep Reform Math in place
1. The education schools, of course. Nearly all of them have Progressive Education pedigrees, and the theory behind Reform Math, Constructivism, is the latest incarnation of educational progressivism.
2. Their student indoctrinees who become teachers, principals, curriculum consultants, curriculum developers, and grant readers for the deep-pocketed education division of the National Science Foundation.
3. The media, for whom classrooms of students in groups doing hands-on projects (and people who talk about what a great new idea this is), make for more attention-grabbing news than classrooms of students in rows doing pen and paper exercises.
4. Postmodernists and Critical Theorists, suspicious of the rigid truth and authority of traditional mathematics (and the idea that 2 + 2 necessarily equals 4), and seduced by Reform Math's open-ended problems, multiple strategies, meta-cognitive reflections, and resistance to single correct answers.
5. The many mathematicians who haven't looked closely at the curriculum but tend to like (and trust) what they hear about it. Here a whole separate paragraph is necessary:
More than others, mathematicians tend to remember traditional math as gratuitously tedious: perhaps for them the drills and algorithmic practice were especially tedious, and perhaps they weren't as dependent on others are on doing these things in order to obtain mastery, making drills seem pointless to boot. As teachers of college students, mathematicians are also constantly looking at the end of the pipeline, where what emerges are college freshman who increasingly lack conceptual understanding. Told by "education experts" that Reform Math emphasizes conceptual understanding over meaningless rote learning, they conclude that Reform Math is the remedy, rather than being part of the problem.
6. Those at the opposite end of the mathematical spectrum: mathphobes and their parents. People, that is, who don't value rigorous math and who themselves, and/or whose children, are not mathematically inclined and do "better" with Reform Math's version of mathematics.
7. Lay people who either know little (or care little) about mathematics, or don't have children in school, or don't examine their children's homework assignments and compare it to what they were doing in math at the same age--and who subscribe to current middle class cultural truisms. Such people tend to love buzzwords like "hands-on", "conceptual understanding," "no one right answer," "multiple intelligences and learning styles," "child-centered," "taking ownership," and "making math relevant," as much as they flinch at "worksheets," "drill and kill," "mere calculation," "teacher-centered," "one right answer," and "dry abstraction."
8. Liberals of the knee-jerk variety who find anything traditional and authority-centered to be politically suspect; and/or who believe that traditional math instruction doesn't work for disadvantaged and/or nonwhite and/or non-Western children, and/or privileges privileged white children, thus widening the achievement gap .
On the other side? Nearly everyone who understands math deeply (at least through arithmetic, algebra, and geometry), cares about math, has taken a close look at the Reform Math curriculum, and has school-aged children.
Unfortunately, however much more qualified members of this second group are to assess Reform Math, they're far outnumbered--and out-buzzed--by those populating the educationist / postmodernist / out-of-touch mathphilic / in-touch mathphobic / middle class populist / knee-jerk liberal fronts.
Katharine Beals' blog "Out in Left Field" is always excellent and always a great source of information for those with a desire to learn about the non-trendy side of education.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why do you promote a website that labels children? Right brain, left brain? What the heck is that mumbo jumbo? Do you also label kids the smart one, the funny one, the creative one, etc? This is complete hogwash.
ReplyDeleteI looked at what was available of the book Raising a Left-Brain Child in a Right-Brain World online, part of which discussed Reform Math, and I thought that I should note that you do have a valid point - although I disagree with your views on the social studies and english classrooms, I think that math classrooms have to be a mix of the Reform Math and traditional calculations - from what I have heard from other students, though I haven't encountered anything in my honors and AP math classes that resembles Reform Math myself, there is sometimes (I emphasize sometimes) practical application, like a trial involving math, that just doesn't seem entirely productive to me. I suppose that it is trying to counteract the often prevailing viewpoint that math isn't useful in the real world (not something I agree with, but many students, perhaps those challenged by math, have put out). Better ways to interest students in math I think would be to make sure that they understand what they are doing. However, at the same time, I know that the my school offers both business calc and ap calc ab and ap calc bc. this, although it only applies to students in their junior or senior years, gives than an option that might cater to their specific learning abilities, if they are particularly defined in one side of the brain. Reform math seems like overkill to me, but that is a different story from the symposium. also, I think it is important for everyone to remember that both explicitly right-brain and explicitly left-brain children exist and that both have to learn to adjust to the conditions of the real world, or else receive special attention because they need it, which I do not mean in a negative manner.
ReplyDelete-A Student
The new elementary math program, enVisionMATH by Pearson, imposed by new superintendent Mary Bucci (ok she was still assistant but on track for promo) is a reform math program, brand new promoting an all-word-problem-all-the-time approach. Nothing worthwhile in this $275,000 expenditure which was imposed without the usual parent-teacher-student committee input involving reviews of both content and cost of various programs by various publishers. But enVision was designed to match the state tests and even paced to match the testing schedule, so teachers were mandated to meet the pace of PSSAs rather than their students' needs. The online materials are simply the book, with no answers or explanations. It should not take third graders 1.5 hrs to do 9 problems, and they should not be expected to do multiplication word problems before elarning mult. facts. When 1/4 of each class struggles terribly, there is clearly something wrong with the program. And when the guidance counselor, teachers and principal all pretend to each parent that their kid is the only one struggling, I think there is something worse wrong with them. The jargon of real-world problems, inquiry-based learning yada yada sounds great in a report, but learning basics is the necessary foundation for understanding, and who said math practice (drill and kill) has to be fun. Math is not subjective, and reform math has been proven ineffective (reason why so much remedial work is required in college even when kids pass the state requirements) - hence the need to bypass the board policy for new curricula and simply impose new math at PR. Kind of an ethics problem in the adminstration. Thanks for reading.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think that word problems are important, but a solid foundation in the basic skills must come first.
ReplyDelete-A student
also I should apologize for some of my fellow student's indecency and rudeness. It's embarrassing and only reflects their own one-mindedness, which should be what we are trying to combat.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with your comment "the jargon of real-world problems"...they exist in the real world, so how can they be jargon? This math system teaches students to apply the math they are learning in the real world. Without conceptual math, you cannot actually use anything you are learning. I, as a Pine-Richland student, feel that the math experience I am getting here is superior to the experience I was getting at my previous school, because it does implement real-world situations...how else would we be prepared for our future?
ReplyDelete- A real-world student