July
19, 2002, Cedar Rapids Gazette Cedar Rapids is finally taking notice of the math education controversy that has polarized communities across the nation for almost a decade. The ongoing "Math Wars" are a result of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) 1989 publication of the well-known polemic "Standards" document. In an effort to improve "critical thinking skills", the standards recommended an emphasis on constructivist pedagogy (discovery learning), multiple ways of solving problems, use of manipulatives, group learning, invented strategies, "real world problems" and the liberal use of calculators. On the other hand, they explicitly de-emphasized paper and pencil computation, repetitive problem-solving, rote memorization and traditional algorithms. Publishers rushed to align their curricular materials with the NCTM standards, which were quickly adopted by public schools nationwide. As a result, math textbooks now proudly contain Beatles lyrics and Maya Angelou poetry, contemplate the role of zoos in society, and ask children to reflect in their math journals about the following profound mathematical questions: If math were a color it would be ____ because _____? If math were a food it would be ____ because ______? If math were weather it would be ____ because _____? What you won't find in a standards based textbook is rich mathematical content, examples with clear explanations, or exercises in computation and fundamental skills. The math curricula adopted by the Cedar Rapids Community School District, Investigations in Number, Data and Space, (grades 3-5) and the pre-algebra Connected Math Project (CMP) are among the most extreme of the standards based curricula. With no textbooks or workbooks, they rely heavily on games and manipulatives (blocks and beans), time-consuming hands-on activities involving scissors and glue, group discovery, and multiple ways to solve problems. CMP suggests teachers allow the students to "bump into the answer." Traditional algorithms, such as for addition and subtraction with regrouping (borrowing and carrying), long division, or addition of "unfriendly" fractions are not explicitly taught, preferring cumbersome and inefficient techniques the children discover on their own. While some teachers may choose to teach standard algorithms, this is not encouraged by the curriculum publishers. The acclaimed national math activist organization Mathematically Correct reviewed a number of math curricula based on program content and quality. Of the eight elementary and eleven pre-algebra programs reviewed, Investigations and CMP had the lowest ratings, and were the only programs to receive a grade of "F". (www.mathematicallycorrect.com) Consider the situation in California. Beginning in the mid 1980's, the state embraced the principles of constructivist math education. After a decade of fuzzy math, they had plunged to the lowest in the nation on standardized tests. The renowned California State University system, which only accepts the top 1/3 of graduating seniors, saw a doubling in the number of freshmen requiring remedial math classes. Several years ago, after enormous backlash from parents and mathematicians, the state rejected the NCTM standards and developed their own statewide standards that are now among the best in the country. Locally, ITBS scores have given us good reason to be alarmed. Computation scores dropped as soon as the new curricula were implemented. Total math scores, (containing the categories of problem solving, concepts, data interpretation and estimation), are mediocre, and remain flat with no signs of improvement. While the traditional approach to teaching math wasn't working very well, this misguided experiment has only made matters worse. We have shifted from teaching skills without understanding to teaching understanding without skills. It should be obvious that both are necessary and interdependent. While local administrators attempt to reassure concerned parents, there is not a shred of independent, objective data to support this method of math education. It is time to cut our losses, abandon the fantasy of fuzzy math, and adopt a math curriculum that teaches both skill and understanding. More information is available at
http://home.att.net/~cebed Kendall Myers, MS Read the response by Dr. Roger Johanson, "Math is More Than Memorization" professor of education at Coe College appearing in the Gazette July 25, 2002
|
|
|