I read this in a recent blog post from The Economistblog.com:
- “From the National Mathematics Advisory Panel’s Final Report , released yesterday. It is entitled: U.S. Math Education is “Broken and Must Be Fixed”:
- “International and domestic comparisons show that American students have not been succeeding in the mathematical part of their education at anything like a level expected of an international leader. Particularly disturbing is the consistency of findings that American students achieve in mathematics at a mediocre level by comparison to peers worldwide.”
As always, there’s something to this story, but it’s deeper than a short blog post can explore adequately. You just have to be mildly conscious to notice that American schools are generally doing a pathetic job of math education. But it’s not that easy to assess “blame,” or “what needs to be done.” There’s no simple answer to such a complex problem.
That it’s “broken” seems clear. But what is “it?” Each state, district, and even type of school is different. One thing that is clear is that creating simplistic “standards” (which are supposed to cover all federally funded schools) is just jaw-flapping by people who understand neither education, math, nor children.
Change for change’s sake is a silly impostor of a real cause. But there must be change for progress’s sake. So a consideration might be, “What kind of change, for whom, when, and how can we implement it – instead of just demanding it?”
I hope we don’t become even more of a nation of people who demand simplistic answers to complex questions. We demonize pretty bad math programs (yes, there are plenty, and I think the article is basically right to call “Everyday Math” one of them) but that doesn’t mean they have no good elements, or that we have to return to “tradition.”
That’s like saying, “We were the greatest car manufacturers when we had to hand-crank them to start them. If we want to be the greatest again, we need to put hand cranks back on cars.”
Although the premise has something to it, and I can certainly empathize with the commentary in the article which asks, “Can we get rid of “Everyday Math” now and go back to the old math?” – I also recognize that is probably not a useful solution.
The world changes. There are much better ways to teach nowadays than one way or the other, and it’s time we start working harder at using them, rather than insisting that there is “one best way,” that would work “if we would just do so-and-so.”
A first step might be to look at what works in each system (I imagine there are even parts of “Everyday Math” that don’t suck) and find out why, when, and for whom they work. Then put that in each teacher’s “toolbox” and go and find some more.
And then, for godssakes, let the teachers teach! Keep the textbook lobbyists and the politicians where they belong (in jail?), and away from young minds.
Another thing we might keep in mind is that the people who work on “Advisory Panels” tend to come from the industry they are advising (naturally). This sometimes leads to very myopic visions of what is wrong as “what is to be done.”
Everything with a grain of salt. No?
Hotcha!
Brian (a.k.a. Professor Homunculus )
Tags: , , , ,
Brian, your attack on Everyday Math makes me wonder a number of things, but I’ll throw out just two main ones right now:
1) What would you say is a GOOD elementary (K-5) mathematics program currently in use in the US, and what makes you feel it is good? How does EM fail to “measure up” and upon what do you base that?
2) How do you account for the long-term (more than 15 years) continuous use of EM (and Connected Math for grades 6-8) as the SOLE programs in the Ann Arbor Public Schools? Keep in mind that this is a highly-educated community with many active and activist parents who are deeply involved with and invested in their kids’ educations. Yet there has been nary a ripple in this community decrying or attacking the use of EM here. While Ann Arbor isn’t the only community that has apparently been happy with EM for a long time, it’s a particularly interesting case to contrast with some similar communities where there was vocal opposition from some parents.
I’m not familiar with Everyday Math, but I look forward to your answers to these questions. I think this is an excellent post. You pinpointed a few of the ways misconceptions and just plain sloppy thinking take the place of real growth in the education system.
Michael:
The post was not an attack on Everyday Math. The (admittedly) offending comment was actually just an aside in a post that was not really about Everyday Math. If anything, I meant to attack the Idea that there is “one best method,” especially if that method is “tradition.”
My words (“I imagine there are even parts of “Everyday Math” that don’t suck”) were hasty. Nah, they were stupid. I’m glad you called me on it. I don’t really care at all about Everyday Math. Doesn’t interest me in the least, and I shouldn’t pick on it, mostly because I am not qualified to do so on many levels. My only experience with Everyday Math has been the overwhelmingly negative comments about it I get from parents, and the things I’ve read on many homeschooling forums. That is anecdotal, and I am wrong for making an hard and fast judgement and a nasty comment about it.
I still have strong suspicions about it, but they are just that, and no longer a conclusion. I’ll leave my original words in there, just so this reply makes sense, but I retract them.
I still empathize with the commentary in the article (which I didn’t write) which asks, “Can we get rid of “Everyday Math” now and go back to the old math?” I also still recognize that is probably not a useful solution. I don’t think this can be characterized at all as an “attack.” I can empathize with people I don’t agree with. We can feel other’s pain without accepting their prescription.
The thrust of the post was that we don’t need to return to “tradition.” If someone wants to debate me on that one, they won’t find me so contrite, though.
You asked:
1) What would you say is a GOOD elementary (K-5) mathematics program currently in use in the US, and what makes you feel it is good? How does EM fail to “measure up” and upon what do you base that?
Good, fair question. I’ve got to tell you that I do not believe that a “program” is necessary. I think the premise is part of the problem. “Programs” tend to be what are farmed out to commercial companies that do not necessarily have the benefit of the student as “the bottom line.”
In the unlikely case that a one did, though, you’d have to ask, “which student, when, under which conditions, with which teacher?” etc.
If art teachers had do teach from a “program,” that would seem ludicrous to many people. I feel the same way about math education. I know this may sound very counter-intuitive to many in the math education establishment. I could be entirely off-base, of course. It would be heartening if I’d run across more professional math-educators that might consider that their paradigm may off-base as well. I do run across a majority of teachers, parents, students, home-school families and others who are unhappy with their school math programs, though.
I intend to write a lot more about ways to learn math that don’t involve “programs.” It’s too big to tackle here, though.
In a nutshell, this is where I am coming from:
A huge amount of students hate the way they are taught math. I was one of them. I understand in ways that most teachers never will, why so many of us feel we suck at math. There are many factors that lead to this, but there are some that teachers never, ever seem to get. Maybe it is in teacher DNA; I don’t know. But it would be a far better world if the teacher-paradigm loosened up a bit. Most teachers are great. I know, I married a great one. But there is just this one issue that seems to escape even the best of them. I think it’s because the system has made teaching “a job.” Most teachers love the mission, but I think more and more of them are hating the job, for good reason. Once their not tied by the job, they have a better chance of “getting it.”
One of the problems with “programs” is that they, by their nature, don’t take children on a case-by-case basis. There is no one-size-fits all for teaching.
As I said, I can’t make a comprehensive case for this now, but it needs to be made, and I’ll try my best in the future.
Your other question:
2) How do you account for the long-term (more than 15 years) continuous use of EM (and Connected Math for grades 6-8) as the SOLE programs in the Ann Arbor Public Schools? Keep in mind that this is a highly-educated community with many active and activist parents who are deeply involved with and invested in their kids’ educations. Yet there has been nary a ripple in this community decrying or attacking the use of EM here. While Ann Arbor isn’t the only community that has apparently been happy with EM for a long time, it’s a particularly interesting case to contrast with some similar communities where there was vocal opposition from some parents.
Another good, fair question. Of course, I don’t account for it. I wasn’t even aware of it. I’m sure there are many other school districts who use other “programs” that get similar or better results. It’s not an interesting argument to me because of many factors which are not, and probably cannot, be assessed.
Ann Arbor enjoys so many benefits which many other districts do not. Could it be that if they were teaching using some other, random program, they might get similar results, precisely because of the active, activist parents? Could it be that the edge lies with the quality of the parents and teachers, not with the benefit of the program? I’m not saying it does; I haven’t done a study. But as you’ve pointed out, similar communities have expressed vocal opposition. So if the program is the same, but the teachers and the parents are different, one may at least be allowed to speculate that at least some of the advantage lies with the teachers and parents.
So if there was a different program that got better results in a community with less parent involvement, we might also be forgiven if we speculated that the other program might have be superior. Do you know for sure that there are no such communities? Of course, I’m not pushing any program at all, I’m just wondering if your example actually proves any argument.
I wonder why, if, as you say, Ann Arbor has used only one program for K-5 graders. Wouldn’t that sort of preclude us ever being able to know if another program, or no program at all, would not have gotten better results?
If I feel that Everyday Math is not necessarily a good program, I’d feel even more strongly that only Everyday Math is not a good Idea. Only anything is not a good Idea. Cripes, even having (name your favorite, amazingly great mathematician) as your only math teacher would be a horrible Idea, as I’m sure that mathematician would agree. Where would your control group within the same community to base your findings on be?
This isn’t to say that Everyday Math (or any other particular program) is “no good.” I just can’t see a compelling reason to believe that it is particularly good. Certainly not a good enough one to put all my eggs in its basket.
An apparently reasonable question might be, “If you don’t teach with a program, how can you teach?”
Let me pre-empt it (although I’m not actually assuming that you are asking it – I’m just putting it in here for those who might ask) by saying that I went from hating the hell out of school math, to loving the Idea of math, without ever once cracking a text-book. Since then I’ve supplemented the meager math chops I have by using some textbooks, but they still seem to be merely a necessary “evil.” I started learning math through some of the writings of Martin Gardner and Isaac Asimov, and though some of the Dover books for laymen. I have an very incomplete math education. But it is deep and it is full of romance. I am not a mathematician, and I am not a “math teacher.” If anything, I am a “guerrilla math guy.” Or a “street mathematician.” (I actually was a street-performer for almost a decade, throughout Europe and the U.S. and part of my routine was math-magic.)
My math chops are nowhere near where a good high-school math teachers should be. But I get a lot more juice and enjoyment out of juggling with numbers than any math teacher I’ve ever met. I have no intention of making mathematicians out of every student. Not even the math “greats” could do that. On the other hand I can touch almost every single child I teach (and most of the adults that sit in on the “lessons”) with the “wonder” of thinking differently. (That’s what we magicians are good at – or at least should be.) It’s no coincidence that many of the great math authors were also interested in magic (like Gardner and Asimov).
Assuming that programs are necessary to learn math is like assuming that they are necessary for reading, etc. I don’t know if Abraham Lincoln would have bought that.
I’d even go further, and say that the push for institutionalizing knowledge is one of the greatest barriers to actual knowledge. That may help explain why so many home-, after-, and un-schoolers do so much better than public school students. Now if the rest of those kinds of alternative education families would stop lusting after the “programs” that public schools use, maybe they could do as well.
I’d also like to make it clear that Math Mojo is not a “program”. The reason I picked that name for my site is because it’s a fairly silly (but kinda cool) name, which I would hope no one would take too seriously. I just offer some resources for certain things, and by no means try to be comprehensive. My only intent is to have some fun helping people who have been damaged by whatever school system has damaged them, and help some teachers deal with any constraints their school or the damned NCLB act has crippled them with.
The site used to be whyyousuckatmath.com, but some educators complained about the name. When I changed it, even more teachers and parents complained that I gave in to the establishment. They were, of course, right. I’m thinking of changing it back.
I’d be happy to entertain any of the comments I stand by on programs in general, but I’d like to leave the debate on any particular program, because I’ve got no stance on any.
As always, I hope my readers take my thoughts with a grain of salt. I know most of you do. If they don’t help you, forget about them. They are not that important.
Thanks for the slack.
Brian
Oh, Brian, why are you giving in to Goldenberg? Have the courage of your convictions. Everyday Math does suck. My daughter had it; it’s horrible. What traditional math programs are in place that are better? Saxon, for one. Sadlier-Oxford for another.
John,
Thanks for the backup, man. Although I feel the same way you do about Everyday Math and some similar programs, I don’t really have enough evidence from personal experience to back it up. I think some people (like yourself) might have that evidence. But that is why I cannot make the case, and have to leave it up to you guys.
My true conviction is this: No matter what anyone believes, belief isn’t enough to make a case. I’d love to hear the facts from folks like you who have the evidence. But if I go up against someone like Michael Paul Goldenberg, I’d be the unarmed guy in the battle of wits. Michael has a great blog at Rational Math Ed, and he does have a lot of valuable information on it. I agree with him on many issues.
More important than if I agree with him or not – he really does stick to his rational argumentation. I like to do the same. So it really would be premature for me to bash Everyday Math based on my limited knowledge of it. But, like I said, that’s where readers like you come in. As long as we keep it civil, sock it to him. I have had a few minor debates with him, and I am sure he can take it. I warn you though, even though I think his argument here is weaker than the case for a Bridge to Nowhere, he usually has his facts at his fingertips and his arguments are pretty good.
Check out his blog. I mean it, it is pretty good, and even if you don’t agree with things, he makes you think.
The only thing I know about Saxon math is an interview I heard with John Saxon, and it was fantastic. But I don’t know enough about the program to have much of an opinion.
Way above all of this, I’d suggest everyone check out Martin Gardner, Lancelot Hogben, John Allen Paulos and many other non-textbook writers in lieu of a “program.”
Thanks again, though. I appreciate your support.
Hotcha!
Brian (a.k.a. Professor Homunculus)
I wonder whether there is agreement on the goal of math education. Is it to develop the high level math ability needed for science and engineering? Is it to make sure that every adult is able to manage basic finances? Is it both of these and maybe some additional things? Are other countries managing to meet the goals we have? If so, how?
Since “John Dewey” doesn’t have the guts to post under his real name, nothing he writes is worth believing. And considering that aside from swiping at me all he posts is an opinion that simply dismisses EM without one specific, there’s really not much to worry about. Funny that I asked two very straight-forward and legitimate questions and that resulted in resentment from “Dewey.” Could he have an issue with detailed, substantive analysis rather than cheap, tossed-off epithets?
As for Brian’s response, it will require some time for me to digest it and craft a thoughtful reply. I will say that I made no argument in my previous post, so I don’t grasp how a non-argument but rather an inquiry can be strong or weak. But I do appreciate the positive comments he offered about my blog.
Guys, before this deteriorates into another blog full of people disagreeing for disagreement’s sake, can we step back a bit?
Could it be true that each of us at least has good intentions about helping people learn math? What that math might be, who those people might be, and how we go about it may differ, but at least we are not trying to hurt anyone.
May I point some things out that are on my mind, without accusing anyone of anything foul?
OK, point taken about anonymity. But all posters at this website must register with their e-mail addresses, although they are not posted. So it’s not like it’s entirely anonymous.
Michael’s point is still good, though. In the future, if you post here, I will try to figure out a way to require that either a website for you or another way to for you to be reached is posted. Pen names are fine. I post under Professor Homunculus on other blogs sometimes, but there is always a link to my site, where my identity is transparent. I just think that is good form. But let’s not talk about other people’s guts, OK? Unless they are being egregiously obnoxious – then we’ll crucify ‘em. But lets save that for some lobbyists, politicians, school administrators, or their ilk.
Readers should be aware that it is a logical fallacy that, “Since (person x) doesn’t have the guts to post under his real name, nothing he writes is worth believing.”
You know, this blog is called MathMojo, but the only reason I care about math is so that we can learn things about life. One of the things is rational argumentation, and the above is not quite there. Anonymity serves as a red flag, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not worth believing. (As far as I’m concerned, nothing is worth believing, but that’s just me.)
The logic of “since “person x” does this , we can’t trust him on that is bad mojo. You may or may not recognize it as the Argumentum ad Hominem Abusive. (If you didn’t, don’t worry. I didn’t either until I looked it up!)
So, what can we learn from this? (Damned if I know, but here goes…)
- We can argue as friends, or at least cordially. And I don’t mean argue as in fight. I mean in present a rational case for a positive result.
- We should try not to post anonymously.
- We can doubt the truth of an anonymous post, but we cannot dismiss it as false on the basis of anonymity.
- If you can’t say something nice, at least say something absurd. (Tom Robbins)
Make any sense to anyone?
Look guys, with the world going to Helena Anne D’Basquette, I’d rather keep this aimed at helping people without hurting anyone but the bad guys.
Do either of you drink? I’m going to open a bottle of 12 year-old Bunnahabhain Scotch and drink to a more truly rational future right now. If I ever see you guys, the first glass is on me!
Hotcha!
Brian (a.k.a. Professor Homunculus)
(Disclaimer – I am not promoting alcohol to anyone.)
I think that people who post anonymously are cowards, for the most part, especially when they post insulting and/or inflammatory remarks to attack others who post openly under their own names, and when they do so using the name of a great educator like Dewey whose views they obviously disdain. If this is the same “John Dewey” who posted bunch of comments about math teaching in NYC under that name, I’m already sure that he’s part of that same cowardly tradition. Of course I don’t think that means that what he says is automatically wrong, but it’s not a fallacy to suggest that he doesn’t deserve any respect or serious consideration, especially when it comes to his opinions. And it makes him one of the bad guys, in my view. Guys with whom I don’t drink, for sure. And my single malt of choice is Lagavulin, but I wouldn’t say “no” to Bunnahabhain.
With all due respect to Mr. Robbins and his many fine novels, when someone attacks me, I believe in using whatever tactics strike my fancy at the moment. I’m more careful about how I respond to my friends: they deserve the greatest consideration, whether I agree with them or not. This particular Mr. Dewey forfeits consideration as a thinker or friend through his insistence upon attempts at character assassination wearing disguises.
With regards to everyday math: the man who helped invent it at the University of Chicago has said himself that he is sorry he was every involved in its creation. Elsewhere, universities are requiring ‘remedial math’ for any student who attend a school which used ‘Everyday Math’ as its primary math curriculum. What the creator of everyday math HAS said is that he can teach any student who is truly committed to learning everything that student needs to know about math in approximately 30 hours — and that means ALL basic math through high school.
His position is not unusual: Stand and deliver is a film that reflects this idea. The problem with this approach is that it requires that the students focus solely on mathematics. So… what is the answer? It depends on the student.
There are many many different approaches out there. The fundamental problem is that Public schools, and private as well, are unable to cater to the vast number of learning styles that exist. Every student is different, with different learning styles, strengths etc. The schools,with their one-size-fits-all mentality and, in Washington state at least, their focus on ‘teaching to the test’ cannot possibly deliver a quality education t the vast majority of students.