The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Inactive » k12.ed.math

Topic: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Replies: 28   Last Post: Jul 3, 1996 4:43 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ] Topics: [ Previous | Next ]
Alberto C Moreira

Posts: 266
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Posted: Jun 27, 1996 7:43 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

DPRoop <dproop@compunet.net> wrote:

>Mr. Hanson,
>
>I must say that Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition would be very happy
>with the way you have stood up for their platform.


I'm no right winger nor a member of the Christian Coalition.
And I don't agree with either of you.

>However, as much as I respect Jaime Escalante, I believe that he is VERY wrong
>about the NCTM Standards.


I don't care for sacred cows, either way. I'm not going to
discuss persons here, but points.

>The traditional mathematics classroom does not
>allow for the success of ALL students who are enrolled.


Much less today's NCTM classroom. Indeed, I doubt that it
allows for the success of ANY student; it seems to me that
the very definition of "success" has been mangled.

>Traditionally, classes
>with diverse social, economic, and ethnic make-ups have seen only the brightest
>students from the upper-middle class strata excel.


The "ethnic" word insults me. I'm a brown skinned Brazilian,
not at all "upper-middle" class. My father went from being a
poor Amazon River fisherman to a successful electrical engineer
on his own wits, and he wasn't a WASP either.

Your equating "traditional teaching" with race is, in my view,
one of the great reasons why minorities are so trodden upon in
this country. There is no difference between a brown skinned
person and a white one as far as intelligence or competence
are concerned. If education is failing in this country, it isn't
because minority citizens are somehow "less capable" of taking a
serious course and being successful at it; in my opinion, it is
rather that there's so many people interested in keeping minorities
down and "different" and "oppressed" that they don't take real
steps towards real equality.

There'll only be EQUALITY - real one - when minority people are
demanded the same performance and delivery level as anybody else.

>The attempt of the NCTM Standards is to level the playing field in the
>mathematics classroom by encouraging equal opportunities for all students
>involved to build their own foundations on which to place basic and advanced
>mathematical concepts.


This is the party line, and far from the truth. What you call "equal"
opportunity is rather diluting content and demand so much that anyone
can get through it without any effort, and consequently without any
real learning. The only "equal opportunity" here is the opportunity
not to learn and to claim one did. If you equate this with "helping
disadvantaged minorities", you're rather slapping us in the face.

>In my mathematics classroom today, students are unable to relate the
>mathematics done in class and for homework to the real world.


I live in the real world. I depend on real world mathematics to make
my living. And the sort of math I need day to day is very far away
from what you - or the NCTM - call "real life". Have you ever designed
a computer ? Wrote a complex 3D graphics program ? Simulated a
crystal ? Translated computer programs into binary ? Built a wind
tunnel ? A hydroelectric power station ? Sent a satellite into space ?
These are some of the real-life things my father, myself, and some
of my friends did or do. How does your scaled down math address my
"real life" ?

If any of your students wants to follow my path - and I'm a well paid
computer developer and architect - he'll need to know a lot more math
than what the NCTM teaches. Let me give you a hint: set theory, logic,
algebraic structures, measure theory, topology, analysis, integration,
multivariate calculus, tensors, matrices, linear algebra, graph theory,
computer algorithms, lambda calculus, discrete math, fourier transforms.

I could go on; this is MY real life, and the real life of many a professional.
The real life of the people who invent, design and build the things you
take for granted and the buzzwords that feed your learning. Because
THAT is why we teach mathematics, so that some of our students can go
on carrying that torch.

Is your teaching up to this challenge ?

>The Standards
>attempt to encourage teachers to focus more on the applications of mathematics
>and the appreciation of mathematics (connections, connections, connections!!).


Applications of mathematics can only be seriously tackled after the student
has a fairly comprehensive grasp of a number of concepts. But if by
"application" you mean trivial money or marble problems, these are irrelevant
to real mathematical knowledge, and they should have no place in the
classroom.

As for appreciation, I've studied math for most of my life and I'm still not
in a position to "appreciate" it. I find this concept tremendously conceited,
that young students can somehow "appreciate" mathematics or decide on their
own whether or not this or that has "connections" with real life, or that
they're competent to "critically think" about mathematics.

And in the end, learning mathematics isn't about connections: it's about
learning mathematics.

>By encouraging teachers to do this, the NCTM has also established the direction
>that textbook publishers should be taking in order to help more students achieve
>success in the mathematics classroom.


"Success" here is such a misleading word. Just listen to the freshman and
sophomore college teachers in this group, and you'll find out that, much
contrarywise, we're doing an incredible poor job in teaching math to our
HS students today. And part of the credit must necessarily go to NCTM
style methods.

>I cannot take anything away from Mr. Escalante; he succeeded with a group of
>students that everyone had given up on. However, I think that is the point of
>his success. His classes primarily consisted (at least in the beginning) of >students
>from the same socioeconomic background: there was no diversity in his
>classroom. Further, he motivated these students by challenging them and
>convincing them that he KNEW they could do the mathematics--a strong
>underlying tone of the NCTM Standards, as well.


Excuses, excuses. Every individual is different, every class has a personality.
It is the responsibility of the teacher to find it and to create a level of
interpersonal chemistry that helps students to learn. But even in this
particular case, I have my serious doubts: to me, the SAT means nothing, and
success in mathematical standardized tests cannot be taken as a serious
measurement of mathematical "success". An exam that tests REAL mathematical
knowledge cannot have more than five or six problems for a 4-hour time limit;
it must be open book and open notes, to weed out trivialities - each problem
require more than one non-trivial insight to be solved.

Because THAT is the way mathematics appears in real life. REAL real life,
you see; not the party-line watered-down version of it.

>I believe that too many people have short-changed the Standards by taking
>what they are attempting to promote much too lightly. The basis behind them
>lies much deeper than just elimination of rote learning, although rote learning is
>NOT eliminated by the Standards, it is just de-emphasized in favor of more
>thought-provoking, mental exercises which accomplish the same end, but with
>many additional benefits!!


The very fact that you use the word "rote" shows that you're in the wrong
path. There's a lot of exercising and skill acquiring to be done in
any serious math course, and that cannot be avoided. Just like a soccer
player or a concert violinist, learning mathematics requires an extensive
amount of preparation and exercising over years and years. THERE IS NO
WAY OUT OF THIS, and the more we avoid holding this bull by the horns,
the more it'll gore us and turn otherwise healthy students into mathematical
morons.

There are no "mental" exercises in mathematics that don't involve a lot
of mathematical knowledge and manipulation. Mathematics isn't just a set
of facts that must be memorized or analyzed or "critically" understood;
it involves a skill that must be continously honed, a capability of
thinking precisely, a continous banging against intellectual walls so
that the individual's capacity to handle complexity increases steadily
over the years.

Sorry, the NCTM standard, as far as I see it, is far from this ideal.

>Lastly, I'll leave you with the perfect description of what a math teacher
>should be. This quote comes from the book _The Dancing Wu Li Masters_ by
>Gary Zukav. It is the description of a t'ai chi master:


>He begins from the center and not from the fringe. He imparts an understanding
>of the basic principles of the art before going on to the meticulous details, and he
>refuses to break down the t'ai chi movements into a one-two-three drill so as to
>make the student into a robot. The traditional way...is to teach by rote, and to
>give the impression that long periods of boredom are the most essential part of
>training. In that way a student may go on for years and years without ever
>getting the feel of what he is doing.


Oh, Please. Whatever this is, it isn't mathematics. Even the dialetics you
use is totally out of place. I suggest you go to places where mathematics
is used in real life, talk to professionals that need it, go to colleges,
talk to math, physics, chemistry, statistics, astronomy teachers; find
out what real life REALLY is, as far as using mathematics is concerned.


Alberto.








>
>
>Thank you,
>DPRoop
>






Date Subject Author
6/14/96
Read Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
David L. Hanson
6/16/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
garscosi@pipeline.com
6/17/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Karen M. Sours
6/17/96
Read Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Karl M. Bunday
6/19/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Charles J. Masenas
6/19/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
garscosi@pipeline.com
6/20/96
Read Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Karl M. Bunday
6/23/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Tom Scavo
6/24/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
David L. Hanson
6/25/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
dproop@compunet.net
6/27/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Alberto C Moreira
6/29/96
Read What is the Purpose of Math Education?
garscosi@pipeline.com
6/30/96
Read Re: What is the Purpose of Math Education?
TeacherBud
6/30/96
Read Re: What is the Purpose of Math Education?
Alberto C Moreira
6/30/96
Read Re: What is the Purpose of Math Education?
garscosi@pipeline.com
7/1/96
Read Re: What is the Purpose of Math Education?
Brian M. Scott
7/2/96
Read Re: What is the Purpose of Math Education?
garscosi@pipeline.com
7/2/96
Read Re: What is the Purpose of Math Education?
TeacherBud
7/3/96
Read Re: What is the Purpose of Math Education?
garscosi@pipeline.com
6/30/96
Read Re: What is the Purpose of Math Education?
Herman Rubin
6/30/96
Read Re: What is the Purpose of Math Education?
Mario Taboada
7/3/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
garscosi@pipeline.com
6/27/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Redyarrow
6/27/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Herman Rubin
6/27/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Sy Friedman
6/25/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Charles J. Masenas
6/27/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Donna Mettler
6/20/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
garscosi@pipeline.com
6/22/96
Read Re: Jamie Escalante Endorses Mathematically Correct Program
Judy Payne

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.