Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » Inactive » amte

Topic: Ruth Parker in Mountain View, CA
Replies: 2   Last Post: Aug 26, 2000 1:05 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Wayne Bishop

Posts: 4,996
Registered: 12/6/04
Ruth Parker in Mountain View, CA
Posted: Aug 25, 2000 5:22 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Widespread access to posts such as this will be less frequent with the
impending demise of the AMTE listserve. See no evil, hear no evil, speak
no evil. Just maintain the status quo (except pay teachers more to do it).

The following was sent to me this morning from the Mountain View Voice. I
would post the website access but it's a weekly newspaper and their
postings run a week or so behind (http://www.mv-voice.com/). It is a
summary of the presentation made on Tuesday in support of continuing with
the district's MathLand, or a different curriculum consistent with Dr.
Parker's presentation, and in support of avoiding the CA standards. The
decision is to be made next Thursday, I believe. How much of this is
underway around California would be speculative but it's still a nice
indication of how our tax dollars are being spent.

One minor error of fact in this lady's critique, it is not that the
"Singapore Math program had been translated into English"; since academic
education is conducted in English, no translation of the materials was
necessary.

Wayne.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Guest Opinion, Mountain View Voice, August 25, 2000

District Parents Were Poorly Served by Expert's Math Presentation

The Mountain View administration chose Dr. Ruth Parker to speak to its
teachers and parents about math curriculum and textbooks for Mountain View
schools. Parker is quite an interesting character who freely mentions the
bad press she is getting all over America, and laughs at her detractors. I
guess I am one of them because I join the ranks of university professors
and educators all over the country who vehemently disagree with her
conclusions.

Parker spoke for three hours, and as I see it, she made three major points.
For her first one, she spent a very large amount of time asking the
audience to do math problems. Her point was to show that some of us got the
answers wrong and others got it right, but we all figured out different
ways to approach the problems. I’ll admit that I have always been good in
math so I could do all the problems in my head, quickly, and the
“traditional” way. Ruth's estimations and pictorials and subtractions
followed by additions followed by estimations----when it was really only a
multiplication problem, was no help to a math buff like me.

But a really good teacher in an elementary school classroom will use a
variety of methods to reach children, regardless of a district’s textbook
choice. As a math tutor in our local Mountain View elementary school last
school year, I used beans, beads, graph paper, colored paper, markers,
pens, pencils, tests, textbooks, oral repetition, paper clips and numerous
drawings to help a student learn. I wasn’t special, I used common sense. To
hear Parker talk about it, very few math programs and teachers utilize such
common sense—and that’s why she’s going around the country sharing her zeal.

Another major point made by Parker is that we don’t need our children to
practice any “pencil and paper math” and we “don’t need to teach standard
procedures.”

I take this to mean that Parker decries practice----of addition,
subtraction, multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions. In
my view math is about discovery AND practice. It is very difficult for a
third grader to memorize his or her multiplication tables without pencil
and paper practice.

That gets us to Parker's’s next point: “standardized tests are not
important.” As a caveat, I will say that I would love to live in Ruth’s
utopian world where everyone, no matter one's abilities, had enough to eat,
enough medical coverage, retirement, employment and housing. Unfortunately,
hers is a socialist’s dream because in our capitalist country, we compete.
And we compete to get into colleges and universities by virtue of our
standardized test scores. The University of California admits the top 12.5%
of graduating seniors. Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth requires
elementary children to be in the top 97th percentile on a standardized test
before allowing them to take another test for admission.

It is true that standardized tests might not be important to a family where
children have no college aspirations. But I think it is important for the
Mountain View community to offer all of its children the opportunity to
compete for a University of California education. Parker’s almost religious
fervor to “get off this test-driven madness” should take her to Sacramento
and Washington to try to change the status quo. It should not take her into
our community advocating a math curriculum that will keep many of our
children from the university.

Mountain View children are not faring well at the high school level
compared to their peers from Los Altos. A disproportionate number of
Mountain View students are not college bound and do not place as well as
Los Altos children in upper level math classes, honors and A.P. classes.
This is true for children of all ethnicities entering the high schools.
Compare Los Altos 7th graders SAT-9 math scores at a whopping 93rd
percentile to Mountain View 7th grader’s 57th percentile.

Unlike Parker, I do not blame our teachers or our students. I blame our
math program. Our children deserve an equivalent program and the same
opportunities for a math education as children living in Los Altos.
Mountain View children deserve to succeed equally at the high school level.
We should end the two tier system by offering Mountain View children an
equivalent program to Los Altos.

This takes me to what Parker did not say, but which is underlying her
entire talk. California recently adopted rigorous and challenging math
standards, and state monies exist to buy textbooks that align with those
standards.

These math standards (our math standards, because we DO live in California)
have received critical acclaim from mathematicians and educators from all
over the world. Los Altos aligns with these standards and piloted textbooks
that follow them. In stark contrast, Mountain View administrators want to
ignore the standards and not pilot nor adopt state approved textbooks.
Based on her comments on Tuesday, Parker seems to shares this view.

Last year at a school board meeting, Kathy Humphries, the district math
mentor, made a presentation to the school board advocating the Mountain
View position. In support of this view, she passed out an article showing
how well children from Singapore did in international math competitions,
and she stated that Mountain View should have a rich, in-depth program like
Singapore. She didn’t know that the official Singapore Math program had
been translated into English and is available in the United States.

So, my question to Parker at Tuesday's meeting was: What did she think of
Singapore math? In essence, she said that what was good for Singapore might
not be so good for us because, after all, they are different over there.
Her response was very offensive to the women at my table who are not
Americans but raising their children in this country. These women, and
other Mountain View families like them, have sent their children to foreign
and international schools all over the world.

One women at my table was very, very upset because she perceived prejudice
on Parker’s part. So, I stood up and pointed out to Parker that here in
Silicon Valley (she’s from Washington state) many of us are international
and expect our children to be able to fit in anywhere in the world. I told
her how her comments had offended the women at my table. She apologized,
but even in her apology, it didn’t appear that she really understood what
was so offensive about her view of children and families from Singapore and
Asia. We (and all of us were of European ancestry) do not think that our
children would have any difficulty with an Asian style math program.

Ironically, last year or so, I corresponded with John Hoven, President of
the Gifted Program at Montgomery County School District in Maryland, right
outside of Washington, D.C. His district was piloting Singapore math, which
through his own study he found compared favorably to the California Math
Content Standards. No wonder Los Altos is doing so well.












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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.