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 » Policy and News » mathed-news

Topic: [ME] CA Math Wars Continue
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Jerry P. Becker

Posts: 13,527
Registered: 12/3/04
[ME] CA Math Wars Continue
Posted: Aug 13, 1999 5:35 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

[From S. Cohen and C. Fry Bohlin ...]
************************************************

Education Beat, June 25, 1999

State board sides with 'elite' professors - Math wars continue

By Kathleen Cairns

When the state Board of Education adopted 23 math books for grades K-8 June
10, it didn't end the longstanding political battles over basic math versus
the hands-on approach of reformers.

While the conflict seems to have been won by advocates of basic math
instruction, reformers aren't giving up the fight. And the debate over
which books are best seems to have created a new set of antagonists -
elementary and high school math teachers who favor the experiential
approach versus college math professors who favor old-style rote
memorization,

The recent textbook adoption for math and language arts is part of a
four-year, $1 billion effort to pair standards and educational materials.

Districts are receiving about $43 per student for each of the next four
years for new math and reading books.

The most recent adoption covers only grades K-8 because the state board
governs the majority of these selections. For ninth through twelfth grade,
districts can choose their own materials, said Greg Geeting, interim
executive director of the state board. But they have to be aligned with
state standards, he added.

Even in grades K-8, districts can supplement required texts with those not
on the approved list, but they have to seek waivers from the state board
and find money from other sources.

"The reason this list (of adopted textbooks) is unusually important,"
Geeting added, "is that the state is in the middle of a program of special
allocations for standards material in the core curricula."

The process that led to the June 10 adoption was squeezed into less than a
year, beginning last fall when legislators passed a measure to expedite
textbook adoption to provide teachers with standards related material.

Publishers submitted more than 300 books and pieces of supplementary
material in both math and reading.

While there are still disputes over the best kinds of reading materials for
students, this subject is not nearly the battlefield that math has become,
partly because even reformers have agreed that phonics is the best
approach. The state board adopted more than 70 books and supplemental
materials for reading on June 10.

The war over math instruction dates back to the creation of state standards
in 1997 when two competing camps on the standards commission fought to put
their stamp on the standards document.

The original standards document sent to the state board reflected a
"balance" of hands-on and basic instruction. But the board, at the urging
of member Janet Nicholas, ultimately replaced the standards document with
one focused much more heavily on basics. This occurred after William Evers,
a Stanford University professor and member of the standards commission,
publicly rejected the initial standards document approved by his
colleagues.

The "balanced approach to math instruction was favored as well by one of
three committees set up to review and analyze reading material submitted by
publishers. The Instructional Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP) was comprised
of math teachers from K12 as well as university education professors who
train public school teachers. A second committee, the Content Review Panel
(CRP), was made up of university math professors. It came down on the side
of basic instruction.

The Curriculum Commission looked over the findings of both panels and then
made recommendations to the state board.

When it came time to vote June 10, the state board ignored the
recommendations from IMAP and adopted texts favored by members of the CRP
and the Curriculum Commission. In some cases, however, the Curriculum
Commission recommended math texts that had not been favored by either the
IMAP or CRP, said Frances Lang, an education professor at California State
University, Los Angeles, who served on the IMAP.

"It's obvious where the power lies," Lang added. "The state board did what
it wanted to do."

Another participant in the process who asked not to be named said that the
board followed Janet Nicholas, right down the line.

Nicholas not only has hammered away at basics ever since Gov. Wilson
appointed her in 1996, she also has been enamored of math professors from
elite universities. She frequently has called on Henry Alder from the
University of California, Davis, and Hung-Hsi Wu of the University of
California, Berkeley, to testify before the board whenever a math-related
issue arose.

Both men have served on a variety of board-appointed committees, including
the Content Review Panel, which was composed entirely of men.

Wu also participated, along with Nicholas and board member Marion
Joseph-another devotee of basic instruction-in a recent math conference at
California State University, Northridge.

At the conference, Wu said that university math professors have long
"neglected" math education. This "has led to all kinds of misconceptions
and errors that have crept into the school mathematics textbooks as well as
the mathematics classrooms," he said.

Those favoring hands-on instruction had hoped that four new board
appointees of Gov. Davis might swing away from Nicholas, but that did not
occur, at least with math materials.

Board members voted, virtually unanimously, on all of the selections, said
Executive Director Geeting.

Lang called the process of reviewing math materials "unpleasant." It seemed
to be tilted in favor of basic instruction from the beginning, she said.
"Publishers were asked to submit only materials that conformed to basic
skills testing. What could they assume? They were under the impression that
California only wanted skills-based materials.

"Unfortunately, some of us believe it is important to have a balance, but
we weren't able to got our message across."

Asked to compare the basic to the hands-on approach, Lang said that
hands-on proponents "focus on strategies that help all children learn math.
Teaching is not a matter of explaining, it's a matter of letting kids get
involved in the process of learning."

University professors such as Alder, Wu and Evers "have the mindset that
only certain people are able to do math," said Lang. "None of them has ever
taught in a K 12 classroom and they aren't concerned with how kids learn
math," she added.
"When formerly unsuccessful math students begin to succeed, they get
nervous," Lang added.

Although Lang didn't enjoy her experience on the front lines of education
policy making, she plans to stay involved. "I learned that I have to stay
active in the process."

Classroom teachers and those who teach them "have to make our voices heard.
And teachers need to know how the process works, why they have to use these
books."

*******************************************************
*
Jerry P. Becker
Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901-4610 USA
Fax: (618)453-4244
Phone: (618)453-4241 (office)
E-mail: jbecker@siu.edu






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.