Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Mathematically (in)Correct Letter
Posted:
Nov 15, 1999 2:49 AM
|
|
The "examplary" label by the Department of Education undoubtedly was a
follow-up to the NSF's ranking of math programs. What has bothered me
about NSF's attitude is that the program ranked highest were nearly
all NSF-sponsored, so there is some intellectual nepotism here. Trying
to get any meaningful explanations from NSF is also a waste of time.
Each of the programs listed has shortcomings and it is unfortunate.
But the reality is that NO program will ever satisfy not only
different education groups, but even the allegedly uniform
professional mathematics community. The chairman of the committee that
adopts textbooks for mathematics service courses (all flavors of
calculus, mostly) at a large state university once told me that they
only adopt the books that nobody likes, so that everyone is equally
dissatisfied. And these people want to make decisions about school
mathematics? Freudenthal quite clearly blamed professional
mathematians for the failure of past math education reforms. He also
said that professional mathematicians should stay away from education
reforms lest they corrupt the effort (a free-form restatement). Take a
close look at the latest California framework and you will know why
the New Math had failed. The trouble with "experts" is that they often
forget what it is like to learn the basics for the first time. They
also tend to have a skewed perspective of the difficulties involved in
learning the concepts since they usually have never experienced these
difficulties.
Wu's review of IMP and CMP is interesting from a different
perspective. He appears not to care so much about *all* students
learning mathematics. To him, the most important point of teaching
mathematics is to discover the mathematically talented so that they
can replenish the ranks of professional mathematicians and scientists.
The rest of the population is, apparently, a bunch of dummies. So, how
many students NOT learning mathematics would be acceptable in order to
guarantee the best possible instruction for those who are likely to
enter the profession? I am yet to hear a specific number from any of
these people. What's an appropriate sacrifice--5%? 10%? 50%? The
meritocracy rules (my guess is 95%).
Deborah Meier recently told the Massachusetts Board of Education,
"These are not eggs [for making an omelet]! These are other people's
children!" I only wish the people who signed this missive had
consedered what it is they want the outcome of their efforts to be. I
would also address the same question to the curriculum writes of the
programs the letter attacks, but I already know their answer.
In spite of everything said above, I am not someone who would normally
advocate excluding profesional mathematicians from decision making on
educational issues. In fact, I believe, they should be actively
recruited, not as curriculum writers, but rather as consultants to
verify the fidelity of the programs BEFORE they are published. Most of
the professional activists do not want to hold that position--they
would much rather tell everyone else what to do and shot down other
people's ideas (just witness Askey and Milgram). Furthermore, much of
the criticism is unfounded--it is often due not to inability but a
refusal to understand what the program writers tried to accomplish.
Askey's review is rife with misstatements and exaggerations, even
though his claim, if true, that division of fractions is comletely
missing is alarming. MathLand is a terrible program, but this is no
excuse to lump everything together. By the same token, what are the
alternatives--Saxon and Dolciani?
I read the list of signatures with great amusement, noting the names
of the usual suspects and the names of others who simply signed
because someone had asked them (note the departmental affiliations).
As for "*several* Nobel prize winners" Newt seems to promote, it seems
little more than name dropping (note, they are both long retired). As
much respect as I may have for a many people on the list, the majority
of them had seen neither the reviews mentioned in the letter nor the
actual textbooks they so readily criticize. Someone in the Department
of Education should canvass the signatories to see who actually has a
meaningful opinion on the matter.
Then we have the usual suspect, including the authors of the missive.
No MC missive would be complete without signatures by George Andrews,
Wayne Bishop, Ralph Raimi. Then there is the unholy trinity of Bill
Evers (what qualifies him other than having a big mouth), Doug Carnine
(whose own "research" is almost never refereed) and David Geary--throw
in the "authors", Askey, Milgram and Wu, and you have almost the
entire collection of the writers of the latest throw away California
standards. Then there are my favorites--E.D. Hirsch, Jr., and
Sandra Stotsky
Deputy Commissioner for Academic Affairs and Planning
Massachusetts Department of Education
Research Associate (in reading, not mathematics)
Harvard Graduate School of Education
--who is the self-appointed dictator of the Massachusetts State
Frameworks, even though I am yet to hear of anything that qualifies
her to make judgment on anything even remotely related to mathematics
or science. She is the Massachusetts counterpart of Janet Nicholas,
who loves to refer to her "friend, Jim Milgram." With friends like
these, who needs enemies?
I hope they are all reading this--did I miss anyone? (Hey, Newt! Did
you find yourself on that list?)
If these people are allies, it only serves to detract from the
reputation of the more intelligent people on the list. I almost feel
sorry for them--they did not know what they stepped into.
|
|
|
|
