Let's Shoot for the Stars...oh, never mind.
When I posted my last article on the continuing math crisis in D11, a proponent of "fuzzy math" informed me that this discussion is old news because the district is moving forward and 'studying" ways to improve math. Sadly, as long as Dora Gonzales is heading the math effort in the district, there is not much hope for positive change. Each year since she has chaired the math department, Everyday Math has been pushed on more and more elementary schools in D11. Math instruction from this book encourages early calculator use and it discourages teaching hard and fast math facts.
The current school board members have shown no interest in improving math in D11, despite the obviously dismal statistics that appear year after year in the district. There is no arguing the fact that D11 is failing to teach solid math in its schools, yet the board and administration march forward proudly carrying the banner for the status quo.
Carla Albers has been a relentless proponent for improved math instruction in D11. She has researched and studied math programs from around the country and around the world. She has contacted college professors and reviewed data that shows that this "fuzzy" constructivist math that is being forced into our classrooms is hurting students' ability to perform higher level math.
Steven Wilson is a professor of math at John's Hopkins University. He conducted the survey of math professors that I had earlier cited on this blog. James Milgram is a professor of math at Stanford University. Both have conducted research on different math programs and both have concluded that constructivist math is harming the ability of U.S. students to compete with their peers on the world stage. The following email was written to Carla by Steve Wilson:
Dear Carla,
The decision to choose Everyday Math for the elementary schools in your district is a community wide decision that public schools will not prepare students for college.
Although the decision might seem to be made by just a few, they represent the community and its desires and make such decisions on their behalf.
There are a couple of consequences of this decision. The first is that, yes, everyone will now be qualified to be a cashier at Wal-Mart. The second is that the only kids who will be prepared for college are those with parents who have the education and the resources to recognize that there is a problem with math education and to see to it that their children are taken care of outside of school.
This will result in a big increase in tutors in the area such as Kumon.
One of the major benefits of this program is that more of the next generation will stay close to home after high school. This is because they either will not go to college or will not succeed. I've always suspected that programs like Everyday Math were designed for communities who did not want their children to leave them.
Sincerely,
Steve
W. Stephen Wilson (410) 338-1833
Professor of Mathematics
Department of Mathematics FAX (410) 889-8988
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218 wsw@math.jhu.edu
Former Senior Advisor for Mathematics
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
United States Department of Education
The following letter was submitted by Professor Milgram to the D11 board of education through Carla Albers. Only Tom Strand even acknowledged receipt of the letter, demonstrating the lack of seriousness that this board places on academics.
To whom it may concern.
Carla Albers has asked me to try to explain the issues involved with math programs like Everyday Math, and why people should care. It is ironic that just a few weeks back I learned that IBM had privately announced that they intend to move their software development to India – and they added that it was not because it would be less expensive. Currently 55% of the engineers and scientists in Silicon Valley were born and educated in foreign countries – mostly in East Asia.
In the elite schools like Stanford where I am a professor of mathematics, about 2/3 of our graduate students in the hard sciences and engineering seem to be foreign born. Last year's winner of the Intel Science Talent Search, Dmitry Vaintrob, is the son of a Russian mathematician who currently lives in Oregon and has worked closely with me to try to explain why programs like Everyday Mathematics do not work. In fact they actually give our citizens a huge hill to climb if they have any hope of working in technical areas.
Our economy and all of our futures are threatened by these poor choices. But people in the school systems with a weak understanding of even the rudiments of mathematics – the subject that underlies all of science and engineering – continue to insist that “fun” math like that in Everyday Math is the way to go. They ignore the almost universal objections of professional mathematicians, and the plaintive complaints of the scientists and engineers that U.S. students are more and more poorly prepared every year, since they believe “fun” trumps all.
Ms. Albers sent me a document from her local school district that tries to explain why a popular video complaining about the dangers to your children of Everyday Mathematics is “wrong.” There is incorrect mathematics and some incorrect quoting of research in that document. In a real sense, the document itself is testimony to the problems that almost 20 years of programs like Everyday Mathematics have caused. However, here is a more graphic illustration of the problems. Below is a table showing the age distribution of scientists and engineers at NASA, the world's premier aeronautics and space agency and the crown jewel of the United State's research and development agencies. As the data show, for the last 10 years NASA has been unable to hire the qualified young people it must have to continue to do its basic research work. A key part of the problem is that, unlike Silicon Valley, NASA cannot replace its aging technical workforce with scientists and engineers from other countries since, as a government agency, it must hire U.S. Citizens.
If this is the future you want for our country, then keep doing the kinds of things you are doing.
After all, almost 20% of the children in our country are currently using Everyday Mathematics. So the
failures in your community will hardly even be noticed.
Yours,
R. James Milgram
Professor of Mathematics, Stanford University
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of national security. The math fad pushed by administrators such as Dora Gonzales is not only hurting D11 students, it is hurting our country. Colorado Springs is a high tech town with the heart of the military space community stationed at our doorstep. Graduates who cannot perform basic math and science calculations will have no chance working in an important industry right in their hometown.
While other nations are shooting for the stars, D11 administrators and board members are shooting for more excuses for why math proficiencies in the district just can't break 30% at the high school level.
The current school board members have shown no interest in improving math in D11, despite the obviously dismal statistics that appear year after year in the district. There is no arguing the fact that D11 is failing to teach solid math in its schools, yet the board and administration march forward proudly carrying the banner for the status quo.
Carla Albers has been a relentless proponent for improved math instruction in D11. She has researched and studied math programs from around the country and around the world. She has contacted college professors and reviewed data that shows that this "fuzzy" constructivist math that is being forced into our classrooms is hurting students' ability to perform higher level math.
Steven Wilson is a professor of math at John's Hopkins University. He conducted the survey of math professors that I had earlier cited on this blog. James Milgram is a professor of math at Stanford University. Both have conducted research on different math programs and both have concluded that constructivist math is harming the ability of U.S. students to compete with their peers on the world stage. The following email was written to Carla by Steve Wilson:
Dear Carla,
The decision to choose Everyday Math for the elementary schools in your district is a community wide decision that public schools will not prepare students for college.
Although the decision might seem to be made by just a few, they represent the community and its desires and make such decisions on their behalf.
There are a couple of consequences of this decision. The first is that, yes, everyone will now be qualified to be a cashier at Wal-Mart. The second is that the only kids who will be prepared for college are those with parents who have the education and the resources to recognize that there is a problem with math education and to see to it that their children are taken care of outside of school.
This will result in a big increase in tutors in the area such as Kumon.
One of the major benefits of this program is that more of the next generation will stay close to home after high school. This is because they either will not go to college or will not succeed. I've always suspected that programs like Everyday Math were designed for communities who did not want their children to leave them.
Sincerely,
Steve
W. Stephen Wilson (410) 338-1833
Professor of Mathematics
Department of Mathematics FAX (410) 889-8988
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218 wsw@math.jhu.edu
Former Senior Advisor for Mathematics
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
United States Department of Education
The following letter was submitted by Professor Milgram to the D11 board of education through Carla Albers. Only Tom Strand even acknowledged receipt of the letter, demonstrating the lack of seriousness that this board places on academics.
To whom it may concern.
Carla Albers has asked me to try to explain the issues involved with math programs like Everyday Math, and why people should care. It is ironic that just a few weeks back I learned that IBM had privately announced that they intend to move their software development to India – and they added that it was not because it would be less expensive. Currently 55% of the engineers and scientists in Silicon Valley were born and educated in foreign countries – mostly in East Asia.
In the elite schools like Stanford where I am a professor of mathematics, about 2/3 of our graduate students in the hard sciences and engineering seem to be foreign born. Last year's winner of the Intel Science Talent Search, Dmitry Vaintrob, is the son of a Russian mathematician who currently lives in Oregon and has worked closely with me to try to explain why programs like Everyday Mathematics do not work. In fact they actually give our citizens a huge hill to climb if they have any hope of working in technical areas.
Our economy and all of our futures are threatened by these poor choices. But people in the school systems with a weak understanding of even the rudiments of mathematics – the subject that underlies all of science and engineering – continue to insist that “fun” math like that in Everyday Math is the way to go. They ignore the almost universal objections of professional mathematicians, and the plaintive complaints of the scientists and engineers that U.S. students are more and more poorly prepared every year, since they believe “fun” trumps all.
Ms. Albers sent me a document from her local school district that tries to explain why a popular video complaining about the dangers to your children of Everyday Mathematics is “wrong.” There is incorrect mathematics and some incorrect quoting of research in that document. In a real sense, the document itself is testimony to the problems that almost 20 years of programs like Everyday Mathematics have caused. However, here is a more graphic illustration of the problems. Below is a table showing the age distribution of scientists and engineers at NASA, the world's premier aeronautics and space agency and the crown jewel of the United State's research and development agencies. As the data show, for the last 10 years NASA has been unable to hire the qualified young people it must have to continue to do its basic research work. A key part of the problem is that, unlike Silicon Valley, NASA cannot replace its aging technical workforce with scientists and engineers from other countries since, as a government agency, it must hire U.S. Citizens.
If this is the future you want for our country, then keep doing the kinds of things you are doing.
After all, almost 20% of the children in our country are currently using Everyday Mathematics. So the
failures in your community will hardly even be noticed.
Yours,
R. James Milgram
Professor of Mathematics, Stanford University
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of national security. The math fad pushed by administrators such as Dora Gonzales is not only hurting D11 students, it is hurting our country. Colorado Springs is a high tech town with the heart of the military space community stationed at our doorstep. Graduates who cannot perform basic math and science calculations will have no chance working in an important industry right in their hometown.
While other nations are shooting for the stars, D11 administrators and board members are shooting for more excuses for why math proficiencies in the district just can't break 30% at the high school level.
posted by Craig Cox | 10:55 PM
3 Comments:
Yes, our nation's future is in the balance. The advocates of EM and the status quo in general will not realize until too late that they are dooming their own future standards of living with their cushy retirements, health benefits, etc. while they will deserve their fate, the innocent kids will not.
The primary criticism of Everyday Math is that it's too innovative, too new-fangled for parents and for pure mathematicians. So smack it around,if you must, but don't pretend for even a minute that attacking Everyday Math is tantamount to attacking the status quo. If anything (and how's this for irony?) YOU are defending the status quo when you suggest the only way to teach math is the same old way we learned. I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I will note this: I remember spending weeks on learning how to use a slide rule. And I remember my teacher promising me that, despite the effort needed, this was time well spent, because I'd always need to know how to use a slide rule. I guess if I could actually find a slide rule nowadays, outside of a museum,I might be able to see if that teacher was right or not.
Anony, your argument is flawed. It isn't the parents and mathematicians who are failing to learn math. They learned math when they were in school years ago, apparently before the new fangled educators decided that the brain works differently now than it used to. Everyday Math is so innovative that teachers don't know how to teach it and students aren't learning the basics from it. It's that simple. Math is math; calculus is calculus, and algebra is algebra. No matter how many years have passed since you and I learned our multiplication tables, those tables haven't changed. No, I am not arguing for the status quo, which is defined as, "A Latin term meaning the present, current, existing state of affairs." The current state of affairs with constructivist math is not working. I am arguing for the "status quo ante," defined as "the state of things as it was before."
My argument isn't for the slide rule vs. calculator. My argument is for teaching basic math, including basic algorythms, before you allow the students to use the slide rule or calculator. You didn't use the slide rule in 2d grade. You didn't use the slide rule until you understood basic math functions and fundamentals. The reason that we don't use slide rules these days, by the way, is because people who learned math "the old fashioned way" invented calculators. If our students don't graduate with a sound understanding of math concepts, they can use the calculator all day long, but they certainly won't undertsand physics or chemistry or any other engineering or science, so they won't be the ones inventing anything.
Why would you be arguing to use some text that is so "innovative" that absolutely nobody can learn from it? If this new way of doing math is so great, explain to me why we as a nation are falling so far behind the world in math and science.
Post a Comment
<< Home