Math Wars

A couple of weeks ago, Steve Piazza requested that the current candidates for school board respond to the following question: Do you support the recommendation of the SCASD math coordinators that the 2nd edition of "Investigations" be adopted throughout the District as the core math curriculum?  He has posted the responses on his web site.

My reply follows:

I fully support the recommendation to adopt the 2nd edition of "Investigations". The new edition will allow our teachers to build on the progress that our students have made over the past few years, while specifically addressing the aspects of the program that needed strengthening.

As I’ve stated previously, I certainly understand the frustration of parents, who having been taught Math the old, “algorithmic” way, struggle to help their children with their homework.  I also think that more can be done to bridge the “old” and “new” approaches. The latest edition of Investigations Math addresses both of these issues.

The parental involvement piece is very important. Our children’s success depends on a partnership of students, teachers and parents; we should do everything we can to ensure that parents are fully engaged in their children’s education. I applaud the efforts of teachers, administrators and fellow board members who have reached out to address the legitimate concerns of parents, and the parents who have reached back.

We also need to recognize that for most of our elementary teachers, this was a new approach to math instruction. As with any new teaching strategy – particularly one that is being applied across an entire organization - even with good training, there is a learning curve. (As well there should be!  Educators who aren’t continually learning and getting better at what they do are in the wrong business.)

While it is important to allow teachers to adapt their strategies and resources to what works best for particular students, it's also important that we maintain curricular consistency across the district. The improvements in the new edition mean that our teachers will be less dependent on outside resources.

From my personal perspective - as someone whose best subject in school was Math - this conceptual approach to Math instruction is a very welcome change.  Although I was taught the old, algorithmic way, the reason I excelled at Math – and perhaps, just as importantly, the reason I enjoyed it – was that I understood it conceptually.

It is a crime that generations of Americans have been trained to believe that “they’re not good at Math” or that “Math is boring”. Forty years ago, it may have been sufficient for 10-20% of our students to be “good at math”. That is no longer acceptable; maintaining the status quo would have been a disservice to our students.

People are generally resistant to change, especially when the "way we used to do it" worked just fine for them. Clearly, if you're a university math professor,  the "way we used to do it" worked exceedingly well for you.

But I also think there's an important distinction between having a deep knowledge in a particular field of study - as university professors have - and knowing how to impart that knowledge to others. Universities have struggled with this conundrum for generations.

If I need the solution to a difficult math problem, I'll go to a math professor. But if I need to know how to teach a math concept, I would look first to the professor in education who has that expertise.

Finally, the evidence in support of Investigations Math – as it is taught in the State College school district – is overwhelming. It would be irresponsible for the school board to ignore that. Parents have a right and an obligation to advocate for their children. As school board members, we have the obligation to advocate for everyone’s children.