Math Wars II

Readers:  Dr. Greer has asked the candidates to once again respond to a question concerning the elementary math curriculum in State College.  My response follows.

My thinking has not changed a great deal since last spring, but here are a couple of points I think are worth making.

First, it is important to understand that there is no such thing as a perfect curriculum. It takes time for teachers to learn how to adapt it to meet the needs of individual students. While there may be other good math programs out there, changing the entire curriculum is the surest way to impede the academic progress of our students.

The latest edition of Investigations Math specifically addresses the aspects of the program that needed to be strengthened. One area that has been improved through the efforts of our teachers has been the issue of parents struggling to help their children with homework. One bonus is that the parents who have availed themselves of these opportunities have discovered that they can learn a new way to learn math.

Unfortunately, there are many people of my generation who think that the only correct way to learn math is to memorize the algorithms. But when you understand the concepts behind the rules, it is not only easier, it is considerably more fun. By the way, Math is supposed to be fun. The fact that generations of Americans consider Math to be tedious or boring is tragic, and a terrible waste of human potential.

According to a recent study at Vanderbilt University “teaching children the basic concept behind math problems was more useful than teaching children a procedure for solving the problems – these children gave better explanations and learned more,” And, “this adds to a growing body of research illustrating the importance of teaching children concepts as well as having them practice solving problems.”

Just this week, the nation’s largest group of math teachers urged a new approach to high school instruction, one that aims to build students’ ability to choose and apply the most effective problem-solving techniques.

Our teachers are beyond enthusiastic about the improvements they’ve seen in our students. On what basis do we dismiss their insight?  University Education professors – who understand the importance of different learning styles – have been very supportive of the current approach, particularly in light of the adjustments that have been made this year.

Finally, I’m concerned about what I view as a misuse of statistical data in order to find justification for one’s point of view. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that one data point does not a trend make. Correlation does not imply causality. And basing one’s entire argument on the results of one high-stakes test is indefensible - unless we believe that the PSSA measures every important component of our students’ mathematical skills and knowledge.

This change in math instruction was long overdue. Forty years ago, it may have been ok that 20% of our students were “good at math”. This is no longer acceptable. As school board members, we have a responsibility to give every student the opportunity to succeed. In the 21st century, it is important that all our students to be able to think mathematically – not just the select few who have traditionally done well in math.