Debate Over Changes in Math Education
Re “Math for the Global Marketplace,” Commentary, Feb. 28: Nowhere in Jody Priselac’s column does she indicate that it is important for students to get the correct answer! There is no evidence in her essay that the concept of “correct result” has any meaning whatsoever for Priselac. But, she assures us, the new math (‘90s version) doesn’t represent a “dumbing down” of the curriculum. Oh yeah?
Priselac’s piece is filled with “educratese” jargon. All the fog is intended to disguise the fact that the education establishment has given up on educating children.
Instead, they have convinced themselves that “self-esteem,” “critical thinking” and “deeper understanding” are what matter, instead of being able to extract the roots of a polynomial.
Educrats like Priselac do a vast disservice to children, parents and our country. By dumbing down the curriculum and refusing to demand excellence from children, they take the easy way out and shortchange everyone.
We are now at the point where high school students graduating in nations such as Japan and Taiwan are better prepared in mathematics and science than American college sophomores. These successful nations have not allowed themselves to be seduced by trendy theories of education, opting instead simply to educate their children.
JAMES F. GLASS
Chatsworth
* Re “Dumbing Down Our Schools,” Commentary, Feb. 14: Betty Raskoff Kazmin’s column reveals a rigid adherence to a tradition of mathematics instruction that has left so many students without a deep understanding or appreciation of the mathematics needed in their lives.
However well-intended, Kazmin seriously mischaracterizes ongoing reforms in California mathematics instruction that are designed to make math accessible, understandable and relevant to the widest possible range of students--from the highest to the lowest achievers. In her narrow, almost elitist view math is being “dumbed down,” and our expectations for student achievement diminished by moving away from traditional instruction and curricula.
The facts of this matter speak for themselves. Renowned experts like Zalman Usiskin of the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project say traditional math instruction leaves well over half--perhaps as many as eight of 10--of our students behind. Plummeting math scores and acute lifetime math anxiety are the most common byproducts of a curriculum heavy on drills and memorization. Frustration of both students and teachers is yet another secondary effect of instruction that fails to put useful information into relevant, applicable context.
New instructional programs provide students with a challenging and balanced blend of all the basic skills, plus conceptual thinking and problem solving. Students develop a real understanding of mathematical concepts and how they can be applied to everyday tasks.
MARGARET DeARMOND
President
California Mathematics Council
