Posts
"Equity in Mathematics Education (January 2008)"
NCTM Position
"Excellence in mathematics education rests on equity—high expectations, respect, understanding, and strong support for all students. Policies, practices, attitudes, and beliefs related to mathematics teaching and learning must be assessed continually to ensure that all students have equal access to the resources with the greatest potential to promote learning. A culture of equity maximizes the learning potential of all students."[This sounds vaguely nice enough, but they don't leave it at that.]
"A culture of equity depends on the joint efforts of all participants in the community of students, educators, families, and policymakers:"[Except for the contributions of parents and mathematicians and anyone else they disagree with. We're not allowed to contribute. All we get are open houses and the opportunity to be "informed". Even the national math panel only gets to define "a first step". NCTM gets the rest.]
"All members of the community respect one another and value each member’s contribution.
"The school community acknowledges and embraces all experiences, beliefs, and ways of knowing mathematics."["Ways of knowing mathematics"? Did the national math panel define this? Did they define various ways to know algebra? They did the opposite. They defined what algebra is.]
"All necessary resources for optimal learning and personal growth of students and teachers are allocated."[This is the more money escape clause.]
"High expectations, culturally relevant practices, attitudes that are free of bias, and unprejudiced beliefs expand and maximize the potential for learning."[As long as they are in charge of defining what all of this means.]
All students have access to and engage in challenging, rigorous, and meaningful mathematical experiences."["Meaningful mathematical experiences"? How about having access to rigorous curricula, quality teaching, and no excuses? How about making sure that kids actually learn math, not experience it?]
"Such practices empower all students to build a relationship with mathematics that is positive and grounded in their own cultural roots and history."[OK, I reject the zero because it wasn't grounded in my own cultural roots and history. I want Roman Numeral Math.]
"Different solutions, interpretations, and approaches that are mathematically sound must be celebrated and integrated into class deliberations about problems."["Must be?" As long as they are not the traditional algorithms.]
7 comments:
So if zero is part of my cultural history, do I have to reject Roman Numeral Math? I kind of like both.
All kidding aside, great posts on the NCTM (both of them).
It is interesting to see what they have to say about all this and how it's not really in sync with the panel's saying. It makes you wonder if it will take longer than the decade projected by the panel to see meaningful change.
NCTM doesn't seem to be on the same page.
...that are mathematically sound...
Well now, that's the 24 million dollar question, isnt it?
What counts as a mathematically sound argument? Would a K8 teacher recognize one? Do some teachers need to be told to "celebrate" different solutions because they don't recognize 5=8-3 as mathematically correct?
Does folding up paper via horizontal and vertical creases count as a mathematically sound method of multiplying fractions? Other than the correctness of the result what makes a particular approach "sound" and another not sound?
I've got two sons that can do long division. One relies on the long division algorithm and slops it up so much that about half the time he gets an incorrect result, the other "just knows" the answer and doesn't write down anything but the answer. He's not horribly verbal and so can't explain to us how he's getting his answer. He says, "I just know it." Is his approach mathematically sound? Should I be celebrating and integrating it?
I don't know about celebrating and integrating, but I'm damned impressed.
This passage is January 2008?
boy
Re Myrtle's son, I'm guessing that "just knowing it" won't satisfy most teachers--given Reform Math's insistence on explained answers.
For all their vacuous celebration of all those dubious culturally-based learning-styles differences, they ignore the learning-differences that truly matter, and shortchange all who solve problems nonverbally.
I blog on this on my site today: SteveH's quotes and commentary on NCTM's Equity were very inspiring!
Lefty, I will go look at your blog entry!
I found this post interesting enough to blog about in a more tangential way also.
I stuck my kid's division worksheet up.
[Excellence in mathematics education rests on equity—high expectations, respect, understanding, and strong support for all students.]
It's telling that NCTM regards an amorphous social goal as the basis of "excellence". Something is missing here. The key ingredients for excellence that are missing are a rigorous, coherent curriculum and sound instruction and student effort.
Post a Comment