Mathematically Sane's review of the NMP Report

For fans of Mathematically Sane, here is their review of the National Math Panel report. My editorial comments are in green. They are not meant to intrude but to "enhance" your reading experience.



Friday, March 21, 2008
Really Says it ALL!
Presidential Math Panel Vows to Increase Learning Disabilities
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 5:17 AM
Gary Stager

In the last year of his term, the President of the United States and theDepartment of Education are now trying to do for math what they did for reading. The notable achievements of Reading First include massive fraud, profiteering, junk science, federal control over classroom practice, fear and hysteria. [Ed: They also found unprecedented success in school districts that had been written off by many.] While the National Reading Panel was stacked with ideologues sharing the same educational philosophy, the National Math Panel co-opted the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) by appointing the organization’s President to serve on the committee.

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, never known for its radicalism, swung hard towards “the basics” last year in its Curriculum Focal Points and now finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to disagree with NCTM’s President and the President of the United States. “Skip” Fennell did neither his members nor millions of American schoolkids any favors by participating in this unnecessary process. These federal education expeditions seek to narrow both the range of content and pedagogy permissible in public schools. The private and religious schools the GOP wants to support with taxpayer-funded vouchers are immune from these intrusions. The one-size-fits-all prescriptions for what ails public education are justified by claiming that schemes are research-based. [Ed; "Research-based". Where have I heard that before? Aren't Everyday Math and Investigations "research-based"?]

The rigid definition of “scientific evidence” enforced by Department of Education may be fine in testing remedies for restless leg syndrome, but is ill-suited for the complexities of education. [Ed: Such reasoning may explain why teachers believe that teaching algorithms in the lower grades is harmful to such students]. But hey, these are the folks who have mangled the English language to imply that theory is merely an unproven guess.

There is a lot wrong with the recent math report, but making Algebra the holy grail of K-8 mathematics is wrong-headed and goes unquestioned. Stressing the importance of fractions as critical prerequisites forAlgebra adds insult to injury. In a world-class display of side-splitting math teacher humor, panel member Frances “Skip” Fennell told the New York Times , “Just as“plastics” was the catchword in the 1967 movie The Graduate, the catchword for math teachers today should be ‘fractions.’“ What Fennell doesn’t realize is that the person who said, “Plastics,” in The Graduate was emblematic of everything wrong with society. “Plastics,” was a metaphor for a shallow, superficial, inauthentic culture focused onthe wrong values. The National Math Advisory Panel’s greater focus on fractions represents a “plastic” version of mathematics that will do more harm than good.

It’s easy to see how someone might think that several years worth of fraction study prepares a child for Algebra. Fractions have numerators over denominators, separated by a horizontal line. Many algebraic equations have something over something else, also separated by a line.That’s all you need to know. Right? [ Um, uh...]Not only is the progression from arithmetic manipulation of fractions to Algebra tenuous, but neither of the assumptions underlying the value of teaching fractions or Algebra are ever questioned. [Uhh, well, they did discuss that at the very first meeting. Were you not there, or did you not read the transcript?] The President’s Math Panel, like most of the math education community maintains a Kabbalah-like belief in an antiquated scope and sequence. [Ed: A scope and sequence which managed to be successful for a great many people despite claims to the contrary in Mathematically Sane and other places] Such curricular superstition fuels a multigenerational feud in which educators fight over who has the best trick for forcing kids to learn something useless, irrelevant or unpleasant.

Despite the remarkable statement in the 1989 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards, “Fifty percent of all mathematics has beeninvented since World War Two,” the NCTM has been in full retreat ever since. [Ed: Not everyone remains outwitted by stupidity.] Although much of this “new” mathematics is playful, practical, beautiful or capable of being visualized via the computer, little new content has made its way into the curriculum. [Ed. Well at last we agree. There is little to no content at all in NSF-funded programs like Investigations, Math Trailblazers, CMP, and others.] Against this backdrop of unimaginative heuristics and a leadership vacuum, math class has become increasingly torturous for too many students.

Children who struggle to manipulate fractions do so because the skills are taught absent a meaningful context in a culture where fractions are rarely ever used. [Ed: Rational numbers are fast becoming passe as well.] Fraction fans might argue that fractions are important in following a recipe, but little cooking is done during fraction instruction. Even if kids did get to learn fractions by cooking, they might add, subtract or even multiply fractions, but one hardly ever divides fractions. The fact that there are four arithmetic functions doesn’t justify drilling kids for several grade levels. [Ed: Hats off to you, Mr. Stagers. Just when I think you can't outdo yourself, you do!] I wonder how many members of the Presidential panel can coherently explain how division of fractions works beyond repeating the trick – multiply the first fraction by the reciprocal of the second fraction? [Ed: Can't give you an exact number but I believe Wilfried Schmid, Hung-Hsi Wu, Vern Williams, Tom Loveless, Sandra Stotsky, and Liping Ma can do so. Maybe Deborah Ball. Not sure about Skip Fennel.]

The Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel does not dispute that teachers spend lots of time teaching fractions. The report merely urges that teachers do even more of the same while hoping for a different result. A definition of insanity comes to mind. It would be bad enough if wasted time was the only consequence of the fanatical fraction focus, but too many students get the idea that they can’t do math. This damages their inclination towards learning other forms of mathematics. Given the importance of mathematics and the widespread mathphobia sweeping the land, students can ill afford to a diminution in their self-image as capable mathematicians. Educators should not be complicit in creating learning disabilities regardless of what the President or his friends say. [Ed: I guess this means you won't be voting for George W. Bush again any time soon!]

NEA weighs in on Who Wants to be an Engineer?

The NEA has always been quite helpful in providing parents with guidance on how to teach their children what isn't being taught in school, so I was delighted to see that they are offering online brochures on a number of topics.

Parent guides on a number of topics, including helping your child with math are available here.

I was particularly impressed with the guide on what children need to know to become engineers.

Here are some excerpts:

"What do kids do in a technology class?
They think about and solve problems like:
• Cleaning a polluted lake or river
• Creating an invention to solve a household problem
• Designing and building a habitat for a unique
situation
Second-graders might design and make a home for
their favorite bug. They would draw a plan (complete
with measurements) and use boxes and other
materials to build the home. They would have to think
creatively about how to keep the bug in the house,
how to provide water and food, and how to make
sure the home was the right size for their pet."

Silly me; I thought for sure they would need to learn something about bugs in their science classes. But, after all, we’re talking about future engineers here. Mere facts are of no use in the modern day classroom.

"Fifth-graders might design and make their own paper
airplanes. They would test them to see which ones
flew the furthest or the highest and then revise the
design to see if they could make a better paper
airplane. They would use mathematics, learn aviation
science, and practice reading and writing skills
throughout the design process."

Just curious; what type of mathematics would they be using other than measuring the distances? Also, any clue about how “aviation science” would be used? I don’t think I have to ask about reading and writing skills used throughout this activity. Writing: How I Feel About Today’s Assignment. Reading: Various essays about paper airplanes in a rascist world.

"Eleventh-graders might investigate the idea of
growing plants in a hydroponic system (without soil).
They would design, build, and test the system. They
would study the effect of this type of growing on the
environment and figure out whether this system was
more cost effective than growing plants in soil. They
would become engineers!"

Yes, it’s axiomatic that when students design, build and test hydroponic systems, they grow up to become engineers. No one really knows why, but there is a flurry of “action research” taking place in our classrooms to find out.

Wait. There’s more!

"When those juniors in high school study
hydroponics, they think creatively about ending
hunger and about how to grow food in places where
the soil is not ready for planting."

RIGHT. Of course, how to get the water to deserts is part of another class. Creative thinking is the order of the day here.

What content should I expect my child
to be learning?
What students should know and be able to do
is identified in standards developed by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA–
Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the
Study of Technology. Standards for K–12 were formally
reviewed by the National Academy of Engineering,
the National Research Council, and the technology
teaching community.
The standards address content for K–12. Content is
integrated into thematic units at the elementary
levels, while course titles at the middle and high
school levels may include:
• Exploring Technology
• Innovation and Engineering Design, Technological
Systems
• Engineering Design Fundamentals
• Inventions/Innovations
The standards also address medical, agricultural and
related bio-technologies, energy and power,
information and communication, transportation,
manufacturing, and construction topics."

Yep. No need for math, biology, chemistry or physics. Just get them up to speed on technology and engineering design. It’s gonna be a beautiful world!