|
|
9486 in the collection
Teaching and Leading in an Age of Terror
Ohanian Comment: A real irony in all this data-driven decision-making is that the disputed math approach teaches kids how to collect and interpret data in the world around them. In the early 1990ies, I visited elementary classrooms in 24 states to write Garbage Pizza, Patchwork Quilts, and Math Magic. Witnessing children using the Investigations in Number, Data and Space blew me away. In addition to watching the children work, I interviewed their parents-- doctors, lawyers, plumbers, laborers-- all were astounded and delighted by the constructivist approach to mathematics. Some years later I was given an NSF research grant to find out why middle school parents were so opposed to what was called reform math. I ended up being sympathetic with parents. Not agreeing with them but being sympathetic. They had been asked to accept a "radical" approach that they didn't understand. And in too many cases the school's approach was "Do it our way because we know more about this than you do."
Maybe this was a result of Family Math being very big in the primary schools at that time but not in middle schools. Those teachers were trying to change the way they taught math, and they invited parents in on the change.
I found that advocates operating out of Mathematically Correct seemed much more willing and able to respond quickly to parents' very real concerns. Try as I might, I couldn't get NCTM to respond at all. One small example: a school board member wrote to a conservative list which I'd joined, a list populated by back-to-basics zealots. He asked if there was any research about calculator use below Grade 8. I knew that NCTM was in the process of producing a pamphlet supporting calculator use, complete with research. I knew this because I'd served on the committee that wrote it.
I searched the NCTM website, I wrote the office e-mails, I sent regular mail. I never received a reply. A member of Mathematically Correct replied to the question within half an hour, denouncing calculator use.
Whether we're talking about reading or math, I think this illustrates a real failing of our side. We ask parents to take too much on faith.
Maybe none of this applies to this New Jersey district. But I think it behooves us to look at what our opponents such as Mathematically Correct do well. All I'm saying is that a little Public Relations might go a long way.
by Gary Stager
Pick the wrong textbook and lose your job, or more
Data-driven decision-making is the order of the day. Proponents of this "scientific" approach to education argue that data leads to continuous progress and holds schools accountable for educational excellence. If the numbers go down, we must swing into action with a proven remedy. If they go up? Well, they should go up some more.
Over the past few years being a school leader has required a single-minded focus on data disaggregation with the actuarial acumen of a Vegas bookmaker. Therefore, I humbly rely on your expertise.
Please give careful consideration to the following school district data:
• A major magazine rates the district in the top 4% of the state
• 71% of seniors pass an AP test
• 100% of seniors take the SAT
• Graduation rate is 96%
• 90% of students go to four-year college or university
• 100% of all 3rd and 4th grade students passed or exceeded the proficiency standard on the state standardized tests since 2002
• District-wide, 90-95% of all students pass the statewide exams (this probably accounts for the 11 students who don’t graduate)
• Old SAT average of nearly 1,200 out of a possible 1,600
• Median household income is $127,00/year
Well, how would you describe this district’s performance? The answer is failure of course!
If selected (and threatened) I will not serve
In early June, following a lengthy and expensive search process, the Ridgewood, NJ Public Schools appointed Martin Brooks to be its new Superintendent. En-route to his welcoming reception, Brooks called and resigned the position. The Board explained his decision by saying, "Anonymous phone calls, e-mails, blogs and Web postings by some community members questioned his integrity, ethics and educational philosophy."
What could Brooks have done to attract such hostility? He supported the district’s continued use of a primary school math curriculum, “Investigations in Number, Data and Space,” published by Scott Foresman. One charge leveled against Brooks’ integrity is that his wife is a university education professor who has received grants from the National Science Foundation. Oh, the horror of it all!
In the highly polarized era of the so-called “math wars,” respect from the NSF seems akin to being branded a 1950s era communist.
Educational experts in Ridgewood and Brooks’ former district made a thoughtful decision to adopt the “Investigations” curriculum. A vocal minority of opponents has attacked that decision with every ounce of their being. There are no calls for choice in which curriculum you prefer for your child, just an ideological zeal that favors winning over honest differences in educational philosophy.
Another victim in this ambush is a small and incredibly inventive think tank. TERC has been savaged due to their authorship of the Investigations series. For decades, TERC has been responsible of countless innovations in making powerful mathematics and science experiences accessible for children. Any teacher who has ever used a science probe or engaged in an online science experience with classrooms in other parts of the world owes a debt of gratitude to TERC.
I remember the days when a teacher discussing math pedagogy would empty a room, but now a few angry parents reinforcing their biases on the web or at the local diner can create an incredibly hostile climate for educators. Unelected groups with anonymous memberships and undisclosed funding sources, like Mathematically Correct, sniff out local math skirmishes and then throw web-based fuel on the fire. All sorts of self-proclaimed experts, including The Simpsons, are used to mock anyone or any evidence contrary to their worldview.
The tools of choice are not reasoned debate and democratic action. They are character assassination and perhaps someday just plain old assassination.
This level of curricular jihadism is not restricted to the "math wars." One reader of this magazine becomes so enraged anytime I mention systemic phonics that he contacts the administration of my university demanding I be fired. Apparently, a letter to the editor just won’t suffice. This environment of antagonism and fear is dangerous and counter-productive. It chills reasoned debate and civic participation.
Let’s play the feud
I'm all for a good argument and welcome the public debate of important educational issues. However, the primary problems with the "math wars" are:
1) A vocal minority, usually from outside education, gets to set the terms of debate and even what terms mean. Depending on the argument, "reform," could be good or bad. Fuzzy is bad. New is bad. Right answers are good. Problem solving is bad. Then there are rhetorical inventions like, "new new math," which mathematically would mean good, assuming you disagree with the pedagogical approach of the "new math" in the 1960s, but in this case means - you guessed it, bad. This rhetorical slight of hand confuses the discussion and strikes fear into the hearts of citizens asked to sign petitions outside supermarkets.
2) So much passion is being wasted fighting over so little intellectual turf. I would love to participate in a national dialogue on the nature of mathematics or what math education should be in the 21st Century. We could ask questions like, "Why do kids need to memorize algorithms for dividing fractions? Is long division necessary? Can modern mathematics (number theory, fractals, chaos, computer science, etc…) be made accessible to young people?"
Instead we are destroying the careers of dedicated educators over minor differences in how to best teach long division. Age-old biases and wives tales dominate these feuds.
It's not about the kids
One parent mounting the attack on the curricular policy of the Ridgewood Schools told The Bergen Record, "This is only the beginning of the fight. Parents want to get back control of education and get away from the politics such as pensions and unions and educational propaganda on how to create a system where everyone passes and they don't have to do the work. I'm not patting myself on the back and saying we got rid of this guy, but people need to get engaged [in school decisions], pay a lot more attention on a regular basis and not just when a total calamity happens."
Apparently, in the new math or the old math or the new new old math or the non-reform math the following is now true...
calamity = near perfect test scores and 90% college enrollment.
Resources:
* Investigations in Number, Data and Space (textbook series)
* Mathematically Correct (secret anti-reform advocacy group)
* Rational Mathematics Education (balanced blog by a mathematics educator)
* The Ridgewood Blog (local blog fanning flames of controversy)
* TERC (think tank)
* Village of Ridgewood Mathematics (local blog fanning flames of controversy)
* Parrot Math (terrific "anti-basics" Phi Delta Kappan article by Dr. Thomas O'Brien)
* Math Panel Watch (blog critical of the President's National Math Panel)
— Gary Stager
The Pulse: Education's Place for Debate
2008-03-05
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=49483
INDEX OF OUTRAGES
Pages: 380
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next >> Last >>
|
