MGTutoring.com. A Rational Perspective on Education.

In reading Robert Pondiscio’s “Suing Over Curriculum” (February 5, 2010), I was amused to find mention of a math text that I find generally flawed and illogical: Discovering Math. It is a text used locally, too, so I’ve had the stress of having to tutor some students who are subjected to the text’s cognitive torture. I feel sorry for them.

Yes, of course, the texts have some good points, they do give some good or decent explanations of some things and there are a few good diagrams in them; but all texts must say 1 + 1 = 2, or the authors and publishers will be laughed out of society. The texts are so full of irrelevant pictures, it is hard to concentrate on the reading and the exercises. And the exercise sets do not at all allow students to learn, practice, and become proficient at concepts and methods. Very few students, I believe, could figure out what to do in some of the exercises, even if they had had practice in the basic concept being drilled.

In an article about a court case involving the “Discovering” series, “Seattle Schools’ ‘Discovering Math’ curriculum risks a generation of students” (May 29, 2009 at 2:53 PM) by Cliff Mass (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington), the Seattle Times said:

ON May 6, the Seattle School Board voted on the purchase of high-school math textbooks, and the results were both disappointing and tragic.

In a 4-3 vote, the board adopted the Discovering Math series: “discovery-based” math texts that were found to be mathematically unsound by mathematicians working for the state Board of Education. As noted by Professor Jack Lee of the University of Washington, “definitions, computational algorithms, and formulas seem to be stated vaguely when they are stated at all.”

These books are “discovery-based” or “reform” math texts in which discussion, group projects, manipulation of objects, use of calculators and inefficient “exploration” replace students acquiring of key skills, solving real-world problems and developing a strong mathematical foundation. At the core of this math series is the theory that unless students “discover” math facts themselves, they are unable to master and apply them effectively.

The damage from “Discovering Math” is multiplied by Seattle’s previous selections of similarly weak “discovery” curricula in elementary (”Everyday Math”) and middle school (CMP2). During the roughly 10 years the Seattle Public Schools has used discovery-based math texts, the achievement gap for disadvantaged students has widened.

Copyright © 2010 The Seattle Times Company

In “Looking at the decision” (seattle math group Blog, Friday, February 5, 2010, 12:06 AM), Martha McLaren writes:

Judge Julie Spector today announced her finding of “arbitrary and capricious” in the Seattle School Board’s May 6 vote to adopt the Discovering Math series of high school texts despite insufficient evidence of the series’ effectiveness.

Judge Spector’s decision states, “The court finds, based upon a review of the entire administrative record, that there is insufficient evidence for any reasonable Board member to approve the selection of the Discovering series.”

The text itself, and the false theory behind it, should have been declared “arbitrary and capricious” and based on “insufficient evidence.”

The effect of the texts are addressed above: cognitive failure, an inability to do math, and an inability to grasp the essentials of math. The principles behind the text are basically those of John Dewey: truth is a social construct; the “consensus” reigns supreme; “learning” is just verbal behavior; there are no objective absolutes; cognitive hierarchy and context don’t really matter.

Update (9:00 PM):  On a related note, check out the site Mathematically Correct. They say about their site:

This web site is devoted to the concerns raised by parents and scientists about the invasion of our schools by the New-New Math and the need to restore basic skills to math education.

Mathematics achievement in America is far below what we would like it to be. Recent “reform” efforts only aggravate the problem. As a result, our children have less and less exposure to rigorous, content-rich mathematics .

The advocates of the new, fuzzy math have practiced their rhetoric well. They speak of higher-order thinking, conceptual understanding and solving problems, but they neglect the systematic mastery of the fundamental building blocks necessary for success in any of these areas. Their focus is on things like calculators, blocks, guesswork, and group activities and they shun things like algorithms and repeated practice. The new programs are shy on fundamentals and they also lack the mathematical depth and rigor that promotes greater achievement.

Concerned parents are in a state of dismay and have begun efforts to restore content, rigor, and genuinely high expectations to mathematics education. This site provides relevant background and information for parents, teachers, board members and the public from around the country.

In today’s students, I really see a lack of ability to understand math because of (for one thing) a lack of retention of math because of, in turn, a lack of memorization. Memorization is anathema to the philosophically corrupt modern intellectual, to the modern theorist of education. It, along with drill, was attacked vigorously when I was getting my Texas Teacher Credentials, and still is, as such attack is implied by a broader perspective on mind and thought: the perspective of John Dewey. (Ultimately, Dewey and the Deweyans believe, consensus creates reality, nothing abides, so why remember anything when it will become outdated? Dewey even claimed that Aristotle’s logic worked so long, it had to be wrong. So A is no longer A: things do not have a nature or identity; their apparent nature changes; things are what we as a group want them to be.)

I’d highly recommend students memorize and be drilled in, at the least, their multiplication facts, working (adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing) with fractions, and the perfect squares. Students should memorize definitions and methods, as well. These facts are universal and timeless. A is A.

If knowledge is not ingrained and remembered, then it is not there to utilize and build on. What’s more, memorization and understanding reinforce each other.

Let’s not sell our children out; let’s not be comprachicos distorting their minds and souls.

In “A Letter from a Child” (CapMag, October 5, 2009), Thomas Sowell writes:

One of these self-indulgences was exemplified by a letter I received recently from a fifth-grader….

He said, “I have been assigned to ask a famous person a question about how he or she would solve a difficult problem.” The problem was what to do about the economy.

Instead, I replied to his parents: With American students consistently scoring near or at the bottom in international tests, I am repeatedly appalled by teachers who waste their students’ time by assigning them to write to strangers, chosen only because those strangers’ names have appeared in the media.

It is of course much easier…to do cute little stuff like this than to take on the sober responsibility to develop in students both the knowledge and the ability to think that will enable them to form their own views on matters in both public and private life.

…

The damage does not end with wasting students’ time and misdirecting their energies, serious though these things are. Getting students used to looking to so-called “famous” people for answers is the antithesis of education as a preparation for making up one’s own mind as citizens of a democracy, rather than as followers of “leaders.”

Nearly two hundred years ago, the great economist David Ricardo said: “I wish that I may never think the smiles of the great and powerful a sufficient inducement to turn aside from the straight path of honesty and the convictions of my own mind.”

In “Low Graduation Rates and the Total Lack of Student Effort“  (Phi Beta Cons Blog, 09/25 01:52 PM), David French writes:

A week ago I was on a Southwest flight from Dallas sitting next to a very pleasant middle-aged woman who was busily grading papers. As I finished watching one of America’s greatest cinematic masterpieces on my (brand-new) MacBook Pro, I glanced over at some of the work. It looked identical to the work I see from my ten-year-old daughter and her classmates: Mostly simple sentences, a few dreadful spelling mistakes, and virtually no complex analysis. Unlike my daughter’s classmates, however, this teacher’s students skipped entire sections of their tests — failing to answer half the questions.

I was just about to open my mouth and say, “Fifth grade?” when I caught myself.  Instead, I said “What grade?”

“Junior English.”

“High school?

“Yes. In suburban Chicago.”

I almost choked on my peanuts.

I thought of this exchange as I read Richard Vedder’s Minding the Campus essay on low graduation rates. Out of every 100 American students who enter high school, only 20 get an undergraduate degree. This is a remarkable failure rate, especially given two factors that Richard mentions: (1) grade inflation (no one flunks anymore) and (2) soaring amounts of financial aid.

Why so many failures? I think the heart of the problem is — to use Richard’s phrase — the “willingness to work.” Simply put, American college students are lazy on a scale that boggles the mind. It’s a laziness that starts early and develops year by year as “breathe-in, breathe-out” promotions (just stay alive and you’ll get through) allow students to not only progress from kindergarden to twelfth grade, but do so with a solid “B” average. It’s a laziness reinforced by the extraordinarily low academic demands of even elite universities. I studied half as hard in law school as I worked my first year in the “real world.”

The synopsis of the documentary “The Providence Effect” says:

Paul J. Adams III, an African-American man with activist roots in the 1960’s civil rights movement, came from a family of teachers.  After being black listed himself as a teacher in Alabama because of his civil rights activities, he moved to Chicago, received a master’s degree in psychology, and then landed a job as guidance counselor at Providence St. Mel, an all-black parochial school on Chicago’s notorious drug-ridden, gang-ruled West Side.

A year after his arrival, Adams became principal, only to be told the following year that Chicago’s archdiocese was going to close the school.  After orchestrating a fundraising campaign that received national and local media attention, funds poured in and enabled Adams to buy the school from the Sisters of Providence and convert it to a not-for-profit independent school.  To ward off thieves and vandals, he literally moved into the empty nuns’ quarters of the convent inside the school.

He then set about achieving a new goal:  To turn Providence St. Mel into a first rank college preparatory school, and its African-American student body into a corps of driven, disciplined, high achieving students.

That was over 30 years ago.  Since then, 100% of Providence St. Mel graduates have been accepted to college, half of them, during the last seven years, to first tier and Ivy League colleges and universities.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPYRIGHT 2009. THE PROVIDENCE EFFECT.

Sounds interesting. I’ll have to find out more.

In the blog post “Mourning Constitutional- OK kids score even worse than AZ” (Jay P. Greene’s Blog, Thursday, September 17th, 2009 at 10:52 am), Mr. Greene writes:

Regular JPGB readers will recall that the Goldwater Institute gave a version of the United States Citizenship Test to Arizona high school students, only to learn that they were profoundly ignorant regarding American government, history and geography. Only 3.5% of Arizona public school students got six or more questions correct, the passing threshold for immigrants.

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs wanted to know how Oklahoma high school students would fare on the exam- so we surveyed them and gave them precisely the same set of questions we asked Arizona students.

Perhaps I ought not to have been so hard on Arizona students. After all, they passed at a rate that was 25% higher than their peers in Oklahoma!

That’s right: the passing rate for Oklahoma high school students was 2.8%. They somehow underperformed Arizona’s already abysmally pathetic performance.