After reading my last post, a couple of people asked me - “If your daughter is in one of the best school districts in your area, she will get a good, well rounded education, and in the end that’s what really matters. Don’t you think you are overreacting?” Perhaps they are right. It is entirely possible that I am making more of this than I need to. After all we had moved into this particular school district primarily because of its academic reputation.
However, I will say I am a little troubled by their choice of math instructional methods. The school district uses Everyday Mathematics at the elementary level, a curriculum developed by the University Of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP, and funded by the National Science Foundation) which is heavily language oriented and aims at developing a ‘conceptual’ understanding of mathematics. Students take a ‘constructivist’ approach to math and solve real world problems. Students also pursue a number of math strands simultaneously and the level of complexity spirals upwards as one goes from grade 1 to grade 6. At the middle school level they use Connected Math and then in high school they use Core-Plus Math wherein disparate math strands such as Algebra and Geometry are integrated together and the students use real world examples to understand mathematical concepts. The entire math program from Everyday Math to Core Plus Math seems to be based on developing a conceptual understanding with little attention to repetitive drills to hone in math skills. When I started reading about this program, the concept of providing real world examples and really understanding what math was all about seemed very appealing. As I researched this particular curriculum a little more, I found myself becoming increasingly uncomfortable.
So now I had some questions about the curriculum advocated by the UCSMP and the NSF-
v Do constructivist approaches to math like Core-Plus Math actually provide the strong quantitative background that is essential for at least ninety percent of the jobs that are out there?
v How effective is this ‘New New Math’ in helping our children get into college and obtain decent paying jobs?
v Will this reform math ensure that our children remain competitive in a global market where the playing field had expanded to encompass practically every geographical location in the world? American children will be competing with children educated in other countries like Singapore, China, Japan, India, and several European countries where the quality of general math education is so much higher.
I will address the question of what constitutes “quality” in general math education in a later post, but here are some insights I found in regard to the other questions I posed. On www.edwatch.org, a recent article by Elizabeth Green (Nov 20, 2007) indicated that the state of Texas had dropped the Everyday Math curriculum because “it left public school graduates unprepared for college”. Recommendations on the Ivy (Ivy League) Bound Test Prep website (http://www.ivybound.net/suggestbyyear.html) for high school freshmen were, “And if your school is trying to place you in an “Integrated Math” program, get out. Their track records in helping kids for standardized tests and college level math are poor.”
A study by Richard Hill and Thomas Parker (December 2006, http://www.mth.msu.edu/~hill/HillParker5.pdf) on Core Plus (integrated math) students and their subsequent performance in math classes at Michigan State University showed that “Except for some top students, graduates of Core-Plus mathematics are struggling in college mathematics at Michigan State University. The evidence shows that they were less well prepared than either graduates in the Control group (who came from a broad mix of curricula) or graduates of their own high schools before the implementation of Core-Plus mathematics”
Gregory Bachelis and James Milgram, both mathematics university professors, wrote about a study Bachelis conducted in Michigan. He solicited feedback from alumni of schools using Core-Plus math (CPM) and schools using traditional math (TM). He found that the average SAT scores for students taking TM was 59 points higher than those in CPM schools; the average college GPA of CPM students was lower than TM students; a CPM student who had a 4.0 high school GPA was placed in remedial math in college. These findings and many more appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 12, 1999.
Across the country, there are angry parents and students who have complained about the Core-Plus math system. Many are forced to turn to tutoring, after school math remedial programs, drilling at home or changing schools to avoid the integrated math curriculum. Almost twenty years after the advent of reform math, the math wars continue to rock the countryside. Some of us have heard it before and some like me are discovering it for the first time and are nonplussed. Aren’t twenty years long enough to understand the effectiveness/ ineffectiveness of a system? I am surprised that no one has found the answers as yet (at least not as per the research I have done so far).
I realize I definitely need to do more research to provide a balanced view of this issue. However, what I have seen so far is not encouraging. It is downright scary when scientists, mathematicians, and university professors all seem to agree that the new reform “integrated math” does not do justice. My post is probably just touching the tip of the iceberg. I’d urge you to read the comments from various university professors on the following blog- http://www.claytonmathmatters.com/professorFeedback.html. Some of their comments on the Core Plus systems were illuminating.
I will continue this discussion in another post. Before signing off, I want to add that every child has their own special talents. For many children math may not come naturally or they may have learning disabilities for which they may need specialized methods of instruction. My post on K-12 education does not cover these specialized methods.
Looking forward to your comments and experiences.
Enakshi Choudhuri
