Around and Around We Go

An Inquiry into Stagnation

Michael Round

December 21, 2009

Three recent stories regarding math education have caught head-line news - somewhere.

It's not hard to imagine the surprise, anger, outrage, frustration, and a whole litany of other emotions spewing forth from people when reading these unacceptable events.

Something must be done.

Something IS done.  Curriculums are revised.  Teachers become better trained.  New technology is introduced.  Lots of things are done.

Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. 

These three incidents exist despite all of these changes.

Which leads, it seems, to a viscous cycle:

Evidence something is wrong.  The clarion call something must be done.  Something is done.  Evidence something is wrong.  The clarion call something must be done.  Something is done ...

How does one break out of such a viscous cycle?

How do I know it's viscous?  Here is an excerpt from a speech by Morris Kline - in 1955 - before Sputnik - before the "New Math":

"Let us look for a moment at the status of mathematics education. I believe that I do not have to convince anyone here that we are failing to put mathematics across. One only has to note the reactions of students to the subject, for example, their grim countenances in class, to see that we are failing. One can check this conclusion by asking his colleagues in other departments – surely an intelligent group – how they feel about the mathematics they took at school."

This is over 1/2 century ago.  "Math improvement" has been on the table longer than most people in the world have been alive.

That's a viscous cycle.

And now it's 2009, closing in on 2010.  We see the recent stories above, and the professional communities offer the following as possible avenues to pursue to improve math scores:

Can one find a "leverage point" leading to massive improvement?  Is there a constraint one can leverage, leading to similar improvement?  Let's refine the standards.

If it were this easy, wouldn't the professionals have found these "leverage points"?

Let's hold that question for a moment.

We need "To do something to improve math".

What?

For a starter, this part is obvious:  we've got new tools out there.  New technologies.  The internet.  1001 new math programs.  Interdisciplinary learning.

Change!

But no so fast.  If it were that easy, it would have been done already.  What are we missing?

What about No Child Left Behind?  These tests mandate certain achievement, according to certain tests, every year.  There are national standards, state standards, local standards.  Let's not kid ourselves, as well, regarding interdisciplinary learning.  There is a math class.  There is an English class.  A history class.  We have disjointed classes right now.  That's the reality in most classrooms.

Teachers in this environment struggle with all of these issues.

The reality is "it's hard to change", with these realities closing in on them.

This is quite a conflict:

The goal is to do something to improve math  In order to improve math, we should integrate new technology, new ideas, new strateges, interdisciplinary learning, etc.  This implies change

On the other hand

The goal is to do something to improve math.  In improving math, we need to remember NCLB looms over our heads.  AYP.  There's also standards.  I, as the classroom teacher, don't get to choose my book or my curriculum.  That's done at the district level, following recommendations at the state level, that mimic the federal level.  The implication?  Don't change.

Change / don't change.

What is done with such a conflict?

A middle ground?

Do "something" means maybe trying graphing calculators.  Maybe trying a new program.  Maybe a new textbook.  Maybe -- lots of things.

How's it working?

The conflict must be dramatic, as it lies, I believe, at the heart of the stagnation for a half-century-plus.

A chronic conflict:

It looks inevitable.

It IS inevitable - if we grant the premises and assumptions of all the entities.

Seeking to "find the leverage point" challenges nothing.  If it were that easy, wouldn't the professional community have found it? 

Perhaps.

The exciting premise in challenging this endless cycle of despair is "Who is developing the curriculum?  Who is setting the standards?  What exactly IS math?" 

There's the golden egg.

But they've demonstrated themselves incapable of changing anything themselves - which is not surprising.

Dramatic change must come from outside the system.

It shall!