Page Index
Members of Mathematically Correct discussed issues in mathematics education with Richard Riley, US Secretary of Education, subsequent to his call for a cease fire in the Math Wars. Unfortunately, little progress has resulted. Even more unfortunately, his Department of Education recently released a list that endorsed some of the weakest mathematics programs available in the world. Contrary to his call for peace, it would appear that the Secretary has taken up sides and provoked the issue.
As a result, a letter of protest was drafted and has now been endorsed by over 200 individuals, mostly professional mathematicians but including other noteworthy people in education and scientific fields. The letter was published in the Washington Post and Education week, and makes the objections to the actions of the Department of Education clear. The topic has now been a subject of discussion at a Congressional hearing.
Here is an assortment of statements released by Mathematically Correct on various issues in mathematics education.
The emergence of weak mathematics programs that are overtaking many classrooms in America was stimulated by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Their hallmark documents, called Standards, contain much of the philosophy behind the Whole Math movement. These documents do not provide content standards as the name might suggest. Instead, they focus on the promotion of their theories about how math should be taught.
NCTM is working on a revision of their Standards. To that end, they have sought comment from professional societies.
Considerable attention has been focused on mathematics education as a result of international comparisons, notably the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). These efforts generally point out the weakness of mathematics education in the United States. However, the results are often used in arguments is misleading ways. The following may help to clear up the international picture.
The statewide assessment system in Texas has used as evidence for achievement gains there. However, the gains are less impressive when the assessments are evaluated carefully.
For many years, California had no statewide test. Although the new state Standards and Framework were coming, something had to be done quickly to gain some sort of accountability in the state. As a result, the Stanford test (SAT9) was implemented statewide. By the second year of testing, the SAT9 tests were augmented with items written to address the new Standards explicitly. The statewide assessment program is known as STAR.
Finally, we have information gained from Iowa:
Fireworks went off when Massachusetts struggled to get mutliplication and division into their state mathematics framework.
The outcome of the struggle, as summarized by the Massachusetts Department of Eduction, was a Conditional Endorsement
Based on their experiences, the Concerned Parents of Reading sent a letter to the Massachusetts Board of Education.
Details of the story of the Attack by Hyman Bass on the Massachusetts Deputy Commissioner of Education for her support of arithmetic.
Noting the inadequate achievement in school mathematics in the United States, President Clinton proposed a voluntary national test as a way to combat the problem. Examinations can be an effective way to stimulate achievement gains, but the devil is in the details. Clinton's plan got off to a bad start. The first committee working on it was full of fuzzy math supporters, and the initial plans were dismal.
The test design was shifted from the initial committee to the National Assessment Governing Board. The progress was often delayed and funding was restricted by congress. The idea is still not dead, but it has been in a prolonged coma.
Here are some of the items that detail the issues and history of the test plan: