Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I found these paragraphs from the link to be most in line with what I've watched (and questioned)for many years, so I suppose that puts me in the "agrees" category:
"Unfortunately, the marketing of math has become similar to the marketing of creams to whiten teeth, gels to grow hair and regimens to build a beautiful body.
There are three steps to this kind of aggressive marketing. The first is to convince people that white teeth, a full head of hair and a sculpted physique are essential to a good life. The second is to embarrass those who do not possess them. The third is to make people think that, since a good life is their right, they must buy these products.
So it is with math education. A lot of effort and money has been spent to make mathematics seem essential to everybody's daily life."
and
"You can see attempts at embarrassing the public in popular books written by mathematicians bemoaning the innumeracy of common folk and how it is supposed to be costing billions; books about how mathematicians have a more clever way of reading the newspaper than the masses; and studies purportedly showing how much dumber our kids are than those in Europe and Asia."
The writer is a professor emeritus of mathematics, statistics and computer science at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
The very University whose (now defunct as of 2003) Department of Education developed Everyday Mathematics? I had read some years back that many of the professors in the Mathematics Department took a big step back when that program was developed.
Somehow, I have to wonder if he wasn't one of them.
Why, because it expands their minds. Do you REALLY want to live in a society where people ONLY study what they will do for a living? Do you realize that by doing this we would actually go BACKWARDS educationally. Much of education is exposure to ideas, concepts, ways of thinking. One of the most important things I learned in college was to look at issues from many different perspectives. I think there is a GREAT need for this in our society and not enough people learn how to do this because they are so focused on 2+2. Just think how much more reasonable our society would be if people could see things from other's perspective.
ITA. When we start teaching only what people need for a job, we stop educating and start creating drones. The purpose of education is to create people who can think and that means exposing them to theings that they might find uncomfortable. Where would society be if no one ever stepped out of their comfort zone?
And then there's the fact we don't know just what we'll need until we need it. I was lousy at math in high school but kept taking math because I was supposed to. I thrived in math in college. Now where would I be if they'd let me quit taking math in 9th grade
Not everyone is going to be able to read, no matter how much tutoring and time then spend on it. Some kids just don't get reading...
Does that sound right?
No, it doesn't. While there will always be the extremes who can't learn to read or do math, the vast majority of students can learn both to read and to do math.
I think he means advanced math and not basic math. Why should someone going for a law degree need to study calculus for example?
The same, incorrect, argument can be made for engineers taking social science courses. Everything we study teaches us to think in different ways. It's part of growing a well rounded mind.
The answer is: To learn how to think logically. To learn a different way of thinking. To stretch your brian in ways other things will not.
ITA. When we start teaching only what people need for a job, we stop educating and start creating drones. The purpose of education is to create people who can think and that means exposing them to theings that they might find uncomfortable. Where would society be if no one ever stepped out of their comfort zone?
And then there's the fact we don't know just what we'll need until we need it. I was lousy at math in high school but kept taking math because I was supposed to. I thrived in math in college. Now where would I be if they'd let me quit taking math in 9th grade
That's true, but we've already created drones. Just look at how they have to sit through endless tests in our "Race to the Top to Leave No Child Behind." We seem to have forgotten that some of the greatest innovators of all time didn't have algebra in 3rd grade.
Stepping out of one's comfort zone also takes character, and when we focus on one or two subjects to near-exclusion (such as Math and LA which is pretty much the bulk of what my 5th grader is doing) then I believe that's not conducive to a "well-rounded" character-building education.
That's true, but we've already created drones. Just look at how they have to sit through endless tests in our "Race to the Top to Leave No Child Behind." We seem to have forgotten that some of the greatest innovators of all time didn't have algebra in 3rd grade.
Stepping out of one's comfort zone also takes character, and when we focus on one or two subjects to near-exclusion (such as Math and LA which is pretty much the bulk of what my 5th grader is doing) then I believe that's not conducive to a "well-rounded" character-building education.
It's kind of hard to focus on one subject to the exclusion of others at the middle school/high school level.
As to 5th grade, it depends how it's done. They focused on reading, writing and math when my dd was in 5th grade but they read and wrote about all kinds of topics so it didn't matter. The beuty of LA is you can teach LA with just about any subject so it can be very well rounded. Math needs to be a focus because we are raising a generation of math phobic kids and there's no reason for that.
As to already creating drones....this is why we need to push to teach more than they need just to get a job. I'm amazed we have people crying we need less when we, already, don't teach enough. Of course we need a longer school year to teach more...but that's another argument.
I think knowledge of advanced math is a waste if you aren't in a career where this math skills will be used freuently; however, I believe that these people should have an understanding of basic math (adding, subtracting, multiplying and division), basic & intermediate algebra and geometry, and statistics.
Personally, I like algebra at all levels, statistics and doing math/logic puzzles. Other math is not my friend.
Judging by my 6th grader son's math HW over the years, it seems like schools spend much less time on things like long division, fractions, percents, and decimals than when I was a kid (and actually I took violin instead of learning to multiply decimals, and I still have trouble with decimals....and I can not play the violin either ).
Now my son has been learning about Pasqual's Triangle, and determing how to calculate how many lines are in a bunch of boxes with X's in the middle (terms). Last year he learned 4 ways to multiply, none of which he mastered, and spent a lot of time in fourth grade on magic squares.
So based on this, I would say that elementary schools should still spend a lot of time on math, but they should be providing a better foundation. Then, as kids get older, the math can get harder, and become more of a choice.
It's kind of hard to focus on one subject to the exclusion of others at the middle school/high school level.
As to 5th grade, it depends how it's done. They focused on reading, writing and math when my dd was in 5th grade but they read and wrote about all kinds of topics so it didn't matter. The beuty of LA is you can teach LA with just about any subject so it can be very well rounded. Math needs to be a focus because we are raising a generation of math phobic kids and there's no reason for that.
As to already creating drones....this is why we need to push to teach more than they need just to get a job. I'm amazed we have people crying we need less when we, already, don't teach enough. Of course we need a longer school year to teach more...but that's another argument.
I don't disagree that they need all the exposure they can get. The disagreement I have is pushing more complex maths on younger and younger kids. As has been bandied about here ad nauseum, constructivist math programs are not only turning many kids off from math in general IMHO, they are also causing math-phobia in the first place.
My take on this article is that this professor is making a point that there has been "much ado" about "critical thinking skills" and how it seems that math has cornered the market on developing those which is something that he doesn't believe is really necessary. I agree with him. All subjects teach critical thinking skills and logic to some extent or another. I can't tell you how many kids I've watched over the years (if left to their own devices) have used critical thinking skills to get something accomplished, and a few of them have not been particularly adept at math.
LA in our area, is being tied in with reading (which is also being tied in with spelling) in the younger grades. In other words, they're trying to "work smarter, not harder" in the sense that they are trying to expose them to harder work at a younger age.
Okay, I'll buy that for 50 cents; however, the end result of much of that as near as I can tell, is a generation who doesn't know the difference between "there, they're, and their" or "lose and loose" (and not just one or two goofs as is human either - consistently).
Spelling as a single subject goes away completely by 6th grade here. I find "technology" as a lame excuse to not exercise the brain by learning how to spell correctly. To me, the idea that kids are so much more capable than we give them credit for may be a noble cause (and very true in some cases) but not particularly realistic for the general population. There are far too many factors involved besides school.
Personally, I understand why people would want a longer year because of what's being taught now. I don't agree with it because I truly believe that summer vacation has value. That's neither here nor there and off topic, but I certainly think we've gone a wee bit overboard with the cramming of info into our kids before they are old enough to grasp it.
I also base this on personal experience since I forced myself to attend an Algebra class when I was 25 years old. I got an A out of pure contempt and stubborness, but the point is, had I not been so disgusted with "New Math" at a very early age, I'd have probably learned to enjoy it in the first place. I see history repeating itself daily with not only my own kids, but others as well. And as an aside, I did really grow to enjoy prealgebra after the book hit the wall a couple of times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it doesn't. While there will always be the extremes who can't learn to read or do math, the vast majority of students can learn both to read and to do math.
). 
