I come to you as a cofounder of Mathematically Correct, an organization of concerned parents, mathematicians, scientists, and educators across the country. Our group is decidedly non-partisan. Such things as equations in algebra class or long division in elementary school are hardly partisan issues. The implication that females and minorities can't do math like other people should be opposed by everyone -- left or right. Calculators in kindergarten? From socialist to libertarian, we all think not.
Our parents-based uprising resulted from severe dissatisfaction with the mathematics programs in our schools, and our concern is heightened by the poor showing of American students in comparison to our international competitors.1 The extreme weakness that has invaded our school mathematics programs is accompanied by high-powered rhetoric from the so-called reform movement in mathematics education. We believe this reform is taking a bad situation and making it worse.
No one is better at putting a positive spin on a dismal situation than the educational reformer. We are constantly bombarded with lofty claims, but we see no real improvement. There are even signs that we are slipping further behind. We hear from a new crop of upset parents somewhere in the U.S. virtually every day. Their complaints and concerns tell a consistent story. American parents are growing more and more aware, and they are getting angry.
In 1996, we called for explicit, high-level standards in mathematics and for regular assessments of progress, all based on the guidance of an independent, external body.2 The one positive sign in American mathematics education is that there is some movement in this direction. But, this silver lining comes with an ominous cloud. Ineffective standards and slanted and unreliable tests are worse than nothing at all. Done correctly, standards and assessments can provide a tremendous boost to our mathematics education. Done incorrectly, they can further deteriorate American achievement. Heed this warning -- the odds are that this job will be done incorrectly.
Recent history justifies our warning. In 1989, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics issued what they called Standards.3 Rather blindly, these documents were supported by the leading organizations of mathematicians and educators across the country. Oddly enough, these so-called Standards fail to define the material that students need to learn as they move from grade to grade. Instead, they are laced with flowery language about high-level thinking and communication along with prescriptive discussions of teaching philosophy and calculator use. These alleged Standards have precipitated change in a direction that would hide low achievement levels under a cloak of rhetoric and vagueness.
In California, we unfortunately followed this guidance faithfully. We were on the cutting edge of reform. As a result, schools in California are filled with textbooks that offer weak, low-level mathematics content, are full of color pictures and activities, and are accompanied by claims of potential accomplishments. Now our state is near the bottom of the country in achievement.4-5 Most of our entering state university students must now receive remedial courses.
Further evidence is provided in the State Mathematics Standards report from the Fordham Foundation.6 The mathematics standards for each state were graded, and the median grade was a "D." The report notes, The failure of almost every State to delineate even that which is to be desired in the way of mathematics education constitutes a national disaster.
As yet another example, consider the Los Angeles Unified School District’s mathematics standards, written by the NSF-funded Systemic Initiative in LA. Clearly, even with the influence of the National Science Foundation, the result is totally ineffective.7 Better new standards can be found in San Diego8 and in California9, thanks largely to the fury of irate parents.
The bottom line is that the prospects of adopting high-quality standards are bleak, even when large and heretofore respectable national organizations are involved. Assessments too can suffer a similar fate. As but one example, we have found that students receiving failing grades on a rather standard algebra 1 test are able to achieve honors recognition on our revised California Golden State examination.10
The initial plan for the Voluntary National Test in Mathematics was similarly misguided. We were distressed to see the plan head in the wrong direction and publicly expressed our opposition.11-13 The chairman of the development committee was the president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics at the very time they issued their so-called standards. He was also involved in the development of the reform-oriented mathematics textbook that has come to be known as "rain forest algebra."14-18 The reform perspective influenced the development of the plan for the voluntary test, and the result was unacceptable in many ways.
With respect specifically to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, we are thankful that changes to this assessment device have been made slowly and with deliberation. The NAEP still expects our children to learn arithmetic and algebra. Yet, it is distressing to learn that developers of the "rain forest algebra" book14-18 were the two mathematics consultants used by the National Assessment Governing Board, or NAGB, during the last revision of the NAEP framework.19 The NAEP has been moving in the direction of the so-called reform. If there are further changes, the NAEP could eventually lose its value altogether.
As you are well aware, many are fearful of the involvement of the Federal Government in state and local education. The risks became real for us when a high-ranking NSF official publicly criticized the new mathematics standards in California.20-21 Contrary to his perspective, the Fordham Foundation Report shows that the new California Standards earned an "A" grade, superior even to the material from Japan.6 So far, the involvement of the Federal Government and our many fine national institutions has not helped strengthen mathematics education.
Mathematically Correct is now caught between conflicting forces -- the proverbial rock and a hard place. On one hand, high-level, explicit, content based standards and externally controlled assessments are the only real hope for our children. On the other hand, we are fearful that such efforts will be misguided and could make matters worse instead of better. Be that as it may, we hold out hope that effective standards and assessments can be developed and implemented. In this light, we offer the following recommendations:
Thank you for inviting me here to speak. Improving education is of utmost importance if this country is to maintain its position in the world, and if we wish to continue to offer opportunity to all of our citizens. The members of Mathematically Correct stand ready to assist you in this effort.
[1] U.S. Teens Rank Low in World Tests: High school students dismal in math, science, Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle, February 25, 1998
[2] A Program for Raising the Level of Student Achievement in Secondary School Mathematics, Frank B. Allen, Mathematically Correct
[3] Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989
[4] Another jolt on education, Dan Walters, The Sacramento Bee, Feb. 28, 1997
[5] State Kids Lagging in Math Skills, Greg Lucas, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 28, 1997
[6] State Mathematics Standards, Ralph A. Raimi and Lawrence S. Braden, Fordham Report, Vol 2 #3
[7] A Comparison of the LAUSD Math Standards and the California Math Standards, Mathematically Correct
[8] Mathematics Content and Performance Standards, San Diego City Schools
[9] The California Mathematics Academic Content Standards, Adopted by the California State Board of Education
[10] Effectiveness of CPM vs Traditional Math, Mathematically Correct
[11] Mathematically Correct Testimony on the Voluntary National Test Plan, Paul Clopton, Mathematically Correct
[12] Comments on the National 8th Grade Mathematics Test, Mathematically Correct
[13] Letter to President Clinton regarding the 8th Grade Mathematics Test, Mathematically Correct
[14] 'Rain Forest' Algebra Course Teaches Everything but Algebra, Marianne Jennings
[15] Math Programs in Arizona: X + Y = F, Marianne Jennings
[16] More on Addison-Wesley Focus on Algebra, Richard Askey
[17] A Failure to Produce Better Students, Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, Senate - June 09, 1997 Page: S5393 Congressional Record
[18] Texas Adopts Textbook Rejected by Nation, Chris Patterson
[19] Mathematics Framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress, National Assessment Governing Board
[20] Man of Science Has a Problem With Real Math, Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 19, 1997
[21] Comments on the Luther Williams Letter, Ralph A. Raimi, University of Rochester
[22] AFT Criteria for High-Quality Standards, American Federation of Teachers