September 11, 2015--Friday at the Bristol Diner: Algebra

"Why did we have to spend three years studying the Revolution?" Rona seemed agitated by her own question.

John quipped, "Maybe because it took that long to win the war."

"Actually it took longer," I murmured, "But that still is a good question though I'm sure it didn't literally take three years. You didn't like history in high school and it probably felt like three years."

"They spent at least six months telling us about what kind of clothes people wore at that time. Mainly the women."

"Probably under political-correctness pressure they needed to find something to say about the roles women played. They were likely trying to get the girls in class interested. The boys probably got into the battles and weapons."

"I'm sure they did," Rona grumbled.

"But while we're at it," she continued, "why did they require so much history--American History, World History, Non-Western History?"

"Or for that matter," John joined in, "so much literature--American Lit, English Lit, and . . ."

"And," I added, "don't forget Non-Western Literature."

"Then there was all that science and a foreign language," Rona said, "And I went to a non-traditional high school."

"State requirements. I'm sure that's the answer."

"I'm sure you're right, John, and in addition," Rona said, "Once something gets into the curriculum as a requirement it's hard to dislodge it, assuming anyone wants to. There's a whole infrastructure and industry that surrounds all the academic fields. There are jobs at stake. If they stopped requiring foreign language, what would they do with all the French and Spanish teachers?"

"Make them teach gym," I said. "I mean it. In my high school, they had a surplus of social studies teachers and since they couldn't get rid of them turned them into gym teachers. I'm sure you can imagine how well that worked out."

John was nodding, "True for me as well."

"While we're on the subject, tell me why they require everyone to take at least a year of algebra? I mean, you John are an accountant and own a manufacturing company that makes precision steel products. Do you ever use any algebra in doing people's taxes or in your manufacturing work?"

"Never once," he said. "My memory is half shot but I can't remember one thing, not one thing I learned in algebra. Maybe that equations have to be balanced. But how to do that and why that's important I think escaped me then (if I could only remember) and now--forget about now."

"When I was at the Ford Foundation," I said, "I attended a board meeting of a big deal education foundation. In Cincinnati. The meeting was devoted to how to more effectively teach inner-city kids science and math. There were a lot of good ideas around that table from very high-powered people, including Dick Riley, who was Secretary of Education.

"About a half hour into it, I said, 'I know this is going to sound crazy, but before we talk about how to teach, say, algebra more effectively, maybe we should ask ourselves why we require it of everyone in the first place.'

"All there stared at the table top. I thought, 'Boy, did I blow it. They probably think I am crazy.'"

"So what happened?" John asked.

"No one had a good answer. The dean of the school of ed there said it's partly for exposure. To see which kids gravitate toward math, maybe even have a talent for it."

"'Good point,' the school superintendent said, 'but you know, you really don't have to spend a year frustrating 99 percent of the kids to maybe find one turned on to math. In fact, anyone with math aptitude by the time he or she gets to high school would already know algebra and even calculus. Those kids teach themselves.'"

"So where did things wind up?" John asked.

"Not resolved. No surprise there. It was just too hot a topic, too potentially disruptive even though later that night, after everyone had had a few drinks, pretty much all the board members said we as a nation, as educators should probably talk openly about this because we're turning more kids off than on by requiring so much math and probably other stuff as well."

"Like three years about the Revolution," Rona said under her breath.

"What about civic education?" John added. "Since schooling is a required public enterprise, on which we spend many, many billions, isn't one big justification the preparation of well informed citizens who, because of Civics and American History, can participate more knowledgeably as voters and maybe even as public officials?'

"Excellent point," I said, "That is if it works."

"Works?" Rona exclaimed, "And where does it lead? To Donald TRUMP."

"I'm getting depressed," John said. "Did anyone see Stephen Colbert last night?"

December 4, 2013--Requiring Math

There was a report in yesterday's New York Times about how American school children in mathematics continue to slip behind students in other countries.

At one time our kids scored at the highest levels on international tests. Last year they slipped behind students in Ireland and Poland and in previous years saw themselves coming in well behind those in China, Japan, South Korea, and Finland.

The United States came in 36th while Latvia was 28th, Slovenia 21st, and Liechtenstein 8th.

While worrying about this, I recalled a board meeting I went to some years ago of one of America's leading education reform organizations. It was a bluechip board and included, among others, two former Secretaries of Education.

The discussion turned to ways to improve math instruction, especially for low-income students. There was a promising approach being developed in Houston called Move It Math. An educator from there made a presentation about what made this approach promising and how there was gathering evidence that students befitted from its methods.

I didn't have much to say, not knowing all that much about math instruction. But after a time, I requested the floor and asked why we require all children to take math in elementary, middle, and high schools and often in college. "Why must everyone take algebra?" I wondered, acknowledging this was a heretical thought since years and years of math had been a universal requirement for decades.

"Why geometry and trigonometry? What's the case for that?" I asked. "Particularly when this seems to be so difficult for so many students and that struggle--frequently unsuccessful--turns them off to other parts of the curriculum."

There was more than a moment of silence. I thought because the others in the room were wondering how to metaphorically pat me on the head without offending me so they could get back to a serious discussion about ways in which to improve math instruction.

Finally, surprising me since I had not until that moment had such a thought, the dean of a noted school of education said, perhaps surprising herself as well, "This is worth considering." All heads around the table swung in her direction.

"How much of this makes education sense as opposed to giving in to the math industry."

"Math industry?" a nationally-known professor of educational history asked with considerable sarcasm.

"You should know all about that," the dean replied. "How years ago organized groups of math instructors and advocates from organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, founded, I think, in about 1920, how they fought hard to get as much math as possible included in the core curriculum. And how, among other things, by having such a central place in what was required of students more power and jobs accrued to those in what I just called the math industry. And I'll stand my that."

Around the table a few heads began to nod.

"And let's not forget that this focus on math--and science--swelled, in reality became  a nation obsession after 1957 when Russia launched Sputnik. As part of our effort to win the Cold War."

"If we didn't require so much math, how much should be required?" a midwestern university president asked. "I'm assuming that no one here is saying that no arithmetic or mathematics should be required. If we want to talk about this seriously we need to address that. Also, we need to discuss national needs. How important is math to the viability of the American economy because, let's be frank, to justify public support for education (and not just for mathematics) we need to be able to make the case that what we are now seditiously considering," he smiled at that, "among other things, must be in the best economic interest of America in a globalizing world."

"I can see," I jumped back in, "requiring basic arithmetic and computational skills--those proven to be necessary to functioning as a citizen: how to keep track of one's finances, be an informed citizen and voter, things of that sort. And I can see introducing everyone to mathematical reasoning and elementary algebra so, among other things, those with math talent will be challenged and interested and also to let educators know the math capacities and gifts of their students so that those with mathematical inclinations can be discovered and encouraged to pursue more math more seriously."

I continued, "This are very preliminary thoughts. Admittedly I do not really know what I am talking about when it comes to the details of mathematics education and methodologies," there was considerable playful nodding when I acknowledged that, "but rather step-back questions to see if what we are requiring makes sense and is not just being driven by tradition and, in some cases," I looked toward the dean, "organizational self-interest."

"We need to come back to that," the board chair was eager to move on, and we did.

Some years later, contemplating the full meaning of the Program for International Student Assessment scores, I wonder if it might be time to get back to that discussion.