And that’s why I’ve been practicing my long division. Via email;
I am a university graduate with a bachelors of science in mathematics, and I am currently pursuing graduate studies. I do a lot of marking, tutoring and lecturing in the mathematical sciences so the following issue is something I care a lot about and have first hand experience with.
The current state of high school math education in the western Canadian provinces is deplorable. The standard algorithms used to add, subtract, multiply and divide have been replaced with a holistic approach that puts an emphasis on discovering one’s own understanding of math in order to solve problems.
While this idea may be a great idea for the already gifted and bright students, for the general populace this is absolutely useless.
Coupled with the poor level of teacher training, we have a grade school math education system that is categorically failing kids and parents.
The sad thing is that this is mostly a policy problem. Curricula are being revised in order to stop parental bitching. They remove all the difficult parts about math. Most importantly they remove the part where you are forced to follow instructions (gasp!) or be wrong and have your feelings hurt.
Because they learn in only this way, they come to university completely unprepared and ignorant of the skills needed to learn even basic calculus (ie. the backbone of engineering and physics) or computer science (ie. the backbone of modern society).
It has gotten to the point where certain western professors of mathematics are speaking out about this problem to the media. Parents and educators alike are finding frustration with the current curriculum. One professor has “gone public” with his thoughts on the issue, as highlighted in this CBC article.
This same professor, along with a number of our colleagues, has begun an campaign to try to call attention to this problem. Below my message is a forwarded email linking to their website. It includes a mission statement and a petition for people to sign. This has attracted the attention of professors across all western universities as this problem is prevalent from BC to Manitoba (except it might not be as bad in Alberta).
In a century where basic and advanced math skills are becoming increasingly important to both finding and keeping a job, we cannot ignore this problem. It will put western children at a competitive disadvantage compared to the rest of Canada, and the rest of the world.
As you can see there is already some coverage of this problem, but my concern is that the CBC will see this as just some “western problem” and shuffle it aside as some daily interest story and move on to more politically lucrative ventures. On the other hand, your readers are closely connected to western issues, and I believe that they care about things like math education and keeping our students nationally and globally competitive.
This issue NEEDS attention, kids are dumb…but they don’t have to be.
You can read more here:Western Initiative for Strengthening Education in Math, or WISE Math.
(John Gormley LIve is also covering the topic this morning at 11am Saskatchewan time)
As murray said, you learn math by doing math problems, just as you learn a sport by playing it. I would add practice not only makes perfect, it makes permanent. Students – gifted students – can’t remember trig identities, because they haven’t used them enough. High school math books are particular offenders in this regard; high school texts may have30 problems in a section where college texts have 90 ( or more).
A lot of kids go to school with only 4 or 2 or zero hours of sleep, and it is difficult even to recall facts when you are tired, let alone grasp any new ones. Parents seem oblivious to this fact
lookout- you’re right- educational bureaucrats are the reason texts our lousy. Go write your own, and send it to some non-academic publisher. Somewhere, there is a small publisher who would publish it.
.
Curricula are being revised in order to stop parental bitching.
I partially agree.
The curricula are a product of government, and so they primarily reflect the priorities considered important by the political class to expand and strengthen their grip on power. Get the money out of their hands, and into the parents’, and the schools will quickly improve and provide real education to the students.
I send my kids to public school because I have to work for a living, but they are effectively home schooled. At least three nights a week we have a math lesson, and every day we have reading time. We go to the public library and get fiction and non fiction books on a variety of subjects. My 8yo son answered all the questions in Jeopardy the other day on the subject of astronomy. My grade 3 son does grade 6 math at home and my grade 1 son does grade 3 math. I don’t honestly think that either one is exceptional, but the public school standard seems very low. They also attend one of the top rated schools in the city
Mean… average…. do you folks not know ANYTHING?
It’s called “normal”. Or at least, it is when you refer to temperature.
The JUMP math program is really great about getting back to basics again with your kids. A lot of this crap in education is based on the terrible idea that math is not interesting and exciting to kids unless it has stories and concrete examples. Even us parents buy into this BS.
Even if your kid is doing well in the present education system, it’s not a bad idea to get the JUMP workbooks and work through them with your kids. Yes, they’re not perfect either but they’re way better than most of what kids are doing today.
Khan Academy is also a great free online resource. I read somewhere that one teacher in California has the kids watching the videos at home as their homework. Then the kids come into school and do their “homework” exercises at school with her assistance. Limited sample but this is working far better than it was before. That model can be repeated even in places around the world without great local teaching resources.
Until the public starts complaining to their MLA specifically about what is in the curriculum nothing will change. Curriculum development has been left to the bureaucrats who are out of control…and until the elected officials feel uncomfortable it will remain so.
I had both differential and integral calculus at school and went at age 17 to Uni and got a B.Sc. degree in maths and physics. The school was a minor English public school and I was advanced one year. We also had school on a Saturday morning and at least two hours of homework a night.
Happens I was at parent-teacher conferences this evening and had an interesting discussion with my daughter’s 2nd grade teacher. (Private school in CT) She’s fed up with the watered down curriculum, and is insisting the kids master the addition facts. Nobody gets an A in math until they can do 64 problems in 3 minutes. So far, she’s got about 2/20 at that level.
Shout out to that grade 2 teacher: BRAVA!!
Oh I see the problem, you thought those schools were for educating kids. Actually they are NDP recruitment centres.
Alberta is no better. Curriculum is too broad and no depth and focus.
We figured out when my daughter started grade 6 that the public schools had failed her in math. When we asked how the grade 5 teacher could have given her a B, we were told that she got is because she “tried hard”. It cost us thousands for tutoring to get her caught up by the time she started grade 8 (note the school continued to give her Bs through this) until she now gets As that she deserves. And even she complains that the math being taught doesn’t make sense.
BC is currently rolling out the new math curriculum (in sync with all western provinces, I think.) The current grade 11 students are on new curriculum while the grade 12’s are on the old. (The professor therefore is probably not commenting on new curriculum).
The focus of the new curriculum at the high school level is less on building new computational skills (like factoring polynomials) and more on how to use a smaller set of skills (applications and problem-solving.)
Why are schools going downhill?
1. Integration: Put someone who cant in with 28 who can and the group is much more complicated to teach. It also sends the message that classes are about something other than learning.
2. Transition statistics: Principals want students to pass. Teachers never get in trouble for passing students who should fail. Given the bad behavior and study habits that it takes to fail, we are sending the message that there will be no consequence for not trying.
Our school is talking about doing away with failures. I heard (second hand) an administrator cite a study saying that failing students does not help them succeed. I say that makes sense. Failing 2 of 30 does, however, motivate the 8 of 30 that need to work to pass. Seeing those 8 working motivates the first 2. (It also delivers better working conditions for the 20 of 30 who wanted tor work in the first place.)
3. Home life: fron Socrates to Mazlow, they say a student learns when he is ready. And he isn’t ready until the necessities of life are in order. (a student with no dad and little time from mom may crave attention more than science instruction.)
What I’d like to see is the results of school teachers on the Grade 12 math that I took in 1970. At that time we were expected to know algebra, trigonometry and the basics of calculus. Geometry was something that was covered in the lower grades. Things like systems of differential equations were left for first year university although once I learned how to use Laplace transforms my conventional differential equation solving skills atrophied.
Much of the arithmetic we did in our heads and one of the things I’d occupy myself with during the 4 mile walk to/from school was trying to multiply two 6 digit numbers in my head. Never did get the exact product but pretty much everyone had a far better feel for numbers then. Part of this I attribute to use of slide rules which give people the ability to guestimate mathematical quantities to an order of magnitude or better.
The widespread innumeracy is probably a large part of why people believe in CAGW. I doubt that 1 person in 100 with a university education has the ability to calculate expected atmospheric warming as a function of CO2 concentration if they were given the absorption spectrum of CO2 and all of the equations needed to calculate the result. People who describe themselves as “experts” in atmospheric science aren’t able to perform these calculations.
While many people posting here have stressed repetition as being essential to mathematics, what attracted me to math was the lack of memorization required. There were only a few basic axioms and identities one needed to know and then it was just a matter of applying them. I did take the lack of memorization to a bit of an extreme when I found myself almost failing a first year calculus exam as I never bothered memorizing a number of simple derivatives of trigonometric functions. I did, however, know how to do Taylor-series expansions of sin(x) and cos(x) and furiously wrote out infinite series expansions, multiplied them together and tried to simplify them into something that looked like the right answer. After that I decided that maybe there was more of a role for memorization in math.
The only way I can see to get math being taught properly in schools again is to give a math test to all teachers and fire those who can’t pass it. Mathematics underlies everything in an advanced society and innumeracy leads inexorably to serfdom.
But here’s the real problem: everybody will piss and moan and wine on thre blogs and in ther coffee shops, but they won’t storm down and surround the Board of Ed. offices; they won’t yank their kids out of school when a ‘progressive’ principal decides to hold the “Holiday Concert” in February; and they won’t stop voting for the likes of McGuinty who will make sure their grade one kids learn all about transvestites.
cgh @11:04 – “It’s the same thing with basic grammar, spelling and punctuation. Time after time, it’s been shown that the only way to do it is at a young age and by rote.”
With respect, I disagree. The best way to encourage kids to learn these things is to get them to read. Parents are the ones who’ll do that.
While perusing my younger son’s (grade 4) math homework a few nights ago I was initially impressed by all the graphs he had on the page. When I realized that all he needed to do was substract one four column number from another four column number I showed him an “easier” solution (since it was the most logical, I assumed it was the easiest method). They haven’t learned to substract large numbers (requiring borrowing, etc). I remember doing area, perimeter and volume problems in grade 4 (I’m 45 and did grade 4 in 75-76).
If parents are required to teach their kids the basics that are being missed in school, why are we paying teachers such high salaries?
Pete E makes a very good point about “failing” students: as Melanie Phillips pointed out in her excellent book critiquing the educational system in Britain—every bit as bad as ours—“All Must Have Prizes”.
In fact, if a teacher should “fail” a student, guess who’s held accountable? Certainly not the student—that very student, who fools around in class, doesn’t pay attention to instruction, doesn’t apply himself to the seatwork, won’t do homework or study for tests, and whose parents are unsupportive to belligerent. No matter: admin. will require the elementary school teacher to provide an IEP—Individual Education Plan—providing which additional strategies the teacher will use to make sure of the student’s success. High school teachers, I believe, are also held to account in much the same way: kid doesn’t/won’t work and it’s the teacher who has to work harder. Our left-wing, touchy-feely systems are CRAZY!
I met a high school teacher at a party: we were commiserating. She shared—and I’m on-side—that if a student’s marks were in the 40’s, he’d get 50%. If he didn’t, all the onus to improve his mark would be dumped on the teacher. RI-DI-CU-LOUS!
(Re grammar, spelling, and punctuation, I agree with cgh to an extent: kids definitely benefit from direct instruction of the conventions and patterns, with plenty of practice. However my program has lots of interactive, problem-solving ways to do that. Using literature, instead of the dreadful basal readers, so my kids actually enjoy reading, is also a major part of my program. One thing we do is repetitive reading aloud of certain passages from these books: among many other things, this simple technique is excellent for teaching/learning the conventions, in context. It’s amazing how much one can teach/learn from one well written text!)
I notice that Scar’s reasonable challenge to the argumentative Mr. Ream—“I’ll play. What is the difference between average and arithmetic mean?”—hasn’t yet been met. Hmm . . .)
‘Great thread!
favill, there’s definitely something wrong there: by grade 4, students should be able to add and subtract four digit numbers with regrouping. Perhaps the teacher’s so busy doing all the window dressing parts of the curriculum, s/he hasn’t had time to cover the basics properly, a very common situation, I’m afraid. The “fancy-pants” curriculum and pressure from on high to cover all of it—“See, aren’t we clever for providing such a sophisticated curriculum?”—really compromises teachers’ ability to see that their students learn the basics TO MASTERY.
The fat-cat dolts who produce such curriculums are so far from the classroom, they have not a clue about the real world. If a ministry of education ever had the foresight to actually hire REAL, on-the-ground, mathematicians and teachers to design the math curriculum, we might see an improvement, As things are, that’s highly unlikely.
I’ve commented before on this topic because it is close to my heart, but Lookout has said most of what I have to say so I won’t repeat myself.
I’d like to add a bit of speculation. Some 30 or more years ago, when a university degree meant something, it was difficult to acquire because you had to actually earn it. Then, a degree was seen as the ticket to a great future and many parents who had struggled at uncertain, low-paying jobs, determined that education was worth acquiring for their kids. They scrimped to send kids to university. Kids took part time jobs and actually saved to attend. Loans became available, and suddenly everyone was going to be a lawyer or a doctor. For a while, the universities could not accommodate the large numbers of students who wanted to attend, so they raised the entrance requirements. But then the cash potential of hordes of university students was realized. Universities began to realize that if they treated their degrees as a product to sell, they could make tons of money, expand their operations, build nice buildings and offer sinecures to many many more professors. Plus, if they persuaded the government to pitch in to educate the masses, they could tap into an almost infinite resource. The professions, such as medicine and engineering, held the line pretty well, but universities began to offer programs that didn’t require so much intellectual ability and effort. Also, there began to be many surplus graduates who could not find jobs unless they were created in academia. This meant that programs had to be expanded or created for them.
At the same time, pressure began to be put on the schools. The insistence on high academic standards in universities was seen as a barrier to young people who wanted that glowing future of professional jobs. It began to be thought of as undemocratic to “prevent” access to the goodies by insisting students meet certain standards. The easy solution was to lower those standards until just about anyone could meet them. In fact, students no longer had to meet any standards–the standards would come down to meet them. But as the standards lowered, students lowered their efforts even more, so the only way to unlock the keys to the kingdoms of university was to inflate the marks.
I’m not surprised that graduates in education are unprepared to teach math. When you have such blindingly stupid comments as this (discussed previously at SDA):
“Cecilia Reynolds, the dean of education at the University of Saskatchewan, said the college is currently considering making the math education course an elective.
Reynolds said teachers would still be taught how to instruct children in math skills, but that training would be more child-focused, “taking into consideration if that child is aboriginal, taking into consideration if that child has autism, taking into consideration whether that child ate a breakfast that morning.
Reynolds added that the proposal is being driven by the prospective teachers themselves.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/09/25/sask-teachers-math-education.html
Much of what passes as education now is akin to prostitution. What you cannot earn legitimately, you can buy. Or if you can’t buy it, you can extort it or whine until you get it.
But the pendulum seems to be swinging back and there are encouraging signs. WISE math is one of those.
rita, I wondered when you’d weigh in. ’Great to hear from you!
What you say here is spot on. The powers that be in this country are running it—into the ground. These people are like prostitutes: they’ll do anything it takes to expand their vastly too big and overrated fiefdoms, as long as they can keep the huge salaries they pull down. E.g., There are many (do-nothing, idiot) elementary school principals who make $140 000/year. Are they and their fellow bureaucrats, such as the bird-brained Cecilia Reynolds you mention and the union lackeys going to rock the boat to try to stop this educational fraud? Not on your life: it’s their gravy train. Figuratively (for any literal-minded peaceniks who might read this), they have blood on their hands.
The asinine and immoral policies of our over-priced, arrogant, education bureaucrats (educators they are NOT) are turning “the true North, strong and free” into a banana republic. Saying “Shame on you” to such people is a total waste of time: they have pots of money and an altogether inflated sense of their own importance. “Shame? What’s that?” Kyrie eleison.
loki – with full respect, teacher ignorance is not the reason 16 year olds do not know the 12 x 12 multiplication table.