Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Excellence in Education

Post from the February 2006 eNews-Update:


The need to pursue excellence in education is finally a topic of discussion in the nation�s capitol. Thomas L. Freidman's recent best-seller, The World is Flat, brings national attention to the United States slipping behind China and India in producing scientists and engineers, which threatens to dramatically alter our innovation and competitiveness in the global economy. Numerous studies support Freidman�s warning that our students are falling behind those in other parts of the world, especially in math and science.

Last month President Bush announced an American Competitiveness Initiative in his State of the Union address which, among other things, called for an emphasis on improving math and science education in our schools. Some of the specifics include:


�...the need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations.�
�...train 70,000 high school teachers to lead Advanced Placement courses in math and science.� This AP Incentive program plans to increase the number of students taking AP math and science exams from 380,000 today to 1.5 million in 2012.
utilize the Adjunct Teachers Corps program to �bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms� by 2015.
a proposed fiscal 2007 budget set to include $380 million in new federal funding for K-12 math and science education.

There are many important points for dialogue. Are these proposals adequate? Will Congress pass them? If passed, how effective will they be? The important point for gifted students and their parents is that the conversation of excellence in education is now on the national agenda. We need to be a part of these discussions -- to share our experiences about appropriate educational programs for gifted learners. Communicate with your U.S. Senators and Representatives. They need to hear from you now more than ever; simply go to Project Vote Smart and enter your zip code to find their contact information.

When questioned about a possible conflict between No Child Left Behind and the American Competitiveness Initiative, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings responded that the department can do both: raise the bottom and enhance achievement at the top.

That would be a nice outcome.

Perhaps what we really need is to revamp our entire educational system. 'No child left behind' and other initiatives are aimed at helping one group of children. WHy not revamp the system for all children?

Well... I guess that the primary reasons might be teacher unions, parents who don't want any child labelled as more special than their child, burocrats who have entrenched themselves in a system that doesn't work very well for many many kids, etc.

Does seem a shame though - wouldn't an educational system built on meeting the educational needs of the kids be cool?

Improving education has been on the national agenda since the landmark writing,'A Nation at Risk,' was introduced to congress in 1983!

Educators have the answers. The problems are numerous, though.

1. Corporations are overly involved with public policy, especially under this administration, which has adopted what they call a scientifically sound reading program that is based on research that McGraw-Hill did in a Texas school district. I am not completely against the Open Court Reading system BUT, it is not a one size fits all program. It MIGHT benefit part of the population but it leaves many kids out in the rain. LEAVE THE POLICY MAKING TO THE ACADEMIANS WHO TEACH EDUCATION AT OUR FINEST UNIVERSITIES, PLEASE!

2. Sometimes, programs are adopted that are misunderstood by the teachers who need to implement them. This is evident in the field of mathematics, a subject where our American culture defines the topic incorrectly. Do you want to know why many Asian countries outrank the US in math? Study their definition of the subject! Many people in the USA are still stuck on book-keeping math. This is the math that our forefathers brought from England so we could keep our books while trading goods. Notice that the British are not internationally ranked high in math either. They gave us our cultural definition of the subject. It is time to redefine the subject. This was covered in TIMMS. Research it.

I will go on later...

I meant TIMSS...typo...sorry.

google:
Third International Math Science Study
A Nation At Risk

It's hard to improve on THE TEACHING GAP, by James Hiebert and James Stigler, if what you want is a brief, clear, and compelling explanation of how and why Japan does so much better than America in educating its children in mathematics.

Chucklesbythebay is quite right: the Japanese have a qualitatively different (and mathematically more satisfactory) understanding of the whole enterprise. But there's more to it than that, unfortunately; for one thing, they also have a vastly more qualified teacher corps.

Why is this? It's only partly because teachers of mathematics in Japan are (relatively speaking) better paid than their American counterparts. It's also because Japanese mathematics teachers work in a system that requires them continually to refine their pedagogical skills -- and it provides them both the time and the means to do so.

This system is called "lesson study," and Hiebert and Stigler outline its main features in THE TEACHING GAP. (A more detailed exposition is available in the fascinating omnibus volume, TEACHING AND LEARNING IN JAPAN -- and, of course, in the landmark work KNOWING AND TEACHING ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS, by Liping Ma.) Hiebert and Stigler also offer suggestions about how Japanese-style lesson study might be imitated successfully here in the US.

But the trouble, as far as I can see, is that the sort of pedagogy the Japanese practice in their math classrooms requires a teacher corps that really knows its stuff -- which, sadly, is just plain not what we now have here in the US.

Deborah Ball of the University of Michigan has documented the awful truth: almost fifty percent of the (hundreds of) Midwestern math teachers she studied were unable to name any number between 3.1 and 3.11. And Liping Ma's book gives discouragingly persuasive evidence that most American elementary and middle school math teachers cannot divide 1 3/4 by 1/2. We have lots and lots of math teachers out there who simply do not know their subject.

Of course it makes no sense to blame the teachers for this, for where were they to have learned it? The very same system that is now providing us such unsatisfactory results also educated the teachers to whom we're entrusting our kids.

It might seem that the answer to this problem is a vigorous program of professional development. Perhaps if we train our present teacher corps agressively enough, we can break the vicious circle of incompetence and frustration in which they, and our children, now find themselves trapped.

But the task is vast, and even if we could find some way to pay for it, we'd still be stymied. Why? Because we have far fewer qualified professional development personnel than we need for the job. Good professional development work is very subtle and difficult, and those practitioners who can effectively explain and demonstrate how to teach math "a la Japonaise" are extremely few indeed.

Moreover, as Chucklesbythebay notes, there is also the pressing need to change the whole American attitude toward mathematics -- the very definition of the word in our national discourse -- which, alas, promises to be extremely hard work.

To a mathematician like myself, it's obvious that mathematics is an art form, like music, poetry, and painting. And as such, it calls for much more than mere technical mastery. A pianist who succeeds only in hitting all the right notes accomplishes nothing, for art is not virtuosity. We want to be moved and enlightened by a musical performance, and this can only happen if its author has invested it with that peculiar mix of feeling and understanding that alone can reveal meaningful artistic truths.

Although it requires great discipline, art is, at bottom, a kind of sophisticated play. And that is exactly how mathematics is viewed by teacher and student alike in the Japanese elementary school classroom. It's how we must all learn to view mathematics here in America, too, if we wish to become competitive with the best the world has to offer.

Hi,

Just wanted to add a few examples of math teachers not knowing their subject very well. I volunteer in a 2nd grade math class each week. I have witnessed the teacher tell the class that 52-27=5 and 9+5=15. Last week she introducted fractions. Half way through the lesson she turns to me and asks, "Which one is the numerator?"

I've been told not to correct her in front of her students. It will undermine her authority!

J.

In fact, jonette11, the examples you mention are painfully typical. And, sadly, this sort of thing has grim daily consequences -- especially for mathematically gifted kids.

Because math teachers generally know so little about their subject, they're all too apt to teach it mindlessly. Lacking the understanding needed to evaluate alternative methods of solution, they insist on rigid adherence to the One True Method, as set forth in the textbook or teacher's manual. Getting the right answer is not enough: a child must also demonstrate that he got the right answer by following all the "right" steps in exactly the "right" order.

But often, despite the protestations of the teacher, there really is no one "right" way to solve a problem -- and it is exactly the most mathematically talented kids who find this sort of completely unjustified pedagogical fascism especially maddening. A child who can correctly solve a certain genre of math problem a hundred times in a row -- even under considerable time pressure -- should not be bothered about his methods. Whatever they are, they're clearly not inferior to the teacher's One True Method, since the results to which they lead are not inferior. And demanding that the kid be able to explain his methods to the teacher is obviously unreasonable when that teacher can't even explain the One True Method the textbook prescribes.

In fact, one of the most characteristic indicators of mathematical talent in a young child is the spontaneous formulation of idiosyncratic methods of calculation. Such a child often finds his private methods impossible to put into words, and an incompetent teacher will often penalize him for this, no matter how spectacular his arithmetic accuracy.

This is unreasonable and foolish, of course, but it's also very common. And it all just traces back to mathematical ignorance in the teacher.

Bush's initiatives shouldn't focus on high school math programs. Identification of elementary and middle school math giftedness is very important and not letting it sit there for years doing mulitiplication when it could be doing calculus. Paperwork, forms, licenses, certifications, etc--schools are becoming so bureaucratic. Early turnoff to math is a result of worksheets and lack of teaching that make it dry and boring. There are a few geeks (like I was) who thought math was fun. Elementary and middle school teachers should pass a test not only to show their ability to do the math (9+5=15!) but also to see if they can make it interesting and exciting. The pace is also important--if progressing too slowly, that's no good. Tapping into the math staff of local universities might be one resource (if you're a charter school, since public schools have too many certification/licensure and paperwork hullabaloo to do much outside the box). Charter schools' flexibility is so much more conducive to learning.

My fantasy is to revamp the school system from the ground up, and have them more as resource centers. No grades -- if you have mastered the materials, you move on. Have different types of instruction, so if you don't get it with this approach, you can try that approach. Have lab equipment available, maybe with a resource facilitator who can make sure things are used appropriately. (That would be a useful resource for homeschoolers, btw!)

I would even suggest no upper age limit. As things stand, if you are disinterested in learning in your teens, and then wise up later, you have to pay to get what you didn't get before. We could improve the whole society if we opened schools to any who can benefit from them -- so, if a 50 yr old wanted to go back and take that math class (or whatever) that they skipped school to avoid, they can still learn it.

I am dyslexic and could never show work when doing math. I still do it all in my head much easier then even using a calculator. My teachers would routinely give me a zero because I didn't show my work. I just stopped trying...

My fantasy school would have kids grouped by intellect not age. Every quarter is a new group of topics, taught by experts in that field. Children could take any class and progress at their own rate. I feel "No child left behind" eventually leaves every child behind.