It's depressing to admit it, but I am old enough to clearly recall the national hysteria caused by the launch of Sputnik in 1957. We were beaten by the Soviets in the race to launch a satellite into orbit, a scary prospect during the Cold War.
The answer to the Russian threat, many at the time agreed, was "fixing" our schools. We were told we needed more and better science and math education if we were to beat the Russians. So we got our best minds in gear to tell us how to do it. Bookshelves are now filled with the reports of the various commissions, committees and experts charged with improving science and math education.
In reality, things were not so bad.
We quickly caught up to the Soviets, and made good on President Kennedy's promise to send Americans to the moon by the end of the 1960s. Important technology -- largely developed during this period -- such as the laser and computer microchip, was about to emerge from American laboratories, and even from garages in exotic places such as California.
A few short years after Sputnik, in 1963, I found myself in what was then considered the nation's best high school, the Bronx High School of Science. I thought I was pretty smart when I arrived there, but by the time I left, I had a much more realistic picture of my place in the academic world. My class produced two Nobel Prize winners. I am not one of them.
After more than 50 years, we are still talking about a "crisis" in science and math education. America is dropping down on the list of nations in the quality of our science and math instruction, and the number of college graduates we produce in the technical fields.
Ironically, I believe that this apparent decline is a result of all the introspection that went on in the post-Sputnik era. We were so sure that our education system was broken that, in our zeal to fix it, we sowed the seeds for the current concerns over the quality of our math and science education.
But in my high school back then, it didn't seem to me that we were in a crisis, nor I suspect did it seem that way to my Nobel Prize winning classmates. But as we were learning (or in my case trying to learn) calculus, "experts" were coming up with new strategies to fix what seemed to be working swimmingly.
Take math, for instance. Over the past decades a teaching methodology called constructivism, pushed by "reformers," has radically changed how children in elementary schools learn (or more precisely don't learn) math. Exploring different ways that problems are solved is now more important than actually solving them. This is a direct outgrowth of all those agencies formed and reports issued in the wake of Sputnik. So convinced we were that we were on the wrong track, that we forgot that basic lesson of life, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
As we tinkered with our once winning formula, other nations, continued teaching math in much the way as I learned it back in the 1950's and 1960's, are whizzing past us.
A useful investment of 15 minutes of your time is to watch a demonstration of just what kind of math is now taught in many, if not most American schools. M.J. McDermott, a mother of twin boys who does the morning weather on KCPQ-TV, the Fox affiliate in Seattle, is featured in a wildly popular video posted on YouTube, Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth.
Some years ago, Ms. McDermott decided to get a degree in atmospheric science, and so went back to school. She especially had concerns about the math courses she needed as a prerequisite to her coursework. It had been 20 years since she had last taken a math class. But as it turned out, she did just fine. It was her classmates, much younger than she, who couldn't handle the math, in some cases, even the easiest arithmetic. This experience gave her insight into why American kids are lagging behind: the failure of the constructivist math being taught here now, largely as a result of the concerns following Sputnik.
Instead of a spirited debate on how we teach math and what should be taught in math classes, we instead debate about who is to blame for the failure of our schools to deliver the results we all seek. That is the real tragedy of the Obama education agenda and all the hype over the pro-charter anti-union propaganda film, Waiting for Superman. It diverts us from addressing real solutions.
Maybe it's not the teachers, but the curriculum and the teaching methodologies that are holding back our kids? Maybe we're stacking the deck against teachers with the "reform" math that came out of the last set of reforms created during the educational hysteria we witnessed decades ago.
Is it, as Yogi Berra would say, "Déjà vu all over again?" When I hear the president, Secretary Duncan, Mayor Bloomberg and other "reformers" spout off about charters and evaluating "ineffective" teachers, I have visions of these sons and daughters of the failed "reformers" of yesteryear planting new seeds for American academic failure in the years to come.
The Soviets never succeeded in defeating us militarily with killer satellites or rocket launched bombs. But Sputnik may have had the unintended consequence of scaring us into adopting education policies that are just as lethal.
1) The pre-Sputnik education was NEVER successful for all kids, only those that could memorize easily or came to school with a certain level of number sense. "Sink or swim" isn't acceptable in modern times.
2) Constructivist programs, if taught properly by a good teacher who understands the content, the method and the math theory behind it, are far superior because they actually mimic both the creativity and the precision with which professional mathematicians do their work. Traditional textbooks do neither. A good teacher of a constructivist program cares about process AND results. Traditional methods ignore the former and teach kids that math is a series of magic formulas to be memorized - to follow directions instead of asking important questions that lead to answers.
The converse, of course, is that if a "chalk and talk" or traditionalist teacher, or one who does not have mastery of the math concepts him/herself is teaching a constructivist program, it is likely to fail and to be far worse than a rote memorization textbook.
The back to basics movement will work for some kids, and not work for others.
Well taught constructivist math, with a highly qualified teacher in each classroom, could work for every child.
Eek.
It galls me no end that in NYC, Kleinberg takes credit for the sunrise, while those of us who can afford hire TUTORS.
Readers should be informed of the existence of state and local groups like Where's the Math? and the national mother group NYC HOLD NATIONAL to learn more about constructivist math, the history of both the reform and parent led efforts to halt its proliferation, and to connect with others working in common cause to promote excellence in US K-12 mathematics education,
Elizabeth Carson
Co-founder and Executive Director
NYC HOLD NATIONAL
www.nycholdnational.com
He is absolutely correct that the constructivist approach to math is taught in ed schools. So even where these poor math texts are NOT used, students are still subjected to sitting in groups, learning from others rather than the teacher, and given open-ended problems that do not generalize and do not teach the math they need to learn.
For further info on the state of US math education in K-12 and how it got that way, see http://educationnext.org/anamazeingapproachtomath/. For more info on how one parent coped with the train wreck of Everyday Math, see http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/13361.html .
Quote: “The Soviets never succeeded in defeating us militarily with killer satellites or rocket launched bombs.”
I think that the Soviets never had an intention to attack the USA.
The Soviets tried to compete with USA in the arms race but they didn’t intend to defeat the USA in the arms race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI
in your browser.
In an era when quality jobs are rare, our schools fail to adequately educate children to fill an abundance of high tech and engineering position that will drive the future of our economy and determine the future success of this country.
And lastly, I'd point out that perhaps the biggest culprits are parents themselves. We continue to expect our institutions and government to prepare our children for life outside our front doors. The reality is out kids are failing despite the lowered standards, and the blame for that falls squarely on the shoulders of parents.
The people who put us on the moon did NOT learn the New Math!!! They learned the old way long before that.
In the late 60s when in HS, I had a teacher who must have been in her late 50s, early 60s then, complaining that the emphasis on teachers getting education degrees rather than in their major would destroy education. I think she was right!!!
In college, the few education classes I took showed me the education department had the sorriest, laziest teachers in the school.
I have read Arnes Duncan has talked about taking kids test score back through the teachers to their colleges to identify the college education departments that are failing. I think most of them probably are.
With 30 years of experience using formulas I learned in all of my Math and Science courses, are not being used today. Even the terms are different. We had to go back in the math book, to figure out what the heck they were talking about. We finally figured it out and helped him, but not without some consternation on our part.
I remember helping a young Engineering graduate, while I was still working, with a problem he was having. I asked him to write out the formulas for me, he responded by saying "why, it is this button right here (pointing to his calculator) and this was during the early 90's.
We, so often times, throw away the old that worked, in favor of the new, that doesn't necessarily work well. We have become a throw away society, even in education.
I have read Arnes Duncan has talked about taking kids test score back through the teachers to their colleges to identify the college education departments that are failing. I think most of them probably are."
I have wondered why the teachering schools have gotten such a free pass throughout this debate, given that so much of the mess falls right at there feet. Reminded me again of Richard Mitchell. I first read him back when I was in teachering school and he saved my sanity because I realized it wasn't just me who thought something was seriously wrong with the whole setup:
Those not familiar with Mitchell's writings on the education system (not for the timid or the apologist) will either cheer wildly and then cry themselves to sleep or curse him mightily and then cry themselves to sleep, because the problems go far, far deeper than the current debate touches on.
The Graves of Academe is a great place to start. It's available, as are all of his writings, for free dl here: http://bit.ly/auASeO. But be warned: love him or hate him, he's gonna ruin your day because it is not a pretty tale and he pulls no punches or suffers any fools.”