More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM David Mumford
 
GET UPDATES FROM Sol Garfunkel
 

Bottom Line on Mathematics Education

Posted: 11/30/11 10:58 AM ET

First some axioms: Mathematics is honestly useful for all citizens. It can help them in school, at work, as citizens and in their daily lives. This is the reason we teach mathematics every year from kindergarten through the end of high school. The mathematical education of the general public is a priority of our educational system above and beyond the education of future mathematicians and scientists.

What follows from these axioms is that we need a system of mathematics education that seeks first and foremost to recognize the mathematical needs of average citizens and is designed to ensure that those needs are met, while hopefully meeting the needs of students who can and want to learn mathematics as a discipline. And we need to acknowledge that for quite a while now we have been doing precisely the reverse. In other words, we have designed a system for the mathematically motivated and talented and let others drop away -- without regard to whether they would be able to use the fragmentary mathematical understandings with which they were left.

The latest attempt at mathematics education reform, the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSSM) exemplify this failed approach. Will it help us do better as a country on international comparisons? Possibly. Will it create a more balanced playing field across the country? Very Likely. Will it make it easier to identify talented mathematics students earlier in their school careers? Almost certainly. Will it move us toward a more quantitatively literate population and work force? Absolutely NOT!

The CCSSM are being marketed as College and Career-Readiness Standards, with the implication that they are for everyone. This is falsity in advertising. If we want future adults to learn to use mathematics then we must show them how mathematics is used in ways and situations that are genuine and that are relevant to their own experience. This isn't really all that hard. The truth is that most mathematics was invented to solve very practical and interesting problems. Rather than spend year after year learning more and more abstract and sophisticated tools, we can take some of that time to use those tools to build real things. Mathematics is a system that enables us to model the world. We need to let students in on this fact -- to actually have them use the mathematics they are learning to do what it was meant to do -- give them a greater ability to understand the world around them.

The standards and the high stakes tests that are being developed (from 3rd grade on!!) will certainly make for more consistency from state to state. But consistency should not be a goal in itself. The mathematical literacy of the next generation is a goal we should be working towards. And in order to achieve that goal we need a true reorganization of the mathematics that we teach -- keeping the why we teach it prominently up front for all to see.

What might this brave new world look like?

  • For one thing, it's obvious that everyone's lives revolve around money and certain types of math are an essential in mastering fiscal challenges. It is not hard to compare the real cost of leasing vs. buying a car if you know the right math but nearly impossible without it. Problems in school based on analyzing the actual budgets of people, businesses and countries could improve our pathetically math-impoverished political discourse.
  • Everyone says computer technology should be used in schools but why let the computer be another incomprehensible technological mystery? Teach everyone the rudiments of programming and what goes on inside that box. "But is this Math?" we hear you saying. YES: writing computer code teaches you how to be precise and formal and makes concrete mathematical recipes like that for long division. They are what we call algorithms, and this sort of training is a paradigm for rational thinking.
  • Data need not be something we leave to white-coated experts. Students can get tons of data on prices from newspapers and go to town with means and standard deviations. We would suggest asking students to tally their caloric intakes and find the correlation between this and their weights -- but maybe some math is too painful to see. Nonetheless, adults struggle to absorb medical recommendations based on very similar statistics ('lies, damned lies and statistics' as a well-known figure said), and arguing about the validity of statistics can't start too early.
  • One could go on. The key lesson is that so much of what is going on in the world can be modeled mathematically. Maps, music, the range of a rifle, how to rig elections, the sustainability of a fishery -- you name it!

The CCSSM do try to include some applications like this. But instead of building theory step by small step out of easily absorbed and useful applications, they tag on an application or two as an afterthought to a heavy slog through abstraction. Math Professors know well how to explain math to graduate students but they seem to have forgotten how high they have climbed into the clouds and what is going on down here on the earth.

David Mumford is a retired math professor who taught for more than 40 years first at Harvard University and then at Brown University. He is a recipient of a MacArthur Grant, a Fields Medal, the Shaw and Wolf Prizes. He is a past President of the International Mathematical Union. He has worked extensively in both pure and applied mathematics, in algebraic geometry and computer vision and is the author of numerous books including "Indra's Pearls" for the general public.

Sol Garfunkel, is the Executive Director of the Consortium for Mathematics and its Applications and has dedicated the last 35 years to research and development efforts in mathematics education. Dr. Garfunkel has been on the mathematics faculty of Cornell University and the University of Connecticut at Storrs. He has served as project director for several National Science Foundation curriculum projects. Dr. Garfunkel was the project director and host for the television series "For All Practical Purposes: Introduction to Contemporary Mathematics." He is a member of the Mathematics Expert Group of PISA and he was the Glenn Gilbert National Leadership Award Recipient for 2009 from the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 26
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
10:30 AM on 12/02/2011
Calculus is 300 years old.

Double-entry Accounting is SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS OLD.

If accounting had been mandatory in our schools for the last 50 years would we be having these economic problems? Don't scientists and engineers by houses and have credit cards?
01:23 PM on 12/02/2011
Accounting has been taught in the business curriculum's of schools for as long as business has been taught. Teaching accounting principles doesn't change behavior. When I was running the engineering operations of a startup 20+ years ago we hired a CFO. He asked me what basis I was doing planning and expenses on. I replied "cash" - I can count cash coming in and cash going out - it is up to you finance people to play the other games. He was happy with my answer and played his games.

Working scientists and engineers have to handle finances both at work and at home, but their fields are not built upon bookkeeping. That is why it is not a required course for the sciences.
10:25 AM on 12/03/2011
Check a bunch accounting books. Depreciation does not get mentioned until far into the books. But in 1900 there were only 8,000 cars in the US. In 1995 there were 200,000,000. So does that change the significance of depreciation?

Have any scientists noticed that economists get their algebra incorrect in the NET Domestic Product equation?
10:29 PM on 12/01/2011
Resetting the columns for prepared for technical education and reasonably prepared (have to take additional classes before starting technical education) we have by grade:
12 Calculus...................Pre-Calcul­us
11 Pre-Calcul­us............Algebra 2 (+trig)
10 Algebra 2 (+trig)......Geometry
9 Geometry...................Algebra 1
8 Algebra 1...................Pre-Algebr­a

Students can of course do more and / or do it faster.

My 14 year old daughter is in 10th grade and is taking Calculus for college credit. She will be going to Bellevue College via Running Start next year to start her engineering education.
09:45 PM on 12/01/2011
We need a reasonable fraction of kids prepared for technical educations and careers. We should have a significant fraction reasonably prepared for such careers. I am going to work backward. The kids who are ready should take Calculus by 12th grade as well as 2 or more sciences at the Honors or AP level. The kids who are reasonably prepared should take Pre-Calculus in 12th grade and 2 or more sciences at a sound high school level. And a lot of the students should have at least a symester of probability and statistics as well. Work backwards from that.

12 Calculus Pre-Calculus
11 Pre-Calculus Algebra 2 (+trig)
10 Algebra 2 (+trig) Geometry
9 Geometry Algebra 1
8 Algebra 1 Pre-Algebra

These are your math REQUIREMENTS for these areas. You can spread the material earlier, but not later. And you still need to add in the statistics, sciences, and other subjects.

If you want to add math applications - add them to the other classes, particularly science, business, and economics. Do not dilute the math classes more, they are diluted enough as they are.

The science and engineering departments know what they need. If students don't know it, they aren't admitted.
04:38 PM on 12/01/2011
The Mumford and Garfunklel proposal would in practice eliminate most higher math and high school students doing boring compound interest arithmetic rather than doing the algebra and geometry that will allow them to learn calculus. Without calculus, they are relegated to non-technical careers.

I do agree that it we could teach statistics in high school and that the Common Core standard does a crummy job with statistics. Here is a review of the Core standard, comparing it to the standards of other countries with good math education outcomes.

http://www.educationnews.org/ed_reports/94979.html
photo
davidwees
Father. Activist. Canadian. Educational technology
01:15 AM on 12/01/2011
I think Sol and David have an excellent point. Our system is currently designed to increase the odds that a small number of people are successful at the tail end of the system, rather than being designed to allow for mathematics to be a tool for life.

While I think there is lots of fascinating mathematics out there that should be taught in schools, we must agree on the purpose of mathematics education before we think about solutions for how to fix it.
10:02 PM on 11/30/2011
Every student can learn and enjoy a tasty bit of math at any moment but as soon we start talking the same old talk: that there exists A way or A problem set or A method that would work for every student then we are forcing square pegs into round holes; only the ones that are SORTED out of the right size will fit. This is the system failure, the failure to create a system that recognizes and reacts to accommodate the diversity of all learners. Its not impossible, just the end of the 'one size fits all' era of education, and inconceivable to those Mathematicians and teachers of math who really only know how to reproduce themselves. Mathematics has many rhythms and melodies and everyone likes music, we just have to find the right tune to play at the right time. Seems like a really interesting math problem to me!
03:16 PM on 11/30/2011
Practical math and applications are great, the question is, what is going to be given up to make way for this?

I think adding more math to science earlier would be a great place to start.

At the same time, understanding the why of math, and the structure of proof is essential for people who are going on to higher level math.
nothingchanges
too soon old, too late smart
03:00 PM on 11/30/2011
How can we expect everyday Americans to appreciate the possibilities a thorough knowledge of mathematics can provide...................when our political leaders can't even grasp simple arithmetic?

No matter how you slice it, their numbers for the National Budget...JUST DON"T ADD UP.

(but their campaign contributions sure do)
Zip Zinzel
If a Nation expects to be both Ignorant & Free . .
02:13 PM on 11/30/2011
EXCELLENT ARTICLE

IN A SIMILAR VIEN,
When I used to teach in HSs, I liked to find a week in the semester to bring in real IRS forms, instruction booklets, and make up W2-forms

I found that the vast majority of my students had absolutely no problems learning how to do taxes.

And about half of the classes were very comfortable doing itemized deductions and even, (back then) income averaging- as well as topics like moving expenses
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mister E
08:26 PM on 11/30/2011
Glad to see my math teacher was not the only one using IRS forms to demonstrate the usefulness of math. I am still amazed at how many people look at me funny when I tell them I am still doing my own taxes each year.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Robert Schwartz
ED Level Playing Field, parent, educator
01:39 PM on 11/30/2011
I couldn't agree more. We have been teaching math the same way since the times of Euclid and Al-Khwarizmi. Not much has changed - except our applications and needs for math in the real world. Those who defend the current approach to math education were the ones who were most successful in it. The Common Core Math Standards are akin to improving the abacus - making the balls shinier and easier to move. While mathematicians have embraced different tools for basic arithmetic (slide rule, calculator, computer), we still languish in the same current system of math education. There are some out there who approach it more like what the authors propose, but I would venture that it impacts less than 0.1% of all students.
01:19 PM on 11/30/2011
Implement the common core math. You have to drive the understanding and skills.

But the author is correct about the need to apply math to improve understanding and provide the underlying motivation for why this is all done. This is not the job of the math class. The math should be applied in Economics (perhaps in social studies), various science classes, business classes, etc. The application of math in those classes makes them more valuable.
12:07 PM on 11/30/2011
You could spread math education across the curriculum. Make sure math and stat are used in history and economics and in the basic sciences. Art history has lots of math lurking behind architecture, etc. I am sure an enterprising teacher could use math in lit. study. Math isn't just one textbook and a set of homework problems, it is all around.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SonicUltimate
01:01 PM on 11/30/2011
Agreed.  It isn't how math is taught per se, but how it is used (or rather, not used) in other relevant subjects.  Continue teaching mathematics as theoretical constructs and skills, but implement the application of those abstract theories in other subjects.
photo
jf12
Occupying myself
12:04 PM on 11/30/2011
The whole problem with teaching math is that it is taught as thing unto itself, a theoretical edifice which must be protected from application. Even concepts like in calculus, which were invented for the applied purpose of calculating realistic quantities, are taught backwards, with unmotivated, out of the blue definitions, and the application come much later (or rather, in other classes like physics). It ought not to be that way.
01:24 PM on 11/30/2011
As a working Engineer, have had to learn more different types of mathematics over the years than I can rightly remember, and never found learning them to be all that difficult. But... math for its own sake, divorced from applications, I've always found rather dull. Thought that this was an Engineer's bias; perhaps not!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MatthewHubbard
blogger, just not for HuffPo
11:16 PM on 11/30/2011
It's engineer's bias. Pure mathematics is lovely stuff if you are a mathematician. Solving a problem for no other reason than you would like to know a thing whether it has practical purpose or not is the engine that drove mathematics for the past few millenia, at least five and maybe seven.

Number theory and the complex plane are just two examples of stuff done out of love of beauty that showed themselves to be stunningly applicable to engineers several centuries later.
04:06 PM on 12/01/2011
I am a home schooling parent and last year, as I was trying to get together our math/physics curriculum for this year, I looked for books that taught physics and calculus together. I thought this would be a great way to learn both. Alas, nothing was available so, I had to put together 2 separate courses that really should overlap into one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Maxine
11:49 AM on 11/30/2011
"And we need to acknowledge that for quite a while now we have been doing precisely the reverse. In other words, we have designed a system for the mathematically motivated and talented and let others drop away -- without regard to whether they would be able to use the fragmentary mathematical understandings with which they were left."

This happened to me and my children. I could not help my kids with their homework. I tried to learn mathematics on my own and I couldn't do it. With no one available to answer simple questions I remained stuck and could not progress any further. Same with my kids.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DushanRadovic
Everyone is Entitled to My Opinion
11:28 AM on 11/30/2011
Great work with Paul Simon in the Sixties.