Re: Math and science study - reply to Dorrit O'Hallaron

Vern Kays (vkays@RICHLAND.CC.IL.US)
Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:57:32 -0600

At 01:48 PM 1/15/96 GMT, Domenico Rosa wrote:
>The results of this study were published on Thursday, November 21, 1996 on
>the front pages of The Hartford Courant, The Washington Post, and The
>Boston Globe. The New York Times buried the story on page B14. Various
>references to this study are also available from MAA Online (www.maa.org).
>This study raises serious questions about the reforms, standards,
>textbooks, and teaching methods that are being promoted today. The study
>exposes numerous flaws in U.S. mathematics education, including our
>abominable textbooks and our poor methods of teaching. Based on what I have
>read so far, none of these problems is being addressed by the reform,
>standards, and technology crowd.
>Dom Rosa
>rosa@mail.teikyopost.edu

I strongly take issue with your observation. I do not know what research
you are reading but my reading says a very different result. Some are
working very hard. Reform when implemented by teachers train appropriately
and given opportunities to implement are very successful and the research
indicates just so. It is when individuals try to implement technology or
"reform" without appropriate support that failure results. Reform as I
understand it is more difficult and requires more time and effort outside in
preparation for class than the traditional 18th or is 19th century
mathematics being taught. If we are to teach to the middle 50% of our
students, it does not mean lower standards. It means raise standards and
expectations of performance. Teach a curriculm that promotes and demands
understanding. It is the task of the leadership both administrative and in
the mathematics community to push for change. I would write more but I have
to do what I love, teach a reform basic geometry course to a diverse
community college student population.

Vern Kays