After nearly 40 years watching educational fads come and go (I was an
enthusiastic player in the late and largely un-lamented "new math"
phenomenon), I have become very skeptical of "innovation" for the sake of
innovation. Lots of people paint rosy pictures about things that we would
like to think work, but we're very short on examples showing that they
really do. I taught for four years at the "innovative" Nova Schools in
Florida. After many years of synthetic success, we finally realized that
our progressive methods didn't do any more for the students than did the
methods of the other schools in the district, once our self-selecting
student body was taken into account.
It's certainly true that wealthy parents can more easily choose their
community so that their children go to "good" schools. But I have seen
studies that claim to show that when students are matched by intelligence,
family attitude toward education, etc., there isn't much difference in
their eventual achievement no matter what school they attend. My own
children got most of their education in the schools in American
Samoa--schools that by stateside standards were far below par in nearly
every category. Yet they got a highly satisfactory education, largely due
to the fact that they were in a family that valued education highly. I
don't know how schools can make that happen to the families of all
students. But I'm confident that that is what makes the biggest difference
in the education any child receives.
John M. Flanigan <johnf@hawaii.edu> The equation is the final arbiter.
Assistant Professor, Mathematics --Werner Heisenberg
Kapi'olani Community College The scoreboard is the final arbiter.
4303 Diamond Head Road --Bill Walton
Honolulu HI 96816 History is the final arbiter.
(808) 734-9371 --Edward Gibbon
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Vern Kays wrote:
> At 08:06 AM 10/26/1999 -1000, you wrote:
> >Laura:
> >
> >You make the most sense of anyone. Mathematics is not particularly
> >difficult for students who are well-prepared (both in previous math,
> >reading, and study behaviors); what makes it seem difficult is that the
> >student is required to master substantially ALL of a course to be
> >successful in the next course. I don't think that's true in any other
> >subject.
> >
> >We maintain goals that once were set for an elite group of "above average"
> >students. We now fret that we don't see those goals accomplished by all
> >who enroll. (It's difficult to discuss, isn't it, now that we aren't
> >allowed to use the word "intelligence.") Thus we struggle with a system
> >that tries to keep the standards high enough that some will succeed to the
> >highest level, and yet burden ourselves with the hope that everyone will
> >be able to succeed. I don't see how it can be done without devising two
> >entirely separate systems, one highly competitive one that will sort out
> >the "exceptionals" and the other that will optimize learning for everyone
> >else. Considering how long we've been trying, I'm tempted to doubt that
> >both can be done in the same venue.
>
>
> John,
>
> Another option is to decide when to start the "competition".
> Unfortunately, it often starts very early because most children do not get
> an equal "access" to the oppportrunities that the wealthy can get if they
> choose to provide it for their children. The vast majority of children are
> not even in the "race" because of the inequities of the current system. We
> are tryig to do both and it does not succeed well. What we say is that we
> are for children and education in the abstract but the reality is very
> different. The change is good but "not in our neighborhood" or "not to my
> child." Another issue not well addressed is that there are different kinds
> of "intellegences" I know that sound "educationaleze" (sp) but even in
> mathematics there are a variety of mathematical learning styles and
> opportunities if we pursue them.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Vern Kays
>
>
****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
****************************************************************************