Discouraging Students from Taking Math 509
Coryoth writes "Following on from a previous story about UK schools encouraging students to drop mathematics, an article in The Age accuses Australian schools of much the same. The claim is that Australian schools are actively discouraging students from taking upper level math courses to boost their academic results on school league tables. How widespread is this phenomenon? Are schools taking similar measures in the US and Canada?"
in college this would make some sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Shhhhhh (Score:5, Interesting)
What upper-level math courses? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:5, Interesting)
The mistake you're making is looking at this from the perspective of the student. They're not talking about boosting the students, they're talking about boosting the school's ratings. I don't have the full story on Australian/UK educational policy, but the climate sounds like the US's "No Child Left Behind Act" policy, which diverts teaching resources away from actual teaching and focuses on teaching students to perform well on yearly standardized tests.
The net result is overwhelmingly bad. Just as the article describes, by attempting to make your kids appear better statistically, you make them less educated in actuality.
Re:Shhhhhh (Score:5, Interesting)
Their response? They finally woke up to what I was up to, and let me know that they wouldn't be loaning me any more math books. I was supposed to learn it in classes, not on my own time. They were all in agreement, and I didn't get another math textbook from them.
However, I did have some good friends at a nearby college. I borrowed math books from them. The high-school teachers didn't learn about it until the next year, when I didn't enrole in any more math classes, and explained why.
What was especially bizarre was that when I finally graduated and went off to college, I passed all their entrance math tests and got the most "advanced placement" that they gave bright students: They let me enroll in second-year calculus. I knew the subject better than the instructor did, which didn't exactly endear me with the instructor. But "That's the rules", and there were no exceptions; I had to have that class to be allowed into more advanced classes.
(Note that I've carefully said nothing that would identify the schools. This is intentional, so you might suspect that it might be schools in your area.
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:1, Interesting)
No Child Left Behind leaves all children behind.
-uso.
Math in Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
As a specific example, I personally had 3 students who did not attempt a single assignment and all of them had attendance rates below 50%. I was told by the principle that if I wanted to be hired on next year I would need to give these students an extra assignment for 'Bonus' marks so that they would pass. I refused and hence am a former math teacher.
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Physics A level started with 10 poeople iirc, and finished with 3, all of whom left of their own free will, as my physics teacher welcomed everyone and believed - correctly in my view - that even if they didn't do well in the exams, it was still time well spent.
She is the most highly educated person, I've ever met incidentally, possessing seven undergrad degrees as well as her postgrad.
I could also tell you the story of the person with two E grades in physics and mathematics, who got in to the University of Cambridge when his contemporary with four A levels, at grade A, didn't.
Fact of the matter is that subjects like physics and maths are valued more highly than many other subjects even when you haven't got such a good grade as you would have done if you'd taken sociology or geography instead.
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's easy for us to knee-jerk and say this is bad, but why? Most people don't need mathematics beyond basic arithmetic and fractions. Outside of a classroom, the concepts taught in algebra and above are rarely, if ever, encountered by the day to day people.
"Most people" don't really use more that a set vocabulary of less than 1,000 words. Me think you true say -- why need us later days think of?!
A normal student in public schools in America will take at least two to three years of algebra, sometimes more, plus a year of trig or geometry. The ones who are interested in such things will take more advanced stuff yet...
You are completely missing the point. Why would you discourage students from taking anything in high school? And whole point of public education is to expose students to everything, not just what they would have found on their own! I took trig in 9th grade. Should that be my only exposure to math? Well, that'd be great if we all still worked back on the farm. Actually, not even that, as Agriculture programs have requirements for calculus at least.
So we're looking at three to four years of mandatory math classes. For someone not strong in math, isn't that enough?
What the hell is the point of education? If you are not strong in math, perhaps more classes are required. If it isn't required, you aren't really "exposing" the student to it. Last time I checked, there was no prediction of huge demand for Master Basket Weavers in the future. I really don't understand why everyone seems to think that it is noble and good to train for requirements 25 years in the past instead of the future. That is certainly the direction of my old school district. Things were great when I was there. They expected each student to perform to their abilities. No more, no less. The heavy yoke of NCLB standardized testing, and officials looking the other way when high schools flush poorly performing students out before 12th grade to improve their graduate statistics has certainly ruined that. And, by the way, not having a diploma is really awesome for those students, let me tell you. The students that remain in school are taught to a banal national test. Period. Who cares what their individual capabilities are?
I am not saying that exposing the students to the classes is a bad idea. But by high school age, it is usually fairly apparent whether or not the student has an aptitude for math or not. If he doesn't, there is no point in making endure a forced march through a bunch of crap he'll never internalize, fully understand, or find any use for.
It sure sounded like that is what you said. In 9th grade, I had no idea what I wanted to do in the future. Well, actually I know what I wanted to do but things turned out completely differently (to date, no one has paid my to play video games on my lear jet while flying to my NBA finals box party). The student might have some idea of their interests, but they will probably have no realistic idea of the future, or what might possibly be required of them later in life. That is what the schools are for! I sure as hell needed better math skills than my father, why this trend be different for my son? Time happens.
I, for example, am hopeless when it comes to math, but was always strong in English and decent at visual arts. I'd have been ecstatic had an administrator said to me, "Your scores are consistently low in math but high in these areas. Would you like to shift your credit focus to reflect the subjects in which you excel?"
Did you really need permission? It doesn't sound like you were forced to do anything. Maybe your administrator had a Masters in Comparative Literature and did replica oil painting on side... maybe they realized that maxing out at $22,000/yr and unhappy as a high school counselor with these skills was something you might want to avoid.
I'm sorry you resent the math you had to lear
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
To this day I have absolutely no idea what a quadratic equation is beyond a vague "something to do with parabolas". I still remember the formula thanks to a silly mneumonic, and if forced I could probably still crunch through one. But that was ten years ago, and that is all I can do today.
Even then, being exposed to it every single day, I didn't understand it. I had no idea what it was used for, and I had no idea whatsoever how it worked. At all. And I still don't.
To say I -- or anyone like me who is not inclined towards math -- is "learning" it is somewhat disingenuous. I learned nothing about math in high school. I did what most non-math types did, which was memorize the formulas long enough to plug the numbers in and pass the test. I had no idea what I was doing -- just steps in a dance I was forced to go through like a trained monkey.
And today I still suck at it.
See, the reason I don't like your analogy is because, unlike math, English (or whatever your native language may be) is something you are constantly exposed to, and you will use it every single day of your life, regardless of your profession, interests, social status, etc. And because of that, it is useful to everyone, from every walk of life, in every professional or personal communication they have with anybody. Ensuring that people are better at this is a good thing for everyone, and moreover, it doesn't take much, because everyone is exposed to it all the time.
You cannot make the same argument for math. It is rarely used by anyone; only a small subset of people use it for their professions, and another small percentage find it of personal interest. But the majority of people never encounter math beyond arithmetic outside the classroom -- and because of that, they forget what they allegedly learned.
Learning English may have helped you be somewhat better at it, but then, you have plenty of opportunity for practice. Learning math won't help most people, who will never find a chance to use it, and after only a year or two away from the classroom, will have forgotten most of it.
I'm not denying that math is important -- the fact that we're talking about it using computers which require an intimate understanding of silicon semiconductor physics demonstrates that. But Joe Average didn't design the computer. But can you really, with a straight face, tell me that most people have any use for math beyond basic arithmetic?
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost every example you give is intuitive, not mathematical. Ask the reporter how they write, and they aren't going to start talking about complex algos and maximizing space potential. It just comes to them. Yes, math can be used to describe what they are doing, but the reporter is certainly not sitting down with paper and calculator and crunching the numbers.
Neither is the salesperson and cablerunner you describe. They just do it. Again, math can be used to describe what they are doing but they are not performing any actual calculations in their head the way you might perform them with pencil and paper.
Consider a baseball player trying to catch a pop fly. Even a Little League player can look at the ball, watch it for a split second, and run to where the ball will be. He sticks out his hand, makes a few minor adjustments, and catches it.
Did that kid "compute" the quadratic equation for the ball's parabola in his head? No, of course not. He just innately knew how to do it, from a life of experience.
Don't confuse "can be described by math" with "was done by using math".
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Even in Art, Math has its place (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I taught 8th grade science (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that students do not want to take 4 years of math, and in many cases are not required to take four years of math, and there is often not a fourth year of math at the suitable level, in many cases it make sense for the student not to take a fourth year of math, which in many cases would be considered advanced.
Here is what I see happening often. A student manages to squeak through to calculus. Unlike other math classes with can be taught at various levels, Calculus is a college prep course that must be taught with some degree of rigor. However, if one encourages every student to take the class, it cannot be taught with rigor as half the students will be ill prepared, and it will become a review class. Therefore, it might be that some students don't take advanced math. Even if the correct decisions are made in middle school, and even if work is done in high school, not every student will learn what is needed for calculus, and that just hurts those that do. Remember, the teacher will be penalized if too many students fail.
Here is what I have seen. The latest indication that math is important is a study in Science that indicates there is little cross pollination among the high school science courses, but more HS math does improve college science work. Also, and i don't recall where I saw this, there is an indication that the number of years of math is not as important as the rigor of math when it comes to college readiness. This is critical because in the educational debate the number of years and level of course are often used interchangeable, which is invalid. With respect to college, one needs four years of increasingly rigorous courses. When it comes to just educating the masses to maximize their ability, exposure is often the most important thing, and for that we may just need a capstone survey math course.
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
The same is true of catching a ball. Anyone can catch a ball without thinking, some of the time. Anyone can practice, consciously, to catch a ball and improve their success rate considerably. Anyone can learn the principles of dynamics so deeply and so thoroughly that it becomes what is called "second nature" or "intuition" even though it's nothing of the sort. It is merely exactly the same process as doing the whole calculation with pen and paper, but using extremely fast, dedicated circuitry deep within the brain.
"Intuition" is the word of mystics to describe a brain that is nothing more than a fancy protein-based computer because they cannot and will not accept the fact that the brain can do precisely nothing that a computer cannot.
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree. Teaching a student so that they perform well in a test and teaching a student so they will eventually perform well in college and life are very different things. I have heard reports of colleges who complain that students are increasingly ill-prepared in terms of reasoning, thinking, researching, and persuasive writing, because these things are hard to test in the standardized testing environment. From what I have heard first-hand from people in teaching credential programs, many kids in charter schools are barely being taught to write. They are being taught to take standardized tests.
I don't mean "Teach this fact, which will be on the test, and not this other fact." I mean teaching only to parrot facts without achieving a depth of understanding. Teaching to bubble in responses rather than write a clear and convincing argument or extracting knowledge from a book unaided.
I know there are a lot of holes in that. I don't have time to really back up my position. However, if you want empirical evidence, testing is not the only way to get it. Testing is just pretty cheap and fast. A far more effective way to get a real sense of the problems in schools would just be to send actually human beings to them to write reports, but it would be very costly and subject to variance and human eccentricity. In fact, I think that our aversion to any type of evidence that doesn't fit in a spreadsheet is part of the problem.
Re:Isn't this a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
The class that came closest to your ideal was my AP Physics course (that did not use calc). This was largely because we had the benefit of a brilliant and qualified instructor who was amazing at taking complex ideas and explaining them in simple and easy to understand ways (and all without us feeling like he was "talking down" to us). He was constantly stepping back from the actual work at hand and showing us how it fit into the logical, natural world at large. His lectures weren't just about learning what we needed to make the school look good on tests, he constantly reaffirmed that it was the process of discovery that was important. He wanted to teach students how to be good scientists, not good test takers.
My point with all this is that "rigorous logical analysis and problem solving skills" ARE NOT the exclusive domain of mathematics. If you look, and have the correct approach to teaching the subject, you can find this just about anywhere.
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:2, Interesting)
It's hard for those of us who teach in the public schools to read this sort of thread, people just don't know the reality. For me, the biggest impact of NCLB is like you said, it takes a week out of the school year.
To the tutor above, you bet, most high school students can't do arithmetic with fractions and decimals. This had been a steadily declining skill since the advent of calculator use in the late 80's.
"I have heard reports of colleges who complain that students are increasingly ill-prepared in terms of reasoning, thinking, researching, and persuasive writing,"
No kidding. But tell me slashdotters, did any of you learn to reason or think in school? I'm an old guy, went to school in the 60-70's, crushed the sat's, bfd, but I don't recall any teachers I had that did anything other than just work us hard on old-time school, do 1-90 odd. Teaching reasoning and thinking is just a really hard thing to do.
Bottom line for me is, forcing a teenager to try to do mathematics that is a complete foggy mystery to them is cruel and unnecessary. Everybody has their own level, I thought calculus was easy but fourier series was kind of tough. I couldn't follow the Principia, so does that make me bad at math? Neither does it mean a kid who can't do algebra is bad at math. Give them a break and let them take "Practical Math for the Real World III" and get their math credits.
Re:Shhhhhh (Score:2, Interesting)
In my university years I had to have a full year course of Technical Electrodynamics [wikipedia.org]. It was super-heavy on math (we started on Maxwell's Equations about five minutes into the course.) It was taught to us by a TA. I am still amazed at his memory - he was really good with the stuff, and you need to literally remember whole books (or to be a genius of Heaviside class who would do that from scratch as needed.) He was not a professor yet, but he wasn't far away from that.
Funny. (Score:3, Interesting)
With high school math it's pretty clear when you're right or not.
Whereas stuff like art is subjective, and same with stuff where you have to write essays/papers - where it can be a matter of taste whether you get an A or not.
Re:Tinfoil (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO that's just wishful thinking. How strong are Chinese students in math? I'm one, and I consider myself quite strong mathematically, though most of my Asian peers are even more insane. Of course, I am probably *the* only critical thinker out of the bunch. It's entirely possible to create a bunch of math geniuses without risking exposure to democratic ideas.
Slightly off topic, but what I find most interesting about my Chinese peers is that they haven't been indoctrinated to worship Mao, or any such nonsense. Rather, they've been indoctrinated not to care. Most have a very mild contempt for Mao, and aren't writing rave reviews about their government, but at the same time they fail to see what the fuss is about with democracy, freedom of the press/religion, etc, having been totally trained to believe that politics simply aren't important in a proper person's life. I find it altogether much scarier than a bunch of Mao worshippers, and infinitely more depressing.
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:3, Interesting)
The only difference between people like you and the people who are "really good at math" is that they can visualize the diagram by themselves. There are some people who can pass math courses by memorizing formulas and pattern matching them to problems; a lot of math teachers (especially women) learned that way, and so they try to teach to that learning style. Problem is, with that learning style you never really learn the math, you just memorize formulas. It's that teaching style that makes man people who are *innately good at math* hate the subject.
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:3, Interesting)
If you really want to help the US education system, do the following:
* ban sodas and candy and fastfood
* expand the free lunch program to every kid and include breakfast - hungry kids can't learn - and there are too many of them
* go to year-round schooling with longer non-summer seasonal breaks
* make physical education mandatory at every grade level - they need breaks and exercise
* allow merit-based pay/bonuses for teachers who do a good job (using a variety of metrics)
* lower class sizes - a teacher can't manage 38 kids AND teach them
* lower the administrative burden on schools so they can hire more teachers and fewer administrators
I'm an evaluator for around 20 school districts around California, and I have seen all of the above done, and it still doesn't help.
Re:Tinfoil (Score:3, Interesting)
With physics especially, calculus was *meant* for physics. The two belong together, and taking calculus out of physics makes physics a very, very, very dull pursuit. I think that more and more colleges are seeing that their applicants with high marks from high school just don't match up to what's expected of them in college. I got by through my own studies, by myself, in high school, because I was at a vocational high school anyway and the math programs just weren't challenging enough.
It just depresses me that the solution to low test scores seems to always be to set the bar lower and lower each year. Soon enough we'll have kids who scored perfect in high school but really are as smart as a box of rocks. I've written a lot of stuff on my blog about this, actually, as it makes me really sad a lot.