Anyone who is involved in choosing math curricula for their school should think twice about using a math program that aligns with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NCTM. Why?
Let’s look at their history, and why mathematicians lost trust in the NCTM many years ago.
Let’s first begin by looking at the alignment between IReady, which is a math diagnostic math program used in many schools throughout New Hampshire. IReady was developed by Curriculum Associates, and if you click on this link it will take you to a page that references Culturally Responsive Mathematics Teaching by Mark Ellis.
Several years ago I participated in a math forum with some of our top mathematicians around the country on how to improve math education in the United States. Not once did they mention anything about Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) as a way to improve math instruction in our public schools. Instead they’d point to the poor quality of standards and practices pushed by organizations like the NCTM, then they’d offer expert advice on best teaching methods, and curriculum.
When you click on that link, you will see, not a professor of mathematics, but a professor of math EDUCATION touting this latest fad in math education. There is a huge difference between a math professor and a math education professor. Many professors of math EDUCATION push fads in math classes that actual professors of mathematics have exposed as failed fads. This would be another example of that.
IReady included a white paper on CRT-math by Mark Ellis who served on the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Board of Directors and Executive Committee. That’s like a double whammy against good quality math education in our public schools. Not only is he associated with the NCTM, he is another, in a long list of math EDUCATION professors pushing more failed education fads on America’s children.
Don’t believe me? There is objective evidence to the failures that have been promulgated by the NCTM. We also know that IReady references Mark Ellis’s CRT for math as some kind of source for good math education.
Here is some of that evidence, as described by Professor Cliff Mass, from the University of Washington. He presented objective evidence that the NCTM was involved in the decline of math ability of college students back in 2007.
In this article, Dr. Sandra Stotsky writes about the highly criticized 1989 NCTM report:
As Alan Schoenfeld, the lead author of the high school standards in the 1989 NCTM report, put it, “the traditional curriculum was a vehicle for . . . the perpetuation of privilege.” The new approach would change all that.
So the traditional math that we all grew up with that was logical and didn’t confuse engineers, was perpetuating privilege. With no real evidence, the NCTM had to change that to the disaster known as “fuzzy math.” In the long run it hurt math education for all children.
Stotsky goes on to explain how the fads pushed by education reformers, contributed to the decline in math education that Dr. Cliff Mass speaks about in his video. The NCTM solution to privilege, showed us that they were willing to experiment on children with standards and curricula that were so poor, Mass describes it as the contribution for the decline of math ability among the incoming college freshmen.
Math education was in such a crisis at that time, President Bush convened a national math panel to which Dr. Stosky served as an adviser. She goes on to write:
The panel found little if any credible evidence supporting the teaching philosophy and practices that math educators have promoted in their ed-school courses and embedded in textbooks for almost two decades. It did find evidence for the effectiveness of a highly structured approach to teaching computational skills, called Team Assisted Individualization; of formative assessment, which entails ongoing monitoring of student learning to inform instruction; of the use of high-quality technology for drilling and practicing; and of explicit systematic instruction for students with learning disabilities and other learning problems. Despite the proven effectiveness of these strategies, many math educators view most of them with disdain—most likely because they entail more traditional, structured teaching.
When you look at IReady’s website, they continue to promote this failed teaching philosophy and practices described by Dr. Stotsky.
IReady: “…. use a problem solving-based approach that builds conceptual understanding through reasoning, practice, and productive discussion around real-world scenarios.”
In this study from Ohio State University, as reported in the New York Times in 2008, real-world math doesn’t add up. Teachers should scrap the balls and slices and do as the math panel suggests, offer a highly structured approach to teaching computational skills, drill math facts, practice math computation and offer students explicit systematic instruction for students with learning disabilities. Today, these recommendations go ignored. Instead learning from the past, the same people have refused to take responsibility for denying students a quality math education, as Doctors Cliff Mass and Sandra Stotsky describe.
MORE EVIDENCE on the NCTM failures;
Here is a list of 10 myths as described by math educators and mathematicians.
Here is a letter signed by numerous individuals to the former Chancellor and Deputy Chancellor in New York describing how the NCTM math programs are harming their children’s math education. They also mention how teachers oppose the programs, but their hands are tied.
This is what has also been reported to me by teachers in New Hampshire forced to use IReady in their classrooms. They don’t like it for obvious reasons, but they have no choice but to inflict damage on a child’s math education.
The NCTM fuzzy math standards led to lousy math programs used in classrooms across the country. That then led to what was called the “Math Wars” in the 90’s. Parents, teachers and mathematicians across the country decided they had enough. Like today, they began challenging their school district board members to abandon these fuzzy math programs, and bring back a traditional approach to math education.
Or from a Meteorologist:
What can you expect from IReady? Here is a critique from one parent who wrote this to the principal at her child’s school:
In summary, during your internal meetings this week, I hope you may consider my feedback and concerns. For the younger grade levels, the children need more hands-on assignments to boost self-esteem, minimize stress, strengthen core muscles and eliminate unnecessary aches and fatigue. Our children are not data points in a global crisis. I urge you to let these last few months of the school year for these children be positive and exploratory. Please allow our bright teachers to teach how they see fit and we, as a school system, need to trust in their experience and abilities.
When we don’t learn from the mistakes of the past, we are bound to repeat them.
