Archive for November, 2010

Words to Teach By

Monday, November 29th, 2010

The wisdom and power of Carol Jago’s presidential address to the 99th annual meeting of the National Council for the Teaching of English earlier this month reminded us that there’s simply no better advocate for great teaching than great teachers themselves.  Here’s a sample.  We hope you will read more.

“If we care only about keeping our kids satisfied with their lot as Deltas [de-emotionalized beings from Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World], turning the language arts curriculum into a giant online game may be an excellent plan.  If, on the other hand, we believe that our mission as teachers is to prepare students for life in the real world, teaching literature seems to me a much superior one.  We need to help kids figure out how to make this a better, not an alternate universe.”

And,

“I do not believe that teaching literature should be about dragging students kicking and screaming through works they hate and poems they find opaque.  It should be about nurturing the next generation of readers – readers who one day may choose to buy a ticket for a performance of Macbeth, who will excitedly order the latest Cormac McCarthy for their Kindles and Nooks, who can find solace in poetry during times of trouble.  Much is made of the economic impact of education, but I’m more concerned about preparing students’ hearts and minds for whatever the future may hold.”

Lynne Munson

Posted in English/Language Arts | 1 Comment »

MATH!

Thursday, November 11th, 2010

We don’t talk enough about math, which is one of the liberal arts and well-deserving of our attention.

We don’t focus on math, because as one of the “tested subjects” under NCLB, math gets more attention as other subjects get less.  Yet America continues to rank far behind other nations in comparisons of mathematics achievement.  And Education Next recently reported that the percentage of US students in advanced math puts us far behind most industrialized nations, more on par with developing countries.

Many blame the widespread use of so-called reform math programs, like Everyday Math, for our continued failure.

These programs aspire to help students gain deeper understanding of mathematics and to “think like mathematicians.”  But programs like Everyday Math reject conventional algorithms in favor of allowing students to construct their own processes.  For example: the curriculum skips the study of long division, encouraging heavy calculator use instead.

Outraged at the “fuzzy math” their children are learning, parents have formed groups like “Where’s the Math?”  With almost 900,000 views to date, this video voices their frustration.

And critics are increasingly vocal.  “The truth of course, is that no one claims that knowing how to think independently isn’t important.  But thinking can’t take flight unless you do know some basic facts – and nowhere is this more the case than in math,” says a New York City teacher.

Not surprisingly, the curriculum doesn’t produce results.  In spite of increased focus on math, US scores remain stagnant.  California adopted the reform math in the 1980’s and subsequently watched their test scores fall.  Today, Everyday Math makes California and Texas’ lists of “not recommended” text books.

Leading scientists and mathematicians have demanded that the Department of Education withdraw its endorsement.  The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics no longer supports the curriculum.

After reviewing the curriculum, a California State mathematics professor said, “In normal classrooms with normal teachers, I would characterize these materials (the second grade material) as “dangerous”. My impression is that it would be very difficult to be sure that appropriate material has been covered adequately. … There is almost no routine practice, although a small amount is built into the activities.”

Everyday Math is currently in use in over 185,000 classrooms by almost 3 million students.

Posted in Math and Science | 3 Comments »

Looking Beyond STEM

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

President Obama recently took time to host a science fair in the State Dining Room — the fifth such event this year, in the name of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education.

“This is something I care deeply about,” he said.  “Through this commitment American students will move … from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math in the next decade.”

Not so fast, Mr. President.  From the middle to the top of the pack in the next decade?  Based on the latest PISA results, the US is currently ranked number twenty-five in mathematics and twenty-one in science.  Pardon our skepticism — it’s going to take a lot more than White House science fairs and astronomy nights to push the US into the top performer category.

The top performers share a commitment to providing their students with a content-rich education across the liberal arts and sciences.  Nearly all of our international competitors require their students to study the arts, literature, history, geography, foreign languages and civics in addition to math and science.  With our focus on basic skills, it’s no wonder the US is hovering somewhere near the middle of the international standings.

Notably, there’s little evidence to support the idea that focusing on STEM improves achievement in those subjects.

While renewed emphasis on STEM subjects is admirable, it doesn’t bode well for the rest of the liberal arts.  Overspending on STEM promises a narrower curriculum on the whole.  And insubstantial gains on international tests.

Stephanie Porowski

Posted in Curriculum, Math and Science | 2 Comments »

Should Foreign Language Get the Ax?

Monday, November 1st, 2010

A recent article confirms a growing trend in American education: axing foreign languages to clear space in tight budgets or course calendars.  This trend is particularly disturbing considering that learning a foreign language has been shown to aid in the mastery of other subjects.

For example: “the cognitive skill[s] that comes from mastering a complex, graphic, non-alphabetical writing system” can be extremely useful when applied to mathematics. Some even link “Chinese success in science, math and education to the pattern recognition and mental practices needed to learn the language at an early age in the first place”.

Yet Americans are shying away from other languages.  From 1997 to 2008, the share of all U.S. elementary schools offering language classes fell from 31 percent to 25 percent, while middle schools dropped from 75 percent to 58 percent. In contrast, most European and Asian countries make second and third languages compulsory, beginning early in the early grades.

This is particularly interesting in light of our embarrassingly low scores on international assessments.  If studying a foreign language builds cognitive ability, is it really that surprising to see US students lag behind their bi- and tri-lingual peers?  Honestly, we’re not shocked.

California politicians recently attempted to water down (to the point of elimination) its high school arts and foreign language graduation requirement.  Fortunately, critics slammed the bill for its potentially devastating impact on state education and the Governor responded with a veto.

International comparisons aside, learning a foreign language is an integral part of a broad liberal arts education.  Let’s make this education available to all our students.

Skye Frontier

Posted in Foreign Language | 1 Comment »