By Jarrett Conner

The teachers of Massachusetts are not required to teach the basic processes for math skills. Instead, they are allowed to leave students on their own to learn mathematics in their own way.

The math skills that are taught in our state are based on a theory that children should determine for themselves what math principles are important ­ the teachers call this theory "constructivism."
Critics say the students are being left behind in mathematical knowledge and understanding.

However, the present Board of Education is poised to remedy some of the deficiencies in the standards. It has instructed the Department of Education to revise the 1995 mathematics frameworks.

Teachers Oppose Change

But the teachers have come out in force in opposition to any change. After a February 23 meeting of the Board of Education where it gave only "conditional approval" to a change, the Massachusetts Teachers Association claimed they won a "partial victory."

A member of the Department of Education’s Math and Science Advisory Committee, George Zeliger, recently told Massachusetts News about the weaknesses in the current framework.

"The [curriculum framework] has no shape, no standards, no content, nothing. This curriculum will produce mathematically handicapped people," Zeliger said. He is worried that the revised curriculum will be mishandled before it is finalized. He is the father of a young child in the public schools and a mathematician educated at the prestigious University of St. Petersburg in Russia.

When Massachusetts News contacted the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the powerful teachers union, they refused to comment on the curriculum frameworks. They claimed to have no position on the framework, but said they "fight to have teachers heard." They directed us to speak with some of the teachers who are opposed to the framework revisions, including Ann Collins, former statewide Mathematics Coordinator for the Department of Education.
When contacted, Collins stated that the teachers worry about a lack of concern for the development of "conceptual understanding."

She told the Worcester Telegram & Gazette that she was worried about the new focus on math skills: "The return of rote, ‘drill and kill’ makes me shudder when I think about all the hours that have gone into training teachers how to teach children ‘understanding.’"

But Wilfried Schmid, a professor of mathematics at Harvard University and advisor to the Department of Education on the math curriculum, told Massachusetts News that there is a false distinction drawn by some teachers between the learning of skills by the student and the understanding of concepts. "These things go together," Schmid said.

Schmid and Zeliger said that teachers are also concerned with the absence of pedagogy in the new document. The revised framework was written to be neutral with regard to teaching methods, but teachers ­ who spend much of their education studying such things ­ believe the frameworks need to include correct ‘ways’ of teaching, not simply material. Collins told Massachusetts News "the [revised framework] re-iterates all that is wrong with the way in which we have been teaching and learning mathematics."

Baffled by Teacher Opposition
Zeliger is baffled by the teachers’ emphasis on putting pedagogy in the curriculum frameworks. "I don’t understand why they want pedagogy in the curriculum. The curriculum is about what to teach, what the students need to know. The teachers have degrees in teaching. They should know how to teach," he said.
Prof. Schmid says the revised framework is a great improvement over its predecessor. It contains standards for every two years of education. The revised curriculum also contains indications for instruction in the standard algorithms.
The changes are intended to create uniformity among schools and also to provide a clear guide for assessment testing. The Board of Education has yet to give the new curriculum final approval and it plans to hear more criticism from the teachers.

According to Schmid, the revised curriculum is a vast improvement over the previous version in the following ways:

1) It sets specific, fairly demanding standards by grade level.
2) It is studiously neutral as to pedagogy. Teaching approaches are not ruled out nor recommended.
3) Appropriate limits are set for calculator use.
4) The standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication and division by one-digit number are to be taught.
5) Allows single-discipline courses (i.e. a class in "geometry").
The Department of Education has been on the front lines of this battle. In various ways, the state’s education establishment is moving towards a more traditional curriculum framework, although not without opposition.

o The opposition to the basics has singled out Sandra Stotsky, Deputy Commissioner of Education, as a vocal and dangerous opponent. She was instrumental in bringing standards back to the mathematics discussion, and she encouraged consultation with mathematicians on the curriculum.

o The changes appear to have the approval of Education Commissioner David Driscoll who pushed the revised framework through a recent department meeting by releasing the document but not allowing for public comment on it. Instead, two critics will present their concerns directly to the Board of Education. Driscoll’s actions suggest that he intends to help the revised document get approval.

o James Peyser, Chairman of the Board of Education, has pushed for a curriculum with more standards. He has been involved in the revision of the framework.

At this point in the Massachusetts "math wars," most major players appear lined up in favor of the changes. Key figures in the Department of Education and the Board of Education stand behind the revised curriculum framework. Activist teachers, bolstered and supported by the Massachusetts Teachers Association, are the final obstacle to the curriculum’s success. 

Although Prof. Schmid is pleased with the revised framework so far, he is willing to acknowledge it is not perfect. Since February’s "conditional" approval, some changes have been made to it. "It is much better than [the 1995] framework" Schmid told Massachusetts News. "The [newly] revised draft is pretty good. It incorporates only minor easing of standards from the February draft," he added.
 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE