The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US

Fri Jan 26 08:08:16 -0800 2007
manage

Mathematics education seems to be very subject to passing trends - surprisingly more so than many other subjects. The most notorious are, of course, the rise of New Math in the 60s and 70s, and the corresponding backlash against it in the late 70s and 80s. It turns out that mathematics education, at least in the US, is now subject to a new trend, and it doesn't appear to be a good one.

To be fair the current driving trend in mathematics education is largely an extension of an existing trend in education generally. The idea is that we need to cater more to the students to better engage them in the material. There is a focus on making things fun, on discovery, on group work, and on making things "relevant to the student". These are often noble goals, and it is something that, in the past, education schemes have often lacked. There is definitely such a thing as "too much of a good thing" with regard to these aims, and as far as I can tell that point was passed some time ago in the case of mathematics.

A couple of prime examples, in terms of textbooks and material for instructors, are brought up and suitably lampooned in a YouTube video by a Washington state weather presenter who encountered, and was appalled by, these particular teaching programs. The material in question is the TERC Investigations "Investigations in Number, Data, and Space", and the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project "Everyday Mathematics". The focus of the YouTube video is on these math programs complete aversion to teaching students the classic methods for performing multi-digit multiplication and division. Indeed, these programs not only fail to teach such a method, they go so far as to actively discourage the method ever being taught, preferring that students didn't learn it outside class either. What sort of methods do they teach? Well, for example, to solve the problem 26×31, a student might use the following approach: we can write 26×31 as 20×31 + 5×31 + 1×31 since 20+5+1=26; Now we know that 10×31=310, and 20×31 should be twice that (620) and 5×31 should be half that (155); so the solution is 620+155+31=806. Note that the student could break the problem up differently, and thus there is no single approach that consistently works on all problems; each new multiplication is an entirely new problem. To be fair the methods they do teach, such as the above, are interesting, and I myself tend to use them (or variations thereon) for quick mental calculation. My complaint is not so much to the methods taught, but to the failure to first provide a solid grounding in traditional systematic algorithms for performing multiplication and division. Indeed, in my view, the real problems run much deeper than this particular symptom.

At this point I should perhaps provide a little background as to who I am to complain. I am a mathematician, currently completing my Ph.D. in mathematics. My interest in math is mostly pure math and philosophy of math, but extends to math education and popular mathematics. I've been a TA for many years and have plenty of experience dealing with students. And I am not alone in my concerns with the current direction of math syllabuses, plenty of other professional mathematicians who actually look into the syllabus are taking issue too.

So what do mathematicians see as the problem? I would say that it is, in essence, that the individuals writing these new math programs have lost sight of the core skills that early math education should be instilling. In the drive to make the material "relevant to the student", what is being taught has become too applied. In the new programs there is a a focus, almost to the point of exclusivity, on teaching mathematics via real world stories using pictures, blocks, etc. Indeed arithmetic is done using blocks, and fractions and fraction arithmetic using "fraction strips". While such props and aids are useful in motivating the mathematics, it should be just a beginning. A key skill in mathematics, if not the key skill, is abstraction: the ability to abstract away from real world objects, and manipulate these abstractions to draw deep results, is vital. Abstraction is fundamental to mathematics; it is what gives mathematics both its power and its scope; it is the mechanism by which higher mathematics is built upon elementary mathematics. Abstraction and abstract thinking is one of the core skills that mathematics education should be imparting - and yet it is completely ignored by these math syllabuses.

Equally, in an effort to nurture students and foster creativity there is an effort to eliminate rote learning, and emphasize that there may be many ways to arrive at a solution, and letting the students invent their own procedures. Often these invented procedures are very problem specific - they may work for the particular problem at hand, but fail to generalize to other cases. Ultimately this, combined with the very visual (as opposed to symbolic) approach results in the students having limited exposure to consistent, systematic, algorithmic approaches. Again, a core skill that mathematics education should imbue, logical structured thought and a systematic approach to dealing with abstract objects, is being ignored. This is particularly poor in light of the ever increasing importance of skills in algorithms and computation brought about by the needs of modern computers.

The real tragedy is that, because mathematics is a heavily layered subject, each new topic building upon the previous ones, once students fall behind catching up can be a nightmare. Indeed, students often meet a rude awakening in late high school or at college when their limited mathematical repertoire fails to provide the necessary tools to fully grasp the next topic. Even worse, by failing to impart the core skills of abstraction, and logical systematic approaches to dealing with abstract objects, we are denying students the very skills necessary to even begin to expand their mathematical toolkit. At its heart mathematics is about abstract and logical thought, and without these core skills no student can hope to succeed in mathematics.

The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 10:14:45 -0800 2007
manage
This is an excellent read.  My wife is student teaching at the moment as part of her graduate degree, and she is running into this problem constantly.  Avoiding computation algorithms seems to be en vogue at the moment.  However, my wife lamented to me last week: "The kids just can't do anything."

It seems to me that the underlying assumption is that "children need to understand the methods of problem solving they use."  If you assume that to be a true principle, then most "classic" computational algorithms like "borrowing" go out the door because they children (and many adults) do not understand why they work.  However I think it is often more important to learn how to use the algorithms so that the child can be functional in mathematics (and then hopefully he or she will learn how it works later).  The perfect example of this is physics.  I took physics in high school and was fed a whole lot of formulas which seemed quite arbitrary.  However, after taking calculus the formulas were quite intuitive to me.

The other pressure my wife has described concerns academic testing (mostly related to Bush & Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind").  At the moment each student is spending around 90 minutes of their school day either testing and preparing for tests.  This is happening from January to May.  For elementary school students there is already hardly enough time in the day, so every subject will suffer in these cases.  The specific impact on mathematics is that only those types of problems on the tests are emphasized in class, which does not lead to a rounded mathematics education.
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 10:43:20 -0800 2007
manage
I'm filing this under the "kids of today" heading till someone produces some statistics.

Last I looked kids were getting smarter (Flynn Effect).

And yes, these techniques shouldn't be taught  instead of basic methods, but they should be encouraged for mental arithmetic, since that is the best way to do mental arithmetic.
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 10:58:20 -0800 2007
manage
I know a guy who has taught math at a community college for a number of years. They used to have one remedial math class to get kids ready for algebra. Now they are getting some students with such poor skills that they have a sequence of classes that starts with teaching the multiplication tables. This suggests that high school students' math skills are declining over time.
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 10:59:35 -0800 2007
manage
A problem I have with modern mathematical education is the pervasive use of multiplication tables. Children shouldn't really be using or memorizing multiplication tables, because they are a means of cheating by replacing the algorithm for multiplying two digits with a pre-calculated result. Thus, children never actually learn how to multiply 9 * 9, and can only give a memorized answer. Instead, when faced with a single-digit multiplication, children should be taught to do repetitive addition, or to convert the numbers to binary, and then use shifts and adds. Only once they have mastered this should they go on to learning the multiplication table.

Yours Sincerely

Bertrand Russell :-)
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 11:33:37 -0800 2007
manage
The 9s table is done one of two ways - multiply by 10 (add a zero) and subtract the multiplier (i.e. 9 * 9 is really 10 * 9 - 9), or use your fingers.

Hold up all 10 fingers, then put down the finger that is in the position of the number being multiplied by 9.  For example, 9 * 7.  Put down your 7th finger from the left.  The answer is the left group as tens and the right group as ones.

Putting down the 7th finger leaves 6 on the left and 3 on the right.  The correct answer is 63.

* * *

That being said, I believe memorization of all the single digit multiplication tables is a very good thing.  Yes, repetitive addition needs to be taught, so children understand that multiplication is nothing more than a quick method of addition.  But, memorization is a vital part as well.
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 11:53:17 -0800 2007
manage
Nice trick, I didn't learn that one. Of course my posting was sarcastic in intent - to demonstrate that the person who was complaining that we didn't start with fundamental algorithms could have started at first principles himself.

    Thanks

    Bruce
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 12:02:09 -0800 2007
manage
I wasn't sure.  :-)  I had to learn repetitive addition before I memorized the multiplication tables, which was 4th grade or so.
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Mon Jan 29 19:31:57 -0800 2007
manage
Hold up all 10 fingers, then put down the finger....

I saw that episode of Prison Break too.

The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Mon Jan 29 20:57:05 -0800 2007
manage
Actually, I learned that trick before VCRs were on the market.  :-)  And I've never seen an episode of Prison Break.  Good to see something good comes sneaks thru the TV, though.
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 11:52:40 -0800 2007
manage
Understanding why multiplication works, in that it is repeated addition, is very important. It's important because multiplication is a higher order concept. Where addition deals with counting physical objects (3 apples plus 2 apples is 5 apples), multiplication is counting abstract objects: numbers (or additions, depending on how you look at it). This requires the leap to seeing numbers and operations on numbers as objects in and of themselves to be counted and manipulated. That's an important realisation to make, and we shouldn't be expecting students to magically figre it out themselves just by memorizing multiplication tables.

On the other side of the coin, just understanding why and how it works isn't enough. Mathematics is a subject that builds upon itself, so you need to not just know something, you need proficiency at it so you no longer need to think about it. Indeed, to quote A.N. Whitehead (as a natural complement to Russell):

"It is a profoundly erroneous truism repeated by all copybooks, and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of operations that we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle--they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments."

Thus, while it is important to grasp what multiplication is, and why and how it works, once that has been achieved (or indeed, while it is being achieved - sometimes the deeper realisations take longer and workign experience with the matter at hand can assist) the student also needs to master the process so that they no longer need to think about it if they don't want to.

The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 13:38:30 -0800 2007
manage
Abominable proposition!  Children should be prohibited from using digits to represent numerals at all.  Numerals should always be spelled out, and only when a child contemplates the harsh reality of the phrase 'nine times nine,' can he begin to come to terms with the fact that 'eighty one' is a phrase entirely distinct and yet meaningless in so far as it is unrelated to the former phrase.  Your logic, dear Bertie, is insufficient to capture the meaning you intend to convey, whether you represent it as a multiplication table or an addition table (both of which are inconsistent when developed as purely logical constructions.)  I still hope that one day you will realize that the only truth --the beautiful, real, painful truth-- is that Mathematics, like all human subjects, is nothing more than a composition of subjective communications.  Your notation is exquisite, but objectively meaningless rubbish.

Words, words, words; Polonius, you make my head hurt.

Self Sincerely,
Ludwig Wittgenstein
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Sat Jan 27 16:38:18 -0800 2007
manage
I'm still waiting to hear from Kurt Gödel.
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 17:45:02 -0800 2007
manage
convert the numbers to binary, and then use shifts and adds
Was that a reference to Russian peasant multiplication?
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 18:46:59 -0800 2007
manage
Great link. The last time I got to do this, I was programming the 6502, which didn't have a multiply instruction. Either a Vic 20 or a Commodore 64. And then a while later, in 1987, I was interviewing at Pixar. One of the few questions I might have had trouble with was "have you worked with RISC machines", and my answer was "well, I've programmed the 6502, it's a lot like one", and I got the job.

    Bruce
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 11:13:09 -0800 2007
manage

Thank you for the article.  I agree with the argument but I completely disagree with the conclusion.  YES, some students work best with abstraction and logical thought- but there are more concrete thinkers out there, and both methods of instruction should be available.

Also, while yes, at its heart mathematics is about abstract and logical thought, to paraphrase a response to an earlier article you can't make money with abstract and logical thought until it is applied to solve a problem.  The heart may be abstract and logical thought, but the VALUE is in solving real-world economic and engineering problems.  Mathematics that doesn't solve real world problems is useless to the advancement of science.

Some students might even profit from having mathematics skills taught backwards- I would have been one such student, for me mathematics made no sense whatsoever until I reached senior undergraduate level numerical methods and began to learn *why* all those nonsensical functions worked the way they did.

I really should have had Numerical Methods ( Math 421 when I was at Oregon Institute of Technology ) in the second grade, I would have been less bored and worked harder at it.

The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 11:41:32 -0800 2007
manage
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that abstraction and logic should be taught to the exclusion of application any more than vice versa. Moderation is the key here. Application motivates abstraction and logic, and abstraction and logic informs application (you can understand why an appliation works, as opposed to just doing it - something I find helps a great many students actually work with the applications). My point is simply that we shouldn't lose sight of abstraction and logic in our pursuit of application and "relevance". There has to be a balance, and I think the scales are tipped far to far in the direction of application - to a mathematician these syllabuses are surprisingly content free and leave the student in a very poor position to learn higher mathematics.
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 11:20:03 -0800 2007
manage

Excellent write-up. I hate to add another "me too!" to the thread, but I have a somewhat unique perspective. I'm in the process of finishing up my second Bachelor's degree, this one in Computer Science. My previous was in History, with extensive work in a few dead languages. In addition, I work with children, from the early secondary level to high-school.

In the few years since I completed my secondary education to now, I have seen the level of mathematics education decline precipitously. I see this with the students I work with at every level, with the students coming out of high school down to the younger kids. The emphasis, as the post states, seems to be on "how does this math work for me" rather than "what can math teach me". The emphasis is more subjective than objective, and I think this does a great disservice to the students.

In short, lest you think the post is off-base and lacks relevance, trust me, it's not.

The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 11:35:17 -0800 2007
manage
I take a position in the middle.

Allow me to preface my comments by saying that professional mathematicians and scientists are very poor people to depend on when developing early mathematics syllabi. These are all people for whom the existing systems have worked fantastically well. They will have a great deal of trouble understanding where the system has its shortcomings, why these shortcomings exist and how to correct them.

Now that I've disqualified a huge number of people, a reasonable follow up is to ask who is best qualified? I think people who have a mastery of mathematics, but whose education focuses on the psychology of learning and teaching. So, perhaps a PhD in Psychology with an undergraduate mathematics degree. I don't know if people study mathematics education specifically at the doctoral level, but obviously if such programs exist these would be ideal candidates. I should also say, I am not one of these people.

I believe that traditional syllabi are not successful at teaching how mathematics works. Traditional syllabi fail to in any way address abstraction of mathematics. As a result most people have significant problems moving towards abstractions in mathematics such as the introduction of variables. (Ask 8th graders how they feel about suddenly having to add letters.)

These new systems provide some well thought out teaching tools. Their failing is that they then go on to completely eschew the well understood tools taught in traditional syllabi. This is not useful, and it limits the resources a student can use outside of class to learn.

Very few adults I know who are familiar with the standard algorithm for multi-digit multiplication understand why it works, or the abstractions it makes in order to work. Further most adults can not use the various arithmetic properties to "break down" big unmanageable arithmetic problems into smaller more manageable problems.

Consider the multiplication 112 x 95 = 10640

The standard method tells us to work the problem this way: (I use leading zeros for text alignment, sorry) 0112 x095 ____ 00560 10080 10640

One of the new methods, designed to teach place values:

0112
x095
-----
00010 = 5 x 2
00050 = 5 x 10
00500 = 5 x 100
00180 = 90 x 2
00900 = 90 x 10
09000 = 90 x 100
10640

This method is unwieldy, but it is more effective at teaching the significance of place values. I feel that this can be taught slightly earlier than the "standard" method of multi-digit addition, which itself should be taught as a follow on "shortcut version" of this method.

As to the TERC method of multiplication, this simply uses the distributive arithmetic property. This property is implicit in the standard algorithm. However the standard algorithm forces us to break the numbers up for distribution in a particular way, which may or may not be more efficient. The functional goal is to find more mentally efficient way to distribute the numbers being added.

In my mind, the most efficient way to break this problem up is this:

100*5+12*5+((11*9)*(10*10))+2*90

That may not be the case for any of you... and of course I may be overlooking some simpler evaluations, but for me all of these are simple evaluations and using this technique I can complete the problem in my head much faster than I can with a calculator or computer. It is important to realize that this "invented procedure" is no such thing, but rather that this is a solution to the problem, "Use arithmetic properties to make it easier to solve this multiplication mentally, without resorting to paper."

As a result this method teaches the arithmetic properties. It teaches that numbers can be manipulated a great deal. Psychologically it grants the benefit of being able to handle "big" problems in "small easy chunks." It also teaches people that mathematics is an art as much as a science... different ways of solving the problem can emphasize different strengths and weaknesses of the student.

I do not think this is a good method to teach when introducing students to multi-digit arithmetic, but I do believe that for most people an extended focus on this use of arithmetic properties will serve them far better in their daily lives and also serves as stronger preparation for early abstract studies that introduce concepts like variables.

The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 12:04:18 -0800 2007
manage
I believe that traditional syllabi are not successful at teaching how mathematics works. Traditional syllabi fail to in any way address abstraction of mathematics. As a result most people have significant problems moving towards abstractions in mathematics such as the introduction of variables.

I agree entirely, my concern is that the current trend, far from making things better, is making them worse. It does even less to actually teach the kids the requisite abstractions, and at the same time poorly equips them into the bargain. The solution to children not understanding why traditional techniques work is not to eliminate the technique, but to actually teach them why it works.

The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 15:08:21 -0800 2007
manage
I agree entirely, my concern is that the current trend, far from making things better, is making them worse. It does even less to actually teach the kids the requisite abstractions, and at the same time poorly equips them into the bargain. The solution to children not understanding why traditional techniques work is not to eliminate the technique, but to actually teach them why it works.

We agree on the point you make here too. People may have missed my point though, because I write too much. So naturally I think more words will fix that. Yes, I never learn.

I think these new methods have a place in the classroom. Everyday Math's "Partial Product Method" is a good lead in to the "Standard" technique. I think spending class time on the Partial Product method is a good thing.

To me this "Partial Product Method" is a better way to teach the standard technique- not a replacement.

It gets worse with TERC's "cluster" method. I like that method... and I think it should definitely be taught to students as early as possible. As I said it teaches a whole lot of useful things to young math students. As the article's author says, he uses the method regularly.

However I also believe it should come after students have at least some mastery of the standard method. It should be revisited year after year, in concert with the standard method, until students are prepared for pre-algebra courses.

Of course, the same problem rears its ugly head: TERC does away with the standard method.

To sum up, these new methods don't fail because they are intrinsically bad ideas, but rather because they ignore the more efficient techniques a lot of people already know.

The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 11:49:09 -0800 2007
manage
I'm a PhD in Physics (BA in Physics/CS) and learning disabled in arithmetic (algebra, calculus, group theory no problem, multiplication, division, sheer agony). 

This post is dead on, but the one thing that I might add, arithmetic is to mathematics as penmanship is to english. So much of arithmetic is rote learning that it turns off people on mathematics, particularly those who are probably well suited to the task. I was awful on arithmetic, but at the point of Algebra onwards my grades started rising rapidly. It is essential to know arithmetic, but actual math with abstraction and symbolic manipulation is essential to keep kids interested.

The other issue is that math is so often taught in isolation from it's applications. This leads to one of the greatest evils of math education, the pointless word problem. One of my fondest memories is of my AP physics class, where our teacher would set up the physics problem and then feed us just enough Calculus to handle it. This is the ideal situation in that people who have a need and an environment to play around with the results will eat up math like a starving man at a smorgasborg.
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 11:57:23 -0800 2007
manage
The issue of math without applications is, fortunately, a thing of the past. The downside is that now we have a great deal of "applications without math", where everything must be a story and the actual mathematical content has been diluted to almost non-existence: it is so buried in the particulars of the story that it gets lost. It seems trends in math education follow huge pendulum swings, and at the moment we've swung a long way toward applications. I suggest you look at some of the texts and the complaints about them. You may be surprised.
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 13:21:22 -0800 2007
manage
Not quite what I meant. The big problem, in my opinion, is at the applied math level (Algebra, Calculus, Trig,  Geometry).  Beyond that, when math becomes a end in itself, there's no problem keeping the student.

Basically applied math is taught as a freestanding discipline,  but the applications are specific to the discipline of the student. But since the math is often taught by itself the applications cited are generic.

The evils of premature optimization

Fri Jan 26 12:49:44 -0800 2007
manage
I assert this is another example of "the evils of premature optimization".

The teachers are teaching the kids shortcuts to get the problems solved, without teaching the "long way" for when the shortcuts don't work. In other words, they are teaching kids methods optimized for a specific problem before teaching the kids the "slow but always works" method. Sure, the kids become whizzes at the special cases, but they cannot handle the general case.

They tried to do this with reading, too - the "see and say" method. Now, when I read this article, I'm not s-o-u-n-d-i-n-g o-u-t every word - I see "tragedy" and immediately leap to the concept. That's because I've been reading for decades and have optimized the common cases. Now, if I hit a new word like "blogmorph", I'm not going to be able to instantly know how to pronounce it - but then I fall back to the old, slow methods of decomposing it and sounding it out.

The problem was that teachers looked at advanced readers, and asked the (not unreasonable) question "How do they do it?". They then said "Well, if this is how advanced readers do this, then this is what we should teach everybody, so then they will ALL be advanced." But they didn't notice that the advanced readers still had this old, backup algorithm available to them, and that the new algorithm was *based on the old*.

Then they tried to do that with the new math. They saw that advanced math users used the concepts of sets - obviously we need to teach little Billy about sets right off, so he will be an advanced math user. Never mind that little Billy is not mentally ready for set theory.

So now they are going the entire other direction - "Let's not try to teach any of that hard stuff, let's just teach them for the common cases." Case in point - a friend of mine is a teacher who subs for teachers who teach the adult remedial classes. Now, they try to use making change as a means to teach basic subtraction and addition. However, my friend teaches the people the "count back" method for making change:

                           OK, that's $1.58
                           (dropping pennies into the customer's hand) 59, 60
                           (dropping dimes) 70, 80, 90, 2
                           (dropping dollars) 3 4 and 5's your change have a nice day.
                        
Now, what is the goal? If the goal is to teach them a job skill so they can run a cash register, the latter is the better method. If the goal is to teach math the latter is a really BAD way do to it.

Sorry, but math is skill built upon skill - addition leads to multiplication, algebra leads to calculus, and so on. Skip a skill, and all the others suffer. I hated it in college when I was taking Ordinary Differential Equations, and we went through all the gyrations of the method of unknown parameters et. al. to do a differential equation, only to head over to Circuits II and do LaPlace transforms. LaPlace transforms are a shortcut - a damn handy shortcut that can lead to a deeper understanding of the frequency domain response of a circuit, but a shortcut never the less - if you don't understand when LaPlace goes LaBoom, you will shoot yourself in the foot at some point when you should have been using the more general methods of Differential Equations.

Sorry kids, sorry teachers - there are no shortcuts to learning these skills.

The evils of premature optimization
Mon Jan 29 15:38:14 -0800 2007
manage

Now, what is the goal? If the goal is to teach them a job skill so they can run a cash register, the latter is the better method. If the goal is to teach math the latter is a really BAD way do to it.

I'd argue that it's a really bad way to run a cash register as well- at the end of the day you'll be cashing out a huge number of excess quarters and you'll be calling your manager for extra dimes all day.

Great post and discussion

Fri Jan 26 14:13:25 -0800 2007
manage
I do have a pet peeve about confusing math education with arithmetic, and then confusing arithmetic with particular algorithms optimized for pencil and paper. Those algorithms aren't the best starting point for graduating to the next level of abstraction, either. "Carry the 2" is an obfuscated version of "include 2*10^N in the addends". They're concrete in a way that hides the abstraction instead of leading to it.

A friend's daughter had estimation in the curriculum. That may even have replaced airthmetic as a core skill. Which is more valuable, knowing that 280 ppm of CO2 is a 55.55555* percent increase over 180 ppm (which it isn't in the real world of error bars), or realizing that one number is about half again the other?

Another peeve is that people reach voting age without understanding the key points of statistics. You can vote intelligently without being able to do a chi-squared analysis, but there's no excuse for not undertanding the base rate fallacy, and you can teach that with a Monte Carlo simulation in Excel. The same tool can teach the idea of expectation values. Long division won't help with that.

Then there's the ability to understand context. My dad taught chemical engineering seniors who kept trying to use formulas that weren't valid in the conditions of the problenm they were working on.

We can hop up one level of abstraction in this discussion and notice that the education establishment has a record in general of taking useful ideas and turning them into practical failures by misunderstanding where they apply. The comment elsewhere about "whole language" is a great example.

The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Fri Jan 26 21:10:35 -0800 2007
manage
Good post! It seems like education in general, in the public schools, seems to keep sliding more and more into social engineering rather than teaching core normal educational topics. I know a few families who have responded to that by switching to home schooling. It seems to work for them, too, and the kids are remarkably smart and competent. Heh, maybe mom and dad are a little more strict and demanding and can get that "motivation" thing going better!
The Declining Quality of Mathematics Education in the US
Sat Jan 27 11:47:21 -0800 2007
manage
The problem with teaching mathematics is that there isn't just one way to do it, there are many.  It depends on where you want to be proficient, and what you expect of the student.  There is no shame in focussing on arithmetic skills, algebra, and statistics for non mathematically oriented students. 

I've always contended that if a person wasn't going to go in to any particularly mathematical fields of study, that they should study statistics instead of trig or calculus.  They'll get a lot more use of those studies than from the latter. 

As for those with aspirations to study engineering, science, they need to focus on math much more than their peers.  We demand a lot from average students these days, far more than we ever did in the past.  In the old days, there was work for people who didn't have a high school education.  These days, without a GED, your chances of finding any but the most menial work is poor. 

We need to re-evaluate what we teach our students in high school.  We need to evaluate what they learn in college.  We must acknowledge that we can't all be above average.  And finally, our employers must realize that we need to train our students at work as much as with school.  We can't expect perfection from those who have no idea what they want to do when they get out of school. 

Aside of all that, we also have more distractions than ever before for our children to get lost in.  Math requires concentration.  That's awfully hard with a window on the Internet sitting in your bedroom...