Reforming math
Recent articles and editorials have presented a one-sided view of the “Discovering Math” series [“Judge tells Seattle School Board: Do the math,” News, Feb. 7 and “Schools: Do the math,” Opinion, Feb. 8]. As an educator and father of two high-schoolers, I believe we need a more thoughtful and balanced discussion.
Constructivist math, like inquiry science, is an effort to get our young people to learn to ask questions as well as memorize answers. In a world beset by financial, ethical and environmental crises, we may need to be asking more questions. Asking questions is optimistic and it presumes we can construct new answers — this is what creative scientists and entrepreneurs do. Constructivist learning brings creativity into education rather than forcing potential innovators to drop out.
Constructivist math also offers mathematical literacy to the majority of students who “don’t get math.” They cannot make the transition from a context-rich natural language to the abstract symbolism of mathematics. I have two of these “Discovering Math” books on my dining room table and they make this transition admirably and repeatedly. Their approach makes mathematical reasoning relevant and meaningful to those who are not yet competent and excited by mathematics.
This is why the “Discovering Math” series has garnered support in other communities and why we need a more-informed discussion about math education.
— Don Comstock, Seattle
Students need both types of math
The Times, like so many others, has the wrong take on the reform versus traditional math controversy. It should never be a question of one or the other. Our children need both!
Traditional math emphasizes memorization of facts, procedures, formulas, algorithms and working independently as well as having the teacher explain what the students should do. These are all necessary and legitimate teaching methods.
Reform math emphasizes understanding the underlying math concepts, discovering alternative algorithms to help clarify the concepts, working in small groups in order to have mathematical conversations with peers and the teacher facilitating these processes. These are also necessary and legitimate teaching methods.
Why then, would we choose to follow only one or the other? Remember the phonics versus whole language controversy of a few years ago? Turns out our children need both but we wasted time, resources and energy to fight a meaningless battle. Let’s not repeat that mistake!
— David G. Gardner, Seattle
Learning from experience
The Times is right, for the good of its students, the Seattle School Board should not use the Discovering Mathematics teaching system. Here’s an example why: My 1946-1947 high-school trigonometry class was taught according to an ancestor of these modern methodologies and I learned little.
Four years later I was a radioman aboard Navy long-range aircraft and — among other tasks — used the radio direction finder to obtain bearings for the navigator. So I could best serve him, he gave me a short lesson on navigation and the math he used. In about an hour, that young ensign taught me more about trigonometry than I learned in a year at high school.
More than 60 years have gone by and apparently educators still haven’t learned what works and what doesn’t. Math should be taught in a direct, applicable manner — ideally by mathematicians, but at least by those who have used mathematics.
I still have “Mathematics for Electricians” and “Radiomen” by Nelson M. Cooke, which I obtained in ‘51 or ’52 and used extensively. It has 500 pages of no-nonsense lessons. I’ll be happy to donate it to the Seattle School Board if they promise to learn from it.
— Harry Petersen, Bellevue