Why America Sucks at Math and Science

[batskeets]

Want to know why we rate so low in math and science? Take a look at what passes for a math curriculum nowadays:

I'm relatively young, but I learned the "standard algorithms," and did fine with them. Admittedly, I did have above-average talent with math, but some of these current methods just seem fluffy and time-consuming, and I'm not sure how or why anyone would find them useful, especially in an everyday life situation.

And don't even get me started on the increasing dependence on calculators. Kee-rist.

EDIT: Heath Ledger dead? Wow, I really did not see that coming. He had talent and a great career... it's so sad that some other part(s) of his life would lead him to this, in spite of it.

Comments

[helloandie.livejournal.com]

holy shit this explains so much. my oldest step-daughter is 10, and in the 4th grade. they were working on double and triple digit multiplication and she needed help. so when i showed her how to do it, the "standard" way, (because i didn't know there WERE other ways) she had NO IDEA what i was talking about and started talking about all this craziness!

i can't tell you how upset i am right now.

[arabella-jin.livejournal.com]

You're kidding me right? This is not true, right?
I was waiting all through the film for some Steve-O/Jackass type to jump in and say "Gotcha!"
We had master all this elementary maths by the age of 7! I had to know all the multiplications table by the age of 6 1/2 and I remember spending my entire Easter hols (the same as my entire class) learning the tables cause a big bad test was looming on the way back from the hols!
The only time i used a calculator (scientific one) was to find the answers on sinX and cosX integrations and other calculus problems in college maths! and despite my engineering degree, I still think I'm rubbish at maths.

[arabella-jin.livejournal.com]

I don't want to be mean but at least she'll know something about planning a trip! It is so sad! SO SO sad!

[phasmaphobic.livejournal.com]

This is messed up. Wow. I can't believe they're teaching kids this crap.

[agent-fisher-v2.livejournal.com]

Since I don't have broadband could you explain to me what the video is about?

[typsie.livejournal.com]

Wow, that was eye-opening. I really hope they fix this shit by the time I get around to spawning!

[xplo-eristotle.livejournal.com]

I only watched as far as the multiplication.

The "Cluster Problem" method (the one that you "reason through") and the "Partial Products Method" (where you multiply everything by everything else and add it together) both sound a lot like what I do in my head if I don't have paper or a calculator to work out my math with, since my memory and visualization aren't always good enough to work the Standard Algorithm in my head. Also, the latter has a lot in common with polynomial factoring, so there's a kind of consistency when the kids start doing algebra. The "Lattice Method" is essentially "Partial Products" with a diagram added as a mnemonic device.

I find it hard to find fault with Partial Products. It's a bit longer, sure, but it's easier to do in your head (IMO, YMMV) and it's not really much different from the Standard Algorithm. I don't see that it's necessarily a better teaching method, although it does make what the Standard does a lot more apparent.

OTOH, the Clusterfuck requires students to apply mathematical abilities and experience that they can't possibly have yet.. and won't ever have, if that's what they're being taught.

No elementary school student ought to have a calculator.

[muerte.livejournal.com]

Wow... so my first response to this is that maybe it's not ALL bad. In fact I wish my kids new multiple ways to solve the same problem. Knowing that you can break apart big numbers (12 * 18 = 10 * 18 + 10 * 2) into smaller parts is FUNDAMENTAL to understand how/why multiplication/division works. It seems like that "free thinking" they're allowing the kids to do perhaps fosters that thinking?

I'm VERY skeptical that a kid could get a full grasp of how complex math works "just by playing around," so I'm hoping they (the teachers, not the books) also teach the other standard ways.

I'm really hoping that's the case because otherwise this video make me very sad.

[alleycatsphinx.livejournal.com]

It is better to memorize a few limited sets like the natural numbers and integers, and a limited number of on paper machine algorithms for solving them than to have a deeper underlying understanding of math.

Attempting to teach the abstract concept of a number, or worse, algorithmic information theory to children is akin to teaching farmer's sons rocket science - impractical and confusing.

A deeper underlying understanding of math theory is wasted on the general populace and the educational system and social conventions of America are not equipped to impart it.

I do think, however, students would actually benefit from extended calculator and cash register training.

Additionally, the appeals in the video to the superiority of the "standard" method that betray an ignorance of the advanced mathematics the new methods are based on are cute.

[alfonzobean.livejournal.com]

Personally, I hate thinking about things in any manner which isn't based on a pre-existing algorithm. I find it wasteful and inefficient. All education should be aimed at getting results mechanically and not at understanding the underlying process. :-P

Further, I completely agree with the use of a condescending tone to discuss (and thus dismiss) things which aren't precisely what you're comfortable with. There are a dozen multiplication and division algorithms I can give to you which are just as error-resistant and simple to learn, but because they aren't the ones that we arbitrarily decided to teach the first time through, they aren't OK.

Seriously, though, math education in the US is a problem. The calculator's role as a crutch for the brain of every person under the age of 20 is a complete disaster -- people fail to learn to think in terms of logical process because they aren't being taught simple ones at an early age. The school system isn't equipped with teachers who are capable of imparting sophisticated reasoning methods, partially because our teachers don't understand them in the first place. The description of the "cluster method" in this video is a complete travesty -- and you can expect that most teachers do it the same disservice when they try to explain it, which is why no one is learning anything from it. Thinking carefully about where the blame lies, with the material carefully developed over the course of many years by experts in math education or with the people who aren't qualified to present it, may lead to some very different opinions about where the blame should lie. Give me 20 minutes and a piece of chalk and I'll show you how it's supposed to be done. I've never taught the cluster method, but it's clear to me that her presentation has very little to do with the skill that's intended to be conveyed.

I'm not saying that there isn't a place for learning algorithms to do things -- on the contrary, it's vital that it occur in places -- but if we don't discuss the "why", we're not *educating* anybody. Frankly, it's my opinion that the method of learning math advanced by "traditionalists" is as damaging in the long run, if not more so, than the complete collapse that's currently taking place in our math education system. The industrial revolution is over in this country, and we need to stop educating people with the intent of making them good factory workers.

This subject makes me grumpy. I'm going drinking to erase it from my brain.

[alleycatsphinx.livejournal.com]

Agreed. ;.;

I have to work late tonight, wanna have drinks later this week though?

[rmalena.livejournal.com]

I would like to slap that lady. In all other respects, I must agree with the Chad.

Doing something mechanically is good, and having algorithms memorized is great for balancing checkbooks and performing basic mathematics in the real world. But it isn't understanding why it works, which is the benefit of the other methods she describes, and it doesn't fairly describe what is happening with the numbers.

I also haven't seen her mention which methods are actually taught in Washington, or if she just pulled out two awful books to make fun of math teachers. I still want to slap her.

Also, the Lattice Method? Wow. Someone should have been beaten when they came up with that. New Math holdover?

[rmalena.livejournal.com]

That being said, I finished watching the thing after being drawn in by her evil. She makes a good point in not wanting those two methods to be taught. I have to agree. I'm definitely into the traditional methods, as long as I also get the kids to try and understand why it works. Then again, high school is very much not the fourth grade stuff she's focusing on.

The problem that I have with her discussion is that she thinks learning algorithms is all well and good, but calculators are bad. Unless you understand how it works, an algorithm and a calculator give the exact same end result. The only difference is that I made someone memorize a formula and apply it. Is that worth it? Sure, there's some logic and brainpower there, and that's meaningful. But all this new math education is meant to give students an understanding of the topic, and it obviously has it's problems and crazy angry parents.

I guess understanding multiplication isn't necessary to do the math, but understanding is seriously necessary at the higher levels. My frustration is that my kids have trouble with logical processes. They can't do anything except put some numbers in a formula. They can't logically break down a problem and see the steps unless I give them a series of steps, and that makes me crazy. I want them to think, and formulas and algorithms just don't cut it.

I can't stand rote memorization, and I can't stand either of the books she presented with the most bias and vitriol possible when presenting a math book.

I just want to find out how a good tech culture teaches this stuff.

[rmalena.livejournal.com]

Don't listen to anything I say. I think I just ramblingly contradicted myself four times. I will also continue to comment until this numb rage makes it way out of my stomach and onto this webpage.

I have to say that I agree also with whoever said that no one should get calculators early on. I'd put that age limit at 9th grade. Make people actually learn math, and then use the things as a tool, not a crutch, when it actually becomes needed.

[xplo-eristotle.livejournal.com]

Thinking carefully about where the blame lies, with the material carefully developed over the course of many years by experts in math education or with the people who aren't qualified to present it, may lead to some very different opinions about where the blame should lie.

This suggests that the material is, in fact, a brilliant new way of looking at basic math and teaching it to small children, and not the backwards oracular spewings of college-trained morons who've decided that grade-school education should be informed by a set of lofty intellectual principles with no consideration for the intended audience or purpose.

You're welcome to your theories, naturally, but I very strongly doubt that any math curriculum, presented by anyone at all, is going to turn the average group of 8-year-olds into little mathematicians, no matter how much you want them to be.

[alfonzobean.livejournal.com]

As a college-trained moron, I'd hate suggest that someone whose entire professional career is focused on understanding an idea has a better chance of doing so than someone who hasn't spent more than a few minutes with the material. Perhaps you've got some data to back up your implication that the math-ed professors of the world have no idea what they're doing? Do you have an intended audience and purpose for which this education is headed of which I'm unaware, or is the elementary school audience whose future as productive members of a modern society is on the line still intact? The ability to reason logically is the primary purpose of mathematics education, no matter how many people think that the underlying skill is arithmetic.

The material in these curricula isn't a "brilliant new way" of looking at basic math -- it's the standard way we teach people to understand concepts at the college level and it's simply being applied to elementary mathematics. I very strongly doubt that this curriculum, which has trained generations of mathematicians, has any less chance of producing adults capable of understanding the concepts of mathematics than one focused on algorithmic methods.

I don't want 8 year olds to be mathematicians, unless they choose to be so -- I want them to have the grasp of the modern understanding of the world that we're capable of imparting to them. As my previous post said, I'd be happy to explain the lesson the woman in the video blatantly ignored to anyone who's interested in hearing the actual ideas therein. If you understand those ideas and still disagree with the methodology, I'd be pleased to hear your valid criticisms. Otherwise, leave your name calling at home and try to learn what's actually being discussed before taking part in the conversation.

[alfonzobean.livejournal.com]

Sure -- say, tomorrow, which is to say, Wednesday? Turns out I have an incredibly busy social (read: work) calendar this term. Also, perhaps Saturday?

[alfonzobean.livejournal.com]

I think it's primarily an issue of what one wants out of an educational system. Our current system has it's roots in production of useful factory workers and thus emphasizes rote fact regurgitation over any manner of reasoning ability. There's a built-in resistance to change due to the preceding generation's education -- or lack thereof -- giving them the idea that conceptual understanding of an idea, especially to the detriment of process, is somehow less than useful.

I'd personally like to see a system that emphasizes concepts, even if that method of education costs us a bit in terms of productivity. I agree that there is a definite need for students to learn algorithms to produce answers, but I can produce answers to problems that an algorithmically trained student just stares at with no hope of conclusion -- and I think this is a travesty in every sense of the word. There's nothing that separates me from the average student beyond a much deeper conceptual understanding of the tools of mathematics, which I definitely did not develop until long after the nonsense that I learned in public school well before the calculator craze.

I have no problem with using a calculator as it is intended which is to say, as a tool to be used in conjunction with other tools for solving problems. If understanding of how tools work in imparted, a student has a much greater chance of using those tools in new and creative ways and of inventing their own tools than does one who has simply memorized which buttons to push. This being said, I never allow my students use of a calculator in my classes, as I feel that few of them are willing to learn the material when provided with a crutch. Later in the game, after they have mastered the ideas, I'm happy to show them how to do it computationally if they're willing to learn how the algorithms work -- which is, again, a powerful tool for learning.

I'm going to cut this short, because I can type for days on the subject. Short version: learning to think, good; learning to calculate, good; learning to do either without the other, bad; not learning to thing, catastrophic; most math teachers, unqualified. Bleah.

[alleycatsphinx.livejournal.com]

It's possible. I'm either going to be so tired I can't have a drink because I need to sleep, or so tired I need to have a drink in order to get to sleep. Horsehead tonight at 8-9? I'll give you a call later.

[xplo-eristotle.livejournal.com]

As a college-trained moron, I'd hate suggest that someone whose entire professional career is focused on understanding an idea has a better chance of doing so than someone who hasn't spent more than a few minutes with the material.

Right. Now that your viewpoint has been altered by your education, it will likely take years before you gain the necessary perspective to see that it's not all it's cracked up to be, and that well-meaning and highly trained professionals are still perfectly capable of being colossal fools, even in their own fields of expertise.

The material in these curricula isn't a "brilliant new way" of looking at basic math -- it's the standard way we teach people to understand concepts at the college level and it's simply being applied to elementary mathematics.

Right, because anything that works on college students - people who should already have a mastery of arithmetic and its logical underpinnings - will work just as well on much younger people who lack the same training?

You said you could show how the cluster method is supposed to be used in twenty minutes. I can demonstrate the standard algorithm in two. The idea that arithmetic is just some 19th century anachronism and that children should be getting a "real education" and toting around calculators just in case they ever have to do the dirty applied stuff is exactly the kind of narrow-sighted theory wankery I associate with college trained morons.

You are attempting to frame this as an academic debate.. possibly because you have (correctly) assessed my unfamiliarity with the material and mean to take advantage of it to win by default by bludgeoning me to death with appeals to authority, or because you don't know any better. I reject your terms. If you can present convincing evidence brief enough to fit into an LJ comment that the alternatives in the video are wholly superior to the standard algorithms, then by all means, do so; that will shut me up good, and educate anyone reading it, to boot. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, you're just whining because I insulted a group that you identify with.

[alfonzobean.livejournal.com]

It's difficult to see why rightly assessing that you lack the tools to engage in a debate fueled by reason, data and understanding of the material makes my viewpoint any less valid or my inability to explain decades of background to you succinctly any more of an indictment of my viewpoint. The fact is that there are some issues too complicated to be discussed in a LJ box or understood by people who haven't spent any time trying to understand them. Your knee-jerk reaction isn't right just because it's your knee-jerk reaction, and the belief that somehow not being versed in the topic of debate is a position of strength is ludicrous.

You could no more explain the standard algorithm for multiplication in two minutes to a schoolchild, nor an adult, who has never seen it than I could any of the other methods, but fortunately we have years to educate children. And I'd be happy to point you to the entire body of neuroscience literature on the matter of whether children can learn abstract concepts as well as adults -- that, in fact, it is our method of educating them that makes them less receptive to these ideas and not some inherent inability to make complex connections at an early age.

Further, I very specifically did not suggest that children be put in a situation where they are forced to carry calculators to do basic arithmetic. As I said in my previous replies, I require my students not to use calculators at all and support the instruction of algorithmic methods for simple computation -- so long as that instruction is accompanied by an understanding of how the algorithm works and why we use it to solve the problem, which is patently not imparted by traditional methods of education. Believing that the world is made up of black "because it works that way" boxes is most of the problem with modern American thought.

I have a mountain of data and access to every proposed elementary and high school math curriculum ever used or proposed in the state of Oregon, as well the experience of many years spent trying to understand mathematics, so I feel that I can address the topic from a position of authority. Does this mean I cannot make mistakes? No. Does it mean that the body of experts can't be wrong? No. Clearly both of these events have occurred in the past -- but what everyone seems to fail to remember is that there's a reason they're a body of experts, and that reason is that they are correct most of the time. They wouldn't get to keep being called experts if they weren't. Until such time as someone presents actual, real evidence that doesn't consist of, "I didn't do it that way and I don't understand your way, so it's wrong," I'm going to continue apace with believing that the college educated morons of the world have a better grasp on this than the average American thinks they do. Arguing at straw men and suggesting that I need to provide proof of accepted reasoning (which is accepted precisely because there is a solid body of proof) rather than that those challenging it must provide proof are the marks of a non-argument.

As I said before, I would be happy to discuss the topic with anyone who's interested in actually understanding this debate. Since they aren't the kind of discussions that work well in anything less than a long in-person discussion near a well-stocked academic library or in a detailed correspondence, I'd be willing to engage in either. Just let me know.

[xplo-eristotle.livejournal.com]

It's difficult to see why rightly assessing that you lack the tools to engage in a debate fueled by reason, data and understanding of the material makes my viewpoint any less valid or my inability to explain decades of background to you succinctly any more of an indictment of my viewpoint.

This is because you are, as you said yourself, a college trained moron.

Everyone I've talked to about this says it'll wear off in 5-10 years, provided you spend that time living in the real world and have the necessary traits to overcome your training.

I have a mountain of data and access to every proposed elementary and high school math curriculum ever used or proposed in the state of Oregon, as well the experience of many years spent trying to understand mathematics, so I feel that I can address the topic from a position of authority.

Right! You're so convinced of your superiority that the only way you can consider other points of view, especially those opposed to your own, is to be beaten over the head with so many studies and credentials that you have no choice but to accept that your opponent might actually be right about something after all.

Arguing at straw men and suggesting that I need to provide proof of accepted reasoning (which is accepted precisely because there is a solid body of proof) rather than that those challenging it must provide proof are the marks of a non-argument.

Accepted by who? Obvious the crazy weather lady isn't convinced. Neither am I. Neither are some of the people commenting on this post, and neither will a lot of other people be.. especially parents who can't even help their children with their homework anymore (assuming they ever did in the first place) because what the schools are teaching doesn't make any sense to them, and they don't have the time or enthusiasm to learn a new way to do arithmetic that isn't necessarily any better than the old one.

Your argument is with these people, not your peers or professors. If we're not convinced to adopt your viewpoint, how have you won?

Here's what I see: I see a new teaching method that is, apparently, more difficult to teach correctly than the old one. I see nothing from you to indicate that the new method makes it easier for kids to grasp the material. I see nothing to indicate that the alternative algorithms are faster or more accurate than the standard. I see an admission from you that the new method may actually decrease productivity (which nicely contradicts your assertion that the old way is obsolete because we're not raising a generation of factory workers). The only thing I see from you in favor of the new method is some idealistic tripe about making children into better conceptual thinkers at the expense of actually being able to DO anything without figuring out how to do it first, aka "theory wankery", and I see that you're too smug to actually present anything to back up your claims except the aforementioned appeals to authority.

[alfonzobean.livejournal.com]

You're welcome to disparage college education all you like. It won't change the fact that critical reasoning allows us to solve problems, that modern technological advances and innovation are a result of hard work and, dare I say it, study, and that any hope that we have of advancing ourselves as a species is dependent upon *someone* learning what we already know in order to build upon it. I have the highest respect for individuals who have found productive and happy lives without being college educated and I rely on them for all manner of assistance in living my life. Since people in my profession have given us little things like calculus, the steam engine and all of the tools that allow for, say, modern aeronautics, I suppose I feel like there's some room for a reciprocation of that respect. My education has put me in a position to assist in the design and construction of three separate pieces of medical equipment that are in wide use in epidemiology and genetics labs -- and I promise that the models I developed wouldn't have come about if it weren't for my education. I haven't once slandered your lack of education and calling me a moron simply because I chose to spend time becoming an expert at a skill that takes a decade of study isn't productive to any discussion whatsoever. Frankly, I'm tired of it. Name calling, which so far has consisted one of your only methods of interaction, doesn't actually contribute to anyone's understanding or anything. Further, it suggests you've made up your mind so far in advance that you have prepared epithets to attach to the things you know you're going to disagree with. I'm not impressed.

It turns out, however, that *your* argument is with me, not the other way around. As I'm far more likely to shape policy than you are, it's your burden to convince me that my point of view is wrong if you want my input into the process to be different than it currently is. I've certainly heard dozens of points of view in each direction and I've made up my mind based on actual, logical arguments and data -- if I've missed one that's pertinent, I'd be overjoyed to hear it, but a lot of people have had input into this sort of thing, so the odds of something new showing up in a discussion are sadly quite small. I'm not smug, I just don't respond well to "because" as a method of argumentation. I rely on studies and data analysis to determine what I should believe because anecdotes and personal experience are useless when making policy decisions. What happens to you or me personally doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what's happening to everyone. Show me something other than parents who are displeased because they don't understand what their children are learning (which was a big issue using the "old" method as well) or some sort of study or other useful evidence which shows that modern children's reliance on a calculator (which, again, I abhor as a matter of personal taste) is in some way interfering with their ability to do their jobs. Of course, I know how you're going to respond because I know how many such studies exist since, as I said, I actually know the details of this argument. Disagreeing with you isn't something I'm doing out of fancy, it's something I'm doing because I've spent long hours considering every point of view, which I'm afraid I feel makes my opinion quite valid.

[alfonzobean.livejournal.com]

To refute your points one by one:

The new method is only more difficult to teach if you're under-qualified for your job teaching math because you can't understand anything more in depth than a mindless algorithm, and difficulty of a teaching style in no way makes that style an invalid one, so this is non-issue.

Define "the material" and "easier to grasp". The material being taught is fundamentally different than the mindless algorithms we've been teaching, so you can't expect a point by point comparison. Indeed, it's supposed to be "harder to grasp" because it's a more complicated set of ideas, but it's not outside the abilities of the average school child (a claim which, by the way, has been tested extensively) when taught properly.

I see nothing to indicate that the standard algorithm is "accurate". It's only as good as the person doing it. I'd be happy to show you the "Russian Peasant" algorithm for multiplication which is demonstrably more accurate when done by hand and just as easy, if not easier, to learn. Why don't we move to it? Because there's no reason to care. The average adult who learned to use the standard algorithm does all of their arithmetic using a pocket calculator, just like I prefer to use a photocopier to replicate documents rather than hand-reproducing the text. It's faster, easier and more accurate to do arithmetic mechanically, which is what you're interested in, so why the issue with calculators at all?

Again, whose productivity is decreasing? No one does arithmetic by hand in the workplace. As an employer, I wouldn't allow it -- it would be a waste of time that would likely be more error prone.

The only thing I see from you is a tired self-conflicting set of objections that I've read verbatim a dozen times in misinformed op-ed pieces.

Once again, I'd be happy to discuss actual details in a setting conducive to those details being presented. You can wave your hands and pile on the anecdotal "evidence" and the opinions of people who've spent all of several seconds deciding that something they don't understand must be wrong, but in the end you haven't actually made an argument, you've made an appeal to emotion. Being disagreed with by a variety of people who're parroting what they've been fed by the media regarding education policy doesn't exactly invalidate my argument and being part of a crowd of people who haven't studied the issue doesn't make your opinion any more correct. If any of those people whose one-line, "This is wrong!" want to come see me and talk about it, I'll be more than happy to present my case and listen to theirs -- we'll have access to every pertinent piece of data and I'll be happy to take the time to consider every point made. However, I'm tired of "arguing" in this entirely unsuitable medium, so if you're not interested in actually pursuing this in a reasonable fashion, I'd appreciate a cessation.

[xplo-eristotle.livejournal.com]

I'm really not.. not at this point, and not with you, any more than I would want to discuss religion with a zealot.

[skeets.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm friggin' tired of getting comment notifications sent to my inbox about this thread.

Would you guys just agree to disagree and move on with your lives? Christ.