Response to Gerofsky, "Battleground Schools" (Mathematics Education)

 Part of the enjoyment of EDCP 342 so far for me has been the opportunity to contextualize my own secondary mathematics education, since some of the articles we have read date from roughly the time of my high school years in the U.S. In this piece, though written later (in 2008), I have again been led to consider my experience, this time in the context of the history of mathematics education.

My first "stop" was at Table M.1 on pgs. 392-393. While I have been peripherally aware of some discussions regarding mathematics pedagogy, I never considered that there were two "camps." I assumed (naively, I now realize) that all math teachers worked with a more or less traditional approaches to the subject as a baseline while wisely incorporating "newer" pedagogical techniques. Similarly, before this course, it never occurred to me that mathematics education could have different goals (something we explored in an earlier blog entry). So for the first time, I found myself analyzing my secondary mathematics experience in light of "conservative" and "progressive" characteristics, all while asking myself: "Where do I instinctively fall in this table as a teacher?"

I am happy to report that both in my experience as a student and my current instincts as a teacher, I find myself in neither column. In my years as a high school math student, I experienced teaching that was a blend of conservative and progressive approaches. For example, when considering the "attitudinal goals of math education," I can recall instructional moments that emphasized the importance of precision and correctness (conservative), but also many other moments (in the same class!) that emphasized original thinking and problem solving skills. In this case, I saw the two approaches work together in a complementary way: learning some facts and algorithms deductively became the basic equipment we could use when presented with new and unfamiliar material. However, there are a few areas where the instruction I received was clearly more conservative. These are: modes of mathematics teaching (it was presented to us, usually), assessment (we never had group work), and the locus of mathematical knowing (it was supposed to be in my head!). While I hope my own teaching would be even better "blended" than what I experienced (for example, I'd love to find ways to elicit more mathematical thinking rather than always presenting), I find my instincts fall along similar lines.

My second "stop" is in the consideration of the New Math of the 1960s. This is something I knew nothing about before reading this summary - which is precisely why I stop here. As Gerofsky notes on pg. 398, "By the early 1970s, the New Math program was being denounced" and was considered to be a "misguided experiment, and the movement quickly came to an end." I can personally vouch for the accuracy of that statement, since in the 1980s, when I began my mathematical learning, nothing of the New Math approach seems to have remained. The first I ever heard of set theory, linear algebra, and abstract algebra was in university coursework I completed in order to pursue the B.Ed. program! Abstraction was not emphasized. I marvel that such an experiment in pedagogy could so rapidly "fall apart," but I also wonder if perhaps its demise was a case of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." While I cannot imagine the New Math approach being beneficial for all (or even most) students, it seems we have all but completely lost any trace of it in secondary education for even the brightest math pupils. There is a big gap between secondary mathematics and university level mathematics; at times they seem like entirely different worlds. Of course they aren't different worlds at all, which makes me wonder if there could be some elements of the New Math approach that are carefully incorporated in (upper level?) math coursework. I would have benefitted enormously, for example, to have encountered some set theory before arriving at university. And perhaps giving high school students at least a taste of some of these topics would entice some to consider studying math in their post-secondary years.

My third "stop" is in the connection of conservative attitudes towards mathematics education being adopted by right-wing political groups in the 1990s as part of a backlash against standards-based curricular reforms. I confess I struggle to understand how the approach to teaching math could become a politically charged issue, with traditionalist approaches being "affiliated with a patriarchal, authoritarian, fundamentalist religious agenda" (p. 399), and yet, seeing where we are today (especially in the U.S.), perhaps I shouldn't be. The polarization of our society around political identities has been a defining characteristic of our time. What is the solution? Certainly as a teacher, I hope my approach to teaching math will draw from the strengths of both conservative and progressive methods. But I wonder if we might also need a new John Dewey to come along. We face in this day (again, particularly in the U.S.) a political movement that would very much like there to be more "blind obedience to authority and lack of independence of mind" (p. 396) among our fellow citizens. Teachers need to be conscious of how their approach to teaching - even teaching mathematics! - either furthers such agendas or stands against them.