Slashdot Mirror
Discouraging Students from Taking Math
Coryoth writes "Following on from a previous story about UK schools encouraging students to drop mathematics, an article in The Age accuses Australian schools of much the same. The claim is that Australian schools are actively discouraging students from taking upper level math courses to boost their academic results on school league tables. How widespread is this phenomenon? Are schools taking similar measures in the US and Canada?"
It would make a little more sense if this was college when you have an idea what you want to do with your life and realize it doesn't make sense to take calculus to finish out an art/language major. But really, a student that is not interested in going into the sciences is unlikely to use calculus or higher mathematics much, but that doesn't mean they should drop it just to boost their GPA.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
The US doesn't do that, we just hide our heads in the sand and ignore the problem: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20205125/site/newsweek /
In my high school (it was a Georgia public school), you had to have skipped 6th grade math to get to super-basic (no AP) calculus in high school. Otherwise, you topped out at trig. On top of that, trig was optional even for what they called "college prep" diplomas. Guess how many people were in that class. That was going on 15 years ago, though.
As a former mathematics teacher in Canada (Winnipeg, Manitoba if it matters) I can say that there is a worse scenario, it is not uncommon for school principals to put pressure on math teachers to give all students good grades. The logic being that since math courses are mandatory for graduation, failing a student will socially stigmatize them.
As a specific example, I personally had 3 students who did not attempt a single assignment and all of them had attendance rates below 50%. I was told by the principle that if I wanted to be hired on next year I would need to give these students an extra assignment for 'Bonus' marks so that they would pass. I refused and hence am a former math teacher.
Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
It's easy for us to knee-jerk and say this is bad, but why? Most people don't need mathematics beyond basic arithmetic and fractions. Outside of a classroom, the concepts taught in algebra and above are rarely, if ever, encountered by the day to day people.
"Most people" don't really use more that a set vocabulary of less than 1,000 words. Me think you true say -- why need us later days think of?!
A normal student in public schools in America will take at least two to three years of algebra, sometimes more, plus a year of trig or geometry. The ones who are interested in such things will take more advanced stuff yet...
You are completely missing the point. Why would you discourage students from taking anything in high school? And whole point of public education is to expose students to everything, not just what they would have found on their own! I took trig in 9th grade. Should that be my only exposure to math? Well, that'd be great if we all still worked back on the farm. Actually, not even that, as Agriculture programs have requirements for calculus at least.
So we're looking at three to four years of mandatory math classes. For someone not strong in math, isn't that enough?
What the hell is the point of education? If you are not strong in math, perhaps more classes are required. If it isn't required, you aren't really "exposing" the student to it. Last time I checked, there was no prediction of huge demand for Master Basket Weavers in the future. I really don't understand why everyone seems to think that it is noble and good to train for requirements 25 years in the past instead of the future. That is certainly the direction of my old school district. Things were great when I was there. They expected each student to perform to their abilities. No more, no less. The heavy yoke of NCLB standardized testing, and officials looking the other way when high schools flush poorly performing students out before 12th grade to improve their graduate statistics has certainly ruined that. And, by the way, not having a diploma is really awesome for those students, let me tell you. The students that remain in school are taught to a banal national test. Period. Who cares what their individual capabilities are?
I am not saying that exposing the students to the classes is a bad idea. But by high school age, it is usually fairly apparent whether or not the student has an aptitude for math or not. If he doesn't, there is no point in making endure a forced march through a bunch of crap he'll never internalize, fully understand, or find any use for.
It sure sounded like that is what you said. In 9th grade, I had no idea what I wanted to do in the future. Well, actually I know what I wanted to do but things turned out completely differently (to date, no one has paid my to play video games on my lear jet while flying to my NBA finals box party). The student might have some idea of their interests, but they will probably have no realistic idea of the future, or what might possibly be required of them later in life. That is what the schools are for! I sure as hell needed better math skills than my father, why this trend be different for my son? Time happens.
I, for example, am hopeless when it comes to math, but was always strong in English and decent at visual arts. I'd have been ecstatic had an administrator said to me, "Your scores are consistently low in math but high in these areas. Would you like to shift your credit focus to reflect the subjects in which you excel?"
Did you really need permission? It doesn't sound like you were forced to do anything. Maybe your administrator had a Masters in Comparative Literature and did replica oil painting on side... maybe they realized that maxing out at $22,000/yr and unhappy as a high school counselor with these skills was something you might want to avoid.
I'm sorry you resent the math you had to lear
I just don't think that's the case. I took the four years of math (two of algebra, one of statistics, one of geometry). plus another in college (having deliberately chosen a major that would let me avoid as much math as possible). That's five years of math, plus the algebra class in eigth grade, which could count as a sixth year of math even though it was, obviously, not very advanced.
To this day I have absolutely no idea what a quadratic equation is beyond a vague "something to do with parabolas". I still remember the formula thanks to a silly mneumonic, and if forced I could probably still crunch through one. But that was ten years ago, and that is all I can do today.
Even then, being exposed to it every single day, I didn't understand it. I had no idea what it was used for, and I had no idea whatsoever how it worked. At all. And I still don't.
To say I -- or anyone like me who is not inclined towards math -- is "learning" it is somewhat disingenuous. I learned nothing about math in high school. I did what most non-math types did, which was memorize the formulas long enough to plug the numbers in and pass the test. I had no idea what I was doing -- just steps in a dance I was forced to go through like a trained monkey.
And today I still suck at it.
See, the reason I don't like your analogy is because, unlike math, English (or whatever your native language may be) is something you are constantly exposed to, and you will use it every single day of your life, regardless of your profession, interests, social status, etc. And because of that, it is useful to everyone, from every walk of life, in every professional or personal communication they have with anybody. Ensuring that people are better at this is a good thing for everyone, and moreover, it doesn't take much, because everyone is exposed to it all the time.
You cannot make the same argument for math. It is rarely used by anyone; only a small subset of people use it for their professions, and another small percentage find it of personal interest. But the majority of people never encounter math beyond arithmetic outside the classroom -- and because of that, they forget what they allegedly learned.
Learning English may have helped you be somewhat better at it, but then, you have plenty of opportunity for practice. Learning math won't help most people, who will never find a chance to use it, and after only a year or two away from the classroom, will have forgotten most of it.
I'm not denying that math is important -- the fact that we're talking about it using computers which require an intimate understanding of silicon semiconductor physics demonstrates that. But Joe Average didn't design the computer. But can you really, with a straight face, tell me that most people have any use for math beyond basic arithmetic?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Look, I understand what you're trying to say here, but I can't really see where you're coming from. You're trying to show me how useful math is for everyone, with these examples culled from real life, but that just isn't how it works.
Almost every example you give is intuitive, not mathematical. Ask the reporter how they write, and they aren't going to start talking about complex algos and maximizing space potential. It just comes to them. Yes, math can be used to describe what they are doing, but the reporter is certainly not sitting down with paper and calculator and crunching the numbers.
Neither is the salesperson and cablerunner you describe. They just do it. Again, math can be used to describe what they are doing but they are not performing any actual calculations in their head the way you might perform them with pencil and paper.
Consider a baseball player trying to catch a pop fly. Even a Little League player can look at the ball, watch it for a split second, and run to where the ball will be. He sticks out his hand, makes a few minor adjustments, and catches it.
Did that kid "compute" the quadratic equation for the ball's parabola in his head? No, of course not. He just innately knew how to do it, from a life of experience.
Don't confuse "can be described by math" with "was done by using math".
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Given that students do not want to take 4 years of math, and in many cases are not required to take four years of math, and there is often not a fourth year of math at the suitable level, in many cases it make sense for the student not to take a fourth year of math, which in many cases would be considered advanced.
Here is what I see happening often. A student manages to squeak through to calculus. Unlike other math classes with can be taught at various levels, Calculus is a college prep course that must be taught with some degree of rigor. However, if one encourages every student to take the class, it cannot be taught with rigor as half the students will be ill prepared, and it will become a review class. Therefore, it might be that some students don't take advanced math. Even if the correct decisions are made in middle school, and even if work is done in high school, not every student will learn what is needed for calculus, and that just hurts those that do. Remember, the teacher will be penalized if too many students fail.
Here is what I have seen. The latest indication that math is important is a study in Science that indicates there is little cross pollination among the high school science courses, but more HS math does improve college science work. Also, and i don't recall where I saw this, there is an indication that the number of years of math is not as important as the rigor of math when it comes to college readiness. This is critical because in the educational debate the number of years and level of course are often used interchangeable, which is invalid. With respect to college, one needs four years of increasingly rigorous courses. When it comes to just educating the masses to maximize their ability, exposure is often the most important thing, and for that we may just need a capstone survey math course.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The same is true of catching a ball. Anyone can catch a ball without thinking, some of the time. Anyone can practice, consciously, to catch a ball and improve their success rate considerably. Anyone can learn the principles of dynamics so deeply and so thoroughly that it becomes what is called "second nature" or "intuition" even though it's nothing of the sort. It is merely exactly the same process as doing the whole calculation with pen and paper, but using extremely fast, dedicated circuitry deep within the brain.
"Intuition" is the word of mystics to describe a brain that is nothing more than a fancy protein-based computer because they cannot and will not accept the fact that the brain can do precisely nothing that a computer cannot.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
As there's already a thread about Math/Maths, let me say that in the US METH = Methamphetamine, while in the UK METH = Methylated spirit.
The class that came closest to your ideal was my AP Physics course (that did not use calc). This was largely because we had the benefit of a brilliant and qualified instructor who was amazing at taking complex ideas and explaining them in simple and easy to understand ways (and all without us feeling like he was "talking down" to us). He was constantly stepping back from the actual work at hand and showing us how it fit into the logical, natural world at large. His lectures weren't just about learning what we needed to make the school look good on tests, he constantly reaffirmed that it was the process of discovery that was important. He wanted to teach students how to be good scientists, not good test takers.
My point with all this is that "rigorous logical analysis and problem solving skills" ARE NOT the exclusive domain of mathematics. If you look, and have the correct approach to teaching the subject, you can find this just about anywhere.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
A lot of students here in Malaysia like math at the high school levels because it's easier to get high grades.
With high school math it's pretty clear when you're right or not.
Whereas stuff like art is subjective, and same with stuff where you have to write essays/papers - where it can be a matter of taste whether you get an A or not.
IMHO that's just wishful thinking. How strong are Chinese students in math? I'm one, and I consider myself quite strong mathematically, though most of my Asian peers are even more insane. Of course, I am probably *the* only critical thinker out of the bunch. It's entirely possible to create a bunch of math geniuses without risking exposure to democratic ideas.
Slightly off topic, but what I find most interesting about my Chinese peers is that they haven't been indoctrinated to worship Mao, or any such nonsense. Rather, they've been indoctrinated not to care. Most have a very mild contempt for Mao, and aren't writing rave reviews about their government, but at the same time they fail to see what the fuss is about with democracy, freedom of the press/religion, etc, having been totally trained to believe that politics simply aren't important in a proper person's life. I find it altogether much scarier than a bunch of Mao worshippers, and infinitely more depressing.
This has been a problem in the US for a few years now and I fear that with No Child Left Behind we're going to start seeing more of it here. The valedictorian at my high school had a perfect 100% average all throughout, and he did it by never taking any advanced courses even though he was smart enough to take them, because they might've messed up his grades. (He went to Yale; he was an asshole; that's a story for elsewhere.)
With physics especially, calculus was *meant* for physics. The two belong together, and taking calculus out of physics makes physics a very, very, very dull pursuit. I think that more and more colleges are seeing that their applicants with high marks from high school just don't match up to what's expected of them in college. I got by through my own studies, by myself, in high school, because I was at a vocational high school anyway and the math programs just weren't challenging enough.
It just depresses me that the solution to low test scores seems to always be to set the bar lower and lower each year. Soon enough we'll have kids who scored perfect in high school but really are as smart as a box of rocks. I've written a lot of stuff on my blog about this, actually, as it makes me really sad a lot.