I read the article The Mathematical Miseducation of America's Youth - Ignoring Research and Scientific Study in Education by Michael T. Battista. I found this article in an alternative journal, the February 1999 edition of PHI DELTA KAPPAN. This article assumes that back to the basics is bad. I think that is too much of an assumption. It also uses phrases like "extensive studies" without naming any of them. If someone is going to make blanket statements like traditional math is bad, then they should at least cite their sources and studies. They also consistently speak of the NCTM's Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics and how they are the closest to their scientific theories on how to teach mathematics. (For more information on this topic, read my journal article review from 12-98 on the article "The Standards -- Some Second Thoughts".) A past president of NCTM, who helped form these standards does not agree with where they have currently gone.

They then cite the TIMSS report and how Japan beats the US. They do not mention Singapore (the top country) and the teaching philosophies of that country, nor do they report that the school that I work at had a higher average than any country did (the test was before I worked there so I cannot take credit for it). Using their logic, everybody in the world should do as we do, right?

I do agree with the article when it says that we do need to do better at teaching the students mathematical reasoning and problem solving. I have quoted to my students more times than they would like to have heard, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." It is not that I do not agree with their view of how we should teach mathematics, in fact I need to learn more about their scientific theories before I can form an opinion, but I do believe that they need to put together a more valid argument when presenting their views.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 1999