The path to excellence in mathematics is not paved with the
latest computer software program
I hate becoming cynical, but too often I endorse a candidate only to have him turn into a rubber-stamping politician once he is safely ensconced in office. Consequently, I am delighted that Denise Apuzzo, Rhoda Bress and Tom Bundros refused to bow to pressure from their colleagues on the school board.
In a rare triumph of common sense, the board stalled 3 to 3 on a proposal to spend $476,470 to buy 678 computers for Gilroy Unified classrooms. In explaining his decision, Tom Bundros cited a report released by the U.S. Department of Education that showed no correlation between educational software in the classroom and higher test scores.
The study can be viewed at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20074005.pdf. It is the largest such study ever performed, evaluating 15 reading and math products used by 9,424 students in 132 schools across the country during the 2004-05 school year. It found no statistically significant differences between students who were taught with educational software and those who were not.
For example: an April 5 story in the Washington Post reported that Los Angeles Unified School District spent $50 million in 2001 to buy Waterford Early Reading.
Ronni Ephraim, a chief instructional officer for the district, said, “Teachers loved it. Kids loved it. Waterford gave us data from their tests that showed it was working.”
Then LAUSD found that students using Waterford were scoring no better on standardized tests than those not using it. “I’m so embarrassed to admit this,” Ephraim said, “but when we heard the results we said, ‘This can’t be true.’ ”
There is a huge cadre of educationists who fervently believe in technology, all evidence to the contrary. One such True Believer, cited in the June 27 Dispatch article, is Christine Carter, superintendent of Reed Union School District in Marin County, which two years ago gave every middle school student a laptop. Ms. Carter believes that such measures are necessary in order to educate students who can compete in the global economy.
I disagree.
There is a huge difference between being able to use computer technology and being able to invent and design it. Using computer technology is easy, and requires no prior training. Grandmothers – my mom, for example – learn how to use computers, the Internet and email – the better to contact their grandchildren, my dear. They certainly did not learn these skills in fourth grade.
Designing computer chips requires topology. Writing programs requires logic. Designing computer manufacturing equipment requires plasma physics. Designing technology – any technology – requires engineering.
All the above disciplines require being able to study math and science in college. That means learning at least algebra, trigonometry, analytic geometry and three years of lab science in high school. That means learning how to read accurately, write coherently, and add, subtract, multiply and divide whole numbers, fractions, and decimals in elementary school.
Those skills take time, effort, and discipline to develop. We do not have classroom time, nor taxpayer money, to waste on ineffective programs, whether or not those programs be computer based.
Mathematically speaking, the United States is a second-rate country. Every year, international comparisons show that Singapore, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Belgium teach mathematics more effectively than we do.
If we really want to educate students who can compete in the global market place, we need to teach them math in a very traditional way. We need to abandon fuzzy math, where a standard in an actual curriculum states that students should “use computational tools and strategies fluently and estimate appropriately.”
We need to return to traditional math, where a similar standard says: “The student will add and subtract with decimals through thousandths.”
Clarity, not obfuscation. Accountability, not excuses. Diligence, not entertainment.
We also need more discipline in the classroom. My spies in the public school system tell me that out-of-control classrooms are the norm at Gilroy High, except in honors and AP classes.
It is impossible to learn or teach in chaos. GHS teachers should be able to send any and all troublemakers out of the classroom so that the ones who actually want to learn can do so. It should not reflect badly on a teacher’s record that he or she is not a lion tamer.
Cynthia Anne Walker is a homeschooling mother of three and former engineer. She is a published independent author. Her column is published in The Dispatch every Friday.
