Home >  Local News >  Neighborhoods

Thursday, October 24, 2002

By Carmen J. Lee, Post-Gazette Education Writer

Remember what learning multiplication used to be like?

There were the flash cards with equations like "7 x 6" on one side and "42" on the other. And worksheets filled with "times tables" -- "8 x 1 = __," "8 x 2 =__ ," "8 x 3 = __" and so on.

Now, suppose you could have practiced multiplication by playing a card game like War. You and a classmate put down two cards from each of your decks, multiply the numbers in your heads and then quickly call out the answers to see who had the largest product.

So if you had "8 x 6" and said "48" and your classmate had "4 x 3" and said "12," you could put his cards in your pile. But if you said "42" or "54" by mistake, he'd take the cards.

Would it have made a difference in how much you enjoyed and learned in math class? Maybe, maybe not.

That's the essence of the discussion that will be heard tonight when four nationally-known education experts meet with Pittsburgh school board members to discuss whether the latest math reform programs help youngsters learn the basics of mathematics as well as traditional approaches did.

Pittsburgh Public Schools' elementary and middle school programs began using the math reform progams, Everyday Math and Connected Math, in the mid-1990s.

The two programs differ from more traditional curriculums by emphasizing problem-solving and the application of math to real-life experiences. Less stress is put on pencil and paper drills and rote learning. Both teach advanced math concepts and the use of calculators to younger children.

More traditional math is taught in the district's high schools, but school officials earlier this year proposed changing to a math reform approach.

When that request was made, members of the school board's five-member majority said they were not only apprehensive about expanding math reform to the high schools but were also worried about the elementary and middle school programs.

Nationally, advocates of math reform say well-taught, high-quality programs make math more enjoyable and relevant so that pupils understand it better -- and sooner.

As proof of that, Pittsburgh officials say, elementary and middle school pupils' math scores on state tests have risen steadily since the two new approaches were introduced.

At more advanced levels, the reform programs also mix some branches of math that are usually taught separately, so that students can see how they're related, such as when an architect or engineer uses algebra, geometry and probability on a single project.

The basics are practiced through exercises such as "Numbers Top-It," the card game that resembles War, and word problems that describe situations that could occur in real life.

But critics say the fun and games and long-winded, problem-solving methods designed to help youngsters "understand" math actually water down the curriculum.

Such techniques don't give teachers enough time to cover material as thoroughly as they could with a traditional approach, they argue. The same goes for programs that blend aspects of subjects such as algebra, geometry and probability.

The result in both cases, according to critics, is that students don't learn as much math as they could, and fall behind their peers.

The dispute is often compared to the "reading wars" of the 1980s and early 1990s.

A win for phonics

In that war, traditional phonics lessons that taught children how to read by "sounding out" words were replaced by a method in which children were taught whole words as they read well-regarded children's literature. The idea was that youngsters would learn how to read because what they read would be more interesting to them.

Critics of what was called "whole language" instruction chalked up a win when it became apparent to educators that no matter how engaging the story, at some point children had to learn how to sound out the "c" and "at" in "cat," or they would not know how to read the word when they saw it.

Reading programs were developed by combining elements of both phonics and whole language: They kept the good stories but included phonics lessons.

Because of its size, California was influential in turning the national reading tide back toward the use of phonics. But on the math front, its actions and impact have been less clear-cut.

Critics of math reform programs like to point out how the California State Board of Education adopted standards in 1997 that supported more traditional programs.

But two years later, state officials decided to support a balance between basic math skills and conceptual understanding, said Tom Lester, director of Math Matters for WestEd, a nonprofit education agency in California, Utah, Nevada and Arizona.

Lester was a math consultant with the California State Department of Education when state officials were deciding on the standards. Despite lengthy debates and various recommendations for change, no curriculum was identified as the best for all children, or even most of them, he said.

Lester believes basic skills can be taught in interesting, innovative ways, and that the curriculum doesn't matter as much as what teachers know, how well they are trained and how effectively they teach.

"The bottom line is that it's the teaching, not the textbook itself," he said. "What matters is if teachers know their content and can teach it."

That may be why there's no winner yet in this education war.

Debate over scores

Advocates and critics of math reform give competing anecdotes about students who thrived or failed under math reform programs and about teachers who loved or hated the programs.

Each side cites statistics showing dramatic improvement or decline in math scores where such programs have been used and then accuses the opposing side of not correctly analyzing or presenting the data.

Part of the debate also touches on issues of class and race.

Math reform supporters contend opponents don't like such curriculums because they demystify math and make it understandable to a wider range of students.

They accuse the critics of wanting to maintain a status quo that says some people understand math and some don't, with some of the difference based on socioeconomic factors.

Math reform critics counter that it's actually the reformers who are biased because they develop programs that dumb down the curriculum, as if they believe youngsters of certain races or backgrounds can't comprehend straightforward math.

Part of this dispute reached Pittsburgh when some school board members reacted to an e-mail sent by math reform critic Wayne Bishop wrote in 1997 using the word "pickaninnies."

Bishop said he was not reflecting his own beliefs, but describing the racially condescending opinions of math reform proponents when he wrote that too many educators practice "the standard 'developmentally appropriate' form of racism. You know, the little pickaninnies just don't learn math like we do."

Charles Haynes, a senior program officer with the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., works with schools and communities on resolving conflicts on education issues.

He said the math debate, like many others in education, reflects a larger culture war over how children should be educated in this country.

"We have people who are more traditionalist, lining themselves up against those who have new ideas in reading and math," he said.

"The problem with the reading and math wars is that we need both traditional things that work and innovative programs. We have to have different strategies because kids don't all learn the same way."

Haynes was sympathetic to parents and board members who are skeptical of reform programs.

"Some people are not just being resistant. They are coming out of a history where educators have been quick to innovate in ways that later proved to be disastrous," he said. "They don't want schools to experiment too broadly because they don't want their kids to be the ones who fail to learn."

He believes a broader group that includes school board members, district administrators, teachers, parents and residents should study the various options and viewpoints about math education, even if such a process means it will take longer to reach a consensus.

"To take a few months now in the interest of helping kids be literate for life in math is worth the time," he said. "To make a bad decision now in favor of either side could hurt them for life. It does take a little time, but it's worth it."