NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/math/15026

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 6.1 KB

Xref: sparky sci.math:15026 sci.physics:18944 sci.astro:12039 sci.bio:4139 sci.chem:4605 misc.education:4328
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!usf.edu!darwin!mccolm
From: [e-mail]. (Gregory McColm)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.bio,sci.chem,misc.education
Subject: Re: Is Math Hard?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:53:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Admin)
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Math Department
Lines: 105

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John A Mess) writes:
>>     I apologize this is very long, but it is a response to the numerous
>>postings recently criticizing, unjustly, most high school teachers.
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (robert.f.casey) writes:
>>>>In 5th grade, we did set theory (at least the simple stuff).  At the time,
>>>>I couldn't believe that we were doing such easy stuff instead of hard
>>>>long division and such.  But it seemed that the teacher and the rest of
>>>>the class had a hard time figuring it out....
>
>>>From the experiences when people who had an understanding of mathematics
>>>taught it, most of the children could get some grasp of the subject.  But
>>>failure of the attempts to teach the teachers was what killed the new math.
>>>Teachers who can only teach rote can only do harm to those who want more.
>
>>     This was a very common problem in the 60's and 70's when public educa-
>>tors wanted to "modernize" the process.  The idea of teaching reading by
>>using phonetic symbols, by leaving out words, and other garbage was often
>>*forced* on public teachers from above.
>
>This happened partly, but you have the whole thing wrong.  Before the 40's
>reading was ALWAYS taught that way.  It was the educationists and school
>[...]
>

The look-say method of teaching children how to read is merely
the most notorious example of the Educational establishment
running amok.  The New Math was another.  The problem is that
professors of education (who are largely responsible for these
disasters) are as isolated from the "real" world as other
professors.  Just as many mathematicians know only their own
mini-field --- and no applications --- many education professors
know only THEIR minifield, etc.  Many professors of education
have about as much experience in teaching preCollege children
as many computer science professors have programming computers.
Being part of the problem myself, I'm shouldn't berate others,
but when we try to reform the world, we should keep an eye on
how practical our proposals are.  Keep in mind that ALL reforms
will be imposed on the schools by ignorant school boards, corrupt
state gov'ts, and fashion-conscious school administrators.

>
>>>>I also had a science teacher who didn't know sh*t about science, and I
>>>>could tell it then (didn't dare _say_ anything about it).  He was trying
>>>>[...]
>>     This is a recurrent complaint.  We've all had one or more "incompe-
>>tent" teachers.  Public teachers must teach the class, a very heterogeneous
>>group.  If the idea is to sell basic science ideas, it should be presented
>>[...]

When I was in High School, I was at the alleged 7th best HS in
California.  I encountered History teachers who didn't know
History, Science teachers who didn't know science, etc.  I do
believe that many teachers simply do not know their subject.
The problem is so huge that I am not sure what to do about it.
Certainly the problem will remain so long as teachers are
underpayed.

One thing not being mentioned:  American teachers have been
underpayed for a VERY LONG time.  When Dickens visited the USA,
he was favorably impressed by our educational system (and
unfavorably impressed by almost everything else).  That was
the era of Ichabod Crane:  the underpayed travelling schoolteacher.
About that time, school boards discovered that they could get
good staff for about a third the price by hiring young,
educated women.  Until the 1960s, preCollege education was
dominated by female teachers who had very few other professional
options.  That is how American schools could get first-rate
teachers for the College-bound.

Well, women's lib put an end to all that.  Bright women don't
have to work for peanuts any more.  But local gov't refuses
to adjust to a more European pay scale (and professional
standards), and the result is a muddled mixture of desperate
idealists, burnouts, incompetents, and survivors.  A perfect
system with a perfect curriculum is doomed to fail until
we improve the profession.

>>>>But grammer school was mostly based on one's ability to memorize random
>>>>facts, not on one's ability to figure stuff out.

An appalling amount of preCollege education still works this
way.  Its easier to teach & then use multiple choice exams.

>[...]
>I have occasionally taught courses taken by prospective mathematics teachers.
>Many of my colleagues teach those candidates more often.  They all would like
>to be able to flunk most of them.  So they have had calculus; but they can
>only do routine, and not even that well.  Does an undergraduate who has taken
>two full years of calculus have time to forget it?  I have had 16 out of 21
>[...]

I am more concerned about future teachers who don't seem to
like math.  They can do the problems, sure, but they regard
math as some dreadful chore.  I'm sure that they're going
to communicate these feelings to their students.

-----Greg McColm
--
SHAMELESS AD:  Math PhDs in Analysis, Discrete Math./Th. of Comp., Num. Anal.,
Prob., are invited to apply to the Math. Dept. of Univ. of S. Florida for
research/teaching positions that may be available: contact K. L. Pothoven at
[e-mail]. Deadline 2/1/93. USF is a politically correct employer.