Anyone who wants to know where programs like “Investigations” came from needs to read this excellent essay by Sandra Stotsky, a member of the 2009 National Mathematics Advisory Panel. A commenter on this blog recently complained that SCASD’s assessment of her son was based as much on his language ability as on his mathematics ability. We all need to understand that this is by design, that the use of these curricula is intended to change the definition of what math is:
Two theories lie behind the educators’ new approach to math teaching: “cultural-historical activity theory” and “constructivism.” According to cultural-historical activity theory, schooling as it exists today reinforces an illegitimate social order. Typical of this mindset is Brian Greer, a mathematics educator at Portland State University, who argues “against the goal of ‘algebra for all’ on the grounds that . . . most individuals in our society do not need to have studied algebra.” According to Greer, the proper approach to teaching math “now questions whether mathematics as a school subject should continue to be dominated by mathematics as an academic discipline or should reflect more fully the range of mathematical activities in which humans engage.” The primary role of math teachers, constructivists say in turn, shouldn’t be to explain or otherwise try to “transfer” their mathematical knowledge to students; that would be ineffective. Instead, they must help the students construct their own understanding of mathematics and find their own math solutions.
TERC, Inc., the developer of “Investigations”, celebrates this goal of redefining math and caricatures those who are good at math taught in the traditional way as “tidy math fans” who can’t stand that there might be two ways to find an answer.
Read all of Stotsky’s piece. She does a great job of explaining how we got into the math mess we’re in today, both in SCASD and nationally.
