Running head: Can mathematics education change?

A story of repetition

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

David Westra
EDER 619.48 L55
Reform and Change in Canadian Education

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

Abstract
This paper will look at the history of mathematics reform in North America and how that
reform has impacted the Alberta curriculum. The paper will examine how there is a striking
similarity between all of the reform initiatives, both in theory and implementation, and because
of those similarities, how each of them failed to make substantial differences in the perceived
needs of its clientele. The paper will conclude with a vision of what I think future reforms in
mathematics will be and what I think reform in mathematics should be.

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

There have been many attempts to reform mathematics instruction, all of them with the
honourable goal of meeting the needs of an ever changing society. Compare the following
examples of reform in 1960 to that of the goals in 2000. During World War II, both educators
and the public recognized that more technical and mathematical skills were needed to push
forward the developing technological age (Owens & Herrera, 2001). Alberta Learning is
implementing the new high school mathematics curriculum to ensure our students graduate with
the skills required for entrance into post-secondary programs or the workplace. It is designed
to help studentskeep pace with the latest information technology. (Alberta Learning, 2000).
There is very little difference. Mathematics needs to meet the requirements of society as it
evolves into a more technical age. And yet so much has changed. From putting a man on the
moon to landing on Mars; from card reading computers to phones with the computing power no
one had even envisioned in 1960; reform of Mathematics remains a constant. This paper will
examine reform in mathematics, and theorise that we need to look at teaching in a whole new
way, a way that regrettably might never happen.
A History from 1920-2008
In the early 20th century, mathematics education was heavily influenced by Edward L.
Thorndike, president of the American Psychological Association, [who] led a new class of
educational psychologists whose work was aimed at making schools more efficient and
effective (Ellis & Berry III, 2005, p. 8) Thorndike and his colleagues used "scientific"
evidence to persuasively argue that mathematics is best learned in a drill and practice manner
(Ellis & Berry III, 2005, p. 8). As I reflect on my own education, as well as when I interned in a
grade three class 30 years later, this is still evident. While there is support for some drill and

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

practice, (Burns, 2005) it is certainly not the best way to learn mathematic concepts (Friesen,
2000). As with much educational change, John Dewey influenced mathematics reform. By the
end of the 1930s, educators theorized that learning occurs best when it is connected to students'
experiences and interests (Ellis & Berry III, 2005, p. 9). A familiar refrain. Alberta education
states the following when talking about the latest mathematics reform in 2008. Students learn
by attaching meaning to what they do, and they need to construct their own meaning of
mathematics (Alberta Education, 2013).
Mathematics continued to be criticised for not readying students for work in society but
in 1957, the launching of Sputnik ignited a spark of reform. To add to the concern about the
inadequacy of the mathematics curriculum for the emerging technology, the Soviet Union
launched the first satellite into space in October 1957. This has commonly been cited as the event
that marked the beginning of the new math revolution (Owens & Herrera, 2001). The United
States government wanted a reform to education to meet the needs of the quickly developing
technological age, and distributed textbooks nationwide (Ellis & Berry III, 2005). These new
textbooks were in response to universities concern that high school graduates were weak in
calculus and analytic geometry (Owens & Herrera, 2001). However, the new textbooks were not
well received and reform was once again called for. A back to basics math education was the
response.
As a result, in the 1970s we saw the emergence and proliferation of competency-based
educational programs that were mired in the framework of behavioural objectives and couched in
the seemingly infallible slogan "practice makes perfect" (Cooney, 1988). The curriculum of the
1970s reflected in the textbooks of that time was very similar to the Thorndike era of the
1920s (Ellis & Berry III, 2005, p. 10). Although the emphasis on skills did improve

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

standardised test scores, it was criticized for not adequately preparing these students for
mathematics coursework requiring higher levels of cognition and understanding (Ellis & Berry
III, 2005, p. 10). I find this absurdly ironic, as these criticisms were the reason for the reform of
1960. As you can see, mathematics reform through the first three quarters of the nineteenth
century was often a recycling of old reforms. The old adage of what was old is new again can
never be truer than in the mathematics reforms of 1920-1970. However, the process continued!
During the 1970s there was an increase in standardised testing as a way to assess the
basic skills of students taking the math of the day. However, teachers were thought of as the
disseminators of knowledge, the centre of instruction in the classroom. Students copied examples
and replicated them on poorly designed tests (Ellis & Berry III, 2005). The majority of states
created minimum competency tests in basic skills starting in the mid-1970s, and almost half of
them required students to pass these tests as a condition for graduation from high school (Klein,
2003). What is extremely interesting is that at this time, some school districts created
"fundamental schools" that emphasized traditional academics (Klein, 2003). As we will see in
the concluding remarks, these fundamental schools are being created again.
However, the test scores continued to decline, and reform was once again called for. The
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) wrote a paper in 1980 that called for
problem solving as the curricular focus, [and] recommended that the definition of "basic skills"
be broadened to include such mathematical skills as estimation and logical reasoning, and
promoted the use of calculators and computers in the classroom at all grade levels (Owens &
Herrera, 2001). As well, the early 1980s began to link what was being learned with how students
actually learned. Ideas from mathematical theory were married with theories of learning from
cognitive psychology directing attention to the learner's active role in developing

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

mathematical knowledge (Ellis & Berry III, 2005, p. 12). Problem solving strategies were to be
the focus, along with creating collaborative learning environments where students would be
encouraged to work in small groups to solve problems. Manipulatives should be readily
available. Technology would be a major focus, where calculators and computers should be
common place. Problems with computation should not limit problem solving strategies (excerpts
from the NCTM report An Agenda for Action (1980) found in Klein (2003). Again, the
similarities to todays reforms are striking. Interestingly, in Alberta, the diploma exams were
introduced in 1984 (Alberta Teachers' Association, 2013), despite the research indicating that
there was little correlation between the results on tests and understanding of concepts.
By the end of the 1980s the need for reform in education was again gaining tremendous
steam. A report commissioned by the U.S. Secretary of Education Terrell Bell, entitled A Nation
at Risk (1983) was a catalyst for the development of a new curriculum in both the United States
and Canada. A Nation at Risk warned,
Our nation is at risk...the educational foundations of our society are presently being
eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a
people. If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre
educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
(Klein, 2003)
In 1989, the NCTM published Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School
Mathematics which includes 13 curriculum standards addressing both content and emphasis. A
common theme is that the study of mathematics should emphasize reasoning so that students can
believe that mathematics makes sense (Burris, 2010). This was a highly influential document
and impacted curricular development throughout North America. British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Yukon and Northwest Territories developed their own version
in 1995. The Western Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Basic Education Kindergarten to

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

Grade 12 created The Common Curriculum Framework for K12 Mathematics (The Common
Framework) which identifies beliefs about mathematics, general and specific student outcomes
and illustrative examples (Western Canadian Protocol, 1995). Constructivist pedagogy was
prevalent as indicated in The Common Framework;
Students are curious, active learners who have individual interests, abilities and needs.
They come to classrooms with different knowledge, life experiences and backgrounds
that generate a range of attitudes about mathematics and life. Students learn by attaching
meaning to what they do; and they must be able to construct their own meaning of
mathematics. This meaning is best developed when learners encounter mathematical
experiences that proceed from the simple to the complex and from the concrete to the
abstract. (Western Canadian Protocol, 1995, p. 2)
In Alberta, a new curriculum was introduced in 2000, based on work that began in 1994.
The new curriculum stated goal was: to ensure our students graduate with the skills required for
entrance into post-secondary programs or the workplace (Alberta Learning, 2000). The chief
characteristics of math education reform that emerge from the review and NCTM policy
statements are as follows:
1. Broader scope
2. All students have access to all forms of mathematics
3. Student tasks are complex, open-ended problems embedded in real-life contexts; many
of these problems do not afford a single solution
4. Instruction in reform classes focuses on the construction of mathematical ideas through
students' talk rather than transmission through presentation, practice, feedback, and
remediation.
5. The teacher's role in reform settings is that of co-learner and creator of a mathematical
community rather than sole knowledge expert.
6. Mathematical problems are undertaken in reform classes with the aid of manipulatives
and with ready access to mathematical tools (calculators and computers
7. In reform teaching, the classroom is organized to encourage student-student interaction
as a key learning mechanism
8. Assessment in the reform class is authentic integrated with everyday events
9. The teacher's conception of mathematics in the reform class is that of a dynamic (i.e.,
changing) discipline rather than a fixed body of knowledge.
10. Teachers in reform settings make the development of student self-confidence in
mathematics as important as achievement (Ross, McDougall, & Hogaboam-Gray, 2002)

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

However, the Alberta government, despite opposition from the Alberta Teachers
Association, increased the number of diploma examinations from three to five (Alberta Teachers'
Association, 2013). The government was clearly more interested in standardised test results and
Albertas rating internationally than in much of what the standards were promoting. To a large
extent the policy in education in Alberta in the 1990s and early 2000s coincided with the
reforms of the Klein government. In 1994, the government of Alberta introduced a three-year
plan that included, among other things, funding cutbacks, centralised control over allocation of
funds, charter school legislation, expanded standardised testing, and a focus on meeting the
needs of business and industry. Much of the reforms were to increase educational standards,
improve outcomes, and ensure accountability (Taylor, 2001, pp. 3-4). Accountability became a
focus for much of the educational policy of the late 20th and early 21st century, despite a push
from educators to move away from standardised tests and more to the standards described earlier.
Alberta was not alone in this reform. England, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States all
had a preoccupation with outcomes and accountability (Taylor, 2001, p. 10). This idea of
accountability probably culminated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. NCLB
supports standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and
establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education (Wikipedia, 2013)
pairing funding of education to results on standardised test results.
In 2007, the mathematics curriculum underwent its most recent reform. Implementation
began in 2008 with grades kindergarten, one, four, and seven, with the final implementation
taking place in the fall of 2012 with the new grade twelve curriculum. This new curriculum was
designed to be collaborative and inquiry based, and students were expected to:

use communication in order to learn and express their understanding

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

make connections among mathematical ideas, other concepts in mathematics, everyday

experiences and other disciplines
demonstrate fluency with mental mathematics and estimation
develop and apply new mathematical knowledge through problem solving
develop mathematical reasoning
select and use technology as a tool for learning and for solving problems
develop visualization skills to assist in processing information, making connections and
solving problems. (Alberta Education, 2013)
As before, there is little new here. The goals and processes were the focus of many

reforms before this one, and I suspect that they will be seen in future reforms. The impact will
not be seen for many years. While I have personal reservations about the success of the new
reforms, I am reassured that I will see change in students as they progress through the whole
curriculum. A student who enters grade ten will not have had the new curriculum from
kindergarten until 2018. If history is any indication, reforms happen every ten years, which
surprisingly coincides with this date.
A Personal view of Mathematics in 2013
All of what follows in this section is based on personal observation, and future predicting
on my part. I can only comment on what I and my colleagues have seen in the classroom. The
culture of that classroom is changing faster than ever before, as technology becomes ever more
mobile. (As an example, the iPad was only introduced to the market in 2010 (Apple Canada,
2010)).
Despite the reassurances that I have from elementary teachers that I just had to wait to see
the results from the new curriculum, I am very concerned. Students are coming into grade ten
with the worst basic skills I have ever seen. But even more surprising is their apparent lack of
problem solving skills, which if anything, was to be addressed with the new curriculum. The
students whom I have had this year in grade eleven would have experienced the new curriculum
from grade seven in our school as we piloted the new program in grade seven.

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

10

Fullan (Fullan, 2009) argues that Alberta is among the leaders in reform based on their
strong performance in literacy, math, and science. I disagree. We are not doing a good job of
creating learning. I have been very confident in the performance of my students on diplomas
because I teach them to do well on the test. I agree with Seymour Sarason when he says a test
score tells you absolutely nothing about the learner nor the features of the learning process the
learner experienced (Sarason, 2004). And I say this in the past tense. Every teacher at our
school and in our division are very worried about how well the students are going to do on the
diplomas next year, not because we fear how that will reflect on us, but because of the high
stakes associated with the tests for the students.
From my experience, teachers are not prepared to teach from a problem solving
perspective. They will have grown up without being taught in the newest way, and a couple of
days of professional development will not suffice. New teachers are also not prepared to teach. I
observed this firsthand. Because of personal circumstances I took my undergrad in the
elementary program, graduating in 2003. While I observed fantastic lessons amongst my preservice teaching colleagues in Social Studies and Language Arts, they were woefully lacking in
Math and Science. My particular math methods teacher would let students write their midterm as
often as necessary to get 80%. This test was simply applying a variety of algorithms to math
problems. Only two of us passed on the first attempt (myself and one other scored 100% the first
time) and it took some five times to accomplish this. (The other math methods professor made
her student write minimum twenty page lesson plans.) My second experience was during our
AISI project at our school. A company, The Critical Thinking Consortium (see http://tc2.ca/) was
hired to provide in-school professional development to help teachers with the infusion of
critical thinking across all subject areas from the primary grades to graduate school (The

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

11

Critical Thinking Consortium, 2013). While teachers certainly understood the rationale for the
project, as well as admitting that they needed the support, very few teachers have been able to
create critical thinking activities in math and science because they do not think that way.
What does the future hold?
We have never been more able to have students create their own knowledge than we are
right now with the mobility of information that students and teacher can access. The curriculum
reform of 2007 required that we select and use technology as a tool for learning and for solving
problems (Alberta Education, 2013). While the problem exists that teachers are not as ready to
do this as students are, if we are to truly equip our students with 21st century skills, we must find
a way. My vision for the future is that schools adopt a Project Based Learning approach, (see
Quest to Learn http://q2l.org/ for an example of this type of school) and integration of Game
Based Learning (Gee, 2003). The benefits of this approach are that it embeds collaboration and
creation of knowledge into learning. This is a topic for another paper, but I have tried it in limited
form, and the motivation and engagement with learning was remarkable.
However, if I am to learn anything from writing this paper, it is that the reforms of the
past will almost certainly become the reforms of the future. We are already seeing this with the
creation of a traditional learning centre in Calgary, under the auspices of the Calgary Board of
Education, ( http://www.cbe.ab.ca/programs/choices/prog-tlc.asp) which is using a pedagogical
dinosaur, direct instruction. This is a serious step backwards if we want to have students create
and explore their own knowledge construction. The tools are at our fingertips, a click away.
Students create their knowledge every day in kindergarten (Resnick, 2007). It is important that
we harness that curiosity and love of learning, and encourage these aspects in terms of

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

12

engagement in mathematics (etc.) throughout their subsequent education. I also suggest that we
try not to dont let school take the fun out of what is such an exciting area.

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

13

References
Alberta Education. (2007). The mathematics kindergarten to grade 9 program of studies.
Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://education.alberta.ca/media/645594/kto9math.pdf
Alberta Education. (2013). Welcome to the mathematics page for educators! Retrieved from
Alberta Education: Educators- Math:
http://education.alberta.ca/teachers/program/math/educator.aspx
Alberta Learning. (2000, March). Retrieved from The New High School Mathematics Program:
http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/studentprograms/math/hsmath.pdf
Alberta Teachers' Association. (2013). Diploma examinations in Alberta: A brief history.
Retrieved from Alberta Teachers' Association:
http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA%20Magazine/Volume%2085/Number
%202/Articles/Pages/Diploma%20Examinations%20in%20Alberta%20A%20Brief
%20History.aspx
Apple Canada. (2010, January 27). Apple launches iPad. Retrieved from Apple Press Info:
http://www.apple.com/ca/pr/library/2010/01/27Apple-Launches-iPad.html
Burns, M. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit
multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics
computation. Education & Treatment of Children (ETC) , 28 (3), 237-249.
Burris, A. (2010, July 20). A brief history of mathematics education and the NCTM standards.
(Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall) Retrieved from education.com:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/history-mathematics-education-NCTM/
Cooney, T. J. (1988). The issue of reform: What have we learned from yesteryear? The
Mathematics Teacher , 81 (5), 352-363.

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

14

Ellis, M. W., & Berry III, R. Q. (2005). The paradigm shift in mathematics education:
Explanations and implications of reforming conceptions of teaching and learning. The
Mathematics Educator , 15 (1), 717.
Friesen, S. L. (2000). Reforming mathematics in mathematics education. University of Calgary,
Graduate Division of Educational Research, Calgary.
Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change , 10 (2),
101-113.
Gee, J. (2003). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Klein, D. (2003). A brief history of American K-12 mathematics education. (Information Age
Publishing) Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/AHistory.html
Owens, D. T., & Herrera, T. A. (2001). The "New New Math"?: Two reform movements in
mathematics education. Theory Into Practice , 40 (2), 84-92.
Resnick, M. (2007). All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying
how children learn) in kindergarten. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on
Creativity & cognition (pp. 1-6). New York: Acm.
Ross, J. A., McDougall, D., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (2002). Research on reform in mathematics
education, 1993-2000. The Alberta Journal of Educational Researcg , XLVIII (2), 122138.
Sarason, S. (2004). What is needed to resolve the social and critical issues affecting large scale
reform? Macro change demands micro involvement. Journal of Educational Change , 5
(3), 292.

Can mathematics education change? A story of repetition

15

Taylor, A. (2001). The politics of educational reform in Alberta. Toronto, Ontario: University of
Toronto Press.
The Critical Thinking Consortium. (2013). Our vision. Retrieved from The Critical Thinking
Consortium: http://tc2.ca/about-tc2/what-we-do/our-vision.php
Western Canadian Protocol. (1995, June). The common curriculum framework for K12
mathematics : Western Canadian protocol for collaboration in basic education. Retrieved
from http://www.wncp.ca/media/39511/wcpmath.pdf
Wikipedia. (2013, July 11). No child left behind act. Retrieved from Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act