First in a Series Defining the Education Problem and Why Current Reform Efforts are Way Off Base

Paul Richardson 01/12/2012 Question: Isnt it time to face facts in American education? For decades efforts have consumed very large amounts of government money with the excuse that we have to spend for the benefit of the kids. Yet, when you look at the results real improvements have been virtually non-existent. One of the earliest initiatives was to reduce the achievement gap between minority and the poor with the mainstream achievement levels. As reported in the Colorado Closing the Achievement Gap Commission report of 11/2005 while we have spent billions the problem is demonstrably worse. A second area of concern is our poor showing in global achievement comparisons where we are middle of the pack in literacy, terrible in science, and abysmal in math. We have applied bandaid after bandaid to our education process each with huge cost and virtually no benefit. These ineffective improvements include special education, best practices, response to intervention, ELL and so forth. What has been the return on our investment? Nil, and really negative from an opportunity cost point of view because we could have been tackling the real problems instead of applying bandages to a walking-dead zombie which is incapable of getting healthy enough to really allow us to be competitive in the global market place. The problem is that the design of our education system is flawed. No matter how much we spend it will never be competitive. It will never enable us to reduce the achievement gap. ALL the nations whose kids score better than ours in the global comparisons use a perfected over millennia teaching process that really works. Until we face that reality every dime we spend on the current system is throwing good money after bad and dooming our kids to a poor education and difficulty competing with their international peers for the high paying jobs they desire. We have to face that our current system is staffed by educators who have been brainwashed in the current failed system and as E.D. Hirsch says cannot change from within, they must be forced by those outside the system who have a sense of reality and the motivation to fix the system. The first topic area I want to address is math. It is where we do the worst at the high school level and of course, that is the measure that counts because it is the point where kids go on to college or into the workforce. Our approach to teaching math is the reason our kids cant compete. In general, there is nothing wrong with the kids but the way they are taught will never work. The source of our high-schoolers doing poorly in math starts in elementary school where teachers do not understand math well enough to teach the necessary fundamental foundation that is required for success in middle and high

school. This coupled with the romantic (let them discover the truth on their own) process dooms kids who dont have outside resources (parents, tutors, etc.) to help them. I often think of how I would have done in Calculus class if I had been expected to discover it on my own. The following is just a summary of the problem. There is a trove of research that supports what Liping Ma found in her research so dont assume that her view is a lone voice. Liping Ma wrote a book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics (1999) containing the things she learned in her doctoral research project. Basically she compared two groups of elementary math teachers; one chosen to be above average American teachers and one chosen from Chinese math teachers at the elementary level. What she found fits very well with my personal observations and research regarding the reasons we fail to prepare our kids to learn math at levels which are being regularly achieved in many competitor nations. Quotes from her book summarize her findings. There was a striking contrast in the knowledge of the two groups of teachers studied. The 23 above average U.S. teachers seemed to be procedurally focused. Most showed sound algorithmic competence in two beginning topics, whole number subtraction and multiplication, but had difficulty with two more advanced topics, division by fractions and perimeter and area of a rectangle. most of the 72 Chinese teachers demonstrated algorithmic competence as well as conceptual understanding of all four topics. Considered as a whole, the knowledge of the Chinese teachers seemed clearly coherent while that of the U.S. teachers was clearly fragmented. Although the four topics in this study are located at various levels and subareas of elementary mathematics, while interviewing Chinese teachers I could perceive interconnections among their discussions of each topic. [Chinese teachers] believe that elementary mathematics is the foundation for their students future mathematical learning, and will contribute to their students future life. She also points out a major difference between Chinese and U.S. teachers. The Chinese understand and embrace the hierarchical nature of mathematical learning. That is, they realize they are building a foundation over the grades that each year builds on and expands on what has been learned in previous years. This is not understood generally or embraced by U.S. teachers.

Generalizing the elementary math problem versus the global competition. ISSUE Teacher Preparation American Approach/Attitude Strong emphasis on pedagogy related to romantic beliefs (they will learn it through discovery on their own) Constructivist/Discovery approach, no drill, no memorization of facts, no hierarchical plan, calculator use from the lowest grades Disjointed and incoherent lots of mention of favored items but no substance or plan to actually make it happen. Platte River Syndromemile wide and an inch deep. Students enter middle and high school unprepared foundationally to study the math they are expected to master. Global Competition Approach/Attitude Rigorous subject knowledge required.

Teaching Philosophy

Curriculum

Direct instruction approach based on a vertical and longitudinal plan that builds a strong foundation for future math studies Strongly tied to the end result desired and to the reality that a foundation must be provided that grows year to year from the previous years end point. Students enter middle and high school well prepared for more advanced math studies.

Results

So where is the leverage to finally fix this problem? The first and vital step is that American educators must face the truth; they have been doing it wrong if preparing students to compete with their global peers is important. Once they admit the truth two things must take priority; retraining teachers to have a robust understanding of the subject they are expected to teach and second to change the pedagogy to be consistent with the direct instruction model used by all of the competitor nations who are outperforming us. End note: All of the discussion about merit pay, etc. is wasted unless the requirements include robust subject knowledge. Without that component paying the top performers who still perform poorly compared to their global competition is tragically missing the point. Thus, the place to put our effort is in fixing the underlying flaws of our current system, not spinning our wheels in sounds good distractions.