One Point of View: Does Mathematics Teaching Have to Be So Awful?Author(s): James M. MoserSource: The Arithmetic Teacher, Vol. 31, No. 8 (April 1984), p. 2Published by: National Council of Teachers of MathematicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41192370 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 11:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Arithmetic Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.62 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:50:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

One Point oF '?¡<zcd

Does Mathematics Teaching Have to Be

So Awful? By James M. Moser

University of Wisconsin- Madison, Madison, WI 53706

Щ ̂ %^'^m

While going through my files a short time ago, I found the article "Does Mathematics Have to Be So Awful?" (Bereiter 1971). As one might expect from the title, Bereiter overstated his case, just as readers of this column might think I have overstated mine. Yet the title has enough truth in it for both of us to go on. The key notion is awful, a word with several meanings that are not necessarily disjoint. Ac- cording to Webster's, awful can mean (1) inspiring, or filled with, awe, as in afraid, terrified, deeply respectful, or reverential; (2) extremely disagree- able or objectionable; or (3) exceed- ingly great.

Although countless examples of ex- cellent teaching exist in our schools, the truth is that some teaching is dis- agreeable. My objection to poor teaching lies with the system that cre- ates such a condition. Some citizens, including some current elementary school teachers, may fear mathemat- ics because they were subjected to awful (bad) mathematics teaching dur- ing their school years. The first major point I'd like to make is that it is no longer valid, and perhaps it never was, to expect all elementary school teachers to teach mathematics, let alone teach the subject well. It is time to cast aside the tenet of our educa- tional system that says elementary school classes should be self-con- tained. I suggest that mathematics in

The Editorial Panel encourages readers to send their reactions to the author with copies to NCTM (1906 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091) for consideration in "Readers' Dia- logue."

elementary schools be taught by ex- perts - trained specialists whose sole responsibility is to teach mathematics well. These special teachers can be expected to keep abreast of develop- ments in computers and calculators, new programs and methods of teach- ing, and recommendations from groups such as NCTM (e.g., in its Agenda for Action [1980]). Impossi- ble, when we cannot even find enough well-qualified teachers for our sec- ondary school classrooms? The de- gree of expertise in the subject matter need not be as high as that required for teaching secondary school. Fur- thermore, the attractiveness of such elementary school specialist posi- tions, which have not existed in the past, may well encourage more people to become trained and qualified to fill this role.

This proposal brings me to my sec- ond major point. In our educational system, all teachers are paid on the same scale, regardless of the level or subject matter they teach. Exceptions are made, of course, for administra- tors and athletic coaches. Now may be the time to question this practice in view of the law of supply and demand. One remedy for the crisis in mathe- matics teaching may be the concept of differentiated pay, which recognizes that to attract persons with mathemat- ical and technological expertise to teaching, we must pay them higher salaries.

A third point I'd like to make is not entirely unrelated to my first one. It is my opinion that much of the awful (bad) teaching that exists is due to the focus of our instructional programs on

attainment of computational skills by rote learning and mastery of behavior- al objectives at specific times in a child's life. This phenomenon either causes, or is caused by, the fact that teachers are bound up in rather sterile programs that are largely determined by commercial textbooks. Busy ele- mentary school teachers who have to teach all subjects simply do not have the time or expertise to implement creative, well-balanced programs, such as CSMP or DMP, that include all elements of mathematics - true problem solving, measurement, ge- ometry, logic, probability, and arith- metic. I don't wish to push any partic- ular program or put down any commercial text - they all have good and bad elements. To pull all of these pieces together - to extract the good and excise the bad - we need exper- tise at the teaching level.

Many writers of this column have made the point that a crucial element in our system is the teacher. I could not agree more. My response to the question, "Does mathematics teach- ing have to be so awful?" - if the definition of awful is "exceedingly great" - is an unqualified "yes." But to achieve this ideal, we need to change the system to allow qualified, well-paid specialists in mathematics to implement creative programs of instruction in elementary school mathematics.

Reference

Bereiter, Carl. "Does Mathematics Have to Be So Awful?" Manuscript copyright by Open Court Publishing Co., LaSalle, Illinois, 1971. W

2 Arithmetic Teacher

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.62 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:50:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions