Reflections on Battleground Schools: Mathematics Education

The article explains the ongoing debate in Mathematics Education stemming from two diverse views of progressive and conservative.  With its goal of understanding, the progressive view focuses on the why, provoking students to inquire and explore.  The opposing view, conservative with its goal of fluency focuses on the how, putting the onus on the teacher to deliver the appropriate curriculum.  Even though both views have a set of underlying assumptions, the ongoing battles seem more related to wider issues such as the "nature and location of knowledge", the "democratization of education" and "views on authority and obedience".


The "nature and location of knowledge" refers to where the knowledge is to come from.  The conservative view is that knowledge is in the mind of the student but must be surfaced by the teacher by applying facts.  The progressive view is that all students can acquire knowledge and that knowledge comes more from the outside world and collaborating with others than inside out via algorithms.  "Democratization of education" comes into play when considering the target audience of such views.  Within the conservative view, minimal survival skills are for many, while high level concepts are reserved for just the elite.  In the progressive view, problem solving skills should be taught to all.  Lastly, the "views on authority and obedience" are portrayed by the roles of teacher and student.  The conservative view puts the onus on the teacher for all learning and is seen as infallible.  The progressive view takes a more inclusive view and shares the responsibility of learning with the teacher and the community of students.


Although the math education debates have been ongoing, many of the battles center around three main movements: Progressive (1910 - 1940), New Math (1960's) and Math Wars (1990's onward).  The Progressive Movement argued that the current approach was meaningless, focusing on the how instead of the why.  The New Math period was a reaction to other countries producing great scientists and the desire to target learning to potential future scientists and engineers.  Math Wars came about as a belated response to the standards put forth by the NCTM.  Although well received at first, certain groups again began to question the more progressive methods in favour of a more traditional approach.


Although the two approaches are very different, I feel they are both necessary.  Exposing students to a mixed approach would be most beneficial as people all learn differently and it often takes people a while to really figure out how they learn.  I do not believe one size fits all. I do, however, believe that math courses could be more specialized earlier in the secondary curriculum to allow those students who are more interested in pursuing a career as a scientist or engineer to have more specialized instruction while not forcing all students to such curriculum.