Years later, does 'reform math' still add up?
School districts don't have a clear answer on which approach is better

BY CORRINNE HESS
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Friday, October 27, 2006

A battle rages on in our grade schools that has nothing to do with drugs or violence.
"Math war" has divided educators since the late 1980s, when the concept of "reform" math was introduced.

Almost 20 years later, school districts across the country still grapple with which method better serves students.

Should math facts be drilled into the heads of young learners, or should calculators be used to figure out arithmetic problems?

The result, at least in the Chicago suburbs, is a patchwork of approaches to teaching math.

Some public school districts, such as Antioch Elementary District 34, have charged ahead, adopting reform math programs and standing by their decision. Others, such as Dundee Unit District 300 in Carpentersville, adopted the curriculum only to later make vast changes.

Michael Pearson, associate executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Mathematical Association of America, said there are positives and negatives for districts using different teaching methods.

"One of the strengths of America's education system is its diversity," Pearson said. However, he acknowledged there are "too many choices."

Pearson, who recently facilitated the Math War Peace Commission - the informal name of a group of mathematicians and educators who met several times to discuss the traditional versus reform math issue - said curriculum debates will never end.

"They get hotter or colder depending on the larger perceived view of how well students are performing," he said.

But that isn't comforting for at least one parent, Nicole Weiler of Grayslake.

After watching her third-grader, Joshua, struggle with a reform math curriculum for two years, Weiler began researching the topic.

"I didn't expect to get this involved, but I honestly didn't know what to do," Weiler said, pointing to piles of paperwork she has acquired. "Now I know it isn't Joshua. This doesn't work. Schools have tried something that was never really proven and now they should move on."

Old vs. new

Pearson said the perceived differences between the methods are that traditional curriculum is drill-oriented, while reform math involves more exploration.

"Of course those are stereotypes," he said. "Almost every curriculum falls somewhere on the scale between those two extremes."

Reform math was introduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

"It was in response to reports in the early and mid-'80s that suggested math achievement was on the decline," Pearson said.

The idea was to stretch student thinking, provide more real world applications and develop analytical skills, he said. A series of simple formulas, for example, could be used to solve more complicated problems.

But critics say reform math's "mile-wide, inch-deep" approach to learning doesn't serve students.

Reform supporters argue critics are uninformed.

Further muddying the waters is the recent release of a report by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The council, which represents 100,000 educators from pre-kindergarten through college, has given ammunition to traditionalists who want schools to go back to the basics.

Several media outlets have interpreted the report to mean the council has abandoned its 1989 recommendation, which sparked the math wars by promoting reform math.

Pearson said the report calls for a balance by saying while exploration is a good idea, let's not lose sight that basic skills are needed.

Report authors say the findings have been blown out of proportion by the media and those who have fought against reform math.

"This has nothing to do with reversal of principles or back to the basics," said Francis Fennell, president of the council.

"Some claim the (report) will end the math wars. I don't know about that. Perhaps it will at least begin the conversation of common ground. This is an issue of communication and there is a need for those of us to figure out what is important for kids."

One popular reform math program used by school districts is Everyday Mathematics, developed by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. Other programs include Math Trailblazers and Connected Mathematics.

Everyday Mathematics is what Weiler's son is being taught.

As a substitute teacher and a parent, she said, she used to see both sides of the math debate.

"Everyday Mathematics thinks it is tedious and boring to drill math facts into kids' heads," Weiler said. "I completely disagree. They present all of these options for problem solving, but the kids are so confused they don't know how to solve a simple addition problem. My son has to use his fingers to add 9 plus 15."

Frustrated, Weiler is considering home-schooling her son in math.

The federal government has not intervened on the issue.

Mike Bowler, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Education, said the department does not back either approach.

Instead, it works with contractors to evaluate education programs and so-called interventions so districts nationwide can make their own decisions.

Local decisions

Locally, school districts have taken it upon themselves to figure out what works best, and a lot of times, that has to do with the demographics of the district.

Antioch Elementary District 34 adopted Everyday Mathematics this school year and is standing by the curriculum.

Curriculum Director Heidi Wennstrom said the district has been addressing the concern over the mile-wide, inch-deep approach to learning and will supplement the curriculum with more traditional coursework.

"I've never known curriculum that didn't need to be supplemented," she said. "It really isn't an either-or situation. Children need both the basics and math reasoning skills."

Wennstrom said the 2007 edition of Everyday Mathematics includes greater emphasis on the mastery of basic arithmetic and memorization of number facts while continuing to build students' capacity to reason and solve problems.

Student skills can range three to four grade levels in a single classroom, and the district has several strategies to ensure all students learn the same skills, she said. It requires a combination of personalized instruction and teachers working as teams.

"Our teachers will continue to supplement that and make sure all students get what they need," Wennstrom said. "A teacher's job is pretty hard these days. They're diagnosticians."

Jan Goetz, coordinator for math and science in Elgin Area Unit District 46, believes Everyday Mathematics is one of the main reasons the district's math scores have improved over the years.

"I would categorize Everyday Mathematics as a balanced program," Goetz said. "For example, there are games with Everyday Math, but they are to improve skills. We have always wanted our kids to have the fundamental skills, but they need to understand what they are learning."

After giving reform math programs a shot at some of the schools, Dundee Unit District 300 in Carpentersville developed its own math curriculum.

Tom Hay, assistant superintendent for curriculum, said the program leans toward the traditional approach.

"One of our schools, Sleepy Hollow, was using Everyday Mathematics and getting good results," Hay said. "But we have a very diverse district. In schools that serve students of poverty, more traditional approaches that build on skills is imperative."

Hawthorn Elementary District 73 in Vernon Hills adopted Everyday Mathematics eight years ago but has since moved away from district-wide textbook adoptions.

Today, teachers use their discretion and a variety of curriculums.

"Personally, I don't think there is one best program or resource out there that is going to meet the needs of every student," Associate Superintendent Sue Zook said. "In some instances, Everyday Math wasn't working, especially for students who had problems with reading skills."

If a student is getting a good math background, regardless of how they are being taught, they will succeed, Pearson said.

"Kids are pretty darn flexible and have a lot more ability sometimes than we give them credit for," he said. "Having a teacher who has a reasonable understanding of math is at least as critical, if not more so, as the curriculum chosen."

There is no doubt the debate over math curriculum will continue. In the meantime, Weiler plans to keep searching for a school that has a traditional approach to math.

So far, the only school she found was in Racine, Wis., more than an hour's drive from her home.

"I'm hoping other parents will realize what is going on," she said. "Or else, I might be forced to home-school Josh for math."

chess@dailyherald.com

http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=242934