67. Rain Forest Algebra: The
Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gato from archive.org
Rain
Forest Algebra
In
the summer of 1997, a Democratic senator stood on the floor of the Senate
denouncing
the
spread of what he called "wacko algebra"; one widely distributed math
text referred to
replaced
the boredom of symbolic calculation were discussions of the role of zoos in
community
life, or excursions to visit the fascinating Dogon tribe of West Africa.
Whatever
your own personal attitude toward "rain forest algebra," as it was
snidely
labeled,
you would be hard-pressed not to admit one thing: its problems are almost
computation-free.
Whether you find the mathematical side of social issues relevant or not
isn't
in question. Your attention should be fixed on the existence of minds,
nominally in
charge
of number enlightenment for your children, which consider a private agenda more
important
than numbers.
One
week last spring, the entire math homework in fifth grade at middle-class P.S.
87 on
the
Upper West Side of Manhattan consisted of two questions: '
1
. Historians estimate that when Columbus landed on what is now the island of
Hati
[this
is the spelling in the question] there were 250,000 people living there. In two
years
this number had dropped to 125,000. What fraction of the people who had
been
living in Hati when Columbus arrived remained? Why do you think the
Arawaks
died?
2.
In 1515 there were only 50,000 Arawaks left alive. In 1550 there were 500. If
the
same
number of people died each year, approximately how many people would
have
died each year? In 1550 what percentage of the original population was left
alive?
How do you feel about this?
Tom
Loveless, professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, has no
doubt
that
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards have deliberately de-
emphasized
math skills, and he knows precisely how it was done. But like other vigorous
dissenters
who have tried to arrest the elimination of critical intellect in children, he
adduces
no motive for the awesome project which has worked so well up to now.
Loveless
believes that the "real reform project has begun: writing standards that
declare
the
mathematics children will learn." He may be right, but I am not so
sanguine.
Elsewhere
there are clues which should check premature optimism. In 1989, according to
Loveless,
a group of experts in the field of math education launched a campaign "to
change
the content and teaching of mathematics." This new math created state and
district
policies which "tend to present math reform as religion" and identify
as sinful
behaviors
teacher-delivered instruction, individual student desk work, papers corrected
for
error. Teachers are ordered to keep "an elaborate diary on each child's
'mathematical
disposition.'"
Specific
skills de-emphasized are: learning to use fractions, decimals, percents,
integers,
addition,
subtraction, multiplication, division — all have given way to working with
manipulatives
like beans and counting sticks (much as the Arawaks themselves would
have
done) and with calculators. Parents worry themselves sick when fifth graders
can't
multiply
7 times 5 without hunting for beans and sticks. Students who learn the facts of
math
deep down in the bone, says Loveless, "gain a sense of number unfathomable
to
those
who don't know them."
The
question critics should ask has nothing to do with computation or reading
ability and
everything
to do with this: How does a fellow human being come to regard ordinary
people's
children as experimental animals? What impulse triggers the pornographic urge
to
deprive kids of volition, to fiddle with their lives? It is vital that you
consider this or
you
will certainly fall victim to appeals that you look at the worthiness of the
outcomes
sought
and ignore the methods. This appeal to pragmatism urges a repudiation of
principle,
sometimes even on the grounds that modern physics "proves" there is
no
objective
reality.
Whether
children are better off or not being spared the effort of thinking
algebraically
may
well be a question worth debating but, if so, the burden of proof rests on the
challenger.
Short-circuiting the right to choice is a rapist's tactic or a seducer's. If,
behind
a
masquerade of number study, some unseen engineer infiltrates the inner layers
of a
kid's
consciousness — the type of subliminal influence exerted in rain forest algebra
—
tinkering
with the way a child sees the larger world, then in a literal sense the purpose
of
the
operation is to dehumanize the experimental subject by forcing him or her into
a
predetermined
consensus.
1
A P. S. 87 parent, Sol Stem, brought this information to my attention, adding
this assessment, "The idea
that
schools can starve children of factual knowledge and basic skills, yet somehow
teach critical thinking,
defies
common sense." Mr. Stem in his capacity as education editor of New York's
City Journal often
writes
eloquently of the metropolitan school scene.
No comments:
Post a Comment