It will be easier to reform math education in Washington state if we can gain the support of a majority of the state's legislators. (The support is not essential, since the Washington constitution provides ways to go around the legislature.) Two legislators attended the math forum sponsored by Where's the Math? that I described here and here.
The reactions of Democrat Ross Hunter (on the left) and Republican Fred Jarrett gave me some reason to hope. Both seemed open to the arguments made at the forum. (Or most of the arguments. Hunter took exception when one man in the audience said that all legislators are bribed by special interests.) But only some, because reform will be opposed by what William Bennett called the "Blob", the bloated education bureacracy.
That resistance poses political problems for both Democrats like Hunter, and Republicans like Jarrett. Republicans who confront the education bureacracy (or, more correctly, bureacracies) can get a reputation for being extreme, or even opposed to schools. Democrats are often dependent on support from a powerful union, the Washington Education Association, a union that is both generous with campaign contributions and, at best, careless about following election laws. (For an example of that carelessness, see this article.) Judging only by their reactions at the forum — which is not much to go on — I would say that those political problems are worse for Democrat Hunter than for Republican Jarrett.
Those of us who support reform should understand those political problems. As well as making the academic argument for reform, we should be willing to give political support to the legislators who are willing to take on the Blob, on this important issue. And I intend to do just that — where I can.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(I did not choose that unflattering picture of Democrat Ross Hunter on purpose. In fact, I waited for some time after I took the picture, hoping he would relax a bit. But I could not wait forever since I was being both a photographer and a reporter.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 01, 2006 03:21 PM | Email ThisToo hard? Too easy? Not matched to the EALRs? Not lock-stepped so that all students get same content? too lock-stepped thus stifling variety? Too verbal? Not resulting in enough engineers? Not practical enough? Too practical and thus not academic enough?
Other than that "we aren't doing it well" and "math WASL bad" I'm not sure a clear picture of what is meant by "reform math education."
What would you do with your magic wand?
While making your wish, make sure your policy recommendation doesn't:
1) result in even more failure,
2) stifle professional educators academic freedom,
3) pre-empt local control of school curriculum,
4) dictate to parents what their children will learn.
1) accomplish anything useful"
There ya go, fixed that for ya.
Let's see, if we have a 2 billion surplus and we owe 900 million to pensions that we put off from the last several years, we can spend another 1.6 billion and still claim we put 600 million in reserves.
Now we're balanced.
Posted by: Ken on June 2, 2006 08:08 AMSince then, whenever I do not have a calculator handy, I am still able complete an income tax return, take an engineering midterm test, calculate stresses on a loaded structure, convert from English to metric and back again, add up the flow of BTU's in a steam cycle, and calculate unpaid overtime in a wage claim lawsuit.
Why don't we just go back to teaching kids the step by step instructions of the Basic Four functions and making them practice until they know them by heart? Posted by: Roger Knight on June 2, 2006 12:37 PM