Pluses and Minuses of Math and Curriculum Changes

Curriculum was in the spotlight at the December 14 District 200 school board meeting, held at Washington Elementary School in Wheaton.  Principal Jon Pilkington and fifth grade students demonstrated “FASTT Math,” a computer program that helps students learn their “math facts” (known to most of us as “times tables”).  Students play a video game that is controlled by their rapid-fire responses to basic multiplication and division problems.  The screen might flash “11 x 12” and a quick keyboard entry of “132” gains points and advances the student in the game.  In essence, it’s an electronic flash card for the 21st century with some fun built in.  One student said he could complete as many as 65 responses in a minute.

I found this demonstration particularly gratifying, because it shows the benefits of rote memorization, the foundation for learning, and has nothing to do with the failed “new math” and similar educational fads.  You can’t respond in less than a second if you haven’t committed basic facts to memory.

The Board also discussed planned changes to the middle school curriculum.  The has some positive aspects – math reinforcement for those who need it, for example, and an interesting proposal for  (currently proposed for the high school level but possibly to be added at middle schools).  But other options will lose out.

It is popular in some education circles to talk about “multiple intelligences.”  I don’t necessarily agree with all this, but clearly some children have different aptitudes than others.  It’s positive that arts are encouraged, through new scheduling.  But if artistic students should be encouraged to develop their gifts, why not those who are manually inclined?  Or as a supposedly affluent community, are we above that?  Unfortunately, the District is considering eliminating opportunities at the middle school level – applied and consumer sciences, like cooking, sewing and shop.  This is done in the name of more “technology,” trendy options like “robotics.” 

Former superintendent Dr. Catalani once said that technology becomes obsolete as soon as we install it in the schools.  So technology should be an aid to learning, but not an end in itself, or we’ll constantly be chasing the latest gadgets instead of focusing on fundamentals.  Companies don’t have problems finding young workers who know how to play computer games.  What may be lacking is basic writing and communication skills.  Kids (and adults) can adapt and learn technology regardless of what they use in school.  I used TRS 80 computers with green screens and tape decks to play a primitive version of “Oregon Trail”, but that knowledge is long obsolete.  However, I do use skills I learned in home ec and shop class to cook fix and things around the house.

Also, although we need to make sure curriculum is current, let’s not churn the curriculum just for the sake of novelty.  At the meeting, board member Andy Johnson said, “I encourage Dr. Harris to look for courses to abandon.”  That’s not the right approach – if the District is focusing on fundamentals, it will not be necessary to look for courses to “abandon.”  There is an inherent pressure for planned obsolescence in curriculum, pushed by textbook publishers, software vendors, and administrators to justify more committee meetings (for which, more stipend income).  Many innovations – like the “new math” and “look see” reading method – fail miserably, and a generation of students suffers.  Avoid unnecessarily making children guinea pigs for educational fads.  Adopt the positive ideas, but move with deliberation and caution before making any wholesale changes.