From the October 23, 1996 Daily Report Card:
-> *1   U.S. MATH/SCIENCE INSTRUCTION:  PRETTY SUPERFICIAL
->    A National Science Foundation study, attempting to discern
-> why American students' math and science scores are far below
-> their counterparts in other countries, reveals that U.S.
-> math/science instruction is "a mile wide and an inch deep."
->    Researchers reviewed 1,000 textbooks and teaching guides
-> used in 45 countries and discovered that U.S. schools "teach too many
-> math and science concepts -- and cover them too
-> superficially," reports THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS (10/16).  "There is
-> no one at the helm of U.S. mathematics and science education. In
-> truth, there is no one helm," writes the report, which is the first
-> worldwide study of math and science instruction.  "No
-> single coherent vision of how to educate today's children
-> dominates U.S. educational practice," concludes the study.
->    The report charges that American instruction relies too
-> heavily on wide-ranging textbooks, which "-- in the absence of a
-> national curriculum -- exert profound influence on teachers and
-> instruction," according to the study, writes the paper.
->    The study observes that the current battle in the U.S. over
-> how to improve math and science education -- one group advocating a
-> return to basic skills instruction and another favoring less
-> drill and more emphasis on the problem-solving process -- misses the
-> point.  According to Phil Daro, co-chair of the California
-> Mathematics Task Force, both sides neglect to mention the
-> "overriding need to prune down a U.S. math curriculum that is now too
-> inclusive and hurried," writes the paper.
->    Greater deficiencies were found in U.S. math instruction
-> than in science, according to the report.  Researchers also
-> observed that the advanced math courses typically reserved for
-> top students in the U.S. is considered basic knowledge in many
-> other nations.
--------------------(quoted material ends)----------------------
Remarks:
While it has been observed here many times that in the US, math &
science scores fall below those of other nations, I find it odd that
in the article quoted, the US curriculum is described as too broad and
hurried, and yet curriculum covered only in advanced US math classes is
considered standard for the general student population.
In high school it seems that the majority of our students are able to do
algebra in grade 9 and geometry in grade 10, and over half the student
population are able to do a 2nd year of algebra also. This seems a
fairly comfortable pace.
It is unfortunate that textbooks tend to dictate too much of a teacher's
course, but I find this to be true in my experience as well. Recently in
the k12.ed.math newsgroup on the Internet, a regular participant of the
group who also tutors math questioned why so many teachers deviate from
the math text in their algebra courses. After receiving several
responses, this person claimed teachers in general should NOT deviate
from the text unless they are some pedagogical expert. (I thought that I
WAS a pedagogical expert?)
Finally, IMO it is well observed that different philosophies in math
instruction being implemented haphazardly by school district or state
does not serve to improve math and science instruction on a national
level
Sheila
---------------