Daniel J. Brahier
Department of Educational Curriculum & Instruction
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403

DECEMBER 1999

In the last issue of Intersection Points, I raised the question about how we might change the attitudes and beliefs of preservice and inservice teachers as we attempt to advance reform in mathematics education.  As a child clings to a misconception until an experience convinces him/her otherwise, educators often trust in "tried and true" curriculum and teaching methods, living with the illusion that what has worked in the past will work in the future, as well as holding onto the fantasy that what we did in the past worked very well at all!

In a recent letter to the U.S. Department of Education and a subsequent newspaper advertisement, 200 mathematicians and scientists questioned the results of a recent national report that identified five "exemplary" and five "promising" curricular programs in mathematics.  The claim of the authors was that the report was based on weak data and that the D.O.E. should retract their endorsement of these 10 particular programs which rely on inquiry and a constructivist viewpoint.  In response, the NCTM sent a letter to Secretary Riley at the D.O.E. which, in part, stated:  "We are deeply disappointed that so many eminent and well-intentioned mathematicians and scientists have chosen to attack the work of the Panel.  We note, however, that [this] represents the opinion of a small, but vocal, minority of mathematicians and scientists, many of whom have little direct knowledge of the elementary and secondary school mathematics curriculum nor how to make it responsive to the needs of all students."

Instead of applauding and encouraging the efforts of the authors and publishers of these 10 exemplary and promising programs, the "vocal minority" of mathematicians and scientists attacked  them and provided no reasonable alternatives.  I guess I've been around education long enough to realize that, generally speaking, the easiest road is to point fingers and tell others that they're "wrong."  But educators with the best interests of all children in mind will also move forward to generate a better product and attempt to collect data that suggests new directions.  The types of projects cited in the O.D.E. study are attempting to do just that -- to produce materials that support the conceptually-based teaching of mathematics to all students.

Meanwhile, many mathematics educators across the country are placing a high priority on ensuring that inservice and preservice mathematics teachers become acquainted with curricular products that were generated through NSF-funded projects -- some of the very programs being assailed in the recent letter and advertisement.  In methods courses from coast-to-coast, students can be observed using activities from these projects as well as reviewing and sharing the resources with other educators.

This leaves us with some interesting questions to ponder, such as:  What is the most appropriate response to criticism against reforming mathematics education?  Are we best to play the role of the ostrich, placing our heads in the sand and pretending that opposition does not exist?  Or should we enter the debate, realizing that valuable resources and time will be consumed that may be better utilized in promoting positive change?  How are you treating this most recent opposition in your methods classes?  What kinds of reactions do your inservice and preservice teachers have to all of this?