In the June 30 Wall Street Journal Diane Ravitch–right-wing historian of education, nativist, ultra-conservative monculturalist, defender of American students from the red horde of social studies educators–derided (it was certainly not a critique or review) a new book by the Eric Gutstein and Bob Peterson from Rethinking Schools in Milwaukee, Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers.
Ravitch’s WSJ article is a small sample of her career-long attacks on curriculum and pedagogical practices that are intended to produce public education in the public interest (as opposed to education in the interest of Plato’s Republic). In this context, here op-ed is not necessarily remarkable or surprising, though it is another indication of the schlock that passes for “intellectual critiique” of progressive educational practices from the right. (See the Where the Blog has No Name post “Shut Up and March” for more on this issue.)
[Below is Ravitch’s op-ed and the letter to the WSJ from Gutstein and Peterson.]Ethnomathematics
By DIANE RAVITCH
Wall Street Journal
June 20, 2005; Page A14
It seems our math educators no longer believe in the beauty and power of
the principles of mathematics. They are continually in search of a fix
that will make it easy, relevant, fun, and even politically relevant. In
the early 1990s, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics issued
standards that disparaged basic skills like addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division, since all of these could be easily performed
on a calculator. The council preferred real life problem solving, using
everyday situations. Attempts to solve problems without basic skills
caused some critics, especially professional mathematicians, to deride
the “new, new math” as “rainforest algebra.”
In a comparison of a 1973 algebra textbook and a 1998 “contemporary
mathematics” textbook, Williamson Evers and Paul Clopton found a dramatic
change in topics. In the 1973 book, for example, the index for the letter
“F” included “factors, factoring, fallacies, finite decimal, finite set,
formulas, fractions, and functions.” In the 1998 book, the index listed
“families (in poverty data), fast food nutrition data, fat in fast food,
feasibility study, feeding tours, ferris wheel, fish, fishing, flags,
flight, floor plan, flower beds, food, football, Ford Mustang,
franchises, and fund-raising carnival.”
Those were the days of innocent dumbing-down. Now mathematics is being
nudged into a specifically political direction by educators who call
themselves “critical theorists.” They advocate using mathematics as a
tool to advance social justice. Social justice math relies on political
and cultural relevance to guide math instruction. One of its precepts is
“ethnomathematics,” that is, the belief that different cultures have
evolved different ways of using mathematics, and that students will learn
best if taught in the ways that relate to their ancestral culture. From
this perspective, traditional mathematics — the mathematics taught in
universities around the world — is the property of Western Civilization
and is inexorably linked with the values of the oppressors and
conquerors. The culturally attuned teacher will learn about the counting
system of the ancient Mayans, ancient Africans, Papua New Guineans, and
other “non-mainstream” cultures.
Partisans of social justice mathematics advocate an explicitly political
agenda in the classroom. A new textbook, “Rethinking Mathematics:
Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers,” shows how problem solving,
ethnomathematics and political action can be merged. Among its topics
are: “Sweatshop Accounting,” with units on poverty, globalization, and
the unequal distribution of wealth. Another topic, drawn directly from
ethnomathematics, is “Chicanos Have Math in Their Blood.” Others include
“The Transnational Capital Auction,” “Multicultural Math,” and “Home
Buying While Brown or Black.” Units of study include racial profiling,
the war in Iraq, corporate control of the media, and environmental
racism. The theory behind the book is that “teaching math in a neutral
manner is not possible.” Teachers are supposed to vary the teaching of
mathematics in relation to their students’ race, gender, ethnicity, and
community.
This fusion of political correctness and relevance may be the next big
thing to rock mathematics education, appealing as it does to political
activists and to ethnic chauvinists.
It seems terribly old-fashioned to point out that the countries that
regularly beat our students in international tests of mathematics do not
use the subject to steer students into political action. They teach them
instead that mathematics is a universal language that is as relevant and
meaningful in Tokyo as it is in Paris, Nairobi and Chicago. The students
who learn this universal language well will be the builders and shapers
of technology in the 21st century. The students in American classes who
fall prey to the political designs of their teachers and professors will
not.
Ms. Ravitch is a historian of education at New York University, a senior
fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a member of the Koret Task Force
at the Hoover Institution.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111922877339463719-email,00.html
# # #
OUR RESPONSE:
Justice for the World, Through Mathematics
Diane Ravitch (“Ethnomathematics,” editorial page, June 20) can’t seem to
get anything to add up quite right in her critique of our book,
Rethinking Mathematics.
First she ridicules the idea that math instruction can’t be neutral but
then asserts that the only purpose of math is to help students become
“the builders and shapers of technology in the 21st century.” That’s not
political?
Ms. Ravitch also implies that students who rethink mathematics won’t play
a part in building and shaping our future. What about helping students
become the people who will make the world a better place? Shouldn’t
educators suggest that math can help solve poverty, the AIDS crisis,
global warming, overreliance on fossil fuels, and so many other vexing
problems? Why is it a curricular crime to suggest that maybe math could
help people and the environment? It’s our experience that when students
recognize that math can focus on real world issues, their motivation to
learn increases.
Finally, Ms. Ravitch asserts that a socially responsible mathematics
lacks rigor. Where is her evidence? Indeed it’s Ms. Ravitch’s critique
that lacks rigor. Instead of actually evaluating the substance of our
book, she lists the titles of various chapters. We think it is teachers’
responsibility to help students sharpen their analytical skills through
mathematics so that they might contribute to social and ecological
justice.
Bob Peterson and Eric Gutstein
Milwaukee
(Messrs. Peterson and Gutstein are the editors of “Rethinking
Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers”)
Wall Street Journal, June 30, 2005
Follow
