The New York State Education Department is advocating for new math guidelines, notably suggesting that teachers refrain from administering timed quizzes due to the stress they inflict on students.
Interestingly, the guidelines argue against repeated practice of math facts, claiming it’s not beneficial. They also say that both “explicit instruction” and allowing students to independently discover math methods are ineffective.
This approach has drawn sharp criticism. Detractors argue that the latest instructional changes, devised by researchers from the University of Michigan with a focus on equity and social justice, could lead to negative outcomes. Benjamin Solomon, a psychology professor and math curriculum specialist at SUNY Albany, expressed concern, stating that if educators heed these recommendations, student performance is likely to decline, contradicting the intended goal.
Solomon, in a letter to State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa, noted that around 200 mathematicians and concerned individuals have formally requested the retraction of the new guidance. They describe many of its conclusions as deeply flawed.
Among the contentious recommendations is the critique of “timed” math tests. Advocates of these tests argue they help sons and daughters enhance their skills and prepare for real-life deadlines. However, opponents warn they can create anxiety, driving students away from math entirely.
That said, Solomon countered that evidence linking timed tests to increased “math anxiety” is lacking. He emphasized that for kids to excel in math, mastering foundational facts is crucial.
The guidelines, published in May, further assert that rote practice and standard algorithms aren’t as effective as allowing kids to devise their own methods for solving problems. Solomon acknowledges the appeal of this idea but points out it may not work. Children need to grasp basic formulas before tackling complex math.
He wrote, “Children cannot learn to solve algebraic proportions unless they have mastered all the prerequisite skills.” His worries extend to a shift away from explicit teaching methods towards exploratory learning, where students collaborate using tangible objects to comprehend math.
Solomon noted that there’s been a long-standing consensus on the efficacy of explicit instruction. He voiced concern that if teachers embrace this new guidance without question, it could lead to significant setbacks in math education.
Daniela Souza Egorov, associated with the Manhattan Institute and the Manhattan District 2 Regional Education Council, shares Solomon’s view, insisting the math brief should be abolished. She characterized the guidelines as spreading unscientific concepts at a time when New York students are already underperforming.
Egorov called for a more rigorous criteria for evaluating curriculum providers to ensure alignment with educational sciences. She remarked, “Every parent knows that children need repeated practice to memorize multiplication tables. How can the New York State Department of Education stop this?”
The state’s new guidelines were created in collaboration with Deborah Loewenberg Ball, an education professor at the University of Michigan, under the initiative aimed at “promoting equity and social justice.”
A spokesperson from the state Department of Education did not respond to requests for comments.
