Less math in schools doesn’t develop clear thinking

Travis Meier’s opinion piece, published in The Gazette on Feb. 12, “The trouble with school is too much math,” demands a response. His reference to the 1983 Reagan administration report, “A Nation at Risk,” highlights an important yet neglected fact. The things we expect of our educational system, what we choose as the content and the purpose of our nation’s schools, are fundamentally political in nature. The Iowa Legislature and governor have lately been engaged in substantial efforts to control many aspects of the nature of schooling in this state.

Meier asserts what is needed — instead of math — is clear thinking and applied logic. The importance of this, he claims, is to free ourselves from the disinformation of politicians and media personalities. He bemoans that too many citizens fall prey to “unsupported assumptions or fallacies … deceptions and misdirection” of politicians. I trust many of us heartily agree the duplicity of candidates and political parties is of grave concern — especially in this important election year.

Even agreeing on that, we stumble next on the ways in which we may accomplish the goal of fostering the “art of thinking clearly.” Ask yourself whether you know people who believe they are thinking clearly, even while they disagree with your clearheaded views? Obviously, clarification of what ‘thinking clearly’ means is essential. Meier is vague on this concept central to his message.

The idea that some content taught in K-12 schools is used by few in their adult lives is not limited to mathematics. How many in your circle of family, friends and co-workers, as adults, have (knowingly) used any of the following even once? Direct and indirect objects, inertia, pointillism, the French Revolution, the symphonies of Beethoven, the capital of India, the two sets of primary colors, the Magna Carta, or a great many of the facts you were taught before graduating from high school. Even so, each of these topics is vital to some set of careers.

The ancient Greek and Roman civilizations developed the liberal arts approach to education. Key benefits of such learning commonly include critical thinking, moral convictions and rational behavior. Belief in the value of a broad education remains widely held across the world.

“Approaches to Teaching,” a textbook used in an introductory teacher education course, urges us to consider the societal purposes reflected in the choices we make withing the school curriculum. One example comes from a general music class. The text asks why we consider such classical artists as Brahms to be appropriate and the music of Puff Daddy (or any rap or hip-hop artist or your favorite popular singer/group) to be inappropriate. Is there something about the music itself that justifies this content decision? Additionally, why exclude the history of South America or the literature of Africa? These are cultural and political decisions, often serving special interests or “powers that be.”

A fundamental dilemma is that we cannot know which 10-year-olds will become scientists, statisticians, nurses, plumbers, artists, musicians, journalists, etc. We have chosen to teach a school curriculum that includes language and literature, history, mathematics, science, art, music and physical education in order to prepare students to be ready to pursue a wide range of career options, and to be contributing members of society. Each of us can identify things we were made to learn that had minimal value for us in the life path which we eventually chose.

Mathematics plays a vital role in preparing students for a large number of professional careers requiring a college education as well as careers typically requiring trade and vocational schooling. Vital research and development in many fields, such as medicine, government planning, and scientific research, would not be possible without mathematics. To cut back substantially on the math curriculum would be to close off a great many opportunities for students as they transition into adulthood, as well as to hinder human progress.

An important realization is that students are more likely to learn what we teach them than what we do not teach them. If the ability to rationally assess claims made by politicians, advertisers, media, drug companies, etc. is our goal, we must choose to teach that explicitly. The ability to rationally assess claims we encounter is a legitimate goal of our system of education. Such teaching can be integrated into classes in each of the school subjects. To assume that it will be the consequence of things we teach in any subject, without explicitly attending to it, is to be irrationally optimistic. To blame mathematics for what we perceive to be the problem with our schools is simplistic at best.

Roger Johanson was a professor of education at Coe College for 30 years. He taught courses in mathematics and mathematics education, plus two first-year student seminar classes that focused on clear thinking about public issues with the benefit of mathematical reasoning.