backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 56 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Jun 9 at 5:32 PM

The loss of mathematical potential is costing Britain alone billions in productivity, and all signs point to similar slippage in U.S. and elsewhere

A rigorous new study looking at the aptitudes indicated by responses to, formats of, and content presented in math exams from 1951 to 2006 shows a disturbing decline both in standards and an apparently correlated decline in student competence.  The study looked at British 16-year old students’ exams and confirmed what many in the educational systems in Britain already recognized -- math competency is in an unprecedented weak state.  And similar problems appear to be true in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The study says that the immediate effect of this inadequacy is not always readily apparent, but that the grave result is the loss of a generation of mathematicians that could have contributed diversely to the economy.  Mathematicians are essential to tackle the more cerebral side of problems in topics as diverse as economics, biology, computer science, and mechanical design.  Without these mathematicians, many problems go unsolved or have suboptimal solutions, and this translates to loss in domestic product and standard of living.

Of course such slippage is hard to monitor.  However, the decline in abilities is far more visible.  Despite government claims that it is carefully protecting standards by government testing of students, much like here in the U.S., the testing standards have been in steady decline, according to the study, since around 1970.  Between 1951 and 1970 the study found the standards to be quite high and to demand competency in algebra, arithmetic and geometry, all essential topics.  By the 1980s the testers began to try to simplify the test.

The study accuses the math education of being shallower and broader.  The questions were easier and less demanding.  Worse, it says, students were not allowed to independently formulate paths to solutions, but had to follow a dictated path or risk losing credit.  Calculators snuck their way into the allowed list of supplies and formula sheets began to appear.  This had a net effect of decreasing students’ basic math knowledge and arithmetic abilities.

Additionally, the actual grades themselves fell.  The standard for a C fell to a mere 20% mark on the harder British standardized test.  The apparent rise in scores from 1990 to present is "highly misleading" it said.  It said this increase is due to easier tests, lower standards, and a cram-and-forget mentality on the part of students just looking to use the test to gain college admittance.  Says the study, "Exams have changed from being a staging-post to further study to being a series of 'tick-boxes'."

British Deputy director of Reform and a co-author of the report Elizabeth Truss state that the loss of competent mathematicians at the university level is a trend that must be stopped.  She states, "In today's Britain it is acceptable to say that you can't do maths, whereas people would be ashamed to admit they couldn't read.  We need a cultural revolution to transform maths from geek to chic."

Schools Minister Jim Knight disputes her remarks saying British standards are world class.  Perhaps he's right, as many say standards are slipping worldwide.  Knight was able to point to minor recent improvements.  He stated, "Ucas figures show the number of people who took up places on full time maths degrees has gone up by 9.3% on last year.  That is good news, but we agree maths is of vital importance to the economy and it is a top government priority to encourage more mathematicians in the future.  In addition, we have launched a campaign to encourage more young people to consider careers in maths and science."

In Britain, where every position has a "shadow" political second in command, Shadow children's secretary Michael Gove was quick to comment, "India and China are producing four million graduates every year. The single largest area of graduate growth is mathematics, science and engineering.  A third of graduates in China are engineers - here it's just 8%. Between 1994 and 2004, more than 30% of the physics departments in Britain disappeared."

Liberal Democrat schools spokesman David Laws added, "This is a damning critique of maths education in this country.  Our education system is too often failing to get the basics right, which risks damaging the national economy."

While many in the U.S. remain unconcerned about such developments in Britain, similar signs of slippage are showing up in the U.S.  In fact many physics programs in the U.S. are gradually losing funding or disappearing.  The last U.S. particle physics lab is on the verge of collapse and is only being kept afloat thanks to private donations.  As mentioned, such trends may seem harmless, but promise to greatly harm the world economy.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Quantitative
By Machinegear on 6/5/2008 5:10:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
…from 1951 to 2006 shows a disturbing decline both in standards and an apparently correlated decline in student competence. The study looked at British 16-year old students’ exams and confirmed what many in the educational systems in Britain already recognized -- math competency is in an unprecedented weak state.


The study found a strong correlation between lower math standards and the [lower] math proficiency amongst students.

quote:
Schools Minister Jim Knight… say[s] British standards are world class… He stated, "Ucas figures show the number of people who took up places on full time maths degrees has gone up by 9.3% on last year.”


School Minister disputes the analysis noting an increased enrollment in math degrees last year.

Interesting...

Therefore, AMD just needs to build more CPUs to beat Intel's Nehalem this year.




RE: Quantitative
By guy642002 on 6/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Quantitative
By Smartless on 6/5/2008 6:01:49 PM , Rating: 4
Didn't you hear? No child left behind. The bane of many a teacher I know.


RE: Quantitative
By Regs on 6/6/2008 10:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
Not dumber, just that no one cares. Actually, 10 years ago, a skill like math actually gets some one paid!!!! Now it hardly gets some one anywhere without a degree from MIT.


RE: Quantitative
By JediJeb on 6/5/2008 5:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
My sister is a teacher and I can tell you that what most school administration is worried about is numbers enroled not quality of education. I believe if most highschool seniors had to take the math test I had in grade school back in the late 70s early 80s they would not do well at all. I remember in the sixth grade having math problems like " If a water tank is 12 feet high and 8 feet in diameter, how many gallons of water would it hold?" and the only help you got was the cubic feet to gallon conversion factor. No calculator, formula table or group work was allowed.

I wonder if we gave the college students today paper, pencil and sliderules could they get us to the moon like the physicist and engineers did back in the 60s.


RE: Quantitative
By lotharamious on 6/5/2008 6:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a water tank is 12 feet high and 8 feet in diameter, how many gallons of water would it hold?


Math is slipping because I write programs with fancy GUIs where all you have to do is put in "12" and "8" and the answer comes out. Seriously though, it's really sad because as a computer engineer, I use math every single day. Just try doing polynomial interpolation not knowing how to do this problem. T_T


RE: Quantitative
By PrinceGaz on 6/5/2008 6:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's not a difficult question. Without a calculator, pencil or paper or anything else, I could calculate the area of the base as (4^2 * pi) sq ft. So the volume of the cylinder is (192 * pi) cu ft, or roughly 603 cu ft (I could do it more accurately with pen and paper). I don't know what the conversion factor is but that would be a trivial long-multiplication or division.

I'm 38 now but I could have solved that easily when 16, and would expect that most students today could also.


RE: Quantitative
By joex444 on 6/5/2008 7:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
No offense or anything, but we all know what the answer is.

The point of this story was that is was a SIXTH grade problem. So that's more like, what, 12 years old? If a 16 year old can't do that, they shouldn't be allowed to graduate, end of story.

I think you just proved the point of the article.


RE: Quantitative
By FS on 6/5/2008 10:33:14 PM , Rating: 1
Your standard is quite low if you think that's a 6th grade problem, in China and India a second grade student can solve this problem.


RE: Quantitative
By Calin on 6/6/2008 4:11:41 AM , Rating: 3
No they don't - geometry isn't taught until the 5th-sixth grade (at 12 or so years).
Could they do long calculations (multiplication or demultiplication with strange numbers, like gallons in cubic feet)? Doubtfully so in second grade (at 9 years).


RE: Quantitative
By Alexstarfire on 6/6/2008 6:48:46 AM , Rating: 2
I was probably one of the few students that could actually have done a problem like that in sixth grade. I, as well as several others in my grade, were far ahead of the rest of the class, a couple years ahead in fact, in math. I'll put it this way, we actually ran out of math classes to take in high school, as we had already done all of them.


RE: Quantitative
By sporr on 6/6/2008 3:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you deserve a gold star!

* (sorry but I can only give you a black one due to text restrictions)


RE: Quantitative
By bldckstark on 6/6/2008 1:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
My daughter has questions harder than this on her 4th grade math tests. It depends on where you live as to whether your education sucks or not.

The biggest problem our education system has in the U.S. right now is that we cannot gather good data to determine where to improve. Every state uses a different test, and the tests vary widely in their difficulty and what they are testing. We need a federal test that each state must use. Then we can find the problems and work on a solution.

The people who wrote the No Child Left Behind Act don't understand statistics themselves. It states that every school must improve it's scores year over year, no matter what. If your school happened to turn out a score of 100% on the test, the next year you would have to get 101% or you don't make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and get put on a list of schools to be taken over and teachers fired.

Those scores include the special needs kids taking the same test. If you have a high per capita rate of kids with mental issues, your school will get screwed. There is no allowance for such things.

Also, most states test the same grade each year, so when you compare the data year over year, you are comparing an entirely different group of kids each year. You have absolutely no way to determine if the kids you tested have improved or not, since there is no comparison available.

HOW DO YOU FIX A PROBLEM, IF YOU CAN'T DEFINE IT?


RE: Quantitative
By JediJeb on 6/6/2008 1:59:32 PM , Rating: 2
The question I posted wasn't as important as the fact that very few students are even taught to think of problems like this anymore. That was the type of test questions we had at the sixth grade level. My school only had 100 students total for K-8th grade, very rural area, but we were taught very rigorusly. When I went to highschool, I was shocked that many of the kids from the city schools could not even read a ruler( if ask how long something was the answer would be 8 inches and 3 small marks past the big mark in the middle instead of 8 11/16 inches). My 8th grade class had 12 students and in my graduating highschool class of 200 4 of us were in the top 3%.

What it really boils down to is not the money or programs, it's teaching students the basics and building on those each year, and not being afraid to hold them back if they don't learn. With the rules my sister has to teach under today, I would be dumb as a box of rocks, because if I hadn't been forced to learn when I was young I would never have learned anything. Now the teachers I respect the most are the ones that knew I had the ability to learn and would not let me just get by, but pushed me to discover my potential.


RE: Quantitative
By elgueroloco on 6/6/2008 5:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
Um, last I checked, 4x4=16, not 192.

I did most of the problem in my head, and wrote down a couple #'s on paper to remember them between steps. No Calc. The answer I got was 6007.512 gallons. Is that correct? I'm trying to see if my math skills are worth anything here.

I still can't really do multiplication or division on paper. I have to do it in my head, and that doesn't always work with big decimals.

I graduated HS after flunking Alg II twice because I couldn't stay awake through it.

I didn't even pay much attention in Geo. I mostly just played with my TI-82, manipulating variables in the graphing equations to make cool designs in the graph screen. I still got a B.

So, I wouldn't say math standards here in the US are very high.


RE: Quantitative
By elgueroloco on 6/6/2008 5:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
Um, last I checked, 4x4=16, not 192.

I did most of the problem in my head, and wrote down a couple #'s on paper to remember them between steps. No Calc. The answer I got was 6007.512 gallons. Is that correct? I'm trying to see if my math skills are worth anything here.

I still can't really do multiplication or division on paper. I have to do it in my head, and that doesn't always work with big decimals.

I graduated HS after flunking Alg II twice because I couldn't stay awake through it.

I didn't even pay much attention in Geo. I mostly just played with my TI-82, manipulating variables in the graphing equations to make cool designs in the graph screen. I still got a B.

So, I wouldn't say math standards here in the US are very high.


RE: Quantitative
By elgueroloco on 6/6/2008 5:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
Damnit. Stupid work computers! How do I get rid of my duplicate comment?


RE: Quantitative
By Major HooHaa on 6/8/2008 7:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
I was never very good at math. First I am dyslexic, which didn't help, with getting numbers jumbled up. I was also a bit slow with math work.

I did my GCSE's in Kent and so at secondary school, the way I learned math was via the "Kent Mathematics Project". In this there were boxes of numbered laminated cards, each with a series of math puzzles on them, with hints and tips to help you. You got given a set of these cards to complete by the teacher, when you finished that card set, you then do a test that is based on the set of cards you just completed.

I would often get around 90% in the tests, but I tended to work quite slowly through them. There were at least 4 boxes of these cards, each box was a different colour and level.

Level 1 was the green cards, 2 were blue, 3 were yellow and 4 were Red.

The trouble was that by the time I got to my GCSE's, I think I was still on level 2. So I missed out on the more advanced maths.

In the run up to the exams, we did some revision work with the teacher and had special exercise books to keep this work in. Certain things started to click into place during this period, but I ended up getting an GCSE 'F' for math, this is not a fail... You could get a 'G' if you got a low enough score.

In the run up to the exams though, our Form Tutor told us that the national average mark for GCSE's at the time was an 'E'. He was also fairly disgusted by the fact that because we went to a certain (mainstream) school, the students at the school were not expected to get a