December 17, 1999

Congressman Rush Holt
District Office
50 Washington Road
Princeton Junction, NJ 08550

Dear Rep. Holt:

I read your article on science and math education published in the fall, 1999 issue of the APS Forum on Education and was very happy to learn about the formation of the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. However, I am also concerned that the recommendation of such commission would be used to endorse “politically correct” curricula instead of a rigorous curriculum in science that is needed to train our students to compete globally in the 21st century.

My skepticism arises from my two daughters’ mathematics education in the elementary and middle schools. We live in a district with reputable public schools, which subscribe to the newest philosophy in teaching math: lots of busy work but little real content. After I have had first hand experience with the new math, including teaching my children with the method and correspondence with reviewers from AAAS, I am very concerned – concerned enough that I signed the open letter to Secretary Riley with five other mathematics professors. The letter, endorsed by over 200 professionals, appeared as a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post on November 18, 1999.

I am especially concerned about the current education philosophy’s emphasis on “feeling good” and not challenging our middle school students because of their “raging hormones.” As a result, the middle school math and physical science curriculum standards are at least one to two grades lower than those taught in Hong Kong and Singapore. The consequences are serious: the TIMSS study shows that our students ranked well above average in fourth grade but dropped below average in eighth grade and ranked just above bottom by twelfth grade. Without a solid middle school education in math and physical science, our high school students cannot study chemistry and physics.

One best-kept secret in the TIMSS study is that our students ranked high in life sciences which require less mathematics. If one compares how life science and physical are taught in American middle and high schools, the reason is obvious. For example, the chemistry content taught in a typical high school biology class is sometimes more in depth and advanced than that taught in the chemistry class. On the other hand, in a ninth grade physical science class, it is rather common that the most difficult concept and equation taught is “density = mass/volume” which, as most parents know, has been repeatedly taught since elementary school. Our high school students performed well internationally in life science because our high school expectation of our children is followed by rigorous curriculum standards.

The “lack of interest” most students feel regarding chemistry and physics has a lot to do with their lack of mathematical ability. Unfortunately, our schools are interested to teach “politically correct” math which is often taught with lots of “arts and crafts” activities with little math content. As explained to me by Professor Bill Schmidt, the US coordinator for TIMSS, math with a lot of “process” but lacking in math content is the main reason why such math is termed “fuzzy.”  The domino effect on physical science education is obvious, resulting in physics and chemistry being taught with less quantitative reasoning. In my daughter’s high school, one of the best in Michigan, science classes are increasingly taught with more science history. Enclosed is an article showing photos of gravestones for dead chemists constructed by students in a high school chemistry class. (To get full credit, the gravestones must be able to withstand the Michigan weather outdoors for one week and the credits received were equivalent to one test.) When I inquired about the rationale for such project, I was told that

1. The idea was promoted in one of the professional development conferences the teacher attended; and
2. More students understand history and may get interested in science.

Every parent I talked to thinks that such project is ridiculous for a high school chemistry class because of the amount of time involved and the lack of chemistry knowledge gained. Unfortunately, parents have very little say in curriculum. We are told over and over again that curriculum decisions should be left to the experts, include those who advocates curriculum with little math and science content.

Yes, I am genuinely concerned that if we continue to let “education experts” have their way, teaching science with emphasis on cultural diversities and science appreciation, our children will never be able to compete with the rest of the world. I hope your commission reverses this trend, promote rigorous curriculum standards, and includes input from practicing scientists, university professors and parents.

Sincerely yours
 

Betty Tsang

Cc: Senator John Glenn, chairman, National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching