Battleground Schools Reflection

 "Battleground schools" by Mathison and Ross was a very enlightening read. I was not aware of the many pushes in mathematics education over the years, assuming that it stayed relatively constant until the most recent curriculum shift. I think that view was partially motivated by conversations from my elders. My family received a standard British Education in the Caribbean, and likewise with our friends from the UK, India, Hong Kong, etc. From those discussions I had understood that the North American Education system was slightly lower in some respects to the British System, but didn't know of the movements that polarized educators- especially for math! I thought that the shifts were in connection to subjects such as language arts, English, Drama, Music, Social Studies, etc.

I was surprised to read the bottom of page 393 (on cultural assumptions), that "people who like mathematics are (generally male) eggheads, nerds, absent-minded professors, and mad scientists." When I think of our EDCP 342A classroom, that's not even close to true! Additionally, on the idea that "there is no shame, and lots of positive social valuation" for those who claim to be "incapable of doing and understanding mathematics", I don't fully agree. Yes, I wouldn't shame anyone that isn't "good" at math, but to denounce accountability and reflection for the comfort of ignorance is not a healthy approach at all. I think that students should aspire to strengthen their education in STEM and recognize that there is a necessary aspect to these subjects. Additionally, I'm excited to show my future students a diverse range of mathematicians and math-lovers, who definitely do not fit the labels suggested. 

By page 394, I had to shake my head at "many math teachers do not have the strong background knowledge of mathematics and mathematics teaching and learning", because of the approach on the previous page. These societal assumptions prompt people to be less engaged with mathematics and as they grow and enter positions where math is required (like teaching math for example), their personal experiences permeate the environment and further those assumptions. In other words, it becomes a cyclic generational problem. I find it ironic that education is required to change the heart of a peoples, and yet, it is because of education in this case that peoples hearts are adverted from mathematics. I do have lots of hope for this to improve though, especially given the rise in programs that connect children, women, and people of minorities with the world of STEM. This hope was increased by the point made on page 400 of Media and Schools, that "there is room to create alternative stories." Social media has a been a great help recently in inspiring more students to be interested in STEM by seeing counterexamples to individuals described on page 393, so this can improve the generational issue presented on page 394. 

Finally, I was really happy of the draft of the first NCTM standards in the mid 1980s by California on page 399. It was uplifting to read that the draft was focused on "instilling in students an appreciation for the power and beauty of mathematics", which is the goal of math educators today. It seemed like there was a light in the tunnel, until I read about the next backlash. As any outsider viewing opposing ideas, it's important to know who is the opposition and why. Otherwise, it can be really demotivating and loud to receive criticism and backlash all the time. For math education, I was very shocked and confused to read about criticism in the mid-90s from right-wing religious lobby groups! To be honest, I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around that. I don't quite understand the correlation and why it would be such an issue. That said, while I'd love to think that mathematics education exists in its own bubble, the reality is that our education is impacted by social and political movements, and as time goes on there could be many shifts, but I'd welcome shifts that bring more light to STEM.