Joanne Jacobs comments on the California algebra flap that I've been following, and also notes that:
By the way, it's impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of 19 math curricula funded by the National Science Foundation, says a report by the National Academies' Mathematical Sciences Education Board. Evaluations of the math programs "fall short of the scientific standards necessary to gauge overall effectiveness." So, NSF is funding math "reforms" without demanding valid studies of what works. By the time useful research is done, a lot of students will be finding algebra unpassable.
But in California, that doesn't matter just yet.
More on the purpose of the NA's MSEB review can be found here, and here's the free "prepublication"with the details. In essence, they've studied the studies of K-12 math programs, and quite a few were discarded due to insufficient rigor. Only about 20% of the total studies reported met their "minimum criteria for consideration of effectiveness," which led them to conclude that, well, nothing could really be concluded, not with any reasonable level of certainty. The problem seems to be that those who aim to research math programs don't seem to understand research all that well.
I found this one example of such particularly galling:
In its review, the committee became concerned about the lack of independence of some of the evaluators conducting the studies; in too many cases, individuals who developed a particular curriculum were also members of the evaluation team thus raising questions about the credibility of the evaluation results...
Emphasis mine. This report concludes with a great set of guidelines for those wishing to assess math programs, but I wonder how many educators will follow them?
Posted by kswygert at May 27, 2004 10:31 AM