New York Subway & Mathematics
I am reading an absolutely fascinating book by Malcolm Gladwell entitled, "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference." The author explores social epidemics. Specifically, what makes one movement spread like wildfire while another does not? Now, I will not go into details just in case some of you may desire to read the book. Nonetheless, I want to touch on one point: the power of context in social revolutions.Gladwell illustrates this point by recounting a dark period in New York city's history. During the mid-eighties, New York was known around the world for its brutal crime rate. Murders, drug deals, robberies, and other criminal activity were commonplace. The New York subway system was no exception. Commuters were not safe on public transit. But under the direction of David Gunn, the subway system was dramatically cleaned up. Surprisingly, he didn't target the high profile crimes. Instead, he went after fare-beating and graffiti with a vengeance. After all, if a person could get away with something little like jumping the turnstiles, then the same person may feel liberty in committing a more violent crime. Furthermore, if a system looks neglected due to graffiti, then a person is less likely to respect that environment. Two very small changes in the context. Extremely positive results.
What does this have to do with mathematics? One issue that greatly bothers me is the deplorable image of mathematics in our society. Ask a person to recount his or her experience in math and you will hear responses such as "Math is too hard," or "My math teacher didn't teach me correctly," or "I hate math. Never want to do that again." The math classroom is viewed as a graffiti-covered, crime-infested, bone-chilling subway train. Children suffer from math phobia like a New York commuter feared being mugged. Educators have noticed the problem. And there have been several grandiose attempts to revamp the Math curriculum to make it more "user friendly". But the philosophies seem to come and go. The pendulum of change moves from one extreme to another. The question is, "Does any of this make a difference?"
Maybe the curriculum reformers' focus is too wide. It could be that we only need a couple of small changes to positively impact the system. What would be equivalent to cracking down on fare-beating and graffiti in the world of mathematics curriculum reform? Theories abound. Prolific suggestions exist. Some say our children need to know their basic mathematical facts like their counterparts in Asian countries (I remember one of my young relatives in India who was memorizing her times tables until 20. She was in grade 4). Others say we need to make Math more fun (and out come the manipulatives). And there seems to be a growing realization of our cultural reality: we desire quick answers with the least amount of effort (unlike some of my Asian friends who can work on a math problem for an eternity).
I wish I had the answer. If I did, I'd be rich. In the meanwhile, I choose to be an advocate for mathematical learning. Furthermore, I will teach my daughter to bravely engage in mathematics, even if the answers don't come in two seconds.