MAIN POINTS made to EPPC
about MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
(Robert L. Bernhardt)
(March, 2002)
I. THE NATURE OF MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
► A branch of Mathematics Education has developed into a sub-discipline of the mathematical sciences within the last 20-25 years
- Mathematics Education traces its beginnings to around the late 1960’s, at the end of the Johnson Administration
- It produces today around 90-100 PhD’s a year, but (very) roughly about 10 of these have the equivalent of a master’s degree in mathematics
- It has its own research and teaching journals: (Psychology of Mathematics Education, JRME, Mathematics Teacher, Math Teaching in the Middle Grades, Educational Studies in Mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Teaching, Journal of Mathematical Behavior, Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, Mathematics Education Research Journal) to name a few
- It has its own classification number (#97) in Mathematics Reviews, which is published by the AMS; just like ring theory, algebraic geometry, and analysis
► Since the publication of A Nation at Risk in the early 1980’s, there has been a call from the AMS and MAA for more mathematicians to become professionally involved in mathematics education. In fact, I just encountered a book by the AMS titled "Mathematics Education Research: A Guide for the Research Mathematician”
► This has led to national organizations, such as the Mathematical Sciences Education Board and the Conference Board in the Mathematical Sciences, that synthesize and collaborate between the major professional societies in the mathematical sciences: NCTM, MAA, AMS.
► The Division of Mathematical Sciences of NSF funds the hard core areas in the mathematical sciences. One of the three current funding initiatives of DMS for this year is mathematics education. Virtually none of the members of the review panels that rated NSF grants from these divisions came from schools of education – a point made by Sid Rachlin in his statements, who does sit on these panels.
► Mathematics education programs in universities are located in schools of education or in departments of mathematics, with a few being housed in centers. The particular variety that exists at a university is deeply influenced by the history and culture of the institution. Older universities that developed math education in the 1970’s usually house their program in a school of education. Universities that are have developed mathematics education in the late 1980’s, or that are striving to become major players in this field today, favor housing the program in the mathematics department. That is one reason that ECU’s Mathematics Department could build an excellent and nationally recognized math education program within a period of about twelve years.
The University of Virginia, the University of NC at Chapel Hill, and the University of Georgia are all examples of older universities, who developed math education back in the 1970’s. Chapel Hill particularly does not have a strong mathematics education program.
► The fastest growing variety of math education today is in departments of mathematics, a point that is illustrated by the data we provide on open positions in mathematics education.
► Thus the Mathematics Education program at ECU is leading national trends, a statement supported by statements provided to you by Dubinski, Wilson, and Bass.
► This also illuminates another important and fundamental point – there is a substantial difference between math education programs in a department of mathematics and those in a school of education.
► This difference is highlighted by many of Dean Marilyn Scheerer’s arguments, which can be boiled down to “The Math Education faculty will not behave like I want them to”.
► This is also illuminated by one of Dean Sparrow’s arguments. He claims that students do not know or do not care where a program is located or housed (it says here to pause until the laughter dies down), and that the proposed move should make no difference to the students because it will consist of the same faculty, teaching the same courses, in the same building.
If this was a valid line of reasoning, then, why should the proposed move matter to the faculty? After all, they will be doing the same things, and they will be rewarded even better for it, according to Dean Scheerer.
Yet, the proposed move matters a great deal to the mathematics education faculty (as well as to all the faculty in the effected units). So much so that of the 8 faculty members in math education who are scheduled to be moved, 5 will NOT make this move or will leave ECU if forced to move against their wills.
► I repeat, mathematics education in a school of education and mathematics education in a mathematics department are very different animals. They have different emphases on content and research, because each unit has a different conception of content and research. Also, schools of education tend to rush off after the hot-button ideas of the moment, and loose their focus on the basic content ideas underpinning their programs.
II. THE VISION THING
► Dean Sparrow argues that teacher education does not belong in the College of Arts and Sciences, because the first sentence of the College’s Purpose, on page 70 of the 2001-2002 Undergraduate Catalog, states the following:
“A community of scholars dedicated to the intrinsic value of learning, the College of Arts and Sciences is the liberal arts college of East Carolina University.”
► He chooses to ignore the statements in the third paragraph: “In addition to its liberal arts programs, the college offer teacher education and other professional certification programs related to its traditional academic disciplines.”
► Thus I was shocked when Dean Sparrow first asserted around March of 2000 that mathematics education did not fit the vision of the College of Arts and Sciences, since this is obviously false
► This raises a serious and important issue of shared governance: Is a dean empowered to change the mission of his unit to suit his political goals, without first gaining the approval of the faculty and chairs within the unit? My personal opinion is that the answer to this question is “NO”, but I call upon the VCAA and the Chancellor to clarify this important issue
► As an aside here, I wish to point out that the attempts of Dean Sparrow to personally alter the Purpose of the College of Arts and Sciences has been accompanied by numerous occurrences of bad behavior, consisting of threats and attempts at intimidation, manipulation, and other devious actions designed to persuade both chairs and faculty of the Dean’s wisdom. I call on all present to observe that not a single one of the current chairs from the departments of history, mathematics or English are supporting their faculty on this issue.
► Which raises another issue: “What is the primary role of a chair?” I have always believed that it was to represent the faculty of the department.
III. PHILOSOPHY FOR BEST PRACTICES FOR PRODUCING TEACHERS
► It is a generally accepted belief today that the ideal method of producing the best teachers at a university is for their teaching and training to be an integral part of the entire institution
► This philosophy is illustrated by former VCAA Richard Ringeisen’s statement to the effect that he wanted the teaching of K-12 mathematics teachers to be the responsibility of the entire faculty of the mathematics department, not just a few select faculty members. I believe that he would have extended that statement to every other department on campus with a teacher education program
► Thus attempts to segregate and quarantine teacher education into the School of Education are misguided, and harmful to producing the best teachers at this university (see the letter from the Greenville Coalition against Racism for additional support on this point)
► I deny that the claim that teacher education is scattered all over this university is somehow a vestige of out outmoded past, and that this needs correction for ECU to become a truly contemporary doctoral granting institution. I assert instead that ECU chose this model because it produces the very best teachers. We have presented you with data that shows conclusively that the math education programs currently under the control of the School of Education are seriously lacking in quality. Surely ECU can continue to develop in the future without destroying some of the strongest programs it now possesses.
IV. THE FUTURE OF MATHEMATICS EDUCATION AT ECU
A. The Down Side
► We have submitted data that shows conclusively that programs that move to the School of Education do not fare very well, and are not quality programs academically.
► We have also shown that the Mathematics Education program at ECU as it now exists will not survive an attempt to move it against the will of the faculty. Rather, the program will be depleted of most of its faculty, and thus destroyed. After this occurs, it is a virtual certainty that Dean Sheerer will not be able to rebuild a math education program of anything near the quality and prestige of the current one
► An analogy between the proposed split in the Department of Mathematics and the split that occurred in the Department of Communications, back when it was in the College of Arts and Sciences, needs to be stated.
- Dean Sparrow decided that the Broadcasting area of the Department of Communications was not of sufficient liberal arts purity to warrant its remaining in the College of Arts and Sciences. Indeed, Dean Sparrow has been engaging in Ethnic Cleansing of the College in the name of pure liberal arts throughout his term of office. The net effect of the dean’s efforts this time was that the broadcasting faculty in the Department of Communications agreed to move to the School of Education. After the split, the former Department of Communications was divided into two bleeding parts, neither of which could sustain itself from a position of any strength. It became necessary for the university to reunite these two bleeding hunks into a single department again, outside the College of Arts and Sciences, and the damage from this disastrous division will eventually be overcome in another 3-5 years, provided the economy improves
- It is my opinion that this will also happen to the Department of Mathematics if the proposed move occurs, with several exceptions. First, as I have previously indicated, the pieces of the Mathematics Education program that move to the School of Education as a result of this hostile takeover will simply die a quick death, and ECU will have destroyed one of its best and most outstanding programs. Second, the Mathematics Education faculty has not agreed to this move, unlike the situation with the Broadcasting faculty. And last, the enrollments in Communications and Broadcasting were strong enough to cause the university to reunite these two programs. Mathematics will never have such a surge of enrollments, and thus the Department of Mathematics left in the College of Arts and Sciences will be perpetually doomed to become a virtual service department, with almost no majors, no masters program, and virtually no future. This will severly hamper the future development of the liberal arts mathematics program, since new faculty of high quality will not want to come to ECU and only teach low level service courses.
► This is a good opportunity to mention the following. The best directions for the Department of Mathematics to gain new majors in the future, is to develop programs in applied mathematics. The department anticipates growth in mathematics education, which is one of these applied programs. Other areas currently under discussion include actuarial science, financial mathematics, and computational mathematics. However, none of these programs fit the definition of programs supported by Dean Sparrow for the college, in his reply to the EPPC questions; I quote “…the College’s avowed liberal arts mission does not encompass applied or professional programs, which if they exist at all must therefore have subordinate status.”
► This raises an interesting question (perhaps beyond the scope of these hearings): Should the entire Department of Mathematics be moved out of the College of Arts and Sciences? It seems increasingly clear that the current dean of the college is intent on damaging the department in fundamental ways, and does not represent the interests of the Department either now or in the future
B. The Up Side
► We have submitted data that shows conclusively that the mathematics education program in the Mathematics Department is currently very strong, that it is one of the top programs in the nation, and that it is poised to be one of the elite programs in the nation with the addition of a doctoral program
► Dean Sheerer, Dean Sparrow, and VCAA Thompson have concluded that mathematics education requires 8 faculty positions to offer its curriculum. This is the number of faculty to be moved in the original proposal
► Thus it is clear that ECU can have an outstanding mathematics education program under the following conditions:
- the number of faculty in this area must be maintained at 8, which will require searches to hire two new tenure-track faculty next year. To be able to fill these positions with high quality hires, it is necessary that the upper level administration give strong assurances of their support for mathematics education in the Department of Mathematics. I state this because the rumors of the current attacks on math education have spread around the nation, and it will take some serious damage control to return the program to its former position of strength. Math education is not an easy field in which to recruit new faculty
- since a stand-alone doctoral program is not currently feasible, mathematics education must either aim for an interdisciplinary program or an inter-institutional program. The latter has strong support from Vice President Charles Coble in the UNC Office of the President, who felt certain that President Molly Broad would also support it. This remains a viable option
- a strong interdisciplinary program between mathematics education and science education could be revisited on this campus between the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Education, provided Dean Sheerer will considerably strengthen the Department of Science Education. Dean Sparrow should be pleased with this opportunity for true collaboration between the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Education, since this type of collaboration is something he repeatedly has stated as one of his goals
