Ken Smitherman,
President of ACSI (retired 2009)
Like science, mathematics education is a crucial content area that can hardly be overemphasized. We often talk lightly about “the three Rs: readin’, ’ritin’, and ’rithmetic,” a well-intentioned but understated reference that seems to relegate mathematics to a kind of kindergarten study. We refer to these three as the crux of education, the basics we must all get back to, with an emphasis on mastering the fundamentals rather than attaining a high level of competency. A comment about getting “back to basics” may be another way of saying that kids have to learn their multiplication tables. Yet such an opinion fails to take into account the greater role of mathematics and its relation to opportunity.
A 1997 white paper prepared for former U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley made a strong case for the importance of mathematics for future opportunities. The paper addressed the role of mathematics in college entrance, saying:
Students who take rigorous mathematics and science courses are much more likely to go to college than those who do not. Data from a survey of students who were in the eighth grade in 1988 (National Educational Longitudinal Study, or NELS) reveal that 83 percent who took algebra I and geometry enrolled in college within two years of their scheduled high school graduation. Only 36 percent who did not take algebra I and geometry went to college.
The special report also included interesting information regarding mathematics achievement and income levels:
Students of all income levels who take rigorous mathematics and science courses in high school are more likely to go to college, and among low-income students (students in the bottom third of the income distribution), the difference is particularly dramatic. Students from low-income families who took algebra I and geometry were almost three times as likely to attend college as those who did not. While 71 percent of low-income students who took algebra I and geometry went to college, only 27 percent of low-income students who did not take algebra I and geometry went on to college. The differences are also dramatic among students from middle- and high-income families: 94 percent of students from high-income families and 84 percent of students from middle-income families who took algebra I and geometry went on to college, while 60 percent of students from high-income families and 44 percent of students from middle-income families who did not take geometry still went on to college.
True, not every student is college bound, so should we give such emphasis to students’ achievements in mathematics? The white paper indicated the answer, reporting:
A national survey found that by age 30, high school graduates who had not furthered their education but had scored in the top quartile on the mathematics portion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), a test administered to civilians for study purposes, earned, on average, 38 percent more per hour than high school graduates who had not gone to college and had scored in the bottom quartile of the mathematics portion of the ASVAB. Similarly the unemployment rate among high school graduates who scored in the top quartile of the mathematics test was only 4.4 percent. The unemployment rate was 10.3 percent among high school graduates who scored in the lowest quartile.
We in Christian schools must view our responsibility regarding mathematics education as a serious one. The data reported above should prod us toward both offering the best possible quality of mathematics instruction and, of equal importance, seeing that our students master the content.
God has called us to the highest standards in every area of instruction. In following His call, we are not only developing capable and accomplished students, but we are also equipping them with knowledge and skills for serving and loving God.
Vol 5 Iss 4 President's Desk