[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1133-1134]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         ARTICLE BY BILL EVERS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 10, 2000

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record and highly recommend 
to all of my colleagues Bill Evers' ``Secretary Riley Reignites the 
Math Wars,'' which recently appeared in the Weekly Standard. Mr. Evers' 
provides an excellent overview of the controversy created by the 
Department of Education's endorsement of ten ``discovery-learning'' 
programs (also known as ``new, new math'' or ``fuzzy math''). Concerns 
have been raised that ``fuzzy math'' de-emphasizes traditional 
mathematics in favor of encouraging children to ``discover'' math 
without the guidance of a teacher. Under some ``new, new math'' 
programs traditional teaching is discouraged on the grounds that 
teachers may harm a child's self-esteem by, for example, correcting a 
child's ``discovery'' that 2+2 equals 5. Obviously, this type of 
``education'' diminishes a child's future prospects, after all, few 
employers value high self-esteem more than the ability to add!
  Mr. Evers' article points out that the federal government has no 
constitutional authority to dictate or even recommend to local schools 
what type of mathematics curriculum they should adopt. Instead, all 
curriculum decisions are solely under the control of states, local 
communities, teachers, and parents. I would remind my colleagues that 
outrages like ``new math'' did not infiltrate the classroom until the 
federal government seized control of education, allowing Washington-DC 
based bureaucrats to use our children as guinea pigs for their 
politically correct experiments.
  The solution to America's education crisis lies in returning to the 
Constitution and restoring parental control. In order to restore true 
parental control of education, I have introduced the Family Education 
Freedom Act (HR 935). This bill would give parents a $3,000 per year 
tax credit for each child's education related expenses. Unlike other 
so-called ``reform'' proposals, my bill would allow parents 
considerably more freedom in determining how to educate their children. 
It would also be free of guidelines and restrictions that only dilute 
the actual number of dollars spent directly on a child.
  The Family Education Freedom Act provides parents with the means to 
make sure their children are getting a quality education that meets 
their child's special needs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remind my 
colleagues that thirty years of centralized education have produced 
nothing but failure and frustrated parents. I, therefore, urge my 
colleagues to read Mr. Evers' article on the dangers of the federal 
endorsement of ``fuzzy math'' and support my efforts to improve 
education by giving dollars and authority to parents, teachers and 
local school districts by cosponsoring the Family Education Freedom 
Act.
  Williamson Evers is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, an 
adjunct professor of political science at Santa Clara University, a 
research fellow at the Independent Institute and an adjunct fellow of 
the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Mr. Evers has served on the California 
State Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and 
Performance Standards and he is currently a member of the California 
State Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessment system's 
Content Review Panels for history and mathematics as well as the 
Advisory Board of the Californian History-Social Science Project. Mr. 
Evers is the editor of What's Gone Wrong in America's Classrooms 
(Hoover Institution Press, 1998). Mr. Evers has been published in 
numerous scholarly and popular periodicals, including the New York 
Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the 
Christian Science Monitor.

                Secretary Riley Reignites the Math Wars

                            (By Bill Evers)


Bill Evers is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member 
            of Hoover's Koret Task Force on K-12 Education.

       In early 1998, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley 
     called for a ``cease-fire'' in the math wars between the 
     proponents of solid content and the proponents of discovery-
     learning methods. He said he was ``very troubled'' by ``the 
     increasing polarization and fighting'' about how and which 
     mathematics should be taught from kindergarten through high 
     school.
       Despite this call for a cease-fire, the U.S. Department of 
     Education endorsed ten discovery-learning programs in October 
     1999. This federal imprimatur should not be allowed to 
     disguise the fact that content (such as dividing fractions 
     and multiplying multidigit numbers) is missing from these 
     federally approved programs and that there is no good 
     evidence that they are effective. Discovery-learning math is 
     often called by its critics ``fuzzy math'' or ``no-correct-
     answer math.''
       In response to the Department of Education, about two 
     hundred mathematicians and scientists signed an open letter 
     to Secretary Riley, which was published in the Washington 
     Post on November 18, 1999 (see letter at 
     www.mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm.) The signers, who 
     included Nobel laureates and some of the country's most 
     eminent mathematicians, didn't like the Department of 
     Education's new equation: Federal Math=Fuzzy Math. The letter 
     asked Riley to withdraw the federal endorsements. The news 
     stories that followed got at the essence of the debate.
       Steve Leinward of the Connecticut Department of Education 
     was on the U.S. Department of Education's panel that picked 
     the math programs that would receive federal approval. In an 
     interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Leinward 
     defended the approved programs as the least common 
     denominator--``a common core of math that all students can 
     master.''
       Leinward is not saying that the federally approved programs 
     cover the material taught in too-performing countries such as 
     Japan or Hungary or that the programs contain complete 
     coverage of elementary and

[[Page 1134]]

     secondary school math. What he and his fellow panelists want 
     is a watered-down program that all American students--as 
     currently trained--can master.
       Mathematics professor David Klein of California State 
     University at Northridge is a proponent of solid content. He 
     is quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education as saying that 
     algebra is the key course for students, the gateway to 
     success in mathematics and to success in college in general. 
     Leinward says that Klein's algebra-for-all position is 
     elitist.
       Here we have the central difference between the two sides. 
     The rigorous curriculum side says that, like Japan, Taiwan, 
     and Singapore, we can have algebra for all, preparing 
     students for technical careers and college-level work. The 
     water-it-down side says U.S. teachers and students aren't 
     capable of teaching and learning algebra.
       These federal recommendations are for kindergarten through 
     high school, which has serious consequences. In essence, the 
     U.S. Department of Education, by making these endorsements, 
     is closing the gate on going to college or even on technical 
     blue-collar jobs for many students. And it is closing that 
     gate as early as kindergarten.

     

                          ____________________