Submitted by Brian R. Lawler, Mar 1, 2007 09:54

Respondent Haim, as we all do, speaks from an ideology. His, as does Dr. Ravitch's, proposes that (1) our public schools and their "syndicate of teachers unions and schools of education" hold children of color hostage to their biased, inadequate education. There is without a doubt, much truth to this. But maybe it is not the truth that their fear-inducing language proposes. Haim also suggests that (2) a socially meaningful approach to mathematics education is detrimental to learning mathematics. I am always amazed when ideologists concerned with (1) fail to recognize that (A) an overwhelming portion of mathematics education that happens in our schools today, and has for decades, is one that might be characterized as nuetral (or better described as invisibly propogating an idealized American culture & economy). Further, (B) our schools don't seem to be achieving our expectations, and especially seem to be harming the education of many subgroups of students. So the argument for (2) and to not make such a change seems to assume that what is happening now is good, yet at the same time argues that the results of what is happening now is bad. How come these obviously contradictory positions on education continue to resound with many listeners? I believe it occurs because this logic is a logic of fear. A fear of change. A fear of one's own identity and status, based upon a success in a classed society, becoming devalued. These are arguments against education for diversity of thought. The singular thought that has elevated the status of those with a voice (and the ideal that those without a voice seek) works in such a logic, a logic to sustain status, rather than a logic of equity. Our classed society only seems able to operate within structures that propogate classism. I suspect Ms. Kesson would say a nuetral ideology is not possible, for a teacher, teacher educator, or school critic. I concur, and believe strongly in Gutstein's message that seeking to provide balance and perspective in all disciplines serves our children well. It is a math teacher's duty to teach children to be critical of their world, to be able to consider perspectives of people different from themselves, and to consider the question why our math class is so focused on a Eurocentric logic and mathematics. Isn't this the same expectation teachers of all disciplines are held to? And of course, isn't their always someone asking why are you teaching Maya Angelou instead of Shakespeare?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.