Math Scores Down. Is Teaching 'People Skills' to Blame?

The Washington Post reports that in one of the nation's best school systems (Montgomery County, Maryland) test scores in math are at their lowest point in a long time. And it appears that this is a nationwide trend

And of course the question is, Why?

Poor teaching? Poor discipline and study skills at home?

I wonder if this fall in numeracy isn't related to the teaching of soft skills in schools. Soft skills (or people skills) teach children about relationships, getting along, negotiation, conflict resolution, etc. all of which are worthy lessons for maintaining harmonious citizenry in our increasingly crowded and interconnected world.

But teaching and cultivating these interpersonal skills may undermine mathematics concepts and teaching. Math is a 'hard' discipline. By hard I don't mean 'difficult' but rather unforgiving. In mathematics, there is very often a right answer and none other. No flexibility is accounted for. The rules are hard and fast in contrast to the lessons we teach our children regarding navigating the unpredictable ways in which we relate to one another.

Another potential reason  for the noticeable drop in math scores also relates to soft-skills teaching and that is that there seems to be a "math gene" that science has identified in humans. This gene (as far as I have read) enables its bearer to better understand values, ratios and other concepts that seem to elude (despite formal training) those who lack the gene.

I'm not sure about all that but if it's true it might explain at least partially the drop in scores. That is, that the numerate (those with the math gene) tend to be more socially awkward than those who excel in the people (or soft) skills. Therefore the latter tend to marry earlier (or at all) and have children earlier and have larger families, thus passing on this mysterious "math gene." The geeks on the other hand, are more studious and delay marriage and childbearing (either by choice or by lack of opportunities, skills and/or abilities) and therefore produce fewer children with this gene.

Popular culture is also (and as usual) a willing participant. We've seen for years in movies, television, music and other entertainment media that geeky math geniuses are undesirable companions. Children who might otherwise excel in reason and logic (both core to mathematical achievement) are excluded from many peer groups enough to modify behavior so that some of them conform by feigning ignorance and distaste for numeracy.

And voila, in 10-15 years you've got a cohort of school-aged children with a large proportion of innumerate who tend to drive down test scores in math.

Copyright: Educational versus Entertainment Content

Since the introduction and widespread use of digital media, many people have come to believe that copyright law needs to be amended. And while it may not be likely to happen, there are some things worth considering if the laws were updated. For example, it might be helpful to distinguish between types of content to balance commercial interest versus the greater good. Balancing the interests of the private sector (businesses) and the public good has after all engaged government since the Progressive Era of the early 20th century.

With regard to copyrighting publications in the academic world, it would help if the law at some point in the past had distinguished between material which is educational and that which is of entertainment value; this might have avoided much of what is called the Open Access (OA) movement. OA has been an effort by the scientific and research community to make as widely available as possible the publications resulting from research conducted at universities, laboratories and other not-for-profit facilities and which has very little commercial appeal outside of the university libraries which purchase it.

If the law had treated educational content more fairly it would allow for wider distribution and copying due to the general belief that education is a public good whether it takes place in a school or formal institution or on one's own. If material that is designed to inform rather than entertain was easily available and reusable, separate from (for example) feature films or popular music, we wouldn't have what Jim Neal of Columbia University called civil disobedience in copyright violations that take place today at universities among faculty and graduate students.

It is not helpful to subject use of an article on the evolution of reptile locomotion to the same restrictions as the use of a popular music release or a feature length Hollywood production.

This is one fairly easy call that copyright law amendment could address: is the work primarily educational or research in nature or is it purely entertainment. Undoubtedly there would be some debate over certain creative works, but recognizing the distinction would be a good framework for debate. Disputes could perhaps begin with the establishment of whether the work is mostly factual or mostly artistic. Again, a Beatles single is a creative, artistic work while an article detailing the morphology of bone marrow cancer cells is almost entirely factual.

[see my earlier post on other alternatives to rights in the entertainment realm]

Free Higher Ed Lectures but is Certification What Employers Want?

College level courses are available to a larger audience than ever before thanks to digital media. Many of them are available at no cost. YouTube for example has an 'edu' channel which carries lectures and other educational videos. This means that a person can essentially attend college classes without paying any fees. They won't take any exams, turn in any term papers or receive any grade and most importantly they won't receive any credit. But at least some of them will learn something about the course subject. Many will fail to stay with the entire series of lectures, but others will become highly engaged and perhaps know as much or more than the on-campus student who pays tuition and completes the course in person.

This has been a long time coming. Since the invention of moving pictures, radio and television, people have been eagerly anticipating a change in the delivery of education and a much broader reach, serving millions of people who otherwise would never receive any comparable instruction.

However, the other (and for many people, primary) objective of higher education is in securing employment. Independently watching hours of college lectures supplemented by readings on one's own offers no such assurance. In the past, employers traditionally have depended on colleges and universities to provide some assurance that job applicants have absorbed the right information and went about learning in a disciplined, systematic manner. For example, at one time the baccalaureate ensured that students are able to compose a thoughtful essay that supports a certain viewpoint and cites facts to that end. But from what I read in the newspapers, many of today's college graduates lack many skills that an undergraduate education previously conferred. It seems today that paying tuition, attending class, completing assignments (for better or worse) and basically acting responsibly are all that seems to be needed to earn a bachelor's degree.

I wonder then about giving away content (in the form of free online lectures) when presumably many people pay tens of thousands of dollars for the same content. Are they paying for the information that could before now only be obtained by enrolling in an institution of higher learning? Or are they buying something else?There is no guarantee that a job is forthcoming for either the independent student or the matriculating, tuition-paying student. The only difference is that the latter (for the time being at least) is more likely to be invited to an interview.