Take Me To Post Comment Form In a report to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Paul Clopton, a member of the LAUSD Mathematics Curriculum Committee reported on the declining performance in math based studies largely attributed to the implementation of the concept of Integrated Mathematics. Clopton wrote that "Students in these programs learn less mathematics than those in traditional programs. LAUSD students in integrated mathematics score lower than those in traditional mathematics in grades 8, 9, and 10 on the state standards-based tests according to state records."

Integrated Mathematics is a concept gaining popularity with school districts, but is one that many parents would be unfamiliar with. The similarities of Integrated Mathematics and "Traditional Mathematics" are few. Where a traditional program often uses a horizontal model with first-year algebra, geometry, and second-year algebra taught in a linear fashion, in an integrated program, a vertical model that interweaves the three is common.

An integrated mathematics lesson typically begins with a context-based problem, and concepts emerge as students attempt to solve the problem. In contrast, a traditional mathematics lesson typically begins with the presentation of a mathematical concept and ends with students' attempting to apply the concepts. Students who are participating in an integrated program usually analyze data and make and test conjectures about mathematical models. These activities are vastly different from simply applying a model given, as in most traditional programs.

A teacher's role in an integrated mathematics classroom normally shifts to that of a facilitator who uses probing questions to stimulate students and interact with them. Group-think is a cornerstone and it requires teachers to adapt to new classroom management skills for which they seldom possess any training.

Significant problems exist in the use of Integrated Math. Of primary concern is the possibility that the program does not properly prepare students for continued education. Professor Cliff Mass, of the University of Washington, recently reported on the declining math competency of entering freshmen. He cited the declining pre-calculus placement test scores at the university as evidence that mathematical ability is the casualty of an integrated math curriculum. Dr. Lawrence Gray, head of the University of Minnesota, School of Mathematics, said in 2003 that university students who had taken Integrated Math were not learning enough algebra to prepare them for college math and were one to two years below grade-level in their math skills. Sadly, very little data exists that demonstrates any effectiveness Integrated Math possesses over Traditional Math. Furthermore, it appears that very few teachers involved in the curriculum support it.

The concept has given birth to a "Radicalized Math" curriculum. Radical math teachers work to integrate issues of political, economic and social justice into their curricula. David Miller of Fox News reported "…Sample lessons posted on a Radical Math Website for teachers suggests the following assignments: Calculating the average number of casualties in Iraq, computing baseball stats to determine if all star voting is tainted by racism, and exploring how much tax money is spent on government agencies, including 30 percent for the military. Seattle high school teacher Larry Steele says "Radical Math" is an effective way to teach kids not only arithmetic but also how to make important decisions in their lives." Critics of "Radical math" say the program unfairly imposes left-wing values on students.

IM appears to be a "wave" for one reason: it is intimately attached to federal dollars. In 1989 the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) published its Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, an extensive set of mathematics standards for grades K-12 which de-emphasized memorization of number facts, the learning of proofs, and algebraic skills, but encouraged the use of calculators and discovery learning. Since 1990, the National Science Foundation [funded with federal money] has awarded more than $83 million to programs that developed textbooks promoting approaches that are favored by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). ["An A-Maze-ing Approach To Math," by Barry Barelick]

The National Science Foundation (NSF) awarded millions of dollars in grant money to state boards of education whose math standards aligned with NCTM math. These state standards are enforced through the required tests of No Child Left Behind. The federally developed, funded, and mandated National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) -- the so-called Nation's Report Card -- bases its assessments on NCTM math standards (integrated math). The NAEP produces pressure on states to adopt integrated math standards. The NSF also awards millions of dollars of federal money to individual states for "teacher enhancement" grants and systemic change initiatives of integrated math programs and standards adoptions.

In a December 15, 2004 testimony to the Seattle School Board, school teacher Patricia Bailey talked about integrated math:

...Over the years, I have heard many complaints from Seattle parents regarding the Houghton-Mifflin integrated math program in our high schools. The criticisms of this program are numerous and varied: "I couldn't make heads or tails of it." "My children never understood it." "My child's self-confidence quickly eroded in math." "If I put my kid in private school, it will be because of integrated math." "The books don't explain anything." "My child had to take remedial math in college."

Generally speaking, these programs appear to produce students who are less well prepared in mathematics skills. The programs will likely remain if for no other reason because of the money involved. The reconsideration of any Integrated Mathematics program will require concerted and engaged parents to take measures, and only a very bold school leadership structure to favor student performance over financial support. The move is never too early.