If we really have to wait, as Christopher Edley Jr. suggests, for the "reworking of our institutions of government and the political culture around issues of education'' (whatever that means), we will sentence the next dozen generations of U.S. children to progressive underperformance ("Why We're Failing Math and Science," The Journal Report on Business Insight, Oct. 26). Mr. Edley condescendingly bemoans the misguided efforts of local school districts which don't know enough about "educational policy" and "the science of learning." Please. It is effete, high-minded nonsense like that which got us into this mess.
The way out requires no new studies or pedagogical innovations, but rather a return to what worked in the past. Early math instruction should emphasize the rote memorization of certain dull (sorry) fundamentals like multiplication tables. Once the foundation has been established, success at problem solving is largely a function of time on task. It will take lots of time. With repeated exposure, generic problem types are recognized and standard solutions can be applied.
There are no short cuts. The process may not be particularly enjoyable. Self-discipline, a trait that our foreign competitors seem to have in abundance, may be required. But what is certainly not required, or even desired, is computers. Computers teach elementary-school math students how to punch buttons, not how to think logically. Try finding a newly minted high-school graduate—or, for that matter, a new employee—who can do what is disparagingly called "mental math."
Needless to add, if weapons, fights, cellphones, Twitter and general disorder are a standard part of classroom dynamics, none of the above matters.
Clint Myers
Georgetown, S.C.
Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, is right. We are failing to teach math and science because we don't have the right teachers. The best way to fix the problem is to mandate that math and science teachers come from the math and science departments of our universities instead of the education departments. This would be the most efficient and reliable way to fix the problem. It's worth noting that most of the people who teach math and science in our universities have never had a single course in an education department.
Douglas Raney
Huntsville, Ala.
I looked for a reference to parents in your article, but didn't find one. Today's parents seem much more inclined to spend money on soccer coaches and tennis lessons than on help in math or science. They are also willing to donate their time to help coach youth activities even while they complain about too much homework for their children.
Carmella Roehrig
Greensboro, N.C.
Your experts reiterated the problem, but offered boiler-plate platitudinous solutions. The solution lies in removing teacher-contract restrictions and administrative barriers. Then, just maybe, the emphasis will be on the welfare of the students, not the teachers.
Hal Hunt
Walla Walla, Wash.
Your article rubs me the wrong way. As a chemical engineer and former high-school math teacher, the biggest single problem I see is that we do not demand that kids learn the fundamentals. We accept adequacy, which is far from mastery, and then we advance the kids to the next grade. Many times this adequacy is insufficient for the student to flourish at the next level.
Douglas Doremus
Baton Rouge, La.
It is all about content. The students of the past learned reading, writing and arithmetic.
They won World War II, built the interstate-highway system, created the national electric grid, and laid the foundation to land men on the moon. They weren't burdened with diversity classes, sex education, sensitivity training or federal mandates, and if they didn't know their multiplication tables to 12 they flunked the fourth grade.
Maybe it is coincidental, but it seems that there is an inverse relationship between federal involvement in our schools and declining academic success of students.
Greg Pilcher
Boring, Ore.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 