Recently in Maine a high school teacher of Algebra II left out the chapters on Logarithms and Trigonometry that were in the class textbook. These chapters were planned to be taught, the follow-up courses build on them. For the fields of science, engineering, mathematics and so many related areas these topics have paramount importance. For one or another reason the teacher made the decision not to cover these topics.

In a related incident, a father contacted his child’s mathematics teacher with the concern that reasoning did not seem to be emphasized in the mathematics class, but instead getting the correct answer was more important. The father was told that it is very uncommon for a parent to be so interested in the high school curriculum.

Since I spend most of my time teaching mathematics or thinking about the learning of mathematics,

I have wondered why a teacher would leave out material and why such an omission is not noticed. Why is it uncommon for parents to be interested in what their children are learning or not learning?

With respect of omitting materials the school took the position that if the students were happy, why should the school worry about the future? After all, no student in the school in question registered a complaint that the Logarithm and Trigonometry chapters were omitted. At the age of 15, 16 and 17, students looking forward to summer do not want to think about their future courses. As for teaching mathematical reasoning we are reaching for questions such as what is the mathematical preparedness teachers need to have to teach well? What will students need to know to use mathematics in the future?

I sense that schools often misinterpret a lack of challenge for respect of the privacy of our teen-agers. We should let teen-agers choose how to spend their income and how they attire themselves, but we should not ignore how they are taught and what they are taught. There have been literally hundreds of studies by economists, sociologists and others on the impact that teachers and the educational culture have on students. Most of these studies modeled standardized test scores, individual and family background characteristics and schooling variables. In mathematics and science, subject-specific training for teachers has a significant impact on student performance in these subjects. Teachers who are certified in mathematics or science and have BA and MA degrees generally achieve higher student test scores.

Few of these studies consider the interaction between the families and the school, especially in middle or high school. Consequently, little is told about the collaboration with parents and community resources. Indeed, some or even most learning does not take place in the classroom or under the direct instruction of the teacher. Yet, developing meaningful relationships with parents and other school and community resources is foreign to many school practitioners. Maybe it is time to revisit this question and start to prepare our students for intellectual cosmopolitanism instead of the existing intellectual provincialism. It is not good enough that our students are happy today. We must team up with teachers and educators for preparing students for the competitive global economy with all its uncertainties.

Parents should claim back a little of their authority over their teen-agers’ education. What we need first is some way out of oppositional thinking of parents against schools. Parents should make sure the students are more aware of their own responsibilities in becoming active learners. Without parental input students don’t seem to think farther ahead than the next test. The student’s passivity makes the teacher’s role much harder. The personal joy of achievement may change everything for teacher and learner. For middle or in high school years it will be hard to see everything that lies ahead , but it is not too early to begin to build the foundation of a quality education that in so many ways determines the caliber of life our children will live as adults.

Having access to the Internet points out the expectations of students from most other countries of the world. Challenging mathematics and science is basic to the education of most students overseas. This presents a striking difference with American programs where important material can be omitted as long as no one complains and the students are happy. Logarithms and Trigonometry are not omitted from the curricula of students overseas. Our students have to compete with graduates of other countries on a global job market.

We could help teachers to improve themselves after college. Many teachers assume they have learned all they need to know in college. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards (NCTM), the subsequent Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (PSSM) and most in-service programs’ primary concern

is the curriculum. The primary issue for teaching is the mathematical preparedness of the teachers. (The teacher who left out the chapters on Logarithms and Trigonometry used maybe the best possible curriculum available, but the excellence of the curriculum does not make up for the decision to leave out such important chapters.) Education research of the past decade shows that teaching even elementary mathematics involves substantial mathematical judgment and understanding. Teaching reasoning, connections and communication in mathematics are the key elements for excellence.

We have to help our teachers develop a combination of these skills. Developing a team effort requires mutually reinforcing academic activities of schools with the aid of academic policy-makers and professionals.

Unifying teachers, parents and students as a society of lifelong active learners will help us regardless of the perfection of detail.

Eva J. Szillery Ph.D. is director of Maine Mathematics, Science and Engineering Talent Search at the University of Maine System and Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance.