At the Altar of Alignment

The answer to all questions is “42” (see Hitchhikers Guide).  The solution to all problems is “alignment”.  Academic leaders, government officers, and policy makers are using the word “alignment” in attempts to address many perceived failures in academia.  Alignment is not even a necessary property, and is certainly not sufficient, for an academic system to be successful.

At the micro-level, people tell us to align course outcomes.  If course A is a prerequisite to course B, then the outcomes should be “aligned”. In cases where our goals are strictly operational (just the doing, not the understanding nor the reasoning), we can align courses.  I’d suggest that this is a very weak methodology for a mathematics curriculum, since aligning outcomes directs our attention to the fine levels of granularity as opposed to the basic story line of a course.  A stronger design is to focus on mathematical abilities being developed over time … both within a course as well as across courses.  Alignment is often counter-productive in mathematics.

At the mid-level, we are told to align the mathematics required with the needs of the student’s program.  In other words, if the primary quantitative need of an occupation is the consumption of statistics, then the mathematics required for the program should be a statistics course.  As attractive as this alignment might be … the practice is based on two unfounded assumptions — (1) that a student KNOWS what they plan to become when they begin college, and (2) that this plan is relatively stable over time for each student.  Unless we plan to return society to pre-global, pre-fluid periods for occupations, alignment is a dis-service to many students.   Instead of alignment, we’d be better served by offering a good mixture of valuable mathematics, not specialized.

At the macro-level, we try to align K-12 mathematics with college mathematics (or, vice versa).  The unfounded presumption here is that K-12 mathematics exists primarily to prepare students for college mathematics. And, there is an assumption that this ‘alignment’ (whatever it means in this context) will make a significant difference.  Like aligning course outcomes, aligning levels of education tends to push our attention down to small details —  in other words, alignment is based on focusing on insignificant details while ignoring larger concerns.  For this level alignment, think about what would be more powerful:

• Students have mastered skills A1 to A5, B1 to B7, C1 to C4, and D1 to D8 which logically can be followed by A6 to A9, B8 to B12, C5 to C10, and D9 to D11.OR
• Students develop learning and academic skills (including mathematics) to develop reasonable proficiency as well as an ability to learn in a variety of situations using different tools.

We spend time at the altar of alignment, working on ‘solutions’ which have little chance of helping students.  Education is much more than the sum of a finite series of detailed objectives … education is much more than learning just the mathematics needed for an expected occupation … education is more than a series of steps which present a surface logic but lack power in a person’s life.

Our time would be better spent in seeking a vision and some wisdom on educating students, educating them for capacities and success.  The checklist success of alignment is worthless compared to the benefits of education done well.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.