What Are Math Pathways? A Good Thing?

From what I see, it sure looks like “we” have decided that math pathways are a good thing.  What does the phrase refer to?  Are they usually a good thing?

The first question is more difficult than most people would expect.  Most definitions are implied … a set of objects is called a math pathway.  Digging a little deeper, the most common reason that set of objects is called a math pathway is that the identified objects form a sequence of courses which avoid algebra when possible.  As you know, there is a strong belief in the assertion that most people do not need algebra; calling something a ‘math pathway’ gives it a nice sound and appeals to this belief.

So, what mathematics remains in a curriculum (excuse me, a math pathway) if we generally avoid algebra?  We could choose to include deeper concepts from geometry, a strong background in proportionality including judging its validity in diverse situations, or other topics meant to strengthen the mathematical abilities of the students. What is the most common focus in math pathways?  “What do they need in statistics or quantitative reasoning?”  Are creating a curriculum for our students based on Lone Star’s direction after his Winnebago ran out of gas:

Take only what you NEED to survive!   [Spaceballs]

In some math pathways, content is only included if it passes this test of immediacy — We will teach it only if students really need it in basic statistics (or quantitative reasoning).

In other words, “math pathway” involves both algebra avoidance and restricting content on what is needed for one specific class.  Compare this to the traditional college/dev math program … which involved algebra obsession and restricting content to what is needed for one specific class (college algebra).  I would suggest that the vast majority of modern math pathways are just as faulty as the traditional math courses they replaced for those students.

Many of the math pathways are specifically targeted to statistics.  The role of statistics in mathematics education has been debated here before (see  Plus Four — The Role of Statistics in Mathematics Edation).  However, think about WHY statistics is being so commonly used as a general education ‘math’ course — people see it as “practical”.  [Many of the quantitative reasoning courses suffer from the same ‘usefulness’ syndrome.]  Few people seem to be questioning this love affair with statistics.  Sure, there are ‘studies’ which indicate that a number of occupations involve the use and interpretation of data.  Some of the largest occupations in this group are nursing and related programs.  Certainly, people with a long-term goal of being a high-level nurse (perhaps supervising and administering a clinic or hospital) will need to use statistics to carry out their work.  However, the vast majority of nursing graduates — especially at the associate degree level — are expected to have a different skill set, including a bit of algebra.  At the same time, the statistics class does nothing to help students deal with the mathematics they encounter in their science courses (proportionality and algebra).

It is my hope that we will awake from our current sleepy state and critically assess the proper role of statistics as a general education math course.

Some readers may have had the dubious pleasure of attending one of the various presentations I have made over the years, and some of this group my puzzle at the apparent lack of support for practical applications in this post.  We often hear more like we want to believe … I have advocated for mathematics that helps our students succeed, and — sometimes — this involves a focus on the practical.  Education is not achieved by learning only the mathematics a person can see applied at a point in time; that is a description of training.  We are mathematics educators, not occupational trainers.

On the other hand, ‘math pathways’ is beginning to be used to include all targets including calculus.  AMATYC, for example, has a grand committee on pathways.  That is fine, I suppose.

To the extent that math pathways help us improve the mathematics all students experience in our courses, math pathways are a good thing.  My motivation for the “New Life Project” New Life Project (AMATYC, et al) was based on this goal; the support of New Life for Pathways was coincidental.  Perhaps math pathways have improved the mathematics experienced by those students in the stat or “QR” pathways … I might be wrong that they haven’t.  However, why would we want to focus so much on the non-STEM students?  All students have dreams and aspirations; we should be encouraging and enabling many more of our students to see their STEM potentials.  Why should STEM students receive a second class education?

I believe that math pathways have been a net negative.  We have improved “outcomes” but not mathematics.

All of our students deserve good mathematics.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

1 Comment

• 

  By Laura, September 18, 2018 @ 1:21 am

  I share your frustration, Jack. All of our students deserve to learn good mathematics, not just to check a box on their program plan.

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.