Controlled Burns in the Forest of Developmental Mathematics

Are there connections, or parallel conditions, between the worsening wildfires and developmental mathematics?  The destruction of a wildfire is terrible, and this post is not meant to minimize the problems experienced in that process.  However, it occurs to me that we can learn some lessons from fire management techniques.

Specifically, the overall danger from wildfires can be managed do some extent by setting controlled burns — fires deliberately set, with an expected path and amount of burn.  The process of a controlled burn is intended to reduce both the amount of flammable material AND the risk of fires spreading quickly in a region.  The forest, in effect, is made more healthy by intentionally burning some of it.

Now, the big problem with wildfires is that conditions have created larger and more aggressive fires, especially in regions of the American West.  The effects of climate change have increased the mean temperature in the areas as well as reduced the annual precipitation.

Some of us might  see developmental mathematics as being consumed by uncontrolled wildfires.  These wildfires come with catchy phrases — “corequisite remediation” and “multiple measures” being two of the most common fires.  We focus our attention on the wildfire; we fail to see the conditions which required some type of fire in developmental mathematics.

Between 1970 and 2010, enrollment in developmental mathematics grew … and grew.  We also tended to create additional non-credit math courses in dev math.  Given the poor results guaranteed by a long sequence, a correction is necessary.  Since we (in the profession) did not manage to create a controlled burn to limit the danger, outside forces released the wildfires of co-requisite remediation and multiple measures.

Eventually, the co-requisite remediation and multiple measures “wild fires” will burn up all of the readily available fuel.  Quite a bit of this destruction was necessary given the climate and conditions in developmental mathematics.  Some of the destruction was not necessary, like the areas of a forest that did not need to burn but the wildfire could not be controlled.  Many of us are dealing with both types of destruction in developmental mathematics.

The necessary destruction includes:

• sequences of length greater than 2 (prior to college level math, including ‘college algebra’)
• content based on an obsolete K-12 structure
• teaching methodologies based on low-level learning of unimportant mathematics

The valuable parts of developmental mathematics can still be saved from the wildfire.  These valuable parts include:

1. college-prep math courses focused on mathematical reasoning for adults
2. a balance between general education and math for specific programs or target courses
3. mathematics faculty skilled in delivering courses which dramatically increase the abilities of the students

These properties of future prep mathematics represent our commitment to support the success of all students, in future mathematics … in science courses … and in academia in general.

We, in the profession, will need to play the role of fire fighters who work to change a wildfire into a controlled burn.  A good result from a wildfire is improbable without intense effort by a committed group of people.  We can work to create a fire break to limit the continued burning from “co-requisite remediation” and “multiple measures”.  The total destruction of developmental mathematics is possible if we are not willing to do the hard work of stopping the wildfire.

This is about us, not about the people who started these wildfires. Are we willing to do what it takes to be able to continue to provide developmental mathematics that makes a difference to our students?  Do we see equal access and upward mobility as worthy goals?

I hope you will stand against the wildfires and work with me for the future of developmental mathematics.

2 Comments

• 

  By Susan Jones, November 20, 2018 @ 6:14 pm

  hmmm… it’s an interesting metaphor. I really like the three bullet points, especially the third one, but… what exactly are we burning in the “controlled burn?” Are they the students that we’re fine with leaving behind, as long as our efforts are at least an improvement?

• 

  By Jack Rotman, November 21, 2018 @ 10:17 am

  In the metaphor, the controlled burn is burning our concepts (especially the misconceptions) about what developmental mathematics IS. In the physical world, these are represented by courses and sets of courses; therefore, the controlled burn is destroying courses and the support structure for those courses.
  Any decision (or lack of) has an impact on students. The wildfires are helping some students and hurting others, though I’m using the metaphor to talk about us (our profession, our practices).

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.