There was an article today in the New York Times entitled As Math Scores Lag, a New Push for the Basics. The article is about “rethinking” the teaching of mathematics, which has been prompted by students’, lagging test scores on international tests. The blame is put squarely on the “new math” which some label as “fuzzy math.” Another words, any reform that took place in mathematics MUST HAVE BEEN implemented nation-wide, and as a result students don’t know how to do long division, and other arithmetic skills. So the remedy is throw out the reform mathematics and associated teaching, and return to the “basics.” This is what college basketball and baseball coaches advocate when their teams are not doing well—let’s focus on the basics.

Not a bad idea. On the surface, at least.

But not really. Ok, now let’s switch disciplines, and focus on science teaching. We don’t do too well on international tests in science either. I guess we could blame the “new science” or something along that line. Again, the premise is that students have been exposed to science teaching that advocates inquiry and discovery learning, and these approaches have been implemented nation-wide. And when students in nation-wide testing programs are compared with their international counterparts, they don’t appear on the top of the list of countries.

The problem with these analyses is that international (or national standardized tests) don’t really “measure” what’s going on in mathematics or science classrooms. But that’s the minor part of the argument. The major part of the argument is that the reform mathematics, or inquiry and discovery teaching are not reflected in studies done that focus on what teachers and students are doing the classroom. In American science classrooms, recitation and canned lab work is a more accurate picture of science teaching, not student inquiry and discovery. So the reforms that people claim might have “caused” the calamity of low test scores does not “measure up” because the majority of students never experienced those innovations. And this is not an new idea. Researchers have reported these kinds of findings for years—and years.

We have tended to blame innovation for a laundry list of academic problems particularly on how students do on traditional, standardized tests. I doubt that the innovation caused the problem. In studies done when researches looked at the innovation, results on achievement and attitude toward learning were favorable. The problem is that not many students experience these innovations.

What is needed now is NOT a return to the basics, but a basic plan to instill innovation in schooling, and encourage teachers and schools to look for creative ways of working with students.