Treating mathematics as a “necessary evil”
A recent notification issued by the JKBOSE proposes the so-called “Dual Level Math Exam” to be comprised of Level 1 (Basic Level) and Level 2 (Standard Level) which is being contemplated for implementation at the 10th class. The proposal stipulates that Level-1 which is being advertised as the “easier” option of the two shall be compulsory whereas the option of selecting Level-2 shall be open to those students who wish to opt for maths as one of the courses at the 11th standard. Further, in its effort to gauge the public mood on the merit and efficacy of the proposal, the Board, in its wisdom, has sought public opinion including from the “stakeholders”. However, considering that the consequences expected to follow from the implementation of the proposal shall have serious implications on the future of mathematics in Jammu and Kashmir, taking a final call on the issue of implementation of the proposed policy on the strength of inputs from the students and the general public makes little sense.
That is so because the general public is not expected to be equipped with the expertise and experience to provide informed inputs on an issue which is too technical for them to comment upon. Only those who have been involved in teaching mathematics at some level over a period of time are qualified to expatiate on the advisability of implementation and on the implications and consequences of such a proposal. Pertinently, something similar was witnessed recently when mathematicians across the country came together to sign a petition against the draft of UGC’s ‘learning outcome-based curriculum framework’ for mathematics which is now set to be withdrawn from implementation.
On a first reading, it appears that the idea behind the proposal is nothing more than to minimise the quality and content that a 10th grade student would be required to opt for and walk into the next higher grade without ever having to revert back to mathematics. The vacuity of this provision should be obvious once it is realised that the student would almost always opt out of maths early during their school education to get away with the barest minimum quantum of very basic maths without the need to go through what is considered to be the irreducibly minimum dose of ‘good’ maths comprising Level 2 as envisaged in the proposal. That would deprive the student to learn that part of basic maths that would come in handy in their career down the line, regardless of which career they choose to opt for. As opposed to this, the Board would have done itself and math education a greater service if it had chosen to address the ‘elephant in the room’ which is there, live and kicking, in the shape of an abysmally poor math pedagogy which remains in an eternally shambolic state right now. The issue has assumed such dangerous proportions that the need is to tackle it head-on that would necessitate a complete overhaul of the mode of teaching mathematics. The quick fix solution as proposed by the Board is short on insight as it merely seeks to dilute the existing math curriculum that lacks merit, reason and justification and falls miserably short on long term planning to address the issue of math phobia among the students. As elaborated upon in detail elsewhere, that is mainly on account of poor teaching made worse by structural malfeasance involving the selection of math teachers and an absence of post- selection professional training protocol for school teachers on a sustained basis.
At best, the proposal reeks of an attempt to present mathematics as a “necessary evil” that deserves to be gotten out of the way soon enough, so that the students could hope to ‘breathe freely’ thereafter and to opt for courses which are ‘easier’, socially relevant or market friendly. Nothing could be farther from the truth! The point is that as distinct from other disciplines, a reasonably good exposure to maths at least up to the 12th standard- and preferable up to the 3-year degree course - is essential for a better, more nuanced understanding of other disciplines that one may choose to pursue as a career option. With the proposal of the new two-level math. scheme, the Board is closing doors for the students to pursue a fruitful and eventful career in sciences.
Behind all of this is the general perception in public, not excluding among the policy pundits and more so among the students, that “Math is hard”. However, such a mindset bespeaks crass ignorance about maths and misses a very fundamental point. If anything, by that analogy, history or philosophy or organic chemistry may be perceived as being ‘easier’ and hence, more amenable to understanding. On the contrary, the fact remains that these latter subjects are considerably more ‘complex’. And that’s precisely because these disciplines are too complex to lend themselves to “mathematisation” in terms of a mathematical formulation of its concepts and theory that brings clarity and perspicacity to the table. It’s nobody’s case to contend that maths is simple.
Far from that actually. In view of the abstract nature of the subject, maths is indeed comparably harder than other disciplines but that’s because of a trade-off in terms of the dividends that it pays and the value that it brings to our understanding of the world around us, which is precious and immeasurable! It’s the use and application of mathematics in diverse areas of science that lends perspective to our understanding that would have been missing in the absence of mathematics playing a part in our attempt to make sense of what’s going on around us. In essence, while maths may indeed be hard, it’s far less complex as it seeks to demystify the underlying complexity hidden inside the objects of study in mathematics - the mathematical structures. On the other hand, subjects like history and philosophy are far too complex to lend themselves to mathematical tools to ‘de-complexify’ the underlying complexity that lurks behind them, thus resulting in no better than an ‘approximate’ understanding of the deeper subtleties of the subject. That should make clear the fine distinction between what is considered to be ‘hard’ and what is actually ‘complex’.
In the light of what has been said in the previous paragraphs, the proposal floated by the JKBOSE is ill-conceived at best and deserves to be shelved for now. The least that the Board may consider planning to do is to propose a solid foundation of mathematics to ALL the students up to class 12th which would be based on the course contents that form the curriculum of maths across the major Boards of school education in the country. Alongside that, serious efforts have to be put in place to improve math pedagogy in the schools which, apart from other requirements, entails the need for the teacher to know and learn the content with absolute clarity and comprehension before sharing it with the students. Only in such circumstances would it be possible for the teacher to instil conceptual understanding of the material in the minds of the student as opposed to passive transfer of knowledge to them. Once these issues are sorted out with proper planning and due diligence, there will be no room for shortcuts that the proposal under reference seeks to offer as a remedy. Let the policy pundits take note of that, while reminding themselves that there are no shortcuts to excellence.
