A great pumpkinAuthor(s): David R. JohnsonSource: The Mathematics Teacher, Vol. 71, No. 7 (OCTOBER 1978), p. 562Published by: National Council of Teachers of MathematicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27961363 .

Accessed: 13/09/2014 13:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Mathematics Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 153.216.41.254 on Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:53:41 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

reader

A great pumpkin

I thought readers might enjoy seeing the Nicolet High School Mathematics Department pumpkin. It was carved

by Steven Shlensky, a member of our honors mathematics class.

David R. Johnson Nicolet High School Glendale, WI 53217

Divisibility note Karl Messmer and Jane Tanner made an interesting dis

covery that certain three-digit numbers are divisible by 7 or 13 (April 1978 "Reader Reactions"). It turns out that any number with an even number of digits is divisible by 11 if the first and last digits are the same and all the digits in between are the same. For example, 2002 is divisible by 11, as is 399993 or 72222227.

Rod Smith JCN Middle School

Winchester, KS 66097

Basic premises Robert Reysand Margaret Kasten wrote an interesting

article, "Changes Needed in the Current Direction of Mini mal Competency Testing in Mathematics" (February 1978). They list "false premises" about minimal competency, in

cluding the following:

1. A list of the basic skills in mathematics exists. . . .

2. Minimal competency tests provide a valid measure of

performance. 3. The skills needed to produce a score above the accept

able minimum . . . will be retained. . . .

Similar premises underlie many tests, such as the GED

high school equivalency examination, college entrance ex

aminations, or union examinations for apprentices. The ra tionale for teaching and testing for certain skills is that once

you have learned them you can reiearn them much more

easily than if you had never previously studied them. I am concerned with the widespread ignoranceof basic

mathematics among adults. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, documents that about a

third of the adults in the sample could not add 1/2 and 1/3

(Math Fundamentals: Selected Results from the First Na tional Assessment of Mathematics, Mathematics Report No. 04-MA-01, 1975).

I believe that when adults cannot perform basic mathe matical skills, they cannot get good jobs and are prey to fraud. I see the competency tests as a way of helping people and encouraging more support for education in mathemat ics. Of course the tests should not be used to judge individ ual teachers or schools but should serve as a way of encour

aging the teaching and learning of mathematics.

Elizabeth Berman

University of Missouri?Kansas City Kansas City, MO 64110

Editor's Note: Robert E. Reys responds: Professor Ber man's letter contains nothing to refute the concern ex

pressed in our article, namely that the current direction of minimal competency testing is not in the best interest of mathematics education. Our concern was not with the issue of evaluation, which can be an integral part of the mathe matics program, but rather the spirit in which current as sessments are being developed and implemented.

I applaud her attempt to interpret the young adult data from the 1972-73 mathematics assessment. Yet her claim of

widespread mathematical ignorance in the young adult pop ulation is a questionable overgeneralization; particularly given the evidence cited. A thorough examination of the

young adult data in mathematics will certainly reveal some

strengths and weaknesses (see the Mathematics Teacher, October 1975, and Phi Delta Kappan, November 1976), but the contention of ignorance is tenuous at best.

562 Mathematics Teacher

This content downloaded from 153.216.41.254 on Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:53:41 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions