For those of you who didn’t have the privilege of knowing and working
with Jan de Lange, you missed a force of nature. Jan was a man of
extraordinary energy. He commanded any room he walked into. As director
of the Freudenthal Institute in Utrecht in the Netherlands, he made
an outsized impact on mathematics education—in the Netherlands and throughout
the world. In the 1990s, it was impossible to read about mathematics
education and not see his name or learn about his curriculum experiments.
I met Jan in Leeds, England in 1989 at a conference on the popularization
of mathematics. He was well into writing a new version of the Dutch curriculum,
based on applications and modeling. How I envied him: Five years to design the curriculum, another five years to train Dutch K-12 teachers before implementation. (Compare that to the roll-out of the Common Core almost before the ink was dry!). Jan became both a colleague and a friend.
Fast-forward to 1992, when I was writing the COMAP proposal to the
National Science Foundation for a comprehensive secondary school curriculum.
I asked Jan whether he and his Freudenthal team would help us
on the assessments for the ARISE project (which led to Mathematics: Modeling
Our World, an integrated core curriculum for high school based on
the premise that students learn best when they are actively involved in the
process). He was happy to work on it with us. But on Day 1, he explained
how, like many Dutch people, he tended to be frank. As I came to understand,
“frank” meant that he would quite openly criticize anything we
wrote that he didn’t agree with—and that was pretty much everything.
But Jan and his team—Henk van der Kooij, Anton Roodhardt, and Dédé
de Haan—worked and lived with us on our six-week summer writing sessions
for four years, providing the grade 9-11 assessments. And what assessments
they are! If you ever get a chance, you should read through
the assessments package for Mathematics: Modeling Our World. Whatever
you may think of the curriculum that we wrote or of teaching mathematics
through modeling and applications, I dare say that you would pray to have
high school students be able to get their heads around these problems. In
my opinion, this is some of the best work COMAP has ever published.
And it was more than worth those daily arguments with Jan and his team
to produce them.
While Jan was a serious man, he had a lovely sense of humor. Consider
the assessments that he tried to get past us. One was a problem on the
growth of bird populations. As with all of the assessments from Freudenthal,
they were based on real data, in this case, about real birds. However,
the title of the assessment was the name of the bird species: great tits. For
9th grade. Jan called me all sorts of reactionary names for vetoing that
one. A second assessment, for geometry classes, featured a painting by
Salvador Dali of a head of Lincoln. The head is finely pixelated, and in
one pixel there is a small but quite clear picture of a woman in full frontal
nudity. Again, Jan ridiculed my veto. I swear that his team was trying to
see how carefully I read their work!
And that was Jan—serious, dedicated, frank, opinionated, stubborn as
all hell, and a man who loved a good joke and a hearty laugh. In his later
years, as he observed his own children growing up, his research moved
away from curriculum design to trying to understand our native mathematical
abilities and interest. He came to see school as a place where that
natural-born mathematical aptitude was systematically destroyed. This
work absorbed him until the end of his life.
Jan was an original thinker who had the ability to influence those around
him. It was my privilege to have known him. He will be sorely missed.