Sunday, September 20, 2009

New Math is Dead & Reform Math is Circling the Drain

This past week I heard about 5 people say something about "this New Math". It makes me laugh. It seems New Math is still getting blamed for poor math skills some 30 years after its death. That's right people, there is no such thing as New Math anymore. Now, if you were in school in the 60's to early 70's, you might have actually been taught New Math. But starting in the mid-70's, Reform Math replaced New Math.

Here is the brief history of math instruction:
1900-1957...Traditional Math
Traditional Math is exactly that, traditional. Students work alone and are taught basic skills using the skill and drill method. The lessons are teacher driven and the tests are basic pencil and paper. Traditional Math met its demise when the Russians launched Sputnik in October 1957. This was the wake-up call...Americans are failing in math compared to the rest of the civilized world.

1960's...New Math
New Math came to the rescue. It promised to boost students' performance in math. It failed miserably! New Math required that students of all ages learn mathematical laws and principles. Students didn't learn math using drill method, but through trying to understand how to apply math law.

1975-Present...Reform Math
Enter the beginning of Constructivism. Students "discover" math rather than learning it. Math concepts are not drilled. Teachers facilitate rather than teach. I believe that this works to a point, but as with anything, an all or nothing approach usually leads to failure. The benefit of Reform Math is that students began to love math again. The downside is that students are not learning basic skills, don't know their fact families, and have little mathematical understanding. Yet, the schools expect these students to score well on standardized tests.

It is amazing that the current method of teaching math (constructivism) and the current method of assessing math (standardized test) were never meant to co-exist. Constructivism calls for the elimination of grades and standardized tests! The purpose of lessons in a constructivist classroom is to build or construct your own meaning. It moves away from memorization and regurgitation of correct answers. Yet, the current assessment tool, the TAKS, is a standardized test!

All of this causes me to ask the question, who is in charge of making these decisions? My guess is people who have had little to no classroom experience and who's degrees, if in education, are decades old. I find it so bizarre that the people responsible for making decisions about public education at the state and national level know virtually nothing about education. How can we expect excellence from our students when we have designed a system that sets them up to fail?



I found this funny joke:

Teaching Math in the 1950s (Traditional): A logger sells a load for $100. His production cost is 4/5 of the price. How much is his profit?

Teaching Math in the 1970s (New Math):
A logger trades a set “L” (of lumber) for a set “M” (of money). The cardinality of set “M” is 100. The cardinality of subset “C” (his cost) is 20 less than “M”. What is the cardinality of set “P” (his profit)?

Teaching Math in the 1990s (Reform):
A logger sells a load for $100. Her production is $80 and her profit is $20. Your assignment: underline the number 20.
(notice the logger is now female!)


Please pass this along to anyone who still thinks there is such a thing as New Math.

0 comments:

Post a Comment