Monday, November 20, 2006

More on the new math

Another letter to the editor from someone in Needham protesting the new math. This writer claims that since the so-called Investigations program was implemented in Needham five years ago, fourth-grade MCAS scores have gone from 80% proficient/advanced to 56%.

Here is a quote from a New York parent and high school math teacher who spoke at a math forum in May 2005:

When these types of curricula were introduced in District 2 in the 90's, they were already highly controversial. They had been in use in both California and Texas where parents and educators protested their use in great numbers and with varying effect. In numerous cases, the curricula were replaced by more traditional ones. Never had there been such a controversial attempt at math reform. I recall the "new math" of the 70's and how disastrous a reform attempt that was. Even that failed effort generated significantly less negative publicity than this.

I, too, remember the new math of the 70's and while I escaped it, my younger siblings were not so fortunate and were forced to overcome math phobias and undergo remedial math in college.

More from the New York math teacher, parent and spokesperson:

We send our kids to math tutors in record numbers. Intelligent, hard working kids have trouble doing simple math. We who have grown up with an understanding of elementary mathematics find that we can't help our kids; that many of the games they play and homework they do are so convoluted we either can't figure them out or don't see their significance......When we speak to school officials about our frustration we're condescendingly told that we just need to understand what they're doing.

We have heard these same complaints from Lowell parents. Do parents understand the theory behind constructivist math programs? Again, here is how our "guest" describes and cirtiques the theory:

Constructivist mathematics curricula attempt to teach mathematics by having the students "discover" their own methods for solving problems. A great deal of time and energy is spent having students "discover" things such as if you're multiplying 98 x 28 , you could multiply the "friendly number 100" x 28 and from that subtract that extra 2x28. 2x28 can be found by multiplying 2x30 and subtracting 2x2. This is fine for this problem and in fact is how many good mathematicians would perform this computation in their heads. However, it takes too long and it won't work for calculations such as 34 x 67, 286 x 327, or most others one would need to perform. The purpose of a standard algorithm is to easily and quickly solve a whole class of problems. It generalizes. We can do all problems of this type with the standard multiplication algorithm. In the constructivist curricula, a similarly haphazard way of working with fractions is taught, with similarly disastrous results.

Tomorrow, I will search for an opposing position. To read the full transcripts of the above remarks, visit http://www.nychold.com. Click on the 'letters and testimony' link and scroll down to Bruce Winokur's position paper link.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home