New "New Math"

Yesterday I was helping my grandson with his second grade math homework. He's a bright little boy-GT identified, reading at a fifth grade level. He's good in science and has a great attitude. He's curious, excited and wants to know more. He's creative and innovative-but that's not what is valued in the new "New Math."

He doesn't understand the new math.
He doesn't understand why he's supposed to guess the answer when he can figure out the answer.
And nothing that previous generations knew about "carrying" numbers when adding applies. In fact teachers actively warn parents against teaching this archaic method of adding and subtracting.
I remember being that second grader-going through exactly the same methods of factoring.
It was 1965 and it was called "New Math." We had plastic slates with wipe off markers, a plastic abacus and an excited grad student leading through an array of math exercises.

I am a "New Math" victim. Although I understand how numbers work and I'm good enough with numbers to do my own taxes (although I have a professional check them....)I did lousy in Algebra1 and Algebra 2. I was great in Geometry and could easily use math in applied science classes, but the aim of "New Math" in 1965 was to prepare students for The Future, complete with the burgeoning promise of Computers. I couldn't do higher math. In fact the convoluted methodology of "New Math" I was fearful of even trying. I had a teacher who would mark correct answers wrong if I didn't follow the exact methods. This isn't how real problems are solved. Any mathematician will tell you there are endless methods to solve problems. Math is training in logic and logic is the product of the mind's organization. How can you read someone's mind? By eighth grade I had basically given up on math, trusting my ability with writing and reading to cover for me. That decision to monkey around with the way a seven year old sees the world can have terrible implications down the road.

I looked at my grandson's homework paper, which included breaking down numbers by ones, tens and hundreds and factoring the individual numbers to "find" the answer. I could show my grandson how to do it, but I could not explain why he had to do it in such a long winded and awkward fashion. What is worse is I know next year he will be expected to perform these twisted problems on the state STAAR test and if he doesn't solve them EXACTLY as taught he will lose scoring points even if he finds the correct answer. The problem is that like my grandson, I wasn't content with estimates and guessing. Bright kids wouldn't ever be content. Yet the methods being used insist that students deal with approximate answers rather than finding the definitive answers. What is worse is this denies students the very intellectual flexibility and independence that the system claims to foster.

If you look at this on a larger scale, this demonstrates what is wrong with our educational infrastructure. We have grad students and education wonks using social theory to impose ideology on everything from race to religion in the context of a school day. Teaching core subjects has become a side issue because from what it appears the methods of teaching every skill from writing and reading to adding and subtracting is being measured and monitored for everything but accuracy. Instead it appears that testing entities are trying to hit the sweet spot where they can congratulate themselves that key demographic groups are "finally successful." This is aligned with the insistence that teachers turn classrooms into entertainment venues complete with games and prizes. In the meantime the truly bright students are bored to tears and either test out or drop out. The rights of the normal kids are ignored in order to create a vast safety net for students who often choose not to excel.

Whatever happened to just teaching the material and expecting students to learn?
What happened to requiring students to attend class and participate?
What happened to administrators worrying more about overall student success than the failures of the random few?
I predict that like the 1965 "New Math" this too will be shelved. Unfortunately, like "Whole Language", by then five or six grades of students will have been negatively impacted. If you don't think "Whole Language" was a bust, ask anyone from age 26 to 30 how much they like to read and if they feel they were well taught or had to play catch up in high school.