By Jenna Lin (Mathematician and Math Educator)
February 9, 2010
Regularly, I meet parents, particularly parents of gifted math enthusiasts, who are disappointed with "reformed math programs" or what many call the "New New Math," such as the Everyday Math program. I constantly encounter feelings of helplessness and solitude as parents express their frustrations. They don’t know how best to enrich their children's math education and obtain assistance from their children's educators. Due to the overwhelming number of questions regarding the New New Math curriculum, I decided to shed a little insight into the "Math Wars," going on between parents, mathematicians and educators, specifically the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), the gate keepers of the K-12 math education curriculum standards.
"The Math Wars," debate between parents, mathematicians and educators about traditional math curriculum versus reformed curriculum, have been simmering since the 1960's. The phrase was coined in the 1990's when the war came to another head after new NCTM standards were created in 1989. By then, many students lacked problem solving skills and the NCTM addressed this by creating new standards to focus on problem solving skills. They felt that calculators were the electronic pencils of today's world and with new technology, there was no longer a need for knowledge of "shopkeepers’ arithmetic." Educators felt strongly that traditional math, what they called the "kill and drill" program, had failed American students by forcing them merely to memorize algorithms, while not understanding what purpose the mathematics served. They said this led to boredom and a hatred of mathematics. The principle was, "Understanding is the key, not computations."1 They also declared that the new standards would make math less elitist and would make math education accessible by all. On page 9 of the standards, it read, "If all students do not have an opportunity to learn this mathematics, we face the danger of creating an intellectual elite and a polarized society. The image of a society in which a few have the mathematical knowledge needed for the control of economic and scientific developments is not consistent either with the values of a just democratic system or with its economic needs."2 Therefore old methods were abandoned and new standards were created.
However, these new standards were quickly attacked since they essentially abandoned basic arithmetic skills, such as memorizing multiplication facts. They also abandoned what mathematicians considered time tested and the most efficient algorithms, such as long division. The reformed math was merely watered down mathematics – diluted to give access to all - but those new standards only aggravated the problem of low academic achievement. Critics called the reformed math the "New New Math" or "fuzzy math" and said it was just the old "New Math" of the 1960's clothed differently. They also equated the fuzzy math to a failed reading pedagogy, the "whole language learning" movement. In Harvard University's student publication, The Crimson, Dr. Schmid, the Dwight Parker Robinson Professor of Mathematics and advisor to the Massachusetts Department of Education, best stated why the reformed math curriculum failed to live up to NCTM expectations:
"What had gone wrong? Preoccupied with "understanding", the "New Math" reformers had neglected computational skills. Mathematical understanding, it turned out, did not develop well without sufficient computational practice. Understanding and skills grow best in tandem, each supporting the other. In most areas of human endeavor, mastery cannot be attained without technique. Why should mathematics be different?" 3
Others critics stated:
"The advocates of the new, fuzzy math have practiced their rhetoric well. They speak of higher-order thinking, conceptual understanding and solving problems, but they neglect the systematic mastery of the fundamental building blocks necessary for success in any of these areas. Their focus is on things like calculators, blocks, guesswork, and group activities and they shun things like algorithms and repeated practice. The new programs are shy on fundamentals and they also lack the mathematical depth and rigor that promotes greater achievement." 4
To counter the "reform in math education," groups comprised of parents, mathematicians, and/or scientists, such as Mathematically Correct and Save Our Children from Mediocre Math (SOCMM), were formed to fight "on behalf of sanity and quality in math education."5 (Note: more organizations have formed since the early 90's.) These groups conducted research, published many articles, and lobbied heavily for assistance from state legislatures and from the federal government.
Two major battles (hence "Math War terminology") occurred in California and in Texas. Mathematically Correct was formed to "war" in California, but soon became a focal point to help the whole country. By the late 1990's many NTCM standards critics, mainly critics in the heat of the battle in California, sent a letter to the Secretary of Education expressing great concern about "the introduction and widespread distribution of new math textbooks with radically diminished content, and a dearth of basic skills."6 The letter was signed by nearly 200 mathematicians and scientists, including four Nobel Laureates (who have since become Secretary of Energy and three Fields Medalists), a National Medal of Science winner from the University of Chicago, and the some chairs of math departments.
Due to the major protests in California including the letter, detested curriculum such as MathLand was removed from the California public school system and Everyday Math was also abandoned for several years. Around 2006, the NCTM announced that there could be room for improvement and asserted a willingness to consult more with the American Mathematics Society (AMS). This was a radical shift. There came a new and improved edition of Everyday Mathematics, featuring more basic skills. This curriculum was adopted by California in 2007, prompting a resurgence of California’s Math Wars. Texas rejected the new 3rd edition. Major battles then migrated to Massachusetts and New York, but many occurred elsewhere. Hopefully, our educators will be able to return to the basics soon while maintaining the idea that understanding is important. Understanding often comes with mastery!
Although the math curriculum is a top concern and must be addressed, it must be noted that beyond improving the math curriculum, it is just as essential to improve the training of our educators. Many problems that occurred with reformed math involved a lack of understanding by teachers using the curriculum. Those who have a strong grasp of mathematics concepts would 1) be able to observe the gaps and errors in the curriculum and therefore would 2) be able to address those holes. Math mastery is also necessary to help students move on to higher-level thinking. If teachers are not capable of higher-level reasoning, then it will be difficult for them to effectively teach children. Much anxiety found in using curricula such as Everyday Mathematics is spread to students from teachers uncomfortable with such material.
Dr. Schmid states
"The curriculum, of course, is not the only reason for Singapore's success, nor even the most important reason. The teachers' grasp and feeling for mathematics: that is the crucial issue, already for teachers in the early grades. Here, it turns out, many of the reformers agree with the critics. Teacher training in America has traditionally and grossly stressed pedagogy over content. The implicit message to the teachers: if you know how to teach, you can teach anything! It will take a heroic effort - by math educators and mathematicians - to change the entrenched culture of teacher training."7
Hopefully, in Colorado we can work toward improved curricula and better teacher training, while setting an example for the rest of the country. In the next upcoming article, I will address how Colorado can begin to do such in "Math Essentials: Changing the Way We Train Educators and the Way We Teach Youth."
1 http://www.math.harvard.edu/~schmid/articles/wars.html
2 A quarter century of US 'math wars' and political partisanship by David Klein
California State University, Northridge, USA
3 http://www.math.harvard.edu/~schmid/articles/wars.html
4 Mathematically Correct http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/
5 Ibid
6 Ibid
7 http://www.math.harvard.edu/~schmid/articles/wars.html
About author:
Jenna Lin holds a B.A. in math and an M.S. in applied mathematics. She is an experienced teacher having taught in universities and in public and private K-12 schools, as well as an experienced private math tutor with two decades of professional tutoring experience. Jenna has also dabbled in math curriculum development, having developed math and/or science curriculum for Cherry Creek Schools, Colorado Mathematics Engineering Science Association (MESA), and University of Colorado -Denver's Area Health Education Center (AHEC), as well as served as university textbook reviewer for Cengage Learning Publishing. She currently teaches at University of Colorado-Denver and runs Math Pioneers Educational Services, which provides private math tutoring, educator workshops, and math and science camps. She is also serving on her eighth year as board member and final year as president of Cherry Creek Association for Gifted and Talented (ChCAGT), local affiliate of the Colorado Association for Gifted and Talented (CAGT). As a member of CAGT, Jenna has conducted several workshops about math instruction at the CAGT state conferences.
