For 50% of them, it's because they think this is six inches:
Posted on 04/23/2010 12:22:15 PM PDT by BruceDeitrickPrice
What follows is just a short review of a book nobody would think of reading, a paperback published in 1964 to help parents understand New Math. But if you've been wondering how our Education Establishment has managed to sabotage math skills in this country, this review will be helpful:----------------
"New Math was one of the silliest, most pretentious, and finally most unsuccessful educational gimmicks ever devised; and this book perfectly captures the idiocy of it all. In fairness, the authors were trying to do a good job but their mission is to explain the preposterous.
Prefatory copy in this book "For Teachers and Parents of Elementary School Children" brags: "Rudimentary ideas of geometric shapes are currently being introduced in kindergarten. Children in elementary school are being taught integers, coordinates, rational numbers -- bodies of knowledge formerly reserved for junior high or high school."
According to Wikipedia, "Other topics introduced in the New Math include modular arithmetic, algebraic inequalities, matrices, symbolic logic, Boolean algebra and abstract algebra."
On page 13 the authors boast, "The language and ideas of sets are begun in kindergarten and carried through all further study of mathematics as a unifying thread."
A few pages later we learn that "Principles of numeration cannot be developed effectively if confusion exists regarding the terms `number' and `numeral.' They are not synonymous. A number is a concept, an abstraction. A numeral is a symbol, a name for a number."
Another lovely quote notes: "Geometry is not presented in its classic form in the elementary grades. The child is merely given a working introduction to the study of points, lines, and shapes and their relationships. More formal work begins in the fourth grade."
Every page bristles with charts, graphs and columns of numbers that would try the understanding of the typical college freshman. And you must deal with prose such as: "Addition is an operation on two addends to produce a result called the sum. Subtraction is an operation for finding an unknown addend if the sum and one addend are known."
There are pages in this book that remind me of a college course I took (and barely passed) on symbolic logic. The authors are eager to tell us how to count on base seven, base six, base three, and base four.
Charlotte Iserbyt in her wonderful book "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" relates an anecdote about a math teacher who was inadvertently invited to a meeting of progressive educators trying to devise a curriculum to keep children from mastering math. The working title for this abomination was Modern Math. This meeting was all the way back in 1928! So it's clear that New Math was in development for a long time.
The reason this book is important to me is that I believe that just as Modern Math was a precursor to New Math, so was New Math itself a precursor to everything we now call Reform Math. The educators went back into their laboratories and devised more subtle variations of this flop, which they introduced to the public in the 1980s. I believe the sophistry remains the same up to the present: stir in advanced concepts with simple concepts so that children never master even basic arithmetic.
You can just imagine these crazy old progressives around a table in the faculty lounge laughing like hyenas as they craft such points as: "To compare rational numbers named by fractions whose numerators are 1, look at the denominators. The greater the number represented by the denominator, the smaller the rational number."
----------------------------------
That's the entire Amazon review. For more on this topic, Google "36: The Assault on Math."
THAT’s the kind of clear thinking I’m talking about!
Calculators and Computers, that’s why. Takes away the need for rote memorization, but that’s how a lot of math concepts become ingrained.
Because it is a lie. Children need to learn math in a logical progression, not be introduced to concepts early on. They need to learn how to count to 10, then 100, then higher. Then they need to learn how to add. Then they need to memorize multiplication tables, etc. Everything builds on top of another.
I don't have children, but I have nephews. I can see the results of this New Garbage when I help them with their homework. If a kid answers half the questions right and get half wrong, consistantly, then you know they are just guessing at answers and do not understand the concepts or the questions. Especially, with simple concepts like: Round these numbers to the nearest 10's: 35, 54, 12, 143. And the kid comes up with 30, 50, 20, 140.
Perhaps those 40 problems were supposed to be easy? If it was all arithmetic perhaps it was just for developing speed? If the child is comfortable with it would not take that long.
I think language is a major problem but also culture, you do not see Asian kids having same problems that kids from South/Central America do, why I have no idea to be honest, but it does seems to be the case.
2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 rounded to integer equals 2+2=5.
A dozen, a gross, and a score
Plus three times the square root of four
Divided by seven
Plus five times eleven
Equals nine square and not a bit more.
(((12+144+20)+(3*2))/7)+(5*11)=(9*9)+0
(182/7)+55=81+0
26+55=81
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
“No, there was “new math” as early as 1961, ...”
Say, I noticed you typed in your date upside down.
ROFLMAO
Makes perfect sense to me and I'm not a math guy.
2+2=3 when the government accounting office needs those numbers for pending legislation.
My reaction too. I don’t understand how teaching this is a bad thing.
I really don’t think it is actually being taught. Mind you, I have been away from the classroom for a while, so I am speculating. What I suspect is that the material is being presented in such a manner that the intent is to have the kids’ head spinning, and concluding that learning math is futile. Call it dumbing down by means of the heavy head trip. It was not present in math and science when I was in high school in the early 70’s, but it was creeping into history and literature courses at the time.
Generally speaking, abstraction is done through analogy. If kids cannot understand trivial things, they won’t be able to progress to the more abstract.
Well, I agree with you. They do need to learn the basics first. More importantly, I think they need to be held back until they have learned them. No social advancement and an emphasis on the basics. This works best for most I guess. But, I still think kids are far more able to learn advanced concepts than we give them credit for.
If you really want to see a disaster, check out this youtube. It’s an explanation of what the heck they are teaching our children.
Long, but very worth it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI
Thanks for the ping. The main problem with mathematics education is mathematics educators.
For 50% of them, it's because they think this is six inches:
“smater
???”
Exactly, my dad who was educated to only 8th grade int he 30’s wouldn’t have made that error. Point is made.
This is how they tried to teach me. I was completely confused and my parents did not understand how to help me. They taught me arithmetic and it has served me well. I have a deep mistrust of the educational system to this day from my bad experience with the “New Math and Educational System.” I never went to high school, I got my GED and have done very well.
10 thumbs up. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.