Math Wars

[Kathleen in VA]

Here is an article about parents teaching their children "old math" at home while their children are learning "new math" at school. It is a truth *not* universally acknowledged that all parents are homeschoolers to some extent or another ;).

[Michelle in MO]

I had no idea I was a renegade! What on earth possessed me to think that I could actually teach math "old style" to my kids??? ;) Please, don't turn me over to the conceptual math police!

 

Kathleen, as usually you've posted an excellent article! Did you see this thread that Holly in NNV started a week ago? It's a must-read.

 

I ranted about this last spring when I visited one of our local K-8 private schools. You see, we won't be officially homeschooling next year. After much prayer and consideration, our three girls will be attending a private Catholic school 30-minutes' away from our house. It's the best environment for them academically, and the staff has been absolutely wonderful, even though we are Protestants. This is all because I'm going back to school after dh had a health scare last fall. The school follows a very solid, traditional curriculum.

 

At any rate, I was so upset that I posted this thread about it on the h.s. boards. Our h.s. has decided that it can "dictate" to the two K-8 private schools what they should use for 8th grade algebra. Unfortunately, the 8th grade algebra series they picked out, Cord Algebra A and B, is one of the worst algebra textbooks I've ever seen! It is indeed that "conceptual mathematics" this article speaks of. I was shocked to find out that our local p.s. district does not have textbooks for math, at least not in the middle school years! Parents are clueless how to help their children.

 

Ugh! I could go on and on. OK---I'll turn off the rant now. But, I suggest you take a look at these threads. Thanks so much, Kathleen, for posting this excellent article. I would rep. you if I could, but I guess I have to spread some more around, first. :(

[TracyR]

I actually prefer the old math style. I really do. I was taught with that new aged math stuff and it confused me so much I hated math. Then one year in 8th grade Algebra( I was actually in 11th grade). We had a teacher that said " this is how you do it." For the first time ever I understood math for that whole year.

 

Then for 12th I took Algebra 2 and had one of those techy teachers and I didn't understand it one bit. So I dropped that class and finished out with General math. Which stunk because I was the only girl in that class.

 

I feel if I was taught , the old way then I would of had a much better understanding in math. My inlaws were taught the old way and they are much better and confident with math then unfortunatley I'll ever be.

[Mari]

So, to help me understand this article and discussion more, would you say math-u-see is more conceptual based or traditional?

 

Could anyone give me examples of both that we homeschoolers might use? I'm guessing Rod and Staff, Abeka, and MCP might fall under the traditional category.

 

I ask because I'm researching math curricula right now and would opt for a more traditional approach.

--Mari

[HollyinNNV]

Here is an article about parents teaching their children "old math" at home while their children are learning "new math" at school. It is a truth *not* universally acknowledged that all parents are homeschoolers to some extent or another ;).

 

I was interested to find out there is new math and new new math. I am still trying to read through the articles the Myrtle generously posted. Myrtle could give you better dates, but it seems that New Math started around 1950's whereas New New Math began in the 70's. Is that at all accurate, Myrtle?

 

I wish I could come up with a big generalization to summarize what each trend includes. I'm trying to synthesize what I've read so far. I HAVE found that mathematicians tend to go around and around with mathematical examples before they summarize. So, it is hard for me to completely "get" what they are saying.

 

So, I'm totally ready to be corrected here:

 

Old Math-Relied on memorization. Many students and teachers did not necessarily understand the concepts behind the memorized rules. Less application in higher level concepts.

 

New Math-Concept based. Uses proofs. I think I was probably taught this way. My teacher was pretty old (set in his ways) and the books were pretty old in the 80's. We had to completely go through the quadratic equation and used proofs (I think). They took forever to go through and prove. While application was part of the course, I remember a lot of math in theory form.

 

New New Math-I'm confused as to what this is........? It seems that at the heart of it is student-led instruction taken to the extreme. For some reason, it also includes many alternate ways of doing math practices. While most of us tend to set up double digit multiplication in one standard way, new math includes different procedures. New math also seems to indicate that students must, by self-discovery, learn various truths about math. New new math also heavily relies on calculators.

 

OK-Please help me out where I've missed the boat!

Holly

[Kathleen in VA]

So, to help me understand this article and discussion more, would you say math-u-see is more conceptual based or traditional?

 

Could anyone give me examples of both that we homeschoolers might use? I'm guessing Rod and Staff, Abeka, and MCP might fall under the traditional category.

 

I ask because I'm researching math curricula right now and would opt for a more traditional approach.

--Mari

 

Mari,

 

I really don't know because I'm not familiar with MUS. I have used Abeka and Rod and Staff and I would definitely put them in the traditional camp. If you don't get an answer in this thread from anyone who knows, I suggest starting a thread with this question. I'm curious to know too.

[Diane]

Funny that you would post this. I am very undecided on a math curriculum. I am borrowing my friend's MUS right now, and as my dh and I look through it, we are saying, "What the heck is this, where did that number come from?". We always used Horizons but are looking for something else now. I'm leaning toward traditional. (I think.)

[Deana FL]

I remember the days when the teacher would mark it wrong if I didn't show my work. So I think I've been trained to HAVE to work it out on paper rather than "conceptualizing" the problem.

 

Funny, though...my son is a natural at math and he is all the time coming up with correct answers in his head and when he goes to explain it to me..I sit there dumbfounded. I'm like the mother in the article that said "I'm a numbskull" lol...

 

However, it's liberating to know that I should let my son do his math the way he wants and not require to see his work all the time. He really is better than me...but I'm not about to admit it.

 

Thanks for sharing that article!

[Ali in OR]

Tried to rep you just for the P&P reference, but it won't let me! I don't give rep that often, but I must be trying to rep the same few people over and over.

 

Anyway, I read the article with some interest. I became a math teacher in 1989 right when those standards came out. But don't ask me to try to remember everything in the standards now! The article didn't do a great job of defining what they're teaching in the school and how it is different from what parents expect. The example they gave about being able to compute 880x5 in different ways sounds very reasonable to me. Singapore math teaches mental computation which I appreciate very much. It helps develop mathematical thinking. *IF* the schools teach this without every teaching the algorithms we all grew up with, I would have a problem with that. If the computation is 887x6, the algorithm is going to be fastest for many folks. But programs like Singapore do teach algorithms, they just teach mental approaches first (and we've only gone through 2B so we haven't really hit much multiplication yet--I'm speaking more of their approach to addition and subtraction). I would also have a problem with a traditional approach that *ONLY* focused on algorithms and never tried to open up a child's mind to other ways to approach the problem.

 

It's also okay to use multiple sources. It was common in the excellent school where I taught. We had older texts that I will use the word "rigorous" to describe--not sure if my definition of rigorous matches how Myrtle uses the word. But books that develop by proofs the processes that you use to solve problems. Books that would seem less "user-friendly" to some. Definitely no color photos or side-bar articles on "careers that use math." These books were used in the more difficult honors courses. We also had the UCSMP books for some courses that were not honors level. Their approach was probably more in line with the standards. They had some interesting problems in them too. I would pull some problems from them to use with a class that didn't actually use that book as their text. As a teacher, I learned a lot from both types of texts. As I teach my own kids, I'm going to be using both approaches. I hope to show my kids how to think mathematically, from being able to do mental computations to understanding proofs later on. I hope to teach them computational algorithms and develop their computational skills so they won't need to reach for the calculator much. But then eventually (10th grade?), I hope to teach them all of the nifty things they can do with a graphing calculator so that it will be a useful tool to them. In other words, I aim to make their math education well-rounded and hopefully fairly complete.

[Kathleen in VA]

Tried to rep you just for the P&P reference, but it won't let me! I don't give rep that often, but I must be trying to rep the same few people over and over.

 

Anyway, I read the article with some interest. I became a math teacher in 1989 right when those standards came out. But don't ask me to try to remember everything in the standards now! The article didn't do a great job of defining what they're teaching in the school and how it is different from what parents expect. The example they gave about being able to compute 880x5 in different ways sounds very reasonable to me. Singapore math teaches mental computation which I appreciate very much. It helps develop mathematical thinking. *IF* the schools teach this without every teaching the algorithms we all grew up with, I would have a problem with that. If the computation is 887x6, the algorithm is going to be fastest for many folks. But programs like Singapore do teach algorithms, they just teach mental approaches first (and we've only gone through 2B so we haven't really hit much multiplication yet--I'm speaking more of their approach to addition and subtraction). I would also have a problem with a traditional approach that *ONLY* focused on algorithms and never tried to open up a child's mind to other ways to approach the problem.

 

It's also okay to use multiple sources. It was common in the excellent school where I taught. We had older texts that I will use the word "rigorous" to describe--not sure if my definition of rigorous matches how Myrtle uses the word. But books that develop by proofs the processes that you use to solve problems. Books that would seem less "user-friendly" to some. Definitely no color photos or side-bar articles on "careers that use math." These books were used in the more difficult honors courses. We also had the UCSMP books for some courses that were not honors level. Their approach was probably more in line with the standards. They had some interesting problems in them too. I would pull some problems from them to use with a class that didn't actually use that book as their text. As a teacher, I learned a lot from both types of texts. As I teach my own kids, I'm going to be using both approaches. I hope to show my kids how to think mathematically, from being able to do mental computations to understanding proofs later on. I hope to teach them computational algorithms and develop their computational skills so they won't need to reach for the calculator much. But then eventually (10th grade?), I hope to teach them all of the nifty things they can do with a graphing calculator so that it will be a useful tool to them. In other words, I aim to make their math education well-rounded and hopefully fairly complete.

 

Thanks for trying to give me rep - it's the thought that counts:). (I just reread this and thought, "Actually, it doesn't *count*.;) Too funny! Anyway, I meant that I appreciate that you thought about me.)

 

I know so very little about math instruction. I only had to take one math methods course to get a degree in Elementary Education and honestly don't remember much of what I learned. I have been homeschooling for 16 years and have bought at least 20 different math programs:). I just can't seem to find the one that works for us. I have graduated two and they are now taking math at community college to make up for my deficiencies.

 

I bought TT 5 and TT Alg. 1 for my ds12 and dd15. They are behind, too, but with TT they are able to work independently and are enjoying the format.

 

Dd9 is doing Singapore 2A. She, too, is "behind." I just am not a great math teacher. (They're all very good at finding typos everywhere though;) - my proofreading/grammar/editing skills managed to get passed along.)

 

All that to say - I am no expert in the teaching of math, but what you just said about using different approaches sounds very wise to me. It reminds me of the debate about whether to teach reading using phonics or sight words. The truth is you need to do both. There are many words that must be memorized because they aren't phonetic. An eclectic approach works best imo.

 

Thanks for your insights.

[nutmeg]

New New Math-I'm confused as to what this is........? It seems that at the heart of it is student-led instruction taken to the extreme. For some reason, it also includes many alternate ways of doing math practices. While most of us tend to set up double digit multiplication in one standard way, new math includes different procedures. New math also seems to indicate that students must, by self-discovery, learn various truths about math. New new math also heavily relies on calculators.

I believe this is a good example: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI

[mmjkjashipley]

I had read that same article on MSNBC.com and had to laugh. They NEVER have articles on home schooling and the one time they mention parents teaching their kids, the parents are doing it wrong. LOL! I'm also a bit confused about new math vs. old math. My understanding is in the new math, it does not matter how they reach the answer as long as it is correct. Or, if their methodology was correct but got the wrong answer, that is okay too. We use Singapore math. Both my girls are very different learners and it works for both. Singapore teaches more mental math than I remember doing but it still teaches doing two or more digit division the long way. We are doing multiplication at the moment in 2B and my 10 dd is finishing up 4B.