From: Redyarrow@aol.com
Date sent: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:16:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Math reflections and related info

I found out something today that made me pause and wonder how many of us were subject to some small part of the current educational trends, depending upon what grade we were in as another educational-fad pendulum swing into our school districts. One of the reasons I have liked Hirsch's book so much is that it put the current reforms which have blossomed these past ten years into historical perspective.

Out of all the educational reforms , the new new math programs anger me the most. When I sit in classrooms where Everyday Mathematics is used, I can viscerally feel the students' frustration which is almost palpable as the accuracy rate for the classroom descends to 20%. What I didn't realize until my mother visited last weekend, bringing all of my old report cards that she had saved, was that back in first grade (1958) I had some experimental version of what is now the new new math based on NCTM standards. I had remembered "New Math" when it was introduced in seventh and eighth grade and how spending all that time on converting numbers to base 2, 12, etc. replaced working on the fractions and decimals that I would otherwise have been learning. But first grade !!!! You can imagine my horror as I was reading through these old report cards and came across the following paper inserted inside the first grade report card:

"Our number program was most unique this year. The children had an excellent background of number concepts developed during kindergarten training. It was possible for the children to become acquainted and familiar with all the addition and subtraction facts up to and including those of 10 quite early in the year. Since reading was little or no barrier in story problems the children could concentrate on number facts instead of interpretation of letter symbols. It became necessary to make these problems more difficult or numerically challenging than usual. It was because of this that other number processes were introduced. Some of these follow:

* algebraic solution of problems
* algebra
* simple fractions (recognition and problem usage)
* Roman numerals (just for fun)
* multi-number figures (read and write 3 number figures)
* measurement
* addition (including carry over of several three number figures)
* subtraction (three number figures without borrowing)
* multiplication (this began simply as "2 threes are 6" and in some cases developed to multiplying a three number figure by a two number figure.
* division (this began very simply by using blocks to find "how many groups of 2 are in 6" this also continued until it was possible to divide a multi-figure number by a number no greater than 5. Recently these problems involved a remainder.

The above number work was not introduced as novel diversion, for after an introductory period, a practical application would follow in the form of written or oral story problems involving a specific process. The above mentioned number work was presented concurrently with a basic first grade number program. No child was forced beyond his level of ability or interest and all grades were based on the child's study of the basic first grade program.

Thank heavens, this version of new math continued to emphasize math facts and the school used it along with the "old" math program! Interestingly, I do distinctly remember that first grade was when I decided that I was clearly a student who loved reading but not math - which I hated and felt was my worst subject. I see now why I am so in touch with students sitting in classrooms patterned after this math philosophy (if I were Bill Clinton, I would say, "I feel their pain"). When a child leap frogs through new math concepts (in contrast to the slow moving Saxon, Kumon or DI), it doesn't matter that the material will eventually spiral back or that the student isn't "forced beyond his ability or interest" As a first grader who was mystified by the algebra, multiplication and division being tossed out, I concluded that since I couldn't understand it, there was something wrong with me. And along with that conviction, I adopted a cloak of math anxiety. Did this "unique" number program help with my later math skills? Answer: No, I moved through school hating math and working hard to maintain B grades in that subject... later learning multiplication, division, etc. right on schedule. How many others in this group have had this same experience but also don't remember what they were subjected to?

As a sidelight, I had an interesting conversation with the Salesperson at the Saxon math table at the National Learning Disabilities Conference which was held in Chicago this week. After giving me some lovely promotional buttons that I could proudly wear, she chatted with me for some time. During the conversation she mentioned that the research which has shown such positive results for Saxon Math has shown even more dramatic improvement in girls than in boys. I asked her why she thought that was, and she said that since learning styles of girls are so much more detail oriented, they learn more effectively when the instructional design includes such detail oriented small increments of learning. I don't know if there is anything to this, but if this is so, the number of girls who are experiencing reading deficits from Whole Language training which is a more global approach should be rising astronomically. It was an interesting concept to think about -- if anyone has any thoughts about this, let me know.

Mary (a dissatisfied former new new math consumer)