Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The Math Wars

SiaSL, when I say universal, I don't mean that it is one method that is taught the same everywhere. I mean that it is one method that can be applied universally to a type of problem, no matter what the specifics of the problem happen to be.

I probably would have found value in the article if they hadn't wrapped it in such inflammatory, nonsensical rhetoric. War on math? Progressive? I feel like I need a shower.

This is why I don't read opinion pieces.

I'm thinking you haven't been following this story? "Math Wars" is a term coined years ago (a decade or more, I think). It arose out of parental frustration with programs like Everyday Mathematics. A large number of mathematician/engineer/scientist types challenged the reform curricula in California and gained high visibility. They lobbied hard for a return to traditional methods. With the publicity came the term math wars. AFAIK, the mathy types didn't make it up (they used the term mathematically correct). Check the Wikipedia entry.

"Progressive" is a term the reform crowd uses (I opened up several chunks of comments and found the term 50 times).

Whether referring to it as a war is a new development or not, it's still language designed to shut down the rational part of the brain.

The commenters are simply using the language they've been presented with. "Progressive" and "progressivist" show up 14 times in the article.

Interesting to note that an article that begins "The Faulty Logic" might as easily be renamed "An Introduction to Logical Fallacy by Example." As in Dude's observation, repeating progressive is a slick ad hominem argument.

One bit in there that gets me is:
"the most efficient — and most elegant and powerful — algorithms for specific operations"
I think that is quite a distortion of the classic algorithms which strike me as foolproof and consistent but neither elegant nor efficient.
My proof:
49,999 + 7 =


I believe the investigations type philosophy is in the right place, but the systems are likely flawed in their execution by being too dogmatic. You can't train creativity or creative problem solving. Forcing a kid to keep guessing at solution approaches until they match the fixed set in the answer guide is a fail.

Reflecting on other threads perhaps in the ideal execution of "reform mathematics" requires both a certain amount of talent in the instructor as well as the learner to realize its intent.

Frame-worthy. That's the problem in a beautifully-put paragraph.

While you can't TRAIN creative-problem solving (or, for that matter, 'critical thinking skills' either, IMO) using any particular method...

you can crush their development in students by stifling exploration. You can encourage and nurture those things and allow room for them to grow.

But that is never going to be possible in a system which has ground itself into a corner of testing-testing-testing and preparation for the same, all in the cheery, (but futile) hope that Every Child Can Master Algebra by Adolescence! which assumes that teaching mathematics requires the same approach as teaching arithmetic.

TBH, I wouldn't mind the testing, testing, testing so much if they DID something with it other than turn it into state / federal offices as a requirement. Testing isn't a bad thing if you use it to actually further the education of the student with feedback and follow up. A GOOD test teaches in the process of analyzing what a student has learned and a good teacher knows how to analyze the tests to improve their own teaching as well as the student's understanding. Unfortunately, that's not what happens with the majority of testing these days and they're not written well enough to teach in the process of testing.

Correct. There is formative assessment (which is what you were referring to, and is what good teachers have always used) and then there are the crazy-making summative assessment practices currently in vogue. "Instant feedback" isn't the same thing as useful feedback, which requires something more than yes/no on a multiple choice assessment or a peek at the solution (which only has about 90% probability of being completely correct in the best of modern texts) in the back of the book.

A lot of the general mathematics pedagogy debate (not here; in general) seems to get framed around and either/or proposition. EITHER you teach algorithms OR you teach concepts. It's possible to teach both. I taught all three of my kids how to do arithmetic, and my lessons were always heavy on concepts.