"Reform Math" Leaves Some Perplexed

(CBS)  Remember when there was only one right answer to a math problem?

Not anymore.

"What does estimating mean?" a teacher asks a student.

"It's something like, reasonably close," says a student.

"Good I like the word reasonable, 'It's reasonably close,' he said," says the teacher.

And that is good enough here in Abington, Penn., where they're teaching "reform math."

Instead of endless memorization and multiplication tables, in this kind of math, "reasonably close" is good enough.

"There's a time when you want to do mental arithmetic, where something works much more quickly in your head. There's a time for paper and pencil computation, and there's also a time to use a calculator," says Amy Dillard, author of "Everyday Mathematics," a reform math textbook.

About a quarter of the nation's schools are now teaching reform math. But some parents say it's just "fuzzy" math, and it's bringing down scores on tests mandated by the No Child Left Behind act.

Carol Rounds is trying to get her son's school to switch to a more traditional math program.

"There are no numbers in this homework. It's just amazing — for math homework," says Rounds.

She says her son Emerson, a second grader in New Jersey, is just not getting the basics.

She shows her son a flash card that has the problem 10 minus 7.

"How much is this one?" she asks.

"I don't know," Emerson says.

So she has taken matters into her own hands, and is teaching him the old fashioned way.

"It's ok, how do you get there? You can use your fingers," Rounds says.

"Do kids get bored by drilling? Yes. Do they get empowered by getting the knowledge they ultimately gain from memorization? Yes, they get empowered," she says.

Reform math isn't exactly new. It's been around for about 15 years. It was inspired by a group of educators to combat slumping math scores and sleeping students. But today even some of those educators say some school districts have taken it too far.

Still, reform math supporters say their studies show that their programs help kids score higher.

"We're preparing kids now for jobs that we don't even know are going to exist, and we can't be teaching them the same mathematics that we did years and years ago, we really have to prepare them for the workforce that they'll be headed to," says Dillard.

Both sides are trying to give kids the tools they need for the future, the two sides just can't agree on the best way to solve the problem.

[ecuadoriana]

"We let the kids decide what, and how, to teach them based on their preferences...What exactly do we expect the outcome to be?" Posted by sy2502 at 08:32 PM : May 29, 2007

Feed them bread and circus. That's the Big Plan.

If you keep the masses fed & entertained they will be too placated & too distracted to revolt. They will be easier to control. And if you start when they're young, they'll be that much easier to lead to the slaughter. They won't put up a fight because they'll be too busy stuffing their faces & mindlessly watching their TVs.

The outcome is that it's easier to get the masses to collectively agree to engage in war, fork over their money, nod their bobbley heads in agreement with whatever bile is spewing forth from the mouth of the Man Behind the Curtain...

Look at all the grown adults today who are so enthralled with their shiney toys & gadgets!

To quote the S-x Pistols: "Oh so pretty oh so pretty vacant & we don't care." That pretty much sums ("more or less") it all up.

[sy2502]

I am more or less certain that this story was total bullshiit. Why do people feel that kids can understand less than the kids in the previous generations? How can we expect to advance our technology when less is being taught?
Posted by ralan40 at 07:37 PM : May 29, 2007

Because we are too soft, because we like to take the easy way out of everything, because hard work and sacrifice is not valued anymore. The kids don't like Math? Let's stop teaching it! They want to use calculators instead of their brains? Pronto, here is the calculator! We let the kids decide what, and how, to teach them based on their preferences. If they wanted to eat just chocolate, would we allow that? No, it would be bad for their body. So why are we doing it when it comes to feeding their minds? What exactly do we expect the outcome to be?

[ralan40]

I am more or less certain that this story was total bullshiit. Why do people feel that kids can understand less than the kids in the previous generations? How can we expect to advance our technology when less is being taught?

[ecuadoriana]

sy2502 makes some valid points: "...I just can't see ...NASA...sending people towards the Moon with...'more or less' oxygen reserve...or 'sort of enough' fuel to get there and back." Posted by sy2502 at 01:12 PM : May 29, 2007

To that I would add the "everyday math" of cashiers never being allowed by the management to charge "more or less" of what the item costs or giving the customer "more or less" of the change that is due. As a matter of fact- the computerized register scans the "exact amount" & tells the dim bulb cashier the "exact amount" of change to give (& they still can't get it right!).

Isn't it pathetic that teens just out of high school are taking cashier jobs & yet can't count change even with the help of a machine?! How will they ever make it through a student loan payment, a rental agreement, a utility bill, a posted speed limit sign ("Well officer, I know the sign said 35 mph, but I figured that 55 was close enough...")?!

And I certainly would never accept a nurse's excuse that the IV was "more or less" in my vein...

[sy2502]

The space program was (is) based on guesswork, and often performing more precise calculations is not only a waste of time, they are misleading and dangerous.
Posted by andor3 at 09:11 PM : May 28, 2007

Sorry I just can't see the NASA people sending people towards the Moon with calculations that told them they would "more or less" get "somewhat close enough" to the Moon. They weren't sent up there with an oxygen reserve of "more or less" what they needed, or "sort of enough" fuel to get there and back.

[martibohl]

In response to what andor3 said "Enrollment is seriously off in the sciences, computing and engineering. A serious shortage of technical graduates has developed and it is becoming alarming." ~ Could it be that the math that is being taught today is the reason? Maybe the students who have been taught Everyday Math aren't clear on the basic concepts of real math and therefore don't see any job that encompasses a true knowledge of mathematics as a aviable profession. The decline in enrollment obviously correlates to the graduation of the new math students.

Andor3 also says "good minds are trained to make smart guesses and estimates". I have a good mind and I can make smart guesses and estimates. AND I was taught traditional math. Reform math, Everyday math, etc,. is not the reason for good guessers and estimators. I think a lack of real education creates people who have to guess and the are the "lucky guessers".

[a3avon]

This year Everyday Mathematics is celebrating 20 years of research. It, (and other programs like it) has been in classrooms across the nation for just about as long. Pretending that things are not as they are is exactly what is wrong with math education.

I never said we needed to go back to the way things were before NCTM. Some of the things we've been doing in math have been working, or we wouldn't be where we are. We need to respect those ideas and make them even better. Reform math in it present form, on the other hand, is not progress. Otherwise, how would you explain decline in international assessments and the lack of qualified candidates for advanced math and science studies (and as a consequence careers) in our country?

It turns out I am very familiar with Everyday Mathematics as well as it's weaknesses and the problems it creates. I would hope that before you so zealously defend the program highlighted in this story, you understand what you are so passionate about.

Maybe YOU see writing answering a question about what color math would be if it were one more valuable than building on strong mathematical foundations in elementary education as progress. You're entitled to of course, you can eduate your children that way, perpetuate this flawed experiment and wait and see if it works (20 years says it hasn't).

I believe there has to be a better way to educate our children.

[andor3]

a3avon's comment illustrates what is wrong with education and perhaps much more in America--pretending things are not as they are, pretending that solutions that may have worked a long time ago still fit now, pretending that the world has not and is not changing.

Turns out I do know the people I worked with better than someone who has never met them! And none of what you claim is even close--not only did those young engineers go through elementary education more than 20 years ago and have nothing to do with NCTM, but those "old guys" mostly hated the traditional way they were taught math. Most would say they survived, not thrived, in the tedium and boredom of school. The old guys learned by mentoring and playing and guessing.

And yeah a lot of them couldn't balance their checkbooks.

[a3avon]

andor3 said: "I worked with senior NASA researchers who lamented that young engineers will produce reams of computer output in numbers and charts, and an old guy would look at it for two seconds and see it was all obviously wrong. What happens when the old guy retires?"

And how do you think that "old guy" learned math? What the NASA senior researchers are lamenting are the NCTM's changes to mathematics that have deteriorated math education for almost 20 years now. This is not the new new-math. This is a concept of "reform math" created by educators (not mathematicians and scientists) that hasn't worked for a long time now.

That "old guy" you referenced learned math using a classical (standard) approach to mathematics that was certainly not "reform math". At the elementary school level the foundation was built for those NASA researchers you talk about to do the amazing things they were able to do.

You're right, math education is very broken, it has been breaking down for the last 20 years... but reform math in it's current form is not the solution. It is anything but.

Leading researchers, scientists and employers do see the failure with our math education in it's current state. That's why they are hiring qualified candidates from the countries like Singapore, India, and China who are learning math much the same way that "old guy" you worked with at NASA did... and it's wasn't reform math.

[andor3]

sclaires wrote:
"Guessestimates just won't work when it comes to building houses, buildings, vehicles, and rockets to the moon."

Again, guesses are the ONLY thing that works in these cases. If architects and scientists believed in only "exact math" we would never have any buildings or vehicles. The space program was (is) based on guesswork, and often performing more precise calculations is not only a waste of time, they are misleading and dangerous.

The key is the guesses are not random--good minds are trained to make smart guesses and estimates. And they know how close a guess has to be and how much confidence to have in the estimate.

Reasonable guesswork, hunches, and intuition are a fun part of invention and design, and teaching this to students is way more important than teaching them to emulate a calculator [that is important too, just secondary].