53: Education Establishment Hates Math
ONE THING WE KNOW FOR SURE:

THE EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT



I just heard it on the radio, a young boy complaining about how pathetically incompetent US kids are at math. Compared
to kids from around the world, Americans are in the bottom 25%. Could it be that bad? Is our Education Establishment that
gifted at nonteaching?

So what was the boy’s
proposed solution? You should buy a franchise for something called Mathnasium and teach the kids in your community how to
do arithmetic. Because, as you know, the public schools can’t manage this feat. I’ve got nothing for or against
Mathnasium. But here’s the bigger point: a remedial operation like this should NEVER be necessary. If public schools
do a proper job, kids learn math and don’t need any outside help. I said IF.
Here’s how one pundit summed up our dilemma: “Tests
showed U.S. fourthgraders performing poorly, middle school students worse, and high school students are unable to compete....Chances
are, even if your school compares well in SAT scores, it will still be a lightweight on an international scale.”
Well, you don’t need to be Einstein
to conclude that our public schools don’t have a clue about teaching arithmetic. Their greatest gift is selecting the
worst methods and then claiming they are “researchbased.”
Since about 1990, public schools push something called Reform
Math. But private and parochial schools don’t use this rubbish. Especially homeschoolers don’t. These are very
picky consumers and squabble among themselves over the merits of Singapore Math, Saxon Math, Math Mammoth, MathUSee, and other
ingenious programs that actually teach math, which has to be a miracle because our Education Establishment can’t pull
it off.
Why not? Here’s my guess: they don’t want to. They’re collectivists at heart and believe
in leveling, which quickly leads to dumbingdown. I’ll explain how this darkness works. But first a light moment. Here’s
how one wit summed up the last 60 years:

Teaching
Math in the 1950s (Traditional): A logger sells a load for $100. His production cost is 4/5 of the price. How much
is his profit?
Teaching Math in the 1970s (New Math): A logger trades a set “L”
(of lumber) for a set “M” (of money). The cardinality of set “M” is 100. The cardinality of subset
“C” (his cost) is 20 less than “M”. What is the cardinality of set “P” (his profit)?
Teaching
Math in the 1990s (Reform Math): A logger sells a load for $100. Her production is $80 and her profit is $20. Your
assignment: underline the number 20.

My take is that New Math and Reform
Math are the same longrunning gimmick. Mix simple stuff with complex stuff and thereby create an impossible brew, counterintuitive,
impossible to master, and virtually guaranteeing bad math scores. This brewoften called “fuzzy math”is packaged
into various curricula and textbooks, with clever names, pretty graphics, and fancy printing, all of which is lipstick on
a large rat.
The
socalled experts claim they are teaching concepts and understanding, which sounds impressive. But the kids never master simple
arithmetic because basic, commonsense content and memorization are summarily omitted. New Math and Reform Math are based
on the same false premise, that children need to study abstract concepts before they can do practical applications. Exactly
backward.
Here
is another image that might help some readers understand what our nonteachers are doing nowadays. Suppose you need to learn
archery. And I teach you archery by explaining the history and concept of sports, of muscular activity, of competition, the
need for eyehand coordination, the need for being in shape. And every week I toss in some aspect of archery”look,
this is an arrow,” and next week, “this is a bow.” Meanwhile you’re learning about football, baseball,
basketball, and the concepts that each of these games is built on. What does it all mean? Other than that your teacher is
crazy. It means you won’t learn archery for many months. And your grasp of archery will be muddled in with bowling,
softball, hockey and skiing. But we all know there are only a few essential skills in archery: holding the bow, drawing the
bow, aiming at a target. You have to focus on the basic skills and practice them with respect. You need to isolate them and
master them. Learning arithmetic is exactly the same. You don’t need to know the history of math to learn
how to add 12 + 13. But the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) wants to pretend that the best way to learn
arithmetic is the study of algebra, geometry, pretrig, set theory, and whatever else the cat drags in.

I recently reviewed two books on
Amazon, both published around 1965, that were intended to explain New Math to parents and kids. These books are dense, unfriendly,
chaotic, inappropriate, impossible to understand without repeated readingsexactly like New Math itself. Here’s the
good part. The country saw all these flaws immediately, and put New Math (and these two books) in the dumpster, where they
belonged.
Never
forget how dreadful New Math was. That dreadfulness tells us so much. The best and brightest professors worked on this thing
for a long time. They are incompetent or they are criminals. Either way, you know this well is poisoned.
I can’t imagine that any human sincerely
trying to teach arithmetic to children would devise New Math. I don’t know how you could conclude that it’s anything
but a vicious hoax. (Conceptually, I would suggest that New Math is like Whole Word, which at that time was preventing millions
of children from becoming fluent readers. Note that both gimmicks promised fluency but delivered disability.)

The next development is revealing.
The mad scientists who created New Math went back to their laboratories for a decade and, instead of coming up with a single
program as before, concocted a DOZEN programs (during 1980's). The strategy would seem to be: divide and confuse. Note: all
programs were bad. The experts seem to have learned nothing about teaching math but a lot about overwhelming and bamboozling
the public. Collectively, these dozen programs were called Reform Math. Students didn't like them. Parents didn't like them.
Most teachers didn't like them. Typically, a community would waste years figuring out how much they disliked a program; evaluating
other programs; selecting the new program; only to find that that everyone hated it, too. Some of the infamous names are MathLand,
Connected Math, TERC, Chicago Math, Everyday Math, CorePlus, Constructivist Math, and many more. Parents saw the continuity
with New Math and derisively called the new curricula “New New Math.” Wikipedia rather cutely explains, “Traditional mathematics focuses
on teaching algorithms that will lead to the correct answer.” How quaint.
These new programs, on the other hand, emphasize
all the bad ideas now ruining the teaching of most subjects. For example: Cooperative Learning makes kids work in teams so
they never learn to think for themselves. Constructivism requires that children invent methods for themselves, so they never
learn to do anything automatically, such that 30 years later, every restaurant check is a new challenge. SelfEsteem is stressed,
so even if kids don’t know anything, the teachers say that they do. One spectacularly destructive component is called
Spiraling which requires that teachers jump from topic to topic without requiring that students master any of them. Are there
any good ideas? Don’t bet on it.

What grounds, you might protest,
do I have for such cynicism? Again, I have two words for you: New Math. This thing was rotten at its core. That's not my verdict.
Everyone saw it. Years later, when the professors came back with the first wave of Reform Math, it was essentially the same
old goulash. Even that is not my verdict. You can find on the web many disgruntled reports from smart people trying to make
sense of one program or another. My contribution, if any, is simply to call attention to the epic sweep, the inexhaustible
dimwittedness, of all these pedagogical efforts for the past halfcentury. These socalled experts purvey bad to the degree
they can get away with bad. In fact, a tiny little anecdote in a small book written in 1953 shows us how long the
antimath plot has been in play. The book is titled “Retreat from Learning: Why Teachers Can’t Teach. The author
is a young woman who taught in tough Brooklyn schools for several years before giving up; her name is Joan Dunn. She writes: “...educators are still
undecided about the best way to teach the alphabet. They go through agonies because two and two equal four and a way must
be found to teach that disturbing fact without mentioning numbers. The poor gradeschool teacher finds herself emptying gallons
of water into pint containers because some educational theorist (who probably has not taught in 30 years) has decided that
her little charges might be permanently scarred if exposed to the brutal fact that 2 + 2 equals 4.” I have to say I love the wit and wisdom of
Joan Dunn. You see, this is many years before New Math was set loose upon the country. Clearly, however, all the counterproductive
ideas were brewing in this Brooklyn public school by 1950. The socalled educators simply don’t want to teach basic
arithmetic. Joan Dunn couldn't anticipate where all this nuttiness would go; but she glimpses the essence. The educators are
SQUIRMING to find a wayany pretext whatsoeverto avoid teaching arithmetic. And that is what we are still seeing today.

Now Reform Math seems to be morphing
into Common Core Standards (and other names). These newer versions of Reform Math remain, I believe, perverse top to bottom.
But that’s not the extent of the sin. To protect the foolishness, these programs present themselves to us in a whirlwind
of numbing verbiage, technical mumbojumbo, and pseudoscientific pretension. Let’s go to the National Council of Teachers
of Math website and read their breathless “Curriculum Focal Points”:
“Children develop strategies for adding and subtracting whole
numbers on the basis of their earlier work with small numbers. They use a variety of models, including discrete objects, lengthbased
models (e.g., lengths of connecting cubes), and number lines, to model “partwhole,” “adding to,”
“taking away from,” and “comparing” situations to develop an understanding of the meanings of addition
and subtraction and strategies to solve such arithmetic problems. Children understand the connections between counting and
the operations of addition and subtraction (e.g., adding two is the same as “counting on” two). They use properties
of addition (commutativity and associativity) to add whole numbers, and they create and use increasingly sophisticated strategies
based on these properties (e.g., “making tens”) to solve addition and subtraction problems involving basic facts.
By comparing a variety of solution strategies, children relate addition and subtraction as inverse operations."
And that, my friends, is
what they do to first graders.

Can you stand more? “Students
understand the meanings of multiplication and division of whole numbers through the use of representations (e.g., equalsized
groups, arrays, area models, and equal “jumps” on number lines for multiplication, and successive subtraction,
partitioning, and sharing for division). They use properties of addition and multiplication (e.g., commutativity, associativity,
and the distributive property) to multiply whole numbers and apply increasingly sophisticated strategies based on these properties
to solve multiplication and division problems involving basic facts. By comparing a variety of solution strategies,
students relate multiplication and division as inverse operations.“
That’s your third graders, cannon fodder for somebody’s wicked
theories. I believe this language is deceitful and counterproductive, but profoundly illuminating. People who write like this
are hostile to children, parents and arithmetic itself.
I do not believe that most children can do the things described in this paragraph.
Can eightyearolds “apply increasingly sophisticated strategies based on these properties to solve multiplication and
division problems?” How many strategies are there?? What if kids simply learned to do one strategy really well? That’s
what teachers push if they actually want children to master arithmetic. But the one best way is the first thing killed off
in many of these programs. Killed off and never mentioned.

Throughout our lives, when we have
math to do, we typically have to do it by ourselves. It is very handy to know the simplest approaches, to know them in a reflexive
and automatic way. Everything in public schools and Reform Math takes you in the opposite direction. You know nothing automatically.
You are trained to reach for a calculator but you don’t even know if an answer is close. You are told to come up with
your own way to solve every problem, and make sure you can explain your answers. But can you calculate how much paint to buy
to paint your house?
The essence of successful education is to
start at the very beginning, learn about and master the simplest things, and then steadily advance from the easy to the more
difficult, over many years. Reform Math says, no, let’s not master anything, let’s learn 5th grade concepts that
first year, and 3rd grade concepts and some college concepts too. The smarter kids, the ones who will go on to major in math,
may find all this quite congenial. But that is irrelevent. This isn’t a gifted class. The ordinary kids will be destroyed.
Little math will be learned. Which seems to be the goal of the ideologues in charge.

I’ve been wondering if the
Education Establishment, should they become serious about their work, couldn’t simply take the best features from Saxon,
Singapore, MathUSee, Math Mammouth, Horizons, SwitchedOn, Schoolhouse, Abeka, et al. I even asked some of the people behind
these programs: couldn’t you create something to save the public schools? Well, they were smart enough to say, look,
our programs are for home use and the public schools present special problems. Still, I can’t help thinking that these
people can provide the answers way before the National Council of Teachers of Math can.
I’ve been wondering if Bill Gates,
if he wanted to help the public schools in the simplest, quickest way, couldn’t organize a team of America’s most
gifted math teachers (elementary and middle school level only) to find the best programs, cull the best features, and create
something called American Math, and give it to the country. Imagine a press conference where Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Michael
Dell announce, “This is our gift to the American people. Our experts say this is the best, the easiest, the fastest.
Everyone should start using it today. Arithmetic leads to higher math, and both lead to science and technology. We need every
American to be skilled in these areas. Let’s get cracking!!!” I
don't mean to suggest that ideas need be stolen. They would be licensed where appropriate. American Math might be a joint
publishing venture. Perhaps the final product could be sold cheap, say $10. There's still plenty of money to be made. Now,
many of the Reform Math programs are quite expensive but don't work. That's stealing.


"36: The Assault
On Math" is a complementary
piece. Both are aspects of "45: The Crusade
Against Knowledge"



Every state has its own Standards. Wretched prose such as: "Demonstrates
conceptual understanding of rational numbers with respect to: whole numbers from 0 to 100 using place value, by applying the
concepts of equivalency in composing or decomposing numbers; and in expanded notation using models, explanations, or other
representations; and positive fractional numbers (benchmark fractions: a/2, a/3, or a/4, where a is a whole number greater
than 0 and less than or equal to the denominator) as a part to whole relationship in area models where the denominator is
equal to the number of parts in the whole using models, explanations, or other representations." First graders in Rhode
Island are supposed to do all that.

I once asked a teacher
(second grade, I think) what she would do if she wanted to introduce something challenging. She said, "Oh, I don't know.
Base8, I guess." This was a shock at the time. I now realize this base6, base8 stuff is very common. It was in New
Math, and continues to haunt us. Offhand, I'd say there is absolutely, positively no reason a child needs to hear about such things.
Oh, maybe in high school, after one can do a lot of arithmetic more or less automatically. Now, let me see if I have this
straight. In base8, what we now call 8 would be represented by "10." And what we now call 9 would be represented
by "11." Make a kid do base8 problems for a day or two, and you can pretty well guarantee schizophrenia. You can
induce the level of confusion that Whole Word causes in reading, where the child doesn't know which way to read "was"
and "saw." The child will see 9, 10, 11 and have no idea which amount is designated. 20, 21, etc. will present weird
problems. Sick. Of all the counterproductive nonsense in Reform Math, this might be the worst.




I highly recommend you check out John Mighton's math program at http://jumpmath.org. He follows your recommended approach  "The essence of successful education
is to start at the very
beginning, learn about and master the simplest things, and then steadily advance from the easy to the more difficult, over many years."  to a T.
I also recommend Mighton's book, The Myth of Ability: http://www.amazon.com/MythAbilityNurturingMathematicalTalent/dp/0802777074.
Byron  Byron Davies, Ph.D. StarShine Academy

© Bruce Deitrick Price 2010

