Quotes are taken from a message written by Ruth to Charles on 08/11/96...
RL>>skills and make math fun.  I have referred to it as the "whole math"
RL>>approach in an article I once wrote for our local union newsletter.
RL>
RL>How about posting it here - I would be interested in reading it.
Thanks for the interest, but that was several years and several 
computers ago - that hard drive has been erased.  If I run across an old 
hardcopy of the newsletter, I'll try to retype it.
RL>I'm trying to remember which grade level you teach....grade six? Or am I
RL>thinking of someone else here?
8th, mostly, some 5th and 6th grade computer literacy courses in the past.
RL>Well, I received my Teaching qualifications in '92 so don't know what
RL>you are talking about here. Care to enlighten me a little?
The new math of the 60's, much like the new NCTM standards of today, was 
a "feel-good" set of programs designed to get kids to like math.  We 
weren't to worry too much about basic skills, though we could throw some 
in if the kids seemed to need it, but the focus was to be on "fun."  We 
did projects - drew pictures of the problems we were solving, or walked 
around the school yard making up "real life" math problems, as if the 
school yard was real life and the classroom wasn't.
In addition, it became more important for kids to "feel" the number 
system - to understand place values, for example, so we taught a lot of 
non-decimal based math (binary, hexadecimal, base 5, clock arithmetic, 
etc.)  Instead of learning to solve equations or math sentences, we 
focused on functions and set theory.  The joke around the nation became 
that 2 + 2 no longer equalled 4, and in base three, indeed, 2 + 2 = 11.  
You think THAT didn't confuse the poor kid who didn't know his addition 
tables?
By the time 1975 rolled around, we were pulling our hair out in the 
middle school - even our best kids couldn't add 6 and 7 together and get 
the right answer.  Working with percents and other real "real life" 
applications of mathematics was a joke.  We saw it in our rural 
community and it was seen across the nation - we had produced a nation 
of mathematical incompetents.  After all of the college level research 
had been reexamined, turned out all the studies supporting the new math 
were flawed and there was a nationwide call for a return to basics.
So, in the late 70's we started teaching traditional math again.  A few 
years later I no longer had to spend 2 months of the 8th grade math 
course reteaching the basic facts - I was doing pre-algebra and geometry 
with the students and the good students were doing 9th grade math.
Now the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) have a new 
"feel good" math program.  Let the kids work in groups (one learns, the 
rest coast), or let the kids use manipulatives to add 6 and 7 (no more 
of that yucky memorizing of facts), or let the kids do projects (walk 
around the school yard, I suppose).  I've asked the few people in our 
district who are supporting this new "new math" if I can see the 
research that proves the kids will do better after being exposed to this 
program.  Once again, they don't seem to be able to produce any, but 
they just KNOW it's going to make kids like math.
Yeah. Right.  And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd 
be glad to sell you, too.
I've seen this nonsense come and go during 27 years of teaching and I've 
yet to see reading instruction done any better than the traditional 
method of mixing some phonics, pleasurable reading and technical reading 
into one program.  I've yet to see any method for teaching math that's 
better than the traditional program of focusing on skills through the 
elementary years.
RL>CB>We're never going to learn until we accept the fact that educating kids
RL>>IS a science and we ought do only those things that work, as verified by
RL>>sound, repeatable research.
RL>
RL>I'm not sure that I agree with you here. Elaborate a little, please.
I said a lot of it above.  Teaching is more science than most teachers 
like to admit - there are formulas that work, and formulas that don't.  
After making note of the role that a teacher's personal charisma plays 
in attracting the attention of students, we would do well to write one 
set of lesson plans and have all teachers teach from them.  At the end 
of the unit, the teachers should all get together and evaluate the 
lesson plans based on student achievement and performance.  The plans 
can then be fine tuned for students the following year.  Our instruction 
should be based on what works - what gets the kids learning - not on the 
basis of what we think will make the kids happy.  We are in that school 
to educate and that is all we are there for.
RL>CB>At least that's how I see it all.
RL>
RL>We are all entitled to our opinions. :)
But mine are so GOOD!!!  
And I'm not putting up with you - this is a far more enjoyable 
discussion that the one about Illich.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* A good deed never goes unpunished (Gore Vidal).
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------