New Math? Fuzzy Math? Fluffy Math!

[Scipio]

That second example is how I do it too. And I like the idea of encouraging making estimates.

Fag.  2 + 2 = 5 does not deserve a ribbon.  Asshole.

My doctoral thesis was about the circumstances under which n+n can appear to be the same size as n, for n a suitably large number.

1 million + 1 million ~ 1 million, versus 1, but not versus 2 million.

[Martinus]

That second example is how I do it too. And I like the idea of encouraging making estimates.

Fag.  2 + 2 = 5 does not deserve a ribbon.  Asshole.

My doctoral thesis was about the circumstances under which n+n can appear to be the same size as n, for n a suitably large number.

This is certainly true in politics and public spending.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I can't complain about most of TERC's methods, since things like this

solving equations using "friendly numbers," for instance, converting 71 + 19 into the easier 70 + 20

and what was described in the image CdM posted are the methods I use to solve problems.  In fact, I disagree with statements like this

"Those strategies don't work when you get to larger numbers," Ms. Santore said

Maybe not for her, but they do for me.  Which brings me to what I see as the glaring problem with TERC, statements like these:

One parent, Anna Huang, said her son, Mack, a fourth grader, "felt a lack of clarity" when his teacher insisted that he estimate answers, rather than compute them precisely.

When she started second grade last fall, Sabina knew how to carry tens and add two-digit numbers, Mr. Schmid said. Sabina's teacher, who is well-intentioned but too inexperienced to deviate from the program, Mr. Schmid said, told the child that she was not allowed to use this method; she had to demonstrate her work with blocks or by counting on her fingers.

The new math has at its core a passionate belief shared by tens of thousands of teachers around the country that they can reach more children, especially low-achieving minority students, by dropping standard rules in favor of exercises that allow students to discover the principles of math on their own.

The problem with traditional math education for some students is not the methods taught so much as that the methods are taught to the exclusion of others.  TERC doesn't fix that problem; it just forces a different set of methods on students, which simply shuffles around who gets it and who doesn't.  It does so in a more detrimental way; the "standard" methods came about because they work best for most people, while the TERC methods work best for a much smaller set.  Which works best for who certainly has nothing to do with ethnic background or socioeconomic status, either.

I used to get flak in grade school because I didn't rigidly follow the standard algorithms.  Fortunately, since I still got the right answer more often than my classmates it was tolerated, though I did frequently get reminded to "do it properly" if I did get one wrong my way.  Many teachers nowadays, on both sides of this "new math" debate, wouldn't be so tolerant of it.

To preempt another condescending "unique snowflake" comment, I don't think every kid is unique.  Rather, I think its a matter of sequential vs. spatial thinking.  Sequential thinkers benefit from the traditional methods, while spatial thinkers benefit from most of the TERC methods (the ones that actually deal with solving problems, anyway, not that essay writing bullshit).

Oh, and of course there's the issue of not enough teachers, not being able to give extra help to the kids who really need it, and such.  That (along with over-reliance on standardized tests) is the core of the problem, regardless of the curriculum.

[The Brain]

Hippie.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

iirc, isn't math one of those things you really can't explain how and why it works ontil you've actually learned math to a rather advanced level?
iic, you need to build the house before you can put down the foundations (to use the metaphor Pratchett used)

[Josquius]

I'm frankly getting sick and tired of this kind of attitude being prevalent in the modern day. Yes, idiots can also pass exams well. And yes, we are all unique and beautiful snowflakes who should be given an opportunity to blossom in our own unique ways. But if we took this road, we would not be able to tell a dysfunctional, useless, impossible-to-adapt-or-work-in-a-team moron (99% of people who consider themselves unique and thus fail to sit down and pass a simple exam even if they find it useless) from the true geniuses (1%).

Oh yeah of course, as I said there's not really much of a alternative out there, but that its the only choice doesn't really make the system a good one.
The only real alternative that I can think of is making things more coursework based- this is more representative of what students are capable of and more representative of the real world. Happily the world of education does seem to be moving in this direction.

I'd disagree with your 99% vs 1% there too (I know you didn't mean it literally but meh). People who actually fail exams despite being very bright are indeed very rare but people who can only manage relatively low passing grades despite being more capable than those with higher grades are quite a bit more common.

[DGuller]

That NYT article made me sick to my stomach.

Math should be "flexible," the standards say, and "reasonable" answers should be valued over a single right answer.

W + T = F?

The sentiment is not as crazy as it sounds.  In many cases coming up with the ballpark estimate is what's desired, and requires some ingenuity, as further precision would be false.  However, all these concepts should not be introduced so early, and instead of the basics.  I think that's where New Math makes a fatal miscalculation.

[DGuller]

An example I found:

I think the second way is probally more how I would do it.
Much quicker and takes less paper.

Err, how does it take less paper? The examples there show that it takes more paper. Are you retarded?

With the second way it's easier to do some steps in your head.  The second way is how I do mental math.

[swallow]

So this fuzzy maths thing got me looking up things.  Can anyone tell me if there's maths for describing the / in 0/1?  I would need the 101 version for morons. I don't ask much.

[Jaron]

CdM, stick to your conspiracy theories and leave education to the experts like grumbler and Tim.

[Neil]

An example I found:

I think the second way is probally more how I would do it.
Much quicker and takes less paper.

Err, how does it take less paper? The examples there show that it takes more paper. Are you retarded?

The 'new math' is for retarded kids.  Jos digs it.

[Neil]

I'd disagree with your 99% vs 1% there too (I know you didn't mean it literally but meh). People who actually fail exams despite being very bright are indeed very rare but people who can only manage relatively low passing grades despite being more capable than those with higher grades are quite a bit more common.

People who fail exams are by definition not bright.  They are stupid.

[Neil]

That second example is how I do it too. And I like the idea of encouraging making estimates.

Indeed.  Estimation is not only a higher-level thinking skill (and thus useful in its own right) but essential to actual math success.  If one sticks to the CountDeHeadInTheSand method, students cannot recognize when they have reached mpossible andswers unless the teacher tells them.

Having said that, I am not a fan of TERC itself.  There are plenty of other programs that teach estimation and real-world problem solving that don't go as far as TERC from the need to actually memorize some aspects of arithmetic.

You're just too much of a faggot to employ the time-honoured educational tools of our forebearers:  Beatings.  Is it any wonder that society has collapsed, given that we refuse to beat our children when they fail?

[Jaron]

I'd disagree with your 99% vs 1% there too (I know you didn't mean it literally but meh). People who actually fail exams despite being very bright are indeed very rare but people who can only manage relatively low passing grades despite being more capable than those with higher grades are quite a bit more common.

People who fail exams are by definition not bright.  They are stupid.

So you must think I am stupid then.

[Neil]

I'd disagree with your 99% vs 1% there too (I know you didn't mean it literally but meh). People who actually fail exams despite being very bright are indeed very rare but people who can only manage relatively low passing grades despite being more capable than those with higher grades are quite a bit more common.

People who fail exams are by definition not bright.  They are stupid.

So you must think I am stupid then.

I would imagine so.