3 ms·

I disagree. I am not uncomfortable with math in general or the "new math". What I am uncomfortable with is the fact that my kids, and everyone else's kids, ar

I disagree. I am not uncomfortable with math in general or the "new math". What I am uncomfortable with is the fact that my kids, and everyone else's kids, are essentially lab rats in a massive experiment. The result of which is 1+ generation of kids who can't calculate tax in their head or split a restaurant bill . They can't manage more than a few number without a calculator and are missing many of the basic blocks of math that are learned through rote. I find it disheartening that I have to teach my kids basic fractions, ratios, and transformation cause the teachers don't or barely touch on it. Kids are supposed to "discover" and "explore" math, whatever that means. In my opinion it's all bullshit. Math, in many ways, is like an engine, either it works meaning the answer is correct, or it doesn't.

gnaritas 9y ago
You're confusing "New Math" with common core.
- ghettoCoder 9y ago
  I know. I was replying to the comment and using the his/her terminology. It's actually a blended common core/discovery math hybrid.
- kaitai 9y ago
  Disagree. If you read the common core standards, they are very sensible and make no curricular or pedagogical recommendations. "Calculate and interpret the average rate of change of a function (presented symbolically or as a table) over a specified interval. Estimate the rate of change from a graph." CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HSF.IF.B.6. The way people are teaching math in the US is baffling and weird, but Pearson's textbook design has little to do with the common core per se. Most common core-labelled material is from something else with a new shiny CC cover slapped on.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    I think you misunderstand, "New Math"[1] was a thing from the 60's, he clearly took it as an adjective talking about common core, the current "new math", but not the same as the "New Math" bitwize was saying had been tried and was a failure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math
    - kaitai 9y ago
      I know New Math from the 1960s; the sibling comment to my post indicates that ghettoCoder is talking about Common Core today and I disagree with his characterization of Common Core. New Math as practiced in the 1960s is a fascinating and very different failure case, although it probably had similar problems in implementation (poor teacher training and shoddy repackaged curricula).

gnaritas 9y ago

You're confusing "New Math" with common core.

ghettoCoder 9y ago
I know. I was replying to the comment and using the his/her terminology. It's actually a blended common core/discovery math hybrid.
kaitai 9y ago
Disagree. If you read the common core standards, they are very sensible and make no curricular or pedagogical recommendations. "Calculate and interpret the average rate of change of a function (presented symbolically or as a table) over a specified interval. Estimate the rate of change from a graph." CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HSF.IF.B.6. The way people are teaching math in the US is baffling and weird, but Pearson's textbook design has little to do with the common core per se. Most common core-labelled material is from something else with a new shiny CC cover slapped on.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  I think you misunderstand, "New Math"[1] was a thing from the 60's, he clearly took it as an adjective talking about common core, the current "new math", but not the same as the "New Math" bitwize was saying had been tried and was a failure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math
  - kaitai 9y ago
    I know New Math from the 1960s; the sibling comment to my post indicates that ghettoCoder is talking about Common Core today and I disagree with his characterization of Common Core. New Math as practiced in the 1960s is a fascinating and very different failure case, although it probably had similar problems in implementation (poor teacher training and shoddy repackaged curricula).