I am glad to see the math professors criticizing the math methods that are being used in today’s schools. For parents, of a non-math background, it has been an up-hill battle, since many of us have been constantly told by the educrats we have no background in math.

This site is a keeper, and a gold mine for parents of non-math backgrounds, to understand what is important in math, and more importantly the edubabble in math.

Most of our present math programs in HS were designed by math profs.

Thanks for posting my video!

Dean:  It is not correct to say that our present math programs in HS were designed by math profs.  In fact, I have not yet met a mathematician who is happy with the current high school curricula (there may be some, of course, but not among the ones I know and work with)! 

The math curriculum in my province was designed by math consultants (teachers) and professors of math education who teach in education departments.  Professors of math education and math profs often do not see eye to eye on these things, which is quite unfortunate.

I can confirm what Hypatia has stated. A few years ago, I actually made the phone calls to universities, inquiring why the math profs are not involved in designing math texts. To put it simply, government has never asked us to, as well as other subject areas such as english and language.  All done within the ivy towers of education and education ministries.

The high school texts are the worse. A student today would be much better off using the texts in the 70s and 60s. At least here what is said is only a few pages, compare to the 20 to 30 pages to discuss one concept,

It’s been well known since the Macik report, that right across NA, educrats with zero expertise in subject areas have been writing all of texts for students; also, up to grade 10 teachers don’t need a degree in the subject they’re teaching in either.

Hypatia…......1
Dean/Doug…..0

What a refreshing contribution to this forum Hypatia.

To reinforce what others have said here and on other threads, my wife has just had her first run-in with math-ubabble (or Dougspeak as I like to call it).

Our son is in Grade 2.  I usually help him with his homework, but two nights ago she decided to pitch in.  The question sheet he brought home involved a “chef” making a “cake”.  For the cake, the chef needed something like 50 snakes, 20 frogs and 39 lizards (I am assuming she was trying to make it fun for the students).  The question was, “How many lizards does he need for two cakes?”

The first part involved coming up with a strategy for a solution.  OK, she was trying to get them to realize they need to add two two digit numbers.  The next step involved the calculation and the answer.  The math-ubabble?  There were THREE more steps to the sheet!  They involved reflection and communication of how they felt about doing the problem.

The real problem for my wife (beyond the silliness of the exercise in reflection)?  My son is in French Immersion.  She spent 15 minutes with her Collins just trying to decipher the page.  At the end, her only comment was “What BS!”

I said “Welcome to the new, new math.”  Now she has an understanding of what I have to deal with by the time I see them in Grade 9.  They get 8 years of this ‘stuff’, no wonder they can barely function.

BTW:  Thanks to Hypatia for her contributions.  It would be interesting to hear about this problem from the other side of the graduation line.

Readers might also like to take a peek at this link that has long been a favourite of SQE. 
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/

The Mathematically Correct website resulted from this open letter signed by dozens and dozens of math and physics professors ( and NOT as Hypatia points out math education professors.)  The list of signatories is quite impressive:
http://mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm

The site has been around for many years and is still relevant.  There are lots of good resources as well.

Still using the same type of questions, and as my child use to say and it never made sense to her using pictures, words and numbers, when numbers are easier to used.

Back in the primary grades, I too would struggle to make some type of sense, and what the teacher wanted the students to do. My kid, kept on saying, pictures, words and numbers. Instead of doing it the approved way, and decided to go the number route. In the process, I taught her how to lift the numbers in the word problems, watch out for words such and, of, twice, etc, underlined the numbers once, twice for the tiny words that will convey great meaning, and than decide what operation to used. In the process, I discovered that she seem to have major problems with the symbols of math. At the time, I read a rather lengthy study on symbols and the dyslexic mind. I solved the problem of the simple math symbols, by asking her to draw her symbols in 3D rather than two-dimensional. And it worked, she was doing the problems on her own. As for the words and pictures. That was a fight, until I found a solution, because she alway said my numbers are my words, and math is not art class, referring to the pictures. For words, I taught her the math proofs and the laws (sorry Wayne, I still do not have the correct math language) as her words, since words such as ‘because it works’, was not cutting it. As for pictures, I told her to draw geometric shapes for her pictures.

Math was not a fun subject, and made even more so dealing with the new-new-new-new math. I thought the school would be happy that my child could now break down a word problem, and actually get the correct answer. My way, was not approved, and as a result she was force to do the approved method at school.  It really showed on tests. Where the first page was words, pictures and numbers, and on the second page where there was no requirement to do in words, pictures and numbers. Just the numbers will do. It was only the numbers page that she often got perfect grades, and it was usually the most difficult to do.. I pointed it out to the teachers, and at times the teacher would point it out. But this is where the edubabble would entered into the picture…........and turned the parent-teacher interview on the things that I was doing wrong.

Wow Nancy,

I cannot believe that an educator, any educator would put a child through that.  My approach has always been to teach the ‘Quick and Dirty’ method.  Whatever is the quickest and most straightforward, that is what is best.  Students will ask me if they can do it another way.  I always respond by asking them if they are consistently able to get the right answer, and show me how.  If they can answer yes, then I tell them to go for it.

Why, since there are many ways to solve a problem, would you lock a child into one method?  Especially after decades of brainwashing by the educrats about ‘Multiple Intelligences’ and ‘Differentiated Instruction’, very hypocritical - but then why should we be surprised about that?.

Wayne, that was in elementary, but in high school that has all change. She is allowed to do it her way, but she is encourage to try the method that is instructed. Often the method is the new-new-new-new math, and not the old-fashioned method, direct and sweet to the point. Sometimes the method is the same, but it is done differently where there is extra steps, that I feel causes more confusion for my child. But it is the encouragement at school to try other methods, that she thinks she knows the material, and at the end she does not know it. The site that Doretta linked, “Mathematics achievement in America is far below what we would like it to be. Recent “reform” efforts only aggravate the problem. As a result, our children have less and less exposure to rigorous, content-rich mathematics .

The advocates of the new, fuzzy math have practiced their rhetoric well. They speak of higher-order thinking, conceptual understanding and solving problems, but they neglect the systematic mastery of the fundamental building blocks necessary for success in any of these areas. Their focus is on things like calculators, blocks, guesswork, and group activities and they shun things like algorithms and repeated practice. The new programs are shy on fundamentals and they also lack the mathematical depth and rigor that promotes greater achievement. “
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/

The used of algorithms and repeated practice, helps my child to make the connections, and in the end she can pass her math exams, with flying colours. Now that her class is on their fourth math teacher, I have to go down to the school to put a stopped to it, including the use of calculators for the simple numbers and once more explain the reasons why. In my head, it is so crucial to have the basics of algebra, geometry and trig down pat before post-secondary, so she has the ability to follow in lectures and using the same methods in reviewing and studying, that was refined in high school. More than likely, due to her LD, although it is not severe, she will be only entitled to extra time for exams at the post-secondary level. The more accomplished she is in math, the better she will do in the field of science, where math goes hand in hand with any aspect of science.

Nancy,

I’ll say it again: I wish people like you and Bev were in charge of the education system.  You use logic and research to form your opinions and you have lots of experience that would be useful.

Wait.  Logic?  Knowledge? Experience?  I guess that would DISqualify you for the job!

Wayne, thank you for the compliment, but I use logic and experience, and almost never use research, because it’s all common sense to me.  In my humble opinion, the research is a complete waste of time because it always states the obvious.

I was brought up in the Ontario public education system, where both my elementary and high school strive to give their students the knowledge, skills and abilities to navigate society as it is, and not as a vision. Also, it did not hurt to have a father who insisted that his children had logical thoughts, and to never accept the words of others, as the real facts. So, I have a healthy mistrust of educrats and other types when they are espousing visions, dreams that do not fit the reality and knowledge of the situation.