Math wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Math wars is the debate over modern mathematics education, textbooks and curricula in the United States that was triggered by the publication in 1989 of the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and subsequent development and widespread adoption of a new generation of mathematics curricula inspired by these standards after the 1990s.

While the discussion about math skills has persisted for many decades,^[1] the term "math wars" was coined by commentators such as John A. Van de Walle^[2] and David Klein.^[3] The debate is over traditional mathematics and reform mathematics philosophy and curricula, which differ significantly in approach and content.

1 Advocates of Reform
2 Critics of Reform
3 Curricula
4 NCTM 2006 recommendations
5 National Mathematics Advisory Panel
6 References
7 See also

[edit] Advocates of Reform

One aspect of the debate is over how explicitly children must be taught skills based on formulas or algorithms (fixed, step-by-step procedures for solving math problems) versus a more inquiry-based approach in which students are exposed to real-world problems that help them develop fluency in number sense, reasoning, and problem-solving skills. In this latter approach, computational skills and correct answers are not the primary goals of instruction. ^[4]

Supporters of "reform" curricula, such as Thomas O'Brien, say that supporters of traditional methods have no tolerance for children's invented strategies or original thinking, and leave no room for children's use of estimation or calculators. O'Brien also notes that some of the most vocal critics of reform mathematics appear to have no expertise in mathematics and no experience teaching mathematics at any level^[5]

[edit] Critics of Reform

Those who disagree with the inquiry-based philosophy maintain that students must first develop computational skills before they can understand concepts of mathematics. These skills should be memorized and practiced until they become automatic. In this view, estimating answers is insufficient and, in fact, is considered to be dependent on strong foundational skills. Learning abstract concepts of mathematics is perceived to depend on a solid base of knowledge of the tools of the subject. ^[6]

[edit] Curricula

Examples of reform curricula introduced in response to the 1989 NCTM standards include:

Mathland (no longer offered)
Investigations in Numbers, Data, and Space
Core-Plus Mathematics Project
Connected Mathematics

Critics of "reform" textbooks say that they present concepts in a haphazard way. ^[7] One particular critical review of Investigations in Number, Data, and Space^[8] says:

It has no student textbook.
It uses 100 charts and skip counting, but not multiplication tables, to teach multiplication facts.
Decimal math is "effectively not present".

Critics of the "reform" textbooks and curricula support "traditional" textbooks such as Singapore Math and Saxon math, which emphasize algorithmic mathematics, such as arithmetic calculation, over mathematical concepts.

[edit] NCTM 2006 recommendations

In 2006, the NCTM released Curriculum Focal Points,^[9] a report on the topics considered central for school mathematics. NCTM considers "Focal Points" a step in the implementation of the Standards, not a reversal of its position on teaching students to learn foundational topics with conceptual understanding.^[10] Francis Fennell, president of the NCTM, stated that there had been no change of direction or policy in the new report and said that he resented talk of “math wars”.^[11]

Editorials in newspapers like the Chicago Sun Times stated that the "NCTM council has admitted, more or less, that it goofed," and that the new report cited "inconsistency in the grade placement of mathematics topics as well as in how they are defined and what students are expected to learn." ^[12]

[edit] National Mathematics Advisory Panel

On April 18, 2006, President Bush created the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The panel will advise the President and Education Secretary Spellings on the best use of scientifically based research on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Modeled after the influential National Reading Panel, the National Math Panel examined and summarized the scientific evidence related to the teaching and learning of mathematics, ^[13] concluding, "All-encompassing recommendations that instruction should be entirely 'student centered' or 'teacher directed' are not supported by research. If such recommendations exist, they should be rescinded. If they are being considered, they should be avoided. High-quality research does not support the exclusive use of either approach." ^[14]