Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)
americanheritage.com
Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)
1–10 of 106 posts
Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)
#2[deleted]
Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)
#3It wasn't just the USA. Even in the conservative Portugal of the 1960s/70s a small wave of "modern math" (as it was called here) washed over the high-schools.
I believe it was more of an experimental thing, with partial adoption - i.e. only one of the math teachers would use the new syllabus on their students, with classes six days a week (yep, back then there was Saturday morning school).
All I remember now is a bit of bafflement at the set theory paraphernalia, rings and groups etc.
Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)
#4Is there any way out of that site's pagination? Even the print button doesn't help.
Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)
#5Is there any way out of that site's pagination? Even the print button doesn't help.
It seems like if you only load the HTML then use Reader mode that it does OK. I use μMatrix and have it only load HTML for sites where I have not explicitly allowed additional content.
Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)
#6Is there any way out of that site's pagination? Even the print button doesn't help.
It seems like if you only load the HTML then use Reader mode that it does OK. I use μMatrix and have it only load HTML for sites where I have not explicitly allowed additional content.
Firefox native Reader mode works great here (although I have uBlock installed, not sure how much annoyances it filters out).
Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)
#7Fashions, programs, rhetoric, task forces, agendas, etc., come and go in the public schools. The only constant is no change in results.
It's actually kinda funny. There's an endless search for an effortless way to learn math. There is no such thing. Learning math requires work.
Just like there is no way to get strong without hard work.
Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)
#8Fashions, programs, rhetoric, task forces, agendas, etc., come and go in the public schools. The only constant is no change in results. It's actually kinda funny. There's an endless search for an effortless way to learn math. There is no such thing. Learning math requires work. Just like there is no way to get strong without hard work.
> There's an endless search for an effortless way to learn math.
Nonsense. There is a search for more effective ways to teach math. And there most definitely are differences in effectiveness, so no reason to believe that any given way is optimal.
> Just like there is no way to get strong without hard work.
There are, however, lots of ways to spend a lot of hard work for little gain.
Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)
#9Fashions, programs, rhetoric, task forces, agendas, etc., come and go in the public schools. The only constant is no change in results. It's actually kinda funny. There's an endless search for an effortless way to learn math. There is no such thing. Learning math requires work. Just like there is no way to get strong without hard work.
> There's an endless search for an effortless way to learn math. Nonsense. There is a search for more effective ways to teach math. And there most definitely are differences in effectiveness, so no reason to believe that any given way is optimal. > Just like there is no way to get strong without hard work. There are, however, lots of ways to spend a lot of hard work for little gain.
If we were finding better way to teach then kids scores would improve, but they aren't improving.
Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)
#10Tom Lehrer did a funny song about New Math: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA