WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

787

https://archive.ph/5xwq3

New Mathematics or New Math was a dramatic but temporary change in the way mathematics was taught in American grade schools These curricula were quite different from one another, yet shared the idea that children's learning of arithmetic algorithms would last past the exam only if memorization and practice were paired with teaching for understanding. More specifically, elementary school arithmetic beyond single digits makes sense only on the basis of understanding place value. This goal was the reason for teaching arithmetic in bases other than ten in the New Math, despite critics' derision: In that unfamiliar context, students couldn't just mindlessly follow an algorithm, but had to think why the place value of the "hundreds" digit in base seven is 49. Keeping track of non-decimal notation also explains the need to distinguish numbers (values) from the numerals that represent them, a distinction some critics considered fetishistic.

Topics introduced in the New Math include set theory, modular arithmetic, algebraic inequalities, bases other than 10, matrices, symbolic logic, Boolean algebra, and abstract algebra. All of the New Math projects emphasized some form of discovery learning. Students worked in groups to invent theories about problems posed in the textbooks. Materials for teachers described the classroom as "noisy." Part of the job of the teacher was to move from table to table assessing the theory that each group of students had developed and "torpedoing" wrong theories by providing counterexamples. For that style of teaching to be tolerable for students, they had to experience the teacher as a colleague rather than as an adversary or as someone concerned mainly with grading. New Math workshops for teachers, therefore, spent as much effort on the pedagogy as on the mathematics.

It's totally different than common core from what I've read though.

https://archive.ph/5xwq3 >New Mathematics or New Math was a dramatic but temporary change in the way mathematics was taught in American grade schools These curricula were quite different from one another, yet shared the idea that children's learning of arithmetic algorithms would last past the exam only if memorization and practice were paired with teaching for understanding. >More specifically, elementary school arithmetic beyond single digits makes sense only on the basis of understanding place value. This goal was the reason for teaching arithmetic in bases other than ten in the New Math, despite critics' derision: In that unfamiliar context, students couldn't just mindlessly follow an algorithm, but had to think why the place value of the "hundreds" digit in base seven is 49. Keeping track of non-decimal notation also explains the need to distinguish numbers (values) from the numerals that represent them, a distinction some critics considered fetishistic. >Topics introduced in the New Math include set theory, modular arithmetic, algebraic inequalities, bases other than 10, matrices, symbolic logic, Boolean algebra, and abstract algebra. All of the New Math projects emphasized some form of discovery learning. Students worked in groups to invent theories about problems posed in the textbooks. Materials for teachers described the classroom as "noisy." Part of the job of the teacher was to move from table to table assessing the theory that each group of students had developed and "torpedoing" wrong theories by providing counterexamples. For that style of teaching to be tolerable for students, they had to experience the teacher as a colleague rather than as an adversary or as someone concerned mainly with grading. New Math workshops for teachers, therefore, spent as much effort on the pedagogy as on the mathematics. It's totally different than common core from what I've read though.

(post is archived)

[–] 4 pts

My theory is that in order to achieve parity with low IQ people, they made math too difficult for the high IQ students to understand. You can't raise low IQ people up, but you dumb high IQ people down.

[–] 4 pts

I learned a lot of those things as well as the traditional items without the teach being a "colleague". My wife is a tutor, but gets me to help when it comes to math. They are teaching a lot of things that are useless to the 99.99%. And not teaching stuff that is very useful.

[–] 4 pts

Intuition has its place but students at that age should still have certain things memorized and be able to do raw calculations.

[–] 4 pts

For that style of teaching to be tolerable for students, they had to experience the teacher as a colleague rather than as an adversary or as someone concerned mainly with grading.

This was the purpose of the Frankfort School. Moving all authority figures out of their position as superiors and into the realm of colleagues.

[–] 3 pts

This kind of teaching isn't possible when the teachers themselves don't understand what they're teaching.

[–] 3 pts

I don't think the concept was bad, I just the the execution was awful because the teachers couldn't grasp the concepts.

[–] 4 pts

Makes sense.

Not all the students would be equally capable either. So even if the class was set up and properly ran by the teacher you would wind up with some kids being the leaders while the majority would follow and a few would just not get it at all.

[–] 2 pts

Did you know about "New Math"?

Yep. Learned it in NYC public schools in the 70s and 80s.

[–] 2 pts

Glad I never had to go through that.

[–] 1 pt

Yeah, I remember that. It was about the same time I started failing math...

[–] 1 pt

Problem is that people just don't want to accept that some kids are naturally good at math and some aren't. The ones that are do not require special methods of teaching and the ones that aren't won't remember it anyway. They should just teach math in the most direct manner and the kids that can't keep up shouldn't be forced into ever higher levels of math just so they don't feel bad.

Load more (3 replies)