03-30-2008, 05:22 PM
B"H
Hello. Thank you for reading my post. I am going to briefly mention a phenomenon that took root in the California education system during the nineties. It has been largely rooted out, thankfully. This was called the "New New Math." The theory behind this form of math instruction was that the learning of mathematics would be best facilitated by students creating their own mathematical models as groups. The last part is key, "as groups." While this model may have had some merits, it relied very heavily on group work. One only wonders how many Aspies/Autistics might have fared under such a system?
Students would be grouped according to an ability model. The students who were better at math would help those who were least able to complete the task. All students received the same grade. And, to be sure, the more gifted students were not put in to the teacher retirement system for all of their labor. The system was a disaster. Students did not really learn the basics of mathematics. It was gradually phased out---although remnants of this philosophy seem to remain within teacher credential instruction.
Now, why do I bring this up? After a contentious (and fun) brawl on homeschooling, I would like to challenge the notion that the public school system is somehow simply staffed with objective experts. The public schools are highly political. They are not purely and simply dedicated to the pursuit of objective truth. Frankly, I am not sure if they even believe in objective truth these days. Half of the educational system wants fruitcake "New New Math", while the other half which opposes them wants a standardized test every year. The two of them together have destroyed education in the United States. A frightening percentage of students actually do not make it to High School graduation.
What was really wrong with the "New New Math." According to my conservative Uncle, it was the fact that it did not emphasize the fundamentals. That was true. Such was the complaint of many conservative people, and they were right. Yet, the truth goes much deeper. Remember that students worked in groups, and that mathematical truth was to be decided upon *SOCIALLY*. Truth, you see, was considered a social endeavor. Although this was couched in left-wing language, the notion that truth is something culturally specific is an idea that reactionaries have always championed since the time of the French Revolution. Radicals have embraced this concept in many respects as well, as have liberals, but cultural constructivism remains something that traditionalist paleo-conservative (along with older neo-conservatives) have generally held to as a bulwark against the more universalist critiques of existing societies.
Thus, we have "socially constructed mathematics" as the ultimate refutation of the Enlightenment, since objective mathematics was key to the development of Enlightenment thought. Now, from my standpoint, there are very valid critiques of the Enlightenment. However, the notion that reality is "constructed" is not one of them. Cultural refutations of the Enlightenment have a home in the post-Marxist New Left at this point, as well as among paleo-Rightists like the late William Buckley, whose American Patriotism may have been consistent with wanting a Hapsburg on the throne of the United States (according to one report). Again, I have my critiques of the Enlightenment, as you might have guessed from reading my other posts, but I accept its premise that truth is objective, universal, and in some of its aspects, knowable.
However, the California educational system believes otherwise. I believe that they would still have the "New New Math" today if the Bush Administration, which also hates objective truth, along with democracy itself, had not intervened with its NCLB Act, stipulating a whole new level of nonsense. That means that, theoretically, "2+2=5" if the group agrees upon that as an answer. Or, possibly, "2+2=3" if the group prefers. Remember Orwell? These are possibilities that I witnessed in a teacher credential multiple subject math classroom in which future teachers were placed in such groups, and while most could not add or subtract fractions, I was the trouble maker because I just did the problems correctly without consulting the group. I know that this sounds like I'm a trouble maker, but you had to be there in order to understand.
Thus, while I do not advocate homeschooling as a panacea, I understand the motives of those who undertake it. I would rather homeschool my children with a belief in objective truth than to have them in a "social laboratory." Now, I would rather have a genuinely pluralistic and democratic school system with rigorous standards in academics and behavior than to have any children hanging around me all day (believe me!). Yet, I see social pressures from both ends of the spectrum underminding education. In particular, I do not want my children being taught someone's notion of religion. They should learn our faith, not that of the majority of parents in a community (or its biggest loudmouths).
So, in conclusion, math instruction should be seen as the objective discovery of truth. Math groups are OK, as is constructivism, as long as we remember that the goal is truth. A generous role for the teacher should thus be provided in order to facilitate the movement toward knowledge. And, while self-esteem is a desired model, the self-esteem should come from assisted mastery of the subject. "I did not think I could do it, but I did!" This is the best educational model, as well as the most traditional.
And so I leave this subject, for a while at least.
Thank you. All the best.
Hello. Thank you for reading my post. I am going to briefly mention a phenomenon that took root in the California education system during the nineties. It has been largely rooted out, thankfully. This was called the "New New Math." The theory behind this form of math instruction was that the learning of mathematics would be best facilitated by students creating their own mathematical models as groups. The last part is key, "as groups." While this model may have had some merits, it relied very heavily on group work. One only wonders how many Aspies/Autistics might have fared under such a system?
Students would be grouped according to an ability model. The students who were better at math would help those who were least able to complete the task. All students received the same grade. And, to be sure, the more gifted students were not put in to the teacher retirement system for all of their labor. The system was a disaster. Students did not really learn the basics of mathematics. It was gradually phased out---although remnants of this philosophy seem to remain within teacher credential instruction.
Now, why do I bring this up? After a contentious (and fun) brawl on homeschooling, I would like to challenge the notion that the public school system is somehow simply staffed with objective experts. The public schools are highly political. They are not purely and simply dedicated to the pursuit of objective truth. Frankly, I am not sure if they even believe in objective truth these days. Half of the educational system wants fruitcake "New New Math", while the other half which opposes them wants a standardized test every year. The two of them together have destroyed education in the United States. A frightening percentage of students actually do not make it to High School graduation.
What was really wrong with the "New New Math." According to my conservative Uncle, it was the fact that it did not emphasize the fundamentals. That was true. Such was the complaint of many conservative people, and they were right. Yet, the truth goes much deeper. Remember that students worked in groups, and that mathematical truth was to be decided upon *SOCIALLY*. Truth, you see, was considered a social endeavor. Although this was couched in left-wing language, the notion that truth is something culturally specific is an idea that reactionaries have always championed since the time of the French Revolution. Radicals have embraced this concept in many respects as well, as have liberals, but cultural constructivism remains something that traditionalist paleo-conservative (along with older neo-conservatives) have generally held to as a bulwark against the more universalist critiques of existing societies.
Thus, we have "socially constructed mathematics" as the ultimate refutation of the Enlightenment, since objective mathematics was key to the development of Enlightenment thought. Now, from my standpoint, there are very valid critiques of the Enlightenment. However, the notion that reality is "constructed" is not one of them. Cultural refutations of the Enlightenment have a home in the post-Marxist New Left at this point, as well as among paleo-Rightists like the late William Buckley, whose American Patriotism may have been consistent with wanting a Hapsburg on the throne of the United States (according to one report). Again, I have my critiques of the Enlightenment, as you might have guessed from reading my other posts, but I accept its premise that truth is objective, universal, and in some of its aspects, knowable.
However, the California educational system believes otherwise. I believe that they would still have the "New New Math" today if the Bush Administration, which also hates objective truth, along with democracy itself, had not intervened with its NCLB Act, stipulating a whole new level of nonsense. That means that, theoretically, "2+2=5" if the group agrees upon that as an answer. Or, possibly, "2+2=3" if the group prefers. Remember Orwell? These are possibilities that I witnessed in a teacher credential multiple subject math classroom in which future teachers were placed in such groups, and while most could not add or subtract fractions, I was the trouble maker because I just did the problems correctly without consulting the group. I know that this sounds like I'm a trouble maker, but you had to be there in order to understand.
Thus, while I do not advocate homeschooling as a panacea, I understand the motives of those who undertake it. I would rather homeschool my children with a belief in objective truth than to have them in a "social laboratory." Now, I would rather have a genuinely pluralistic and democratic school system with rigorous standards in academics and behavior than to have any children hanging around me all day (believe me!). Yet, I see social pressures from both ends of the spectrum underminding education. In particular, I do not want my children being taught someone's notion of religion. They should learn our faith, not that of the majority of parents in a community (or its biggest loudmouths).
So, in conclusion, math instruction should be seen as the objective discovery of truth. Math groups are OK, as is constructivism, as long as we remember that the goal is truth. A generous role for the teacher should thus be provided in order to facilitate the movement toward knowledge. And, while self-esteem is a desired model, the self-esteem should come from assisted mastery of the subject. "I did not think I could do it, but I did!" This is the best educational model, as well as the most traditional.
And so I leave this subject, for a while at least.
Thank you. All the best.