heartofdakota.com

So we use Teaching Textbooks for math, but I am very concerned about what Carrie mentioned about her reservations regarding TT because they teach the "new math". I haven't heard of this before, but it's very important to me that my children understand and really get math, because my husband and I never did. So I need to get the scoop on this. Can anyone tell me what they know about new math?

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math
does this help?

the thing that confuses me is that some of the Singapore math books are called New Math, right? Does this have any connection to the other New Math?

this is interesting! From what I have been reading new math also covers adding and subtracting in base 8 or base 6 not always base 10 how confusing... And right now Singapore is teaching my kid to break apart her 56 into 40 and 16 then subtract the 8, in a "regrouping" method (not borrowing method) and I think this regrouping is considered new math... but since she will resort to an Abacus when stuck she sees the borrowing method in action and is ignoring the regrouping altogether.

I don't know if "Everyday Math" is considered new math, but it's all over our schools here and it's not good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI

Tansy wrote:this is interesting! From what I have been reading new math also covers adding and subtracting in base 8 or base 6 not always base 10 how confusing... And right now Singapore is teaching my kid to break apart her 56 into 40 and 16 then subtract the 8, in a "regrouping" method (not borrowing method) and I think this regrouping is considered new math... but since she will resort to an Abacus when stuck she sees the borrowing method in action and is ignoring the regrouping altogether.

I'm not sure the term "regrouping" instead of borrowing makes it new math. I think that it was re-termed b/c you aren't borrowing (you don't give it back!) and what you really are doing is regrouping the ones or tens or whatever. If you do it with manipulatives, you are making a new group-- hence REgrouping. So I like that idea and it makes more sense to my dd who I used the borrowing term with and she always thought she was somehow meant to give it back at some point. LOL

I also like how SM teaches them to break apart the numers and I don't think that's new math either. I think it's the basis of mental math, being able to see the parts of numbers to make them work in your head. You can't very well do 56 minus 28 in your head, but you can think of 56 as 40 and 16, take 8 from 16 leaving 8 and 2 tens from 20 leaving 20 to total 28. Same with adding...I'd do 28 plus 28 as 16 plus 40 (8 plus 8 and 20 plus 20). If you learn the basis and concept behind it that SM is teaching in the early years, then later you can bypass the "regrouping" all together and just add/subt in parts like this in a way that doesn't even seem like you are taking that step.

So I don't find SM to contain new math AT ALL. That doesn't mean I can really describe what new math is though! LOL

And SM's "New Math" isn't the same as the method invading America's public schools from what I understand.

I had to tutor a whole bunch of students up through middle school several years after our school district adopted a "new math" or "Chicago style" curriculum, as they called it too. What I found is that the way they were teaching math was so different from any way we'd ever learned it, that it was near to impossible for parents to help with it when their dc were confused. It also typically taught one way to do things (rather than a handful of helpful strategies as SM does), so if kiddos didn't get that one way, they were lost! They also often brought certain objects to their tutoring sessions that they were supposed to use to figure out problems. It was so confusing! They couldn't explain what the objects were for, and when I explained algebra to them without the objects, they understood it - but then they were supposed to demonstrate how to use the objects to solve the problems as part of their grade. This soured my opinion of new math, but perhaps it has made gains since then. I do not want to be negative about this, but I just felt so very sorry for those dc as they were so lost in math. I also noticed they did not know their math facts at all. Most of my sixth grade boys were still counting on their fingers to figure simple computation problems. Anyway, I hope it's improved, and my school was not using TT, so this is just my experience with "new math".

In Christ,
Julie

I liked that video! The argument that it wastes school time to teach the kids basic memorization is just silly I have a memorization program that takes 7 min a day and works with my very Math "disabled" child.

Very fascinating stuff What is scary is this New Math Method is how I coped through math most of my life...
This is what I used to do (my own personal method) I did this all though college too. Mainly because the numbers on the page would bounce a round or flip due to my dyslexia and I could figure it out via my method and have a better chance of a right answer. My Algebra teacher in college used to write comments on my papers saying I have NO Idea how you got the right answer this way :-/
For example
133/6 I couldn't handle
so I would deal with it as a half of it's self.
133/2 65+1.5 or 66 with an extra 1
66/6= 11 11x2 = 22 with a remainder of 1

But this method was fraught with peril as I still made errors in addition along the way and some times I couldn't turn it into a easy problem. Eventually I was able to do the standard algorithms and I finally learned place value by having to teach it LOL!!! But as a way of teaching I can't imagine trying to teach it this way. I could understand it because I created it in my little mind, but whenever I tried to explain it I just confused people. I think because I could only do math in pictures.
I was a kid when I thought this up... they can't do better than a child's thinking? Oi Vey!

Doesn't MUS use the 'regrouping' method when teaching multiplication? He does it to teach the concept that when you multiply, you are multiplying x hundreds, y tens, and z units. It made sense to me and I think its important for the kids to understand what they are doing.

If you just teach the method of how to multiply a three digit number without the "WHY", then the kids don't truly understand.

I'm a bit confused, so please help me if I'm off base here.

This is not about "new math" because I don't know much about it. But I have a comment about SM. I was taught math largely by my dad, who is an engineer. He taught me to do math in my head, intuitively, to break things down in a way that's easy to remember. I always liked math and was (hopefully still am) good at it. So I am excited to use SM because it seems like it teaches in much the same way my father taught me. I'm so thankful he taught me like he did!

Monique,

The term "New Math" really came into regular use along with the release of a set of textbooks called Chicago-Style Math. These textbooks became all the rage in school districts all across America as a way to reinvent math and tackle it in a new way. It dispensed with much of what we considered the logical sequential way of doing math and changed the way kiddos were taught math. For example, formulas may be taught with little to no understanding of how the formula developed or the why of it, drill of any kind was dismissed, word problems became the focus for most of math with little work on computation, hands-on manipulatives were introduced (in very unique ways) at the middle school level, and much abstract thinking was required to solve the problems with little understanding of how or why the problems could be solved the way they were. The progression, or order, of introducing new concepts was also random. One concept no longer built upon the previous concept. Children were bewildered, parents were at a loss of how to help, and teachers weren't sure how to proceed through such a random curriculum. Students began to fail their math classes, or else teachers began grading on a large curve to pass their students. Test scores began to plummet, and children who previously had been successful with math began to feel like they no longer understood it. Some school districts rallied and pushed on with the "new math" - not wanting to spend more money that they didn't have on another math curriculum. Other districts bailed out, and went back to their previous math texts after outcries from parents and students.

This new math is the math that we guard against and is not the type of math we're seeing within Math-U-See, Singapore, or most other homeschool programs out there. It is not a terminology, but rather it is a method. When texts lapse into giving formulas and do not give the reason behind the formula (or else give a very convoluted way to solve a problem or give a "we're not quite sure why this works but it does" response, we say they are lapsing into "new math"). Math is a logical, sequential body of information. We do know why it works the way it does, formulas are based on precise reasoning, the why is important behind the how, and it's important for kiddos to be able to know this in order to think mathematically and to reason.

If you desire to know more about "new math", simply search for Chicago-Style math, and you will find more information than you have time to read! Other companies have jumped on the "new math" bandwagon too, although it is less of a push than it once was. It continues to be a scary trend that has not yet run its course. We are grateful that in homeschool circles there is much of less of the "new math" to be found.

I hope this helps!

Blessings,
Carrie

I'm trying to decide what to use for pre-algebra (or algebra) for my DD for next year.

So, my question for Carrie is: Does Teaching Textbooks use "new math"?

I am currently looking at:
1. Continuing with Saxon for Algebra 1/2. (We have used BOTH Saxon and Singapore together all the way through, or I should say that we first did MCP K, A, B, C, D and then Saxon 5/4, 6/5, 7/6 while using Singapore 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B. This year my DD finished Saxon 7/6, but did NOT do Singapore 6A/6B.)

2. MUS Pre-Algebra.

3. Teaching Textbooks. (Either Pre-algebra or Algebra. My DD tests into Algebra in their program.)

4. Videotext Algebra, but take it VERY slowly at first.

My DD will be in 7th grade, but I am FINE (and actually PREFER that she take algebra in 8th grade, possibly 7th). The brief exposures she has had to it have not been a problem for her. My husband was a math/computer science major and I was a biochemistry major. So, math is "in our blood." My kids LOVE it too....at least my older kids. How we approach math will probably be different for my 5 yo hands-on, not so "academic" boy.