Math Education: An inconvenient truth

[Barachem]

I don't know if you people have ever seen this video on youtube, but it is quite insightful why math education on public schools in the US fails from the source material on.

[YOU TUBE VIDEO]Tr1qee-bTZI[/YOU TUBE VIDEO]

And i know that we in the Netherlands also had school reforms, which made the high schools worse regarding education.
They're actively trying to dumb us down, even using schools against us.
I totally understand the need for home schooling. :ohno

[booklover]

Interesting video. My kids are using Saxon Math in 2nd and 5th grade, and they get lots of fact memorization and algorhythems. I can't imagine doing the math curriculum she shows.

[lisaann]

Wow, they are making math 10 times as hard as it needs to be. Plus there is way too much room for error in those methods. :tsk

[Everlasting Peace]

Thanks for the excellent video! When my son was being taught in the public school, I saw a lot of what the lady in the video was talking about. I don't know which curriculum the school was using, because they didn't have math books - only printed sheets to work from. I wonder where our tax dollars are going (other than outrageously well-equipped gym equipment), but that's a whole other subject!

When my son was showing me his math homework, I was like...what the heck is that!? All the grouping, and re-groupings, to do simple multiplication was so confusing that I didn't even know what they wanted, and without a book, I had no clue as to what they meant by clusters.

I also agree with her about overuse of calculators. Students are encouraged to even use them on state standardized tests. I told my son that he's not going to walk around with a calculator to the grocery store, or elsewhere, all his life so the calculator wasn't an option to replace knowing how to multiply and divide.

I'm so thankful that I can now home school my son, and actually teach him how to do "old-fashioned" math as opposed to some convoluted system of nonsense that serves no purpose other than to confuse and frustrate kids.

When we were in school, we had math bees, similar to spelling bees. The teachers actually did their jobs to ensure we memorized our multiplication tables. Gee, what a concept that schools do what we're paying them to do!

[Anddra]

Kids are so used to doing their maths on a calculator that they are no longer able to recognise when they have made a mistake.

[OnTheHorizon]

I had no idea this was going on in the schools. :tsk
Thanks for sharing this video.

[KaiafromBergen]

Yes, public education these days does not, in any way, prepare "most" kids for college.

Example, my nephew enrolled in community college after he graduated in 2006, I also enrolled in community college in 2006 (I didn't go to college after high school - graduated in 1980.) When we both took the "admittance" testing, I only had to take one refresher in algebra before I qualified for "college algebra." All other subjects, I could start at college level.

My nephew, on the other hand, had to start every subject at the refresher level - except for math - that he had to start at the basic level - "whole numbers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, basic geometry, etc .. . " even though he had had these "classes" in high school! He spent his first year taking classes that don't count for anything toward a degree!

Top that off with the fact that technology/knowledge basically doubles every 3-5 years . . . How can any child keep up if they don't know the basics?

[NoTomorrow]

I supervise math teachers in a large public school system. Please do not get the idea that these type of math programs are what a majority of schools do. Most public school students learn math in the very same way that students did 50 years ago. From my experience, very few schools use Everyday Math. I wouldn't suggest anyone uses that program. Even the traditional programs in public schools need to increase their rigor. Many states are finally realizing that and rewriting their standards at a much higher level.

Every student should learn the standard algorithm for multiplication. However, how many students can tell you why you "move over" one place when you go to the second row of your multiplication? The person in the video said that sometimes you put a zero there, but that was really it. That's where partial products helps students understand the standard algorithm. It should be taught in the beginning of teaching two digit by two digit multiplication, but it should not be the end product we hope students produce.

For any math geeks out there, you are using partial products when you multiply or "FOIL" two binomials. Remember the old (x + 2)(x + 3) equals x squared + 3x + 2x + 6. That's the same partial products idea she was showing in the video. (20 + 6)(30 + 1) equals 600 + 20 + 180 + 6 or 786. The problem is that most teachers that teach partial products never realize this connection. It's a great way to show an algebra student why "FOIL" works.

Programs such as Everyday Math only work if they are in the hands of a very gifted teacher who has had a lot of professional development on implementing the program and who has enough time in his/her class to implement the program as it was intended. There's not many situations like that in public schools. As for lattice math, the only thing I found it to be good for is practicing your basic facts.

[Everlasting Peace]

I supervise math teachers in a large public school system. Please do not get the idea that these type of math programs are what a majority of schools do. Most public school students learn math in the very same way that students did 50 years ago. From my experience, very few schools use Everyday Math. I wouldn't suggest anyone uses that program.

On their website, it’s stated that “Everyday Mathematics” - AKA “Chicago Math” - is currently being used in over 185,000 classrooms by almost 3,000,000 students. On the “Terc” website, they tout their program is being used across the country. Since my last post, I did some investigation into the math curriculum our school district uses because I clearly recalled my son bringing home papers with the same types of examples the lady in the video was demonstrating. Our school district uses yet another version of “fuzzy math” known as the "Scott Foresman Addison Wesley Curriculum" with many of the same concepts and theories used in “Everyday Mathematics.” These programs are more widespread than your response leads people to believe. “MTV” “fuzzy” or “Chicago” math is in a significant minority of schools, if not a majority. Based on my experience, since the 1970’s, the idea that “boring old math” needs to be updated in presentation is an idea that has swept the educational community. Curricula, which did away with teaching basic math skills, were developed and tested on children. In October 1999, the United Stated Education Department endorsed 10 controversial “fuzzy math” programs to educators attending a national conference, and from there it exploded.


Even the traditional programs in public schools need to increase their rigor. Many states are finally realizing that and rewriting their standards at a much higher level.

My experience with public schools has led me to believe that raising standards is another way of creating problems. The focus needs to be on basic skills mastery, and not higher standards. Even in saying that, public schools are destroying the very thing they’re trying to achieve. Modern educators just can’t get it out of their heads that not everyone is going to spend their life as a great student, but that everyone will need basic real life skills. For example, the average person may never be a Professor of Mathematics, but the average person does need to know whether five cans of corn for 2.00 is a better deal than 44 cents a can. The reality is, many schools across the nation aren’t raising standards, but instead they are bending curricula to focus on raising test scores so they can receive their government funding. Because of that, they aren’t teaching math, for example, chapter by chapter, nor are they teaching it like they did 50 years ago. They’re pulling out only what is necessary to pass the standardized tests and as a result, the original intent (one being teacher competency) of standardized testing has been distorted.


Every student should learn the standard algorithm for multiplication. However, how many students can tell you why you "move over" one place when you go to the second row of your multiplication?

Except for math theorists, the average person doesn’t need to “know” why we move over places or carry numbers. They only need to know how to use it proficiently. When students are taught the basic algorithm, place value is a part of that explanation, but it’s knowledge brought from a previous place value unit. As with anything else with school, interested students always have the opportunity to investigate further, but the basic curriculum needs to service the main goal, which is subject proficiency. When pricing a can of corn, I don’t revel in the theory of place value; I just want the cheaper can of corn.


The person in the video said that sometimes you put a zero there, but that was really it. That's where partial products helps students understand the standard algorithm. It should be taught in the beginning of teaching two digit by two digit multiplication, but it should not be the end product we hope students produce.

The lady in the video was doing a roughly fifteen minute explanation, and off-handedly mentioned a tool that some people use to maintain place values. She wasn’t actually teaching math; she was trying to explain the complications introduced to basic problem solving by “fuzzy mathematics” methods that replace double-digit multiplication.


For any math geeks out there, you are using partial products when you multiply or "FOIL" two binomials. Remember the old (x + 2)(x + 3) equals x squared + 3x + 2x + 6. That's the same partial products idea she was showing in the video. (20 + 6)(30 + 1) equals 600 + 20 + 180 + 6 or 786. The problem is that most teachers that teach partial products never realize this connection. It's a great way to show an algebra student why "FOIL" works.

Understanding partial products as a pre-requisite to being able to proficiently use the multiplication algorithm is like understanding why a transmission works in order to shift gears in a standard transmission car - it's not necessary. “Fuzzy math” bogs down the rote development process in explanations that bore the bright students and confuse the average students. I think it’s obvious that in the number 806, for example, the 8 represents hundreds. That concept is taught before multiplication is introduced in a separate unit. As for multiplying two binominals, elementary students need to learn basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division solving skills before they move on to the kind of algebraic solution methods you referenced under the “FOIL” example. To mix those concepts with double-digit multiplication only serves to confuse and frustrate students. It teaches them a method that isn’t applied to everyday life when quickly trying to calculate items at a store, for example. Getting back to the person at the grocery store, when trying to figure out which can of corn is less expensive, the “fuzzy math” methods are more complicated to solve in your head than having basic knowledge that 200/50 equals 40. While the school stresses dependence on calculators, the reality is, the average person doesn’t carry a calculator everywhere they are likely to use day-to-day math. How many women have you ever seen take a calculator grocery or dress shopping? How many men take a calculator to the ball game or home improvement store? In comparison, students can now rely on calculators built into cell phones. There’s no substitute for basic math skills, which can be proficiently recalled, in everyday life. Having to rely on a calculator for basic multiplication and division is both shameful and reflects poorly on public schools who routinely push that "method" of math as a replacement for basic knowledge.


Programs such as Everyday Math only work if they are in the hands of a very gifted teacher who has had a lot of professional development on implementing the program and who has enough time in his/her class to implement the program as it was intended. There's not many situations like that in public schools. As for lattice math, the only thing I found it to be good for is practicing your basic facts.

Your view that “Everyday Math” is time consuming contradicts the author’s claim that it’s less time consuming than old-style mathematics. Regardless, your description of gifted teachers with professional development in classes with adequate time to cater to all student-learning levels is utopian in the extreme. Fuzzy math isn’t being promoted as some kind of higher math exploration, but as a replacement for basic skills development. The problem is, they don’t have time to teach these methods to students, but then wonder why standardized test scores are low.

The public schools are failing our children, and the proof is in the fact that America is consistently falling farther and farther behind up and coming nations. The top rated nations use the old school algorithms. In America, young liberal teachers stick their noses up at what worked in the past and praise the newest curricula. Our educational system today is a joke and the teachers aren’t doing their jobs. The United States is rated at or near the bottom (in all subject areas) when compared to other Industrialized Nation’s public schools. This establishes that teaching methods have indeed changed within the last 50 years, and not for the better. Our brightest students are still leading the world in innovations, but our average students continue to fall behind. America led the world 50 years ago without having to “raise” their standards because they taught good old-fashioned reading, writing and arithmetic skills very well, along with discipline and respect. As an example, in the past, teachers used spelling and math bees in class, which was a very good motivator for students to memorize multiplication and spelling. Nowadays, those types of practice sessions are considered harmful because a student may be embarrassed. Welcome to an era of psycho-babble and political correctness in public schools where they were even arrogant enough to throw God outside the classroom. No thanks!

[NoTomorrow]

I think the previous poster may have misunderstood my post. I agree with almost everything that was said as would most every math teacher I work with. I don't like programs like Everyday Math or ones that use alternative algorithms that have no real applications. I work in a public school system because I want to make a difference for the kids who aren't fortunate enough to be homeschooled or attend private schools. I am very much a back to the basics kind of person. I believe in teaching real-life mathematics and number sense. I am a strong advocate for the standard algorithms.

As far as Everyday Math being a popular program---while 3,000,00 may seem like a lot, and it is, that is only about six percent of students. It's 3,000,000 too many, but it's not in every school. I checked with the surrounding school districts to see if any of them are using it and not one was. It may be popular in different regions of the country, but it isn't here.

When I have taught multiplying two-digit numbers by two-digit numbers, it has never failed that a student asks why you move over one place on the second row. Partial products is a way to answer that student's question. It's not something I would expect a child to master. It's a way to explain something so students understand the standard algorithm. It's helped my students become better at multipication.

I use partial products when I go to the store. If I am buying 12 of something, I usually multiply the price by 10. Then, I multiply the price by 2 and add the two numbers together. That's partial products. Just like people may not carry a calculator with them, they usually don't have paper and pencil either. They do it in their heads. So, for mental math, partial products is very effective. It's really not as bad an idea as it seems. Kids do get it. Nevertheless, they should always learn the standard algorithms. There's a reason they have been around for years.

I think the point the person in the video was trying to make is to be aware of these math programs. They are not teaching the math your child may need. If you're selecting a program for your child, reseach it to make sure it teaches your child the fundamentals.