There’s almost no good idea in pedagogy that doesn’t become a bad idea the moment it hardens into orthodoxy. People’s exhibit 1A: Constructivist math. On the surface, the idea makes sense. It’s not enough to perform a math algorithm by rote. If you divide fractions by saying “Yours is not to reason why, just invert and multiply,” you’ll get the right answer, but you don’t really understand the math. Constructivist math values the why of math over the how. But somehow, in too many schools, this good idea—that children should actually understand the calculations they’re performing—transmogrified into “children should not be taught standard algorithms.”
The video above, produced by a Washington State TV news personality M. J. McDermott, shows of examples of TERC and Everyday Math problems and how those programs expect students to solve them. Teachers may find it familiar, but it’s instructive for parents and policy types who might wonder why math scores continue to lag. Remember that this is not a fringe curriculum, but mainstream math as it’s taught in tens of thousands of classrooms every day. Meanwhile, parents in suburban Washington, DC are the latest to raise questions about the constructivist math instruction their kids are getting in school, even launching a dissenting parent web site.
As a teacher, I certainly want my students to understand the bigger concepts behind long division and two-digit multiplication. But I don’t want them to take 20 minutes to multiply 26×31. Truth be told, I went off the reservation and gave my students daily timed drills until they were all able to do 80 problems in five minutes. Watch the video and ask yourself how a student who doesn’t have automatic grasp of math facts can possible score well on a standardized test when calculators are forbidden.
The video, by the way, is from the Where’s the Math web site, which puts forth a reasonable position on math instruction: “Math education must be balanced, encouraging solid essential skills and understanding. It is time to stop blaming teachers— poor State math standards and curricula are failing our students. Well-meaning activists, pushing unsupported theories, have undermined our State’s educational system.”
…children should actually understand the calculations they’re performing—transmogrified into “children should not be taught standard algorithms.”
The reason is simple: we do not wish to commit to the day-to-day effort that learning the fundamentals require. And hey, learning wrote facts is no fun.
Ah, a blast from the past! When I was a boy, we didn’t call it “constructivist math,” we called it “New Math.” For a few of us, me for example, it was very nice, but for most people, it just didn’t work.
The uncomfortable truth is, most people don’t have abstract minds, and don’t do well with pure theory. And hardly anyone NEEDS to know this. I loved the set theory that the “New Math” taught me, but it’s not something I need to know for practical purposes.