Northwest Journal of Teacher Education Volume 5 Issue 1 Northwest Passage: Journal of Article 7 Educational Practices January 2007 Public Perception: New Math and Reform Mathematics Daniel L. Canada Eastern Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/nwjte Part of the Education Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Canada, Daniel L. (2007) "Public Perception: New Math and Reform Mathematics," Northwest Journal of Teacher Education: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1 , Article 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15760/nwjte.2007.5.1.7 This open access Article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). All documents in PDXScholar should meet accessibility standards. If we can make this document more accessible to you, contact our team. ~ Canada: Public Perception: New Math and Reform Mathematics ~ f H Public Perception: New Math and Reform Mathematics I !· ',c, I, !i; Daniel L. Canada Eastern Washington University ABSTRACT Since connections are made in the public mind between current reform ef­ ~ forts in mathematics education and the changes of the past which were collectively 11 called "new math,", the purpose of this paper is to examine these two movements more closely. First, the beginning of both movements is examined, including not L only a look at the supporters of each movement, but also an examination of their 1: initial motivations. Next, the implementation of each movement is described, both by pro.filing the main features and by looking at how they were actually put into L practice. Lastly, the impact of these movements is detailed, by characterizing some b of the reactions they generated. Since a well-informed public is crucial to issues t I ~ I of educational reform, clarifying the features of the respective movements is one way to help smooth the journey towards improved mathematics education. t Introduction tocollis, 2000, p.l). Newsweek portrayed I California's back-to-basics approach as a I' When the Portland Public School reaction against "this generation's version District voted in 1999 to adopt a different of 'new math'" (Kantrowitz & Murr, 1997), t mathematics curriculum, a list of Frequent­ and even the phrase "New-New Math" is ly Asked Questions (and answers) was frequently applied to contemporary trends, made available for public information. The which the U.S. World and News Report de­ second question addressed the concern: "Is scribed as producing the "dumbing-down this 'New Math' or some other kind of ex­ of math education" (Leo, 1997). Also, Ma­ perimental program?" (Clark, 1999). This clean's magazine gave the label "new new question reveals the link in the public mind math" to the National Council of Teacher of between the current changes in math educa­ Mathematics' "wave of curricular reforms" tion and the changes of the past which were I (Sheppard, 1998), and Time said this label I collectively called "new math" by many. recalls "the ill-fated New Math fad of the I Why would the public make such a con­ 1960s and '70s" (Ratnesar, 1997). It is easy I nection? For one thing, the media feeds this to see how people today get the sense that I perception: A New York Times article, for New Math has a strong bearing on current ! example, described reform efforts in math­ efforts to reform mathematics education; i ematics education as being "a cousin of the these latter efforts will be collectively re­ 'new math' popular in the 1960's" (Har- ferred to in this paper as Reform Mathe- I I I Published by PDXScholar, 2007 1 ~ : SPRING 2007 51 I,. ' "" ... .;., ......... -- Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 5, Iss. 1 [2007], Art. 7 matics, to use a term employed by both ad­ each movement will be described, as well vocates and opponents (Clopton, 2001; Van as their respective implementation and im­ de Walle, 1999). As the Wall Street Jour­ pact. Some implications for the future of nal stated succinctly: "Not surprisingly, the math education as well as connections to New New Math has a lot in common with larger issues in educational reform are of­ the Old New Math" ("Math Wars," 2000). fered in conclusion. Table 1. Comparison ofInception /&. '-/ New Math Reform Mathematics w ~" .,. '"' • Origins in the 50s & ending in 70s • Origins in 80s & ongoing I I When • Prominent catalyst: Sputnik launch • Prominent catalyst: Publications like Agenda for Action (1980) and Nation at Risk (1983) I (1957) •. ] • New developments in mathematics • New research in how people learn math :i Increased federal money • Increasing technological developments ' Why . ) " . Dissatisfaction with traditional math • Dissatisfaction with traditional math • Primarily mathematicians • Primarily math educators .~ Who • Interested in creating more mathematicians • Interested in mathematics for all I .• ~ Garnering public support for educational Inception ' reform efforts cuts across all subjects, and the topic of mathematics provides an ex­ Looking first at the origins for New cellent example of why the need for such Math and then for Reform Mathematics, support is so acute: Rhetoric, often fueled the goal is to shed light not only on when by the media or vocal parental critics, often the movement began taking shape, but also drowns out and distorts the message of edu­ on why it occurred and who were some of cators. After all, as some of the earlier quo­ the main people and organizations behind tations show, comparisons of New Math to its development. Table 1 presents a brief Reform Mathematics are not meant as flat­ comparative overview, which is then sup­ tery. Indeed, because "the public memory ported by further details within this sec­ of the 'new math' period in mathematics tion. education is, to this day, an image of mis­ takes and failures" (Fey & Graeber, 2003, New Math p. 498), it is appropriate to not only exam­ .... ine this comparison more closely, but to When ...: It is difficult to put a firm " advocate for changes in public perception I. date on the beginning of New Math, be­ so that essential tenets of Reform Math­ cause of the variation in time spans which ematics might be more clearly articulated. are offered in reference to this movement. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to The National Advisory Committee on explore the two movements of New Math Mathematical Education recommended and Reform Mathematics, illuminating tliat the term "new math" should be used as some commonalities among and differ­ a historical label for a variety of math edu­ ences between them, and to emphasize the cation developments which took place "be­ importance of changing public perception tween 1955 and 1975," but by also describ­ as it relates to mathematics education. To ing New Math as a "vague phenomenon", accomplish this purpose, the inception of it seems that even these years are open to https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/nwjte/vol5/iss1/7 DOI: 10.15760/nwjte.2007.5.1.752 NORTHWEST PASSAGE 2 Canada: Public Perception: New Math and Reform Mathematics interpretation (NACOME, 1975, p. 22). math" (Fey & Graeber, 2003, p.492). Fur­ Others agree that the New Math was not ther motivation for New Math was provided so much a distinct entity as a label for an by the federal government, which played a era when many changes were taking place pivotal role in the fifties by creating new (Stanic & Kilpatrick, 1992). While some organizations such as the National Science put the origins of New Math in the early Foundation (NSF) in 1950, and by passing fifties (Hirschi, 1977) and others point to legislation like the National Defense Edu­ the late fifties (Lindquist, 1980), Usiskin cation Act in 1958. The NSF contributed (1985) goes the farthest in terms of narrow­ subsequent financial support to new and ing down the date of inception by claiming experimental curriculum, and continued to "the new math was sparked by the launch increase its activities in mathematics edu­ of Sputnik in October 1957" (p. l). This cation in the late fifties (NCTM, 1970; Lap­ claim is contradicted by Davis (1967), who pan & Wanko, 2003). cites J. Goodlad in asserting that "it was not Sputnik that started it all" (p.3). Although Who - The proponents of New Math acknowledging the popular benchmark of included, as mentioned above, the NSF as the 1957 Sputnik launch, Rosskopf (1970) well as the CEEB, whose report was called wrote that "it is difficult to say where it all "one of the most influential policy leader­ began in the 1950s" (p. 23). ship documents of the 'new math' period" (Fey & Graeber, 2003, p. 495). Other advo­ Why - Examining some of the moti­ cates include the University of Illinois Com­ vating factors helps to see why New Math mittee on School Mathematics (UICSM), would emerge sometime in the fifties. Dis­ which was founded in 1951 to investigate satisfaction with the status quo was already problems with the secondary school cur­ present, and the traditional teaching of riculum (NCTM, 1970). Also, the School mathematics prior to the fifties was gen­ Mathematics Study Group (SMSG) came erally seen as unsuccessful (Kline, 1973; into being in 1958 and became the "largest Kraus, 1978). Mathematics education was and most prominent of the new math cur­ seen as a failure in part because the tradi­ riculum reform projects" (Kilpatrick, 1997, tional curriculum did not adequately reflect p.956). Although the SMSG was a result of contemporary mathematics - it reflected an­ a meeting of "eminent research mathema­ tiquated mathematics (Bidwell & Clason, ticians" who were interested in improving 1970; Kline, 1973). Emerging themes from school mathematics (Rosskopf, 1970, p. the field of math - themes such as struc­ 25), the advisory committees for the SMSG ture, proof, generalization, and abstraction actually reflected a wide variety of interests.