Well I hit grade school right when New Math did. Among other things it decided that kids needed to understand the concept of bases and taught a bunch of kids who weren't quite up on base 10 to add/subtract/multiply in base 6. Too bad they didn't settle on hexadecimal (base 16), I might be able to hard code in my head. As for the rest of it I seem to remember some stuff about Venn diagrams and boolean algebra. Which is to say the decided that instead of teaching that boring long-division stuff lets give the kids something they'll never ever use. I thought it was cool, on the other hand I spend hours a day blogging.

The "new" in "new math" was a concentration on set theory and the foundations of arithmetic, rather than just the rote memorization of how to perform arithmetical calculations. As Tom Lehrer (himself a mathematician) put it, "the point is to understand what you're doing rather than to get the right answer".

To justify their hefty fees the consulting firms hired to implement the "accountability" programs create new names for the same old garbage to make people believe that they are getting something new and improved.

The concept behind real "new" math is that if you can express the problem correctly the answer can be derived automatically.

It is distressing to attempt to teach basic-level programming to students who can't write a arithmetical problem in a logical sequence.

I don't remember much "new math". There are only so many brain cells, and I guess Calculus of Variations pushed out the last bits of new math.

And while there's the ring of truth to "consultant-speak" as an explanation for all the mumbo-jumbo, schools of education have been doing similar things for much longer.

The problem is, teaching elementary school is, well, elementary. Not to say that it's easy to find the *right* way to do things...that takes some serious research and field testing. But once one finds the right techniques, implementing them is fairly simple. The tough part then is having the stamina, patience and personality to make it all work, something that no amount of mumbo-jumbo will give.

Having taught at the college level the one thing I learned is that all people do not learn in the same way. Some people have to hear it, others have to see it, some have to write it, but the majority need a mixture.

My key to teaching is watching the eyes of students. If you pay attention you can tell when they get it. That is especially evident in the intro course for computer science. After about a month the students have mastered enough of the terminology that they finally understand what I am telling them and can begin to ask meaningful questions. Their eyes lose the glaze.

Well it's refreshing to know that someone outside the military is now speaking in totally meaningless terms to describe mythical stuff.

Brilliant. Maelstroms of jargon abound in the district where I work, and it's just another outgrowth of this myth of accountability infecting the schools. Yes, schools should be accountable, and they are in every respect. But this NCLB crap.. don't get me started. Rod Paige's "Texas Miracle" was based on a cherry-picking operation that would make Del Monte green with envy. Public schools have been virtually paralyzed by the Orwellian suspension of reality that defines the emphasis on test scores.

You should see my lesson plan book. It's loaded with all of these doublespeak buzzwords, and the administration, immersed in a Cover-Your-Ass/Make-No-Waves mentality, laps it up like cream. It's nauseating, what's happened to our schools.

and what do you get when you have a lot of reflection rooms? A Penitentiary.

I always thought going to school was like a jail.
;)

i'm thankful that i attended notoriously liberal san francisco state [if only for a semester and a half, cough cough...] there i had some excellent math + science experiences:
1)philosophy of science, where we read thomas kuhn, the concept of the 'paradigm' and that consenssus realities [such as the rondure of the earth or heliocentric nature of the solar system] are largely politically based;
2)statistics, in which the instructor told us on the first day of class: "statistics don't prove a goddamned thing. if someone tries to tell you that they do, that person is a goddamned liar."
3)physics for poets, in which i almost came to understand heisenberg for a couple of seconds
4)and my personal favorite, critical thinking, which taught us the mathematical principles of proofs and logical arguments, fallacies, etc. it's one thing to get into an argument with somebody about disputed facts, such as whose research into australian rainfall patterns has better data; it's another, joyful occasion to be able to say to somebody 'your argument is wholly specious on the grounds that it is predicated on affirmation of the consequent.' tee hee hee.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams