People eventually figured out that such instruction just wasn't going to work. Here we are, 40 years later, and we're going to do it again:
In 1961, New Math “was supposed to transform mathematics education by emphasizing concepts and theories rather than traditional computation,” as this article shows.I believe Mr. Bonagura, a fellow teacher, to be correct.
Flash forward 50 years, and Common Core is today making the same promises:
The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.New Math, Sequential Math, Math A/B, and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards also “promised to transform (America’s children) into young Einsteins and Aristotles,” writes Bonagura. It didn’t work out that way...
With so much focus on teaching students the “why” of math, teachers will have little time to teach the “how,” Bonagura predicts.
Mathematical concepts require a high aptitude for abstract thinking — a skill not possessed by young children and never attained by many. What will happen to students who already struggle with math when they not only are forced to explain what they do not understand, but are presented new material in abstract conceptual formats?“Instead of developing college- and career-ready students, we will have another generation of students who cannot even make change from a $5 bill.”
Additionally, I agree with this statement from the linked post:
Despite claims that Common Core doesn’t tell teachers how to teach, the new standards come with a flawed pedagogy, Bonagura charges. “Common Core buries students in concepts at the expense of content.”Repeat after me: would you like fries with that?