Show and Tell for Parents
Search Site: 
Parents Teachers
By Susan Darst Williams
Parental Involvement
Ages & Stages
Coaching Your Child
Discipline & Safety
Health, Nutrition & Fitness
Homework Helpers
Reading
Writing
Math
Curriculum & Instruction
Teachers & Teaching
Other School Staff
Testing
Technology
Special Learners
School Management
Finance & Taxation
Government & Politics
Preschool
Private Schools
Homeschooling
Choice & Charters
Learning on the Go
Community Involvement
Controversies
Education Heroes
Bright Ideas for Change
Site Map
Mini-Grants

Parental Involvement Lite

Parents, Kids & Books

Great Books for Kids

Character Education

Writing Tips

Inspiration

Wacky Protests

School Humor
Home | Purpose | Ask A Question | Subscribe | Forward | Bio | Contact | Print

Math        < Previous        Next >

 

 

Ten Myths About Whole Math

 

Q. Is there broad consensus on how we're teaching math these days?

 

No, there are two opposing camps. The "whole math" methods developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), is under fire from New York City HOLD (Honest Open Logical Decisions), which favors a more traditional approach.

 

The latter is made up of mathematicians and scientists, K-12 teachers of mathematics, educational researchers, and parents nationwide. They claim to have defined 10 myths about math education that form the basis for the NCTM's standards, which they vigorously oppose. To capsulize the positions of proponents of whole math vs. proponents of traditional math:

 

n       Only what students discover for themselves is truly learned.

No; kids need direct instruction of math concepts.

 

n       Children should invent their own ways of doing math.

No; standard skills such as long division are crucial to higher-level math and must be taught explicitly.

 

n       Children need problem-solving rather than "drill and kill."

No; there's no getting around the need for mastery of basic skills in order to do the conceptual type math.

 

n       NCTM math is better for learning-disabled children.

No; they need structure and order even more than other kids.

 

n       NCTM math is better for disadvantaged children.

No; their teachers disagree; they need basic skills.

 

n       Calculator use is a great way to build math ability.

No; the better the math student on the secondary level, the less calculators were used before sixth grade.

 

n       Foreign countries beat us on math tests because they "cherry-pick" their top students to go against our entire student bodies.

No; participants are randomly selected.

 

n       Math should be taught "in context," with stories.

No; they're a tool but shouldn't take center stage, or students won't have sufficient understanding of the math principles involved, which are abstractions and don't need a real-world "context."

 

n       NCTM methods are what higher-performing countries use.

No; math class in Singapore and Japan is like the skills-based methods the grassroots group proposes.

 

n       Research shows NCTM methods are effective.

No; that "research" is self-serving, opinionated and far from conclusive; it looks effective because assessments have been modified to fit the NCTM method, instead of revealing what kids really should know and be able to do.

 

Homework: Read documentation at www.nychold.com/myths-050504.html

 

By Susan Darst Williams www.ShowandTellforParents.com Math 05 2008

 

Math        < Previous        Next >
^ return to top ^
Individuals: read and share these features freely!

Publications: please contact ShowandTellforParents.com to arrange for reprint rights to these copyrighted news stories and features.

Mini-Grants


 Links to Learn More 

 Enrichment Ideas 

 Nebraska Schooling 
DailySusan
 Humor Blog 
DailySusan
 Glimpses of God 
Copyright © 2017 ShowandTellforParents.com
Website created by Web Solutions Omaha