‘New math’ has been around for decades

Re: “Forget educational fads — let’s get the basics right,” comment, Aug. 19.

I take issue with the term “educational fads,” especially as it relates to the instruction of mathematics.

A fad is short-lived. The term “new math” and the resulting methods of instruction have been around since the middle of the last century. It’s based on the understanding that mathematical literacy is more than memorizing basic facts, and on such premises as the concept that students need to use mathematical thinking to solve complex problems.

Drill and practice won’t enable thinking in non-decimal bases, for example. Mathematical principles will never change. Instruction must move from the visual (concrete) to the abstract. Children must learn that counting is not memorization, but understanding one-to-one correspondence, as another example.

The writer suggests that any changes in techniques should “undergo years of rigorous trials,” but doesn’t suggest who we should be experimented on. Do we turn schools into labs with control and experimental groups? Let’s stick with our present system of using research, knowledge and experience.

As a taxpayer, I find it disconcerting to believe that private schools are the answer. In this province, private schools receive a significant per-pupil grant from provincial funds. They should be responsible and accountable for ensuring that all aspects of the program of studies are presented as laid out by the province.

Instruction based on what a group of parents thinks best is unacceptable, no matter the subject area. Janice Davis Oak Bay