Comments on Fuzzy Math

 

Another friend's comment on fuzzy math:

Although I always like to slam education schools because I do believe that they deserve it, I think that the Fuzzy math vs. traditional math thing is exactly the same as the old “whole language” vs. “phonics” argument that has been enormously unproductive. Every sensible educator I know today recognizes today that kids need to learn both “sight words” and phonics and most good curriculums combine them. So we need both number facts and problem solving.  My son learns the vaunted traditional Singapore Math at his school, beloved of those who hate “fuzzy” math. But, you know, a million division and multiplication problems does not a nuclear physicist make. I’m supplementing for him myself with more progressive math. I went Bank Street, which used at the time a curriculum called (I think) integrated math in the 5^th, 6^th an 7^th grade.  Very progressive. Most interesting/challenging interest math I did until I took the course in Analysis – calculus for math majors – at Columbia. Far more interesting than – for example – than the swill that was ladled out to me at Stuyvesant hHgh School.

The problem is that commentators have this tactic of seizing on the extreme case – some really soft minded educator who felt abused as a child because he didn’t do well in math and then goes around saying some ridiculous thing like the fact that 2 and 2 equals 4 is merely the product of Western-centric mode of thinking. And then the commentator says “So, therefore, everything other than math as it was taught to me in grade school Chatanooga in 1952 is stupid and by the way is also the cause for our trade deficit, the high abortion rate, and graffiti.” 

And then you end up with this inane Singapore math thing in which you do the same multiplication problems over and over and over.