“New” math also goes by the names, Chicago Math, Investigations Math, and TERC Math. They are largely similar in their focus and intent and rely on one of two textbook series, TERC
or Everyday Mathematics.
The latter is the product of a project by a group of mathematicians, researchers, and educators to raise the overall level of proficiency of math students in the U.S. by significantly altering the math curriculum traditionally taught in elementary school. The project was begun in 1983 at the University of Chicago as a direct result of a consensus of educators and policy makers that the U.S. was “failing to provide its students with an adequate mathematical education.” The project concluded, among other things, that by rooting the foundations of mathematical learning in real-life experience, students will be engaged in the learning process and therefore will learn best. That is essentially the core component of “New” math: Everything being taught has a direct real-world application. This sounds great in principle, but the reality is that it doesn’t work for everyone, either.
How is “New” math different?
The single, largest fundamental difference between the two schools of thought is how students approach computation. Many critics of “New” math complain that students never really learn their math facts. Ask most adults what 7 x 9 is, and without a moment’s hesitation they will respond: 63. How do we know this seemingly odd piece of information? Practice and repetition. No one actually enjoys memorizing math facts; it was just something you had to do. Most students who are taught “New” math still practice their math facts, but it is relatively de-emphasized compared to traditional math instruction, and many do not receive the rote drilling that is required for it to become automatic. Instead, “New” math students frequently learn their math facts through a series of short cuts, games, and estimation strategies. For instance, a student may remember that 7 x 8 = 56 by remembering the sequence of numbers 5, 6, 7, 8.
“New” math students also use estimation — a tremendously useful math skill. One “New” math method of estimation is “Landmark” numbers. Let’s say a student can’t recall what 7 x 9 is. They will certainly know what 7 x 10 is and use that as a landmark number to solve 7 x 9 using this thought process: If 7 x 10 is 70, 7 x 9 is one less 7, so 70-9 will equal 7 x 9, which is 63. You will also see this applied to larger numbers. For instance, some “New” math students do not learn the basic algorithms for solving a multi-digit addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division problem. They don’t borrow and carry or insert a zero to hold the place of a number. If you give a “New” math student the problem 98 x 15, more often than not, they will approach the problem like this: 98 x 15 is two 15s less than 100. 100 x 15 is 1500. 2 x 15 is 30, so 1500-30 = 98 x 15, which is 1470. This is a great method for approaching a lot of math problems, and it teaches students “number sense” in a way that the traditional algorithm does not. But critics argue that sometimes it’s a lot easier to just line the numbers up and solve.
In general, students learn a variety of different methods for solving multi-digit computation problems, but rarely learn the traditional algorithms that most parents are familiar with. “New” math teaches students to focus on understanding why a particular method works rather than blindly trusting in a memorized process. “New” math also advocates calculator usage when a computation problem becomes unnecessarily cumbersome. These are all potentially very good approaches for the development of a mathematic mind, but it is important to acknowledge that there are some shortcomings.“New” math and testing
There is a problem when some students are being taught one way and then being tested in another. Furthermore, private school admissions tests, such as the ISEE and the SSAT, do not allow students to use calculators, yet require fast and fluent computation of complicated math problems. Students who come from a “New” ma