Brief history of the “Whole and New New Math” in France
Letter addressed by Michel Delord to Paul Clopton and “2+2=4 Mathematically Correct” in 1997
Difficulties: This text is a translation of an appropriate text (written in June 1996) which is partial. I am writing a more general text.I give the same meaning to two couple of notions: a) “matématiques modernes” and “Whole Math” and b) the avatars of present (from 1980) French reform and the New New Math in the USA: I’ll hope there will be no misunderstandings.
According to the accounts from French teachers who taught in the US in the mid 80’s, the American average mathematics standard was lower than the French one, but it’s difficult to use the term “average” for the USA as standards and curriculums are not centralized state’s obligations as in France.
About the problem of New Math, I only know one text in English by Rene THOM: “Modern mathematics: an educational and philosophical error?” American Scientist, 59,6 p 695. But there are other excellent texts from the 70’s on the subject by the same in French: I‘ll try to translate, or, better, I’ll scan them if you find a translator in the USA.
The pupils’ math standards, which formed the Certificate of Primary School, are going down. Regarding the field into which we could interfere and which does not certainly depend on families which are not to blame - those teachers’ arguments against family’s responsibility and against the previous grade teachers’ skills are used to justify the servile attitude of the teaching staff in relation to its authority- this fall is essentially due to several factors:
First, the constant change of the curriculum which, for instance, forbids generations to help each other (but increases the market for new books in schools, for home education products and remedial courses). Is a straight line the shortest distance between two points or “the set of the affine bijections from R to R”? For your information, in the 70’s, the “set theory” and the bijection were necessary to “develop the mind” of the sixth grade pupils (and even pupils of the primary school) but nowadays they are only partly studied in the scientific 11th and 12th grades.
This only fact shows the inextricable situation of the French Education State Department: they simultaneously want to suppress important parts of the curriculum and show a rising of standard of education. In the same way, why is the rule of three forbidden in the 70’s and why are the proportional tables imposed to deal with the same problems? Here I stop giving examples because I am not attending a thesis. I do not neglect the contribution of modern mathematics but, according to me, they seem to allow solving problem, which are to be found neither in primary school nor in junior high school. In one sense, acting with a good intention against the previous formalism, the central aim of modern mathematics introduction in school was hyper-rationalist philosophy: nobody can learn 2+2=4 without understanding group theory and calculus in all bases; but “ratio” is against the instinct which is the basis of pedagogic intervention. We can find the same rationalistic approach in the New New Math where a pupil, in one sense, must find again by himself all the knowledge of the past.
Secondly, one of the main factors is the very content of those curriculums. We have gone from the period of “Whole Math” to the one of the 80’s reform.
Whole Math (70’s)
Roughly speaking, the contents of the “mathématiques modernes” period (1970 -80), with the formal and the structure put forward, was:
- in arithmetic, the non-necessity to learn to calculate ( it was before the pocket calculators). It was the basis era when we learnt that 3+2 could be 10 or 11 before knowing how to give change and without knowing the tables of operations by heart. From which mockery about arithmetic old fashion problems began: those problems have derisively been called “leaking tap problems” whereas they are essential because they allow learning the complexity of the basic mathematics tools in a simplified situation. . The latter is introduced as artificial ( and not concrete) without noticing that the real situation presents “physics’ rubbings” which are not controllable in a training situation ( try to calculate the volume of my “concrete” shoe!!). This non-necessity quickly transformed itself in a fall of calculus skills....
- in geometry : under the pretext that a straight line could not be straight ( also true for other basic figures), the primary school has a bad knowledge of basic figures.. Also under the pretext of the discovery of the invariant elements in the geometric group theory, the teaching of what was a basis of learning of proof is eliminated and forbidden : I mean the “ 3 cas d’égalités des triangles” - in English, I think, SSS, SAS and ASA congruence postulates - which indeed is unperfected in the absolute but largely adequate and very efficient for a junior high School pupil. So this teaching is eliminated to be replaced by the use of transformations (symmetry, rotation) which is per se more difficult to use in many situations and that an 8th grade pupil is not able to control. They had better made friezes that teach as much for the invariant elements..
The reform of the reform ( 1980 up to ?)