The end of fuzzy math?

In 1989 the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics issued new guidelines for teaching math. Among their critics the guidelines were dubbed "fuzzy math" and set off the math wars. The NCTM guidelines were endorsed by the National Science Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and, for a time, the US Department of Education. With National Science Foundation grants, a number of textbooks were developed using the guidelines, including those adopted by most schools in MPS.

Several factors seem to have influenced the NCTM guidelines. With the widespread availability of calculators, it was argued that students no longer needed to memorized addition and multiplication or learn the mechanics of math. Instead they would concentrate on gaining a deeper understanding of math. The guidelines were also influenced by a philosophy sometimes called "constructivism," that they learn when they construct their own model, rather than simply accepting what their teacher says.

Texts written around the NCTM seem to have a number of characteristics in common. Compared to traditional math books, they tend to be wordy with relatively little math, reflecting both their aversion to exercises (derided as "rote learning") and their desire to encourage students to discover the principals for themselves. They offer alternative ways of adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing, apparently on the principal both that the choice should be up to the student and that in any case the choice is not particularly important since the heavy lifting is now done by calculators. Their explanations are often missing or confusing, again reflecting a desire to avoid dictating to the student.

As a recent New York Times editorial observed, the NCTM has just reversed itself, saying that the basic skills are important after all. This is good news for American students, but how good depends upon how much change actually takes place.

In many ways fuzzy math is reminiscent of "whole language" in reading. Both were developed and widely adopted with no field testing or research base. Both resulting in large measure from a feeling that traditional teaching was overly structured and discouraged creativity. When challenged, defenders of each adopted an ideological defense, accusing critics of having a conservative agenda. And both eventually fell because they could not produce results.

Another parallel is less encouraging for the future. When whole language went out of repute because of research that clearly showed the benefits of teaching the structure of language, the name disappeared. But many believe whole language continues to be widespread under the alias of balanced literacy. Already many advocates of fuzzy math are claiming that they always taught basic skills.