I am writing from Houston TX. My children grades k,3,6 go to a small private Christian school lovingly headed by female math geeks They work hard to find good traditional texts other than Saxon which they consider too drill and kill. Our 8th graders finish with Algebra 1 mastery and are regularly admitted to Debakey High School, the best in the city.

Interestingly we chose this school after withdrawing my eldest from a more “elite” private school because of my research into Everyday Math. What would be interesting to investigate is the extent to which — like Houston — the elite private schools in other major cities have in lockstep exposed the best and brightest to this terrible form of math. Every time I speak with a parent from those schools I hear the math is be supplemented. And I have no doubt that tutors are busy keeping up test scores.

I am also wondering why in the world that the free online Khan Academy, touted by Bill Gates, teaches lattice multiplication so adoringly while cautioning against the tradition method as though it is actually hard not to make a mistake using it! I was infuriated viewing this instruction. As if Bill Gates or any boomer was mistake prone using this method! I’d love to know if you have any insights about the blatant prejudice of this site.

The question for academics then is not how to BE effective but rather how to make a name for yourself most effectively. It’s much like being a politician – the issue is getting elected, not doing the “right thing” or even remotely knowing enough to do the right thing.

To make a name for yourself you have to create something that is radically different from what went before, and in order to gain market share you have to demonize what went before. Oh yes and it helps to be a professor at a major university so that you can indoctrinate your own army of naive advocates who’ve never heard anything but what you’ve taught them.

Most educational innovations, like most innovations in general, are worthless. The odds of any radical change in curriculum constituting an actual improvement are almost nil. But improvement and effectiveness are not the issues. The issue is whether you can sell something that requires less work on everybody’s part, and that can make ever more lower-functioning teachers who have not and cannot themselves master the subject matter feel good about themselves. In that, our modern curricula truly do excel.

My son’s math in high school uses textbooks and follows the “traditional” path of geometry, algebra II, precalculus, and calculus. Apparently, a pedagogical epiphany happens in high school. Actually, it’s the difference between low expectations and high expectations. It has little to do with understanding, critical thinking, creativity, or innovation.

Reisman, F.K. and Torrance, E.P. (2002). Learning mathematics creatively: Place value. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E.P. and Reisman, F.K. (2000). Learning mathematics creatively: Word problems. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E.P. and Reisman, F.K. (2000). Learning mathematics creatively: Primes, fractions, decimals. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.