In 1962, I was in seventh grade, in the first class that was first labeled “new math”. I did not do well, and was dropped back to normal math in 1963.
However, we were part of an experiment, so we were tested twice a year through the end of twelfth grade. I have no idea what was or wasn’t learned from the experiment.
As a sample of what it was like, we were told on the first day that we were now on a planet where the people had seven fingers. Counting from zero, our numbers were 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,10, and we eventually did all arithmetical processes in “base seven”, where large numbers had a ones column, a sevens column, a forty-nines column, a 343rds column, etc.
I have children who range in age from 43 to 14. Therefore, I have experienced many generations of “new math”. Any new math curriculum only lasts 3-5 years, after which all new books and study guides are produced and paid for, all teachers are re-trained, including to the need to show great enthusiasm for the mission.
I think the main purpose of all this frantic activity is to find a way, any way, by which smart children and stupid children will get the same grades.
Anyway, this is a 60+ year old problem, it’s not about Common Core, it’s not about Obama.
My grandma taught in NYC Public from 1911-1966. She was fortunate to retire before this got really bad.
Her observation about the prognosis for the mission of all this curriculum re-engineering has, however, stood the test of time:
“Somebody has to clean the subways”.
Hmmmmm ...
Base 7, eh? (and not taught particularly well ...) Not sure why you'd teach that to seventh graders. Or anyone else. Base two, base eight, and base sixteen, however, are very useful. I'd still suggest that mastery of base ten arithmetic prior to that is essential.