Battleground Schools

Summary:
Mathematics education is thought of in two different, and often conflicting, ways.  The first is a conservative viewpoint where math is thought to be unchanging, objective and inaccessible to most.  The second is a more progressive viewpoint where math is thought to be dynamic, exploratory, and of importance to everyone.  These two differing opinions generally correlate with the two political poles, and for years there has been unrest between the two regarding how, and why, we educate our children in mathematics.

Between 1910 and 1940 there was a Progressive Reform that took place in North America and changed how many schools taught mathematics.  Instead of using the memorization of facts and regurgitation of those facts as the basis for "learning", proponents of this movement fought for schools to teach math in an accessible, useful and participatory way.  Math was something to understand, not something to memorize.  Students were encouraged to explore mathematics and arrive at mathematical concepts by their own logic and reasoning so that everyone developed reasoning skills that would benefit them throughout their life regardless of their career.
During the 1960's the political climate contributed to the movement known as the New Math.  This movement was an attempt to prepare all students for a possible career in mathematics by teaching abstract concepts to all children.  Supporters of this movement were mostly on the conservative side and thought that all students should learn the unchanging, abstract concepts of math regardless of their interest or aptitude for the subject.  The curriculum supported by this movement was so abstract and complex that many parents - and even many teachers - could not understand what was being taught and were unable to offer help to their children.  By the early 1970's this idea of teaching was abandoned due to public outcry that New Math was a misguided experiment on the part of the government.
Since the 1990's we have been immersed in a new mathematical debate, this time regarding the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and its developed set of standards.  The NCTM developed a set of standards that guided curriculum in mathematics education and enabled accountability on the part of educators.  Teachers could now be held accountable to a set of specific standards that all students should meet.  The idea that a standard curriculum would be in place sparked debate on both ends of the political spectrum: some thought the standards were innovative and positively impacted mathematical education, while others worried that this was another failed attempt to revamp math education and that our students in North America are only falling further and further behind on a global scale.  This debate has not been resolved and both sides continue to fervently argue and lobby for their side.

Thoughts:
Seeing the debates in mathematics education, both past and present, puts our current debate into perspective.  The continuous debate over how to teach math and, more broadly, what the purpose is in teaching math may never completely die out.  Being aware of both sides, and the merits of each, will help when attempting to form an individual teaching style.  This debate seems to have no end in sight, and the most logical standing seems to be not to lean too far on either end of the spectrum.  Instead, it is important to develop your own sense of personal balance between the two opposing conservative and progressive views.