Oct 16 - Battleground Schools

One thing that made me stop in this article was the discussion about how math learning was only accelerated when competition of countries became a factor. I knew that once the Soviet Union successfully sent Sputnik into space in 1957 the United States went into a frenzy trying to catch up to Russians and "beat them". Space exploration became a competition between countries. Although it was logical to accelerate math education for the greater good of society and research in hopes that the next scientific genius would emerge from this generation of accelerated math learners, but it frustrated me that the government viewed children and students as a tool which they could use and shape to their liking. I think giving students a greater math education is an amazing privilege and honour, however I hated that it took something like world competition to encourage the government to place such a vital subject on the forefront of education. I think it also bothered me that the intentions of the government were not pure and selfless, but really self serving and underhanded.
The second thing that stopped me in the text was the mention of Bourbaki, a secret French order of mathematicians, which helped influence the  "New Math" curriculum. I found it extremely biased and closed minded that this was a secret exclusive order. The mere idea of having an elite order such as this bring about inflexibility and lack of adaptability. These types of organizations are often filled with like minded people, which is great for comradery and cohesion, but offers no variety or alternative thought, ultimately resulting in a biased, conservative group (example could be the Nazi's). I found it really interesting their influence called for no diagrams in mathematics. I don't feel it is possible to do math problems without visualizing the mechanics of a problem. Also, today, diagrams are often used to help students understand a problem better, so eliminating diagrams is something I would consider a step in the wrong direction. However, I do think their idea of exposing students to higher level content earlier on could have been a positive had it been done properly. I feel doing so can give students an advantage as they have more time to develop and familiarize themselves with concepts, however I think it is necessary to do so in moderation and to provide guidance and background support. Exposing elementary school kids to calculus and linear algebra before they've even grasped something as simple as arithmetic and multiplication is absolutely insane and possibly more detrimental than beneficial. I am glad this movement in education came to an end as I do not know how I would have fared in such a society.
The last thing that made me pause was actually the last line of the writing "there was little public appetite for balance or consensus", as it linked back to something I read earlier in the article which mentioned that the polarization of conservative and progressive views neglected the commonalities between the two. I found it interesting that people had difficulty compromising between the two since they could easily work together in harmony if only people would try to find a balance or commonalities. I don't understand the need to have a divide and opposing views. I like to think I am in the middle. I absolutely understand the need for drilling things like times tables or perfect squares, but I also feel it is super important to be able to understand what you are drilling and have a variety of different avenues to reach the end goal. I think math is extremely fluid and compromising, so I hope one day we can reach a place in the curriculum that allows for a balance of both conservative and progressive views, but for now I hope to adopt my own balance of both practices in my classroom.