Connected Mathematics - Controversy

Controversy

As one of many widely adopted curricula developed around the NCTM standards, Connected Mathematics has been criticized by advocates of traditional mathematics as being particularly ineffective and incomplete and praised by various researchers who have noted its benefits in promoting deep understanding of mathematical concepts among students. In a review by critic James Milgram, "the program seems to be very incomplete... it is aimed at underachieving students." He observes that "the students should entirely construct their own knowledge.. standard algorithms are never introduced, not even for adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing fractions." However, studies have shown that students who have used the curriculum have "develop sophisticated ways of comparing and analyzing data sets, . . . refine problem-solving skills and the ability to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable solutions to problems involving fractions, . . . exhibit a deep understanding of how to generalize functions symbolically from patterns of data, . . . exhibited a strong understanding of algebraic concepts and procedures," among other benefits.

Districts in states such as Texas were awarded NSF grants for teacher training to support curricula such as CM. Austin ISD received a $5 million NSF grant for teacher training in 1997. NSF awarded $10 million for "Rural Systemic Initiatives" through West Texas A&M. At the state level, the SSI (Statewide Systemic Initiative), was a federally-funded program developed by the Dana Center at the University of Texas. Its most important work was directing the implementation of CM in schools across the state. But in 1999, Connected Mathematics was rejected by California's revised standards because it was judged at least two years below grade level and it contained numerous errors. After the 2000-2001 academic year, state monies can no longer be used to buy Connected Mathematics

The Christian Science Monitor noted parents in Plano Texas who demanded that their schools drop use of CM, while the New York Times reported parents there rebelled against folding fraction strips rather than using common denominators to add fractions. For the improved second edition, it is stated that "Students should be able to add two fractions quickly by finding a common denominator". The letter to parents states that students are also expected to multiply and divide fractions by standard methods.

What parents often do not understand is that students begin with exploratory methods in order to gain a solid conceptual understanding, but finish by learning the standard procedures, sometimes by discovering them under teacher guidance. Large-scale studies of reform curricula such as Connected Mathematics have shown that students in such programs learn procedural skills to the same level as those in traditional programs, as measured by traditional standardized tests. Students in standards-based programs gain conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills at a higher level than those in traditional programs.

Despite disbelief on the part of parents whose textbooks always contained instruction in mathematical methods, it is claimed that the pedagogical benefits of this approach find strong support in the research: "Over the past three to four decades, a growing body of knowledge from the cognitive sciences has supported the notion that students develop their own understanding from their experiences with mathematics."