Editing New Math (section)

== Criticism ==
Parents and teachers who opposed the New Math in the U.S. complained that the new curriculum was too far outside of students' ordinary experience and was not worth taking time away from more traditional topics, such as [[arithmetic]]. The material also put new demands on teachers, many of whom were required to teach material they did not fully understand. Parents were concerned that they did not understand what their children were learning and could not help them with their studies. In an effort to learn the material, many parents attended their children's classes. In the end, it was concluded that the experiment was not working, and New Math fell out of favor before the end of the 1960s, though it continued to be taught for years thereafter in some school districts.{{Citation needed|date=May 2023}}

In the [[Algebra]] preface of his book, ''Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell'', Professor [[George F. Simmons]] wrote that the New Math produced students who had "heard of the [[commutative law]], but did not know the [[multiplication table]]".<ref>{{cite book|title = Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell: Geometry, Algebra, Trigonometry: Geometry, Algebra, Trigonometry|publisher = [[Wipf and Stock Publishers]]|year = 2003|chapter = Algebra &ndash; Introduction|chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=dN1KAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33|page = 33|isbn = 9781592441303|author-link = George F. Simmons|first = George F.|last = Simmons}}</ref>

In 1965, physicist [[Richard Feynman]] wrote in the essay, ''New Textbooks for the "New" Mathematics'':

{{blockquote|If we would like to, we can and do say, "The answer is a whole number less than 9 and bigger than 6," but we do not have to say, "The answer is a member of  the set which is the [[Intersection (set theory)|intersection]] of the set of those numbers which are larger than 6 and the set of numbers which are smaller than 9" ... In the "new" mathematics, then, first there must be freedom of thought; second, we do not want to teach just words; and third, subjects should not be introduced without explaining the purpose or reason, or without giving any way in which the material could be really used to discover something interesting. I don't think it is worthwhile teaching such material.<ref>{{cite journal|author-link = Richard Feynman|first = Richard P.|last = Feynman|url = http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/2362/1/feynman.pdf|title = New Textbooks for the 'New' Mathematics|journal = [[Engineering and Science]]|year = 1965|volume = XXVIII|issue = 6|pages = 9–15|issn = 0013-7812}}</ref>}}

In his book ''[[Why Johnny Can't Add: The Failure of the New Math]]'' (1973), [[Morris Kline]] says that certain advocates of the new topics "ignored completely the fact that mathematics is a cumulative development and that it is practically impossible to learn the newer creations, if one does not know the older ones".<ref name = Kline />{{rp|17}} Furthermore, noting the trend to [[Abstraction (mathematics)|abstraction]] in New Math, Kline says "abstraction is not the first stage, but the last stage, in a mathematical development".<ref name = Kline />{{rp|98}}

As a result of this controversy, and despite the ongoing influence of the New Math, the phrase "new math" was often used to describe any short-lived fad that quickly becomes discredited{{citation needed|date=September 2024}} until around the turn of the millennium<ref>https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=new+math&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3</ref>{{Better source needed|date=September 2024}}, when its use for this purpose was eclipsed by "[[New Coke]]," another short-lived innovation.<ref>https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=New+Math%2CNew+Coke&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3</ref> In 1999, ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' placed New Math on a list of the 100 worst ideas of the 20th century.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,991230,00.html |title=The 100 Worst Ideas Of The Century |date=June 14, 1999 |access-date=April 3, 2020|magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |first1=Melissa |last1=August |first2=Harriet |last2=Barovick |first3=Michelle |last3=Derrow |first4=Tam |last4=Gray |first5=Daniel S. |last5=Levy |first6=Lina |last6=Lofaro |first7=David |last7=Spitz |first8=Joel |last8=Stein |first9=Chris |last9=Taylor}}{{subscription required}}</ref><ref>[http://www.anvari.org/fun/Political/100_Worst_Ideas_of_the_Century.html "100 Worst Ideas of the Century"], Anvari.org archive of the June 14, 1999, issue of ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]''.</ref>