@frameacloud Huh. I only saw a bit of New Math education, given NE Ohio is always about 20 years behind the times at best... but my Mom was a big advocate of using "math manipulatives" (i.e. physical objects meant to teach math concepts concretely) and such when she was teaching 2nd/3rd grade, and I think those are considered a part of it.

My impression is that New Math was more focused on exploring the underlying concepts of how math works—like place value, base systems, basic set theory, foundational concepts like the additive/commutative/distributive property, and such—rather than relying on rote methods like chanting one's times tables.

I'm really torn about it, honestly. For "gifties" who were already good at abstract reasoning, it was a blessing and a real eye-opener—I know I sure prefer to know WHY something works instead of just how. My love of math only grew from exposure to all this weird, borderline-philosophical stuff.

But I can easily how it would just be a bridge too far, for kids and parents who were of the "TEACHER?! WHEN ARE WE GONNA _USE_ THIS?" mentality (often for very understandable class/survival reasons) and just did not have the background to grasp New Math. The stereotypical criticism of "dammit, my kid knows the commutative property—sort of—but can't multiply 27×13" is not invalid. This is doubly true in a typical American public school that's barely equipped to even teach kids the basics, let alone esoterica...

@frameacloud Money quote from one of the applied math GOATs: