New analysis of US elementary school mathematics finds half-century of problematic 'strands' structure

During the "New Math" movement of the 1960s, a team of mathematicians developed a new structure for elementary mathematics. Instead of having a single subject, namely, school arithmetic, as its central core, this new structure instead had eight "strands" that were supposed to tie together elementary mathematics content. The strands structure has persisted to this day. In an article in the November 2013 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Liping Ma argues that the strands structure has significantly weakened U.S. school mathematics.

In her article, Ma notes that, in many countries where students do well in mathematics, has school arithmetic as its main organizing structure. School arithmetic is developed as a self-contained subject consisting of whole numbers and fractions, with the whole numbers forming the basis for understanding of fractions. Other components of elementary mathematics, such as measurement or geometry, are not presented as self-contained subjects but are taught in relation to the main subject of school arithmetic.

In the U.S., by contrast, the organizing structure for elementary mathematics has no self-contained structure at its core but rather consists of several strands that are juxtaposed but not explicitly connected. Over the decades, the strands have been given different names—such as "strands", "content areas", or "standards"—and their number, form, and content have varied many times.

Examining developments in U.S. mathematics education going back to the 19th century, Ma notes that although U.S. scholars made significant contributions to school arithmetic, the U.S. never had, as some other countries do, a well-developed school arithmetic. Nevertheless, arithmetic was the core of elementary mathematics in the U.S. for almost one hundred years. Ma describes how this began to change during the 20th century with the advent of the "New Math" of the 1960s and the NCTM Standards of the 1990s. Among the effects of the strands structure are instability of curricular content, discontinuity in instruction, and incoherence in concepts.

In the United States, "the potential of school arithmetic to unify elementary mathematics is not sufficiently known," Ma argues. "This is a blind spot for current U.S. elementary mathematics." Too often school arithmetic is equated with basic computational skills that require only inferior cognitive activity such as rote learning. Although many people in view arithmetic as an ugly duckling—that is, a collection of algorithms to be learned by rote—Ma notes that "in the eyes of mathematicians it is often a swan" because of the mathematical structure mathematicians see in arithmetic.

Liping Ma became well known among mathematicians for her 1999 book "Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics" (the book was reviewed by Roger Howe in the Notices; see In this book, Ma studied the understanding of mathematics possessed by school teachers and described a quality called "profound understanding of fundamental mathematics". Ma found that about 10 percent of very experienced teachers in China have this quality. Their profound understanding was acquired not by studying advanced mathematics, but by studying and teaching school mathematics with arithmetic as its core. In an ironic twist, she finds that today China seems to be moving toward adopting a more strand-like structure for its school mathematics standards.

Explore further

Non-traditional mathematics curriculum results in higher standardized test scores, study finds

More information: Ma's article, "A Critique of the Structure of U.S.Elementary School Mathematics", is freely available on the Notices web site at
Citation: New analysis of US elementary school mathematics finds half-century of problematic 'strands' structure (2013, October 15) retrieved 16 September 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 15, 2013
American "education" mirrors what so many tragically embraced as the nature of the nation. Aggressive entrepreneurs cobbling deals to sell garbage for gold, with the majority "rank and file" sitting back stupidly and waiting to be told what to do.
"New Math" is only one fraud foisted on the public by criminal school boards angling to sell influence and skim profits from budgets. "Montessori", downgrading grades, "grade yourself", "whole language", self esteem, role models, calculators in kindergarten, computers in the classroom, LATIC. All systems sold to crooked school boards and all, tragically, peddled as "solutions" for the problems caused by the last set of "solutions" purchased to repair the damage caused by the "solutions" before them!

Oct 15, 2013
This is a problem in general for Americans: underwhelming inability to connect the dots and contextualize what is in plain sight. Of course this is institutional. No animal in the wild could survive being so stupid

Oct 15, 2013
JulianTard correctly complains that there are many different opinions on how to best educate Americans.

I think that the ongoing collapse of their nation will provide them the best education of all.

Oct 15, 2013
"Among the effects of the strands structure are instability of curricular content, discontinuity in instruction, and incoherence in concepts."

I agree 100%, based on my experience with New Math in the 1960s. Even though I always earned A's and B's, I didn't get a thorough education in algebra and geometry. (But I sure learned a lot of Set Theory and arithmetic in Base N.) It took me years to get the fundamental math education I missed in high school.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more