Arithmetic Textbooks

Press, Volume C, Issue 29535, 9 June 1961, Page 7

Arithmetic Textbooks

Str, —I don't listen to wireless on Saturdays, but go to races where, apart from a fancy, I used to copy totalisator figures, thereby making a lovely collection of long division sums. One day a parent asked tne, "Why does my boy have to work dozens of similar sums when he knows the process and works accurately?" My reply, having in those days listened to the "G.H.D.’s,” was. “Your boy is bright. Therefore the greater his ability to work with bigger and bigger numbers. the more he will be capable of dealing with abstract quantities.” My friend rightly replied. “Oh yeah?” My point, for “G.H.D.” is that when a youngster works well with useful, practical calculations, he is much more able and willing to learn mathematics than he would be if he spent hundreds of hours making calculations which are quite unrealistic to him and based upon things which are out of date.—Yours etc., HEADMASTER. June 6. 1961.

Sir.—I think “Practitioner” has painted a very one-sided picture. Would he comment on the following points? In the first period mentioned (that of the Old Progressive) what part of the school day was devoted to arithmetic? In the examples shown from the old Progressive Book 3. what percentage of success was achieved by the pupils? His arguments lack validity without this supporting evidence. What, was the typical age composition of an average Standard 3 class at that time? I can recall some rather aged children. What was the toll paid in terms of frustration and fear engendered through frequent failure of the average and below-average in arithmetical ability? How does the number of trained mathematicians produced by that period compare, on a percentage 'population basis, with today’s results?—Yours, etc., DOMINIE June 6. 1961.