Maggie's Farm

If kids don't absorb the fundamentals, they will have difficulty going further. "New Math" set me back by years.
According to one of my math professors, Max Beberman, one of the creators of New Math [UICSM, a.k.a. Illinois Math], told him that he did not intend for fundamentals to be slighted in favor of Illinois/New Math. Certainly the faculty brat students at the University of Illinois lab school who were Max Beberman's guinea pigs for UICSM/Illinois Math, did not lack for knowledge in the fundamentals. Unfortunately, in the hands of teachers less adept than Max Beberman,fundamentals did get slighted. I had a very good learning experience with Max Beberman's Illinois Math, but I already had a strong background in the fundamentals. From conversations with my classmates, I also got the impression that Illinois Math was good only for the top 10% or so. For others, it was confusing.

From the article:
Covering too many topics superficially instead of covering fewer topics in depth is certainly a problem with all to many primary and secondary math programs. While textbook creators wanting to cover as many standards as possible in as many states may add to the problem, I don't think they created the problem of too many topics.

Textbooks tend to get written by Ed School professors of math education. Many of these Ed School professors have little or no actual experience in teaching elementary or secondary math. They look at a math textbook they way they would a college class. Here is an interesting topic to cover. Here is another interesting topic to cover- remembering their undergrad years in math. Unfortunately, an average primary or secondary student will not have the capability to quickly absorb math topics they way an undergraduate math major will.

Similarly, the whole-language proponents of teaching reading took an adult's perspective. The repetition involved in a phonics program IS boring to an adult. However, a six year old doesn't find the repetition boring, but reinforcing.