Passage over mijn strijd tegen de zwevende formalistische Moderne Wiskunde en tegen het andere extreem, het contextueel ('aards') en constructivistisch rekenen dat niet van de grond komt en afstant neemt van de wiskunde als cultureel product 

Open Access First Online: 14 August 2019 

 1. Strijd tegen Moderne wiskunde 

 For about twenty years, official curricula in Belgium would follow faithfully the New Math or structural approach. Criticisms were rarely voiced in public (De Bock, D’hoker, & Vandenberghe, 2011b; Verschaffel, 2004). In 1982, this silence was suddenly broken by the Flemish pedagogue Raf Feys. 

In the Onderwijskrant, an innovation-minded, independent and pluralistic journal on education, Feys wrote a virulent pamphlet (?) in which he firmly criticised the starting points of New Math and the way it was introduced and dictated at the primary level (Feys, 1982) (Fig. 3.5). 

 In his close contacts with schools, Feys did not see the appearance of a fascinating world, but artificial results in a fake reality, and also little enthusiasm in children, but more disgust, disorientation and desperation (Feys, 1982, p. 3). Home International Reflections on the Netherlands Didactics of Mathematics Chapter He described New Math as upper-level mathematics which was in the first place ballast, i.e. an enormous extension of the programs, concepts that were misunderstood, mechanical learning and pedantry (ibid., p. 6).

 Moreover, it created an obstacle for the acquisition of traditional mathematics, which he described as mathematical-intuitive and practice-oriented lower-level mathematics. He further stated that three-quarters of the reform involved the introduction of new terms and notations […], a formal language primary-school teachers are unable to cope with and which complicated the application of mathematics (ibid., p. 8). 

The pamphlet ended with a call for a large-scale counter-action, addressed to teachers, parents, inspectors ‘with free hands’, parents’ associations, labor movements, teacher training institutes, universities, centres for psychological, medical and social guidance (ibid., p. 37). 

 Although Feys’ pamphlet enjoyed some resonance in the Flemish press and the author received some expressions of support by academics (e.g., by Leen Streefland, staff member of the IOWO, and by Lieven Verschaffel, whose letters were included in a subsequent issue of the Onderwijskrant), his point of view was not generally recognised and appreciated. Those responsible for primary mathematics education wrapped themselves in silence or disqualified Feys’ analysis as inflammatory language of irresponsible doomsayers (see, e.g., Verschaffel, 2002). 

They argued that the innovation of mathematics education was a fact and that we, also as parents, could better express our belief in the revised approach (quote from an interview of a member of the programme committee of the Catholic network as reported by Heyerick, 1982, p. 5). 

The discussion had clearly been launched, but the tide had not yet turned! An important follow-up event was the colloquium What Kind of Mathematics for 5–15 Year Olds organised in 1983 by the Foundation Lodewijk de Raet, a Flemish socio-cultural organisation with a pluralist scope (Stichting-Lodewijk de Raet, 1983). At that occasion, proponents and opponents of New Math defended their position.

 In 2008, Feys and Van Biervliet published a special issue of the Onderwijskrant, titled Mad Math en Math War, in which they informed their readership about the Math Wars in the United States and the Netherlands omtrent de oplomst van de constructivistische wiskunde, het contextueel en constructivistisch rekenen (Feys & Van Biervliet, 2008, p. 8). 

Feys en Van Biervliet: The ‘celestial’ (too formal) New Math has been replaced by the ‘terrestrial’, contextual and constructivist approach, having too little attention for calculation skills and readily available knowledge, for generalisation and abstraction, and for mathematics as a cultural product. The special issue, which also includes a contribution by Van de Craats, is certainly worth reading, but did not have the same strong impact as the ‘A flag on a mud barge’ issue from 1982