Traditional Math vs Investigative Math

One of the things I have been struggling to get my arms around are the various math curriculums available - what they mean, how they are different, and the pros/cons of each. Being in a Northshore school distict junior high - it is interesting to see the transition. They are moving from the investigations approach to a more traditional approach. This has been mandated by the school board - and is not sitting well with many of the teachers we have talked with. These teachers have been using investigations for a while - and many of them have been teaching long enough they remember the transition to investigations. Having used it extensively - they have come to appreciate how it allows the students to come to a deeper understanding of the meaning of the math they are learning. In a way that they feel will be lost by going back to a traditional mimic the problem approach. Almost all of them are advocating a combination - but that doesn't appear to be an option.

As Suzanne and I sit and watch the students - and because they are in the transition phase - we are seeing some classes using both curriculums - we have been talking about this at some length. Today - our analogy was a group of settlers building a house on the prairie. If they build it from the ground up - their understanding of the process is much greater. If they only copied the plans - they would not understand the purpose of some parts. It is greatly beneficial to have a 'group' of settlers working together (to draw on all of their variable past experiences) rather than just a single settler (who might not realize the value of a foundation and have his house blow away in the first big wind).

Just interesting to try to figure out what is the best way for children to come to a deeper, lasting understanding of math.