**Introduction**

The development of what is now known as RME started around 1970. The foundations were laid by Freudenthal and his colleagues at the former IOWO, the oldest predecessor of the Freudenthal Institute. The actual impulse for the reform movement was the inception, in 1968, of the Wiskobas project, initiated by Wijdeveld and Goffree. The project’s first merit was that Dutch mathematics education was not affected by the New Math movement. The present form of RME has been mostly determined by Freudenthal’s (1977) view on mathematics. He felt mathematics must be connected to reality, stay close to children’s experience and be relevant to society, in order to be of human value. Instead of seeing mathematics as a subject to be transmitted, Freudenthal stressed the idea of mathematics as a human activity. Mathematics lessons should give students the ‘guided’ opportunity to ‘re-invent’ mathematics by doing it. This means that in mathematics education, the focal point should not be on mathematics as a closed system but on the activity, on the process of mathematization (Freudenthal, 1968).

**Realistic Mathematics Education in The Netherlands 1980 – 1990**

In netherland there was ever a change development in mathematics education toward the beginning of realistic mathematics education, abbreviated to RME. Actually, in 1970s Wiskobas group tried to develop New Math but at that time it did not get good opportunity to rise. After Freudenthal, the founder of realistic mathematics education, become involved in Wiskobas project, the program change to realistic mathematics instruction in which Wiskobas made a new kind of more realistic textbook. Because of the work of Wiskobas in which it proposed textbook through courses, conferences, contributions to magazines and so on, the number of realistic textbook increased immensely from 1980 to 1990 which reached 75 % of the whole. However, at that time, the previous model textbook, namely traditional mechanistic textbook still prevailed the market.

In 1980, there was a struggle to coordinate realistic mathematics textbook with didactical thing in the form of suitable curriculum. Through the channels of informal infrastructure, NVORWO, the development of curriculum showed bright point and the new model textbook developed well to be used in primary school even though it was not the only one textbook used in that time.

A research conducted to know the effect of textbook realistic is that the influence of Wiskobas’ textbook didn’t bring significant difference of pupil performance with the mechanistic textbook. However, it was also considered more various in content than mechanistic textbook. However, to change the education system itself, the change of textbook is not adequate. It still needs more that it, for example didactical change. In the term of innovation, the change faced some limitations to develop, such as the bad promotion, there was no plan of action to explain clearly the background, in TV program and the lack of support from the government. Another limitation is it is not possible to finance developmental research because it contains a component of development which is should be done somewhere.

**Conclusion **

Freudenthal, who always took care of the change, with his result of realistic mathematics education was amazing. He was the one to put Wiskobas on the right track: away from formalistic New Math, directed at reality. His didactical realism is colored by idealism. His ideas emphasize rich thematic contexts, integration of mathematics with other subjects and areas of reality, differentiation within individual learning processes and the importance of working together in heterogeneous groups and also successfully change the content of mathematics material in primary school.

## Leave a Reply