4th grade math

[SweetPea]

Just curious if any of you have 4th graders and if so what they are covering in math. My son has 2 more chapters to go in math before they begin multiplication of 2 digits times 2 digits????? Seems pretty late in the game for this to be introduced. We covered it in 3rd grade at home, but I'm thinking of the student body as a whole and wondering how children will ever master anything before higher math when it's barely done in elementary school?

[happyhomemaker]

We're working on long division here. Dd went over 2 digit multiplication sometime about a month or so ago, but it was review from the previous year. HTH

[courtney.byrum]

I'm not sure how early in the year we covered 2 digit multiplication but I know it was covered in 3rd grade as well just much more in 4th grade. We're totally off schedule with math so he'll be finishing up 4th grade math in the next month but I think it may have been about 2 months into the curriculum when it was covered. We use k12 so i don't know for sure when it is covered in other programs. We did use MM as extra because he needed extra practice in order not to forget the algorithm.

[jennynd]

My son's school curriculum did not cover 2 digit times 2 digit yet.

He is 2nd grader accelerate to 4th at school. I am not sure if there something to do with that.

[BabyBre]

Depending on your school's math curriculum, your best bet is to not rely on it as your ds's primary source of math education. The "new math" that a majority of public schools use today is insufficient on its own to prepare kids for high school and college. It may be worth asking your teacher how much she supplements the school's program and with what materials, but you'll be faced with the same problem again next year and the year after that, etc. Keep him strong and moving forward with a solid math program at home, and let his school math be enrichment. Teach him "ways" at home even if (especially if) they're not the "ways" he learns at school.

 

My 4th grader is learning prime factorization and multiplying and dividing mixed numbers at home. His class is talking about perimeter and area and drawing arrays at school. Most kids are capable of far more than they're receiving in ps.

[SweetPea]

My dh loves math and is an excellent teacher. DH is using Miquon and other resources with ds. I would say dh is the primary math instructor for both dc.

 

I guess I asked because we received a newsletter saying our district has adopted the "Core Curriculum" and it had math topics 4th graders would be learning. The sentence that bothered me the most in the newsletter was "Don't worry about your child that has a problem with math. The topics covered are smaller and given more time":001_huh: How does this help my son or any other child who thrives on math? I did speak to the teacher and me ds gets pulled out for challenge work because he's "so far ahead". I think he's right where he's supposed to be.

[jennynd]

Depending on your school's math curriculum, your best bet is to not rely on it as your ds's primary source of math education. The "new math" that a majority of public schools use today is insufficient on its own to prepare kids for high school and college. .

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

DS uses so called new math. It is focus in problem solving and making connection. The topic are introduced all over the map. I do not see a systematic approach. And they don't emphasis calculation.

[EmilyK]

Depending on your school's math curriculum, your best bet is to not rely on it as your ds's primary source of math education. The "new math" that a majority of public schools use today is insufficient on its own to prepare kids for high school and college. It may be worth asking your teacher how much she supplements the school's program and with what materials, but you'll be faced with the same problem again next year and the year after that, etc. Keep him strong and moving forward with a solid math program at home, and let his school math be enrichment. Teach him "ways" at home even if (especially if) they're not the "ways" he learns at school.

 

My 4th grader is learning prime factorization and multiplying and dividing mixed numbers at home. His class is talking about perimeter and area and drawing arrays at school. Most kids are capable of far more than they're receiving in ps.

 

It was amazing to me how little they covered in school. And one of my regrets is that I wasn't more disciplined about afterschooling. This year both of my kids are in private school and both were very (1 to 2 years) behind in math compared to their private school classmates, despite being quick studies, TAG identified etc. Both my boys are in some sense still catching up and so we're afterschooling with Khan and Singapore.

 

On your specific question, I agree with the above that my 4th graders were still cuttting out arrays. There was very little of multi-digit anything. 4th graders were still working on their math facts. My older son got through public school 5th without ever doing long division.

[BabyBre]

On your specific question, I agree with the above that my 4th graders were still cuttting out arrays. There was very little of multi-digit anything. 4th graders were still working on their math facts. My older son got through public school 5th without ever doing long division.

 

 

Sounds like our schools have the same program - TERC Investigations?

 

I have to post one of my favorite videos:

 

[BabyBre]

The sentence that bothered me the most in the newsletter was "Don't worry about your child that has a problem with math. The topics covered are smaller and given more time":001_huh:

 

 

This rings of what teachers who are concerned about their students not mastering concepts covered before they leave their care for the year are told - to be patient and have faith in the curriculum! :glare:

 

Common Core will be more of the same, but mandated nation wide.

[EmilyK]

yes we had TERC (in Portland, OR). UGH!

[BabyBre]

yes we had TERC (in Portland, OR). UGH!

 

:lol: I met a teacher recently whose district in the Portland area had just switched from TERC. I said, "Oh, that's great! But what did they adopt instead?" Everyday Math. :001_huh:

[Momling]

This rings of what teachers who are concerned about their students not mastering concepts covered before they leave their care for the year are told - to be patient and have faith in the curriculum! :glare:

 

Common Core will be more of the same, but mandated nation wide.

 

At least in our district, the common core standards are seen as much more rigorous than our state standards (Oregon) and more rigorous than the program our district uses (TERC Investigations)... and will lead to its likely replacement (or at least supplementation). From my perspective, the standards seem like a step in the right direction.

[BabyBre]

I thought I already posted these, but it must have been in a different thread. Points to consider:

 

Reasons Not to adopt the Common Core State Standards

 

By Laurie H. Rogers, education advocate

 

 

 

 

 

 

• The CCSS/tests/curriculum initiatives are untested and unproved. There are no tangible, measurable results anywhere in this country, no evidence to support allegations of their efficacy. Our children and teachers are the subjects of this national education experiment. It’s irresponsible to mandate that we all rush to adopt untested products.
  
• In math, the CCSS are a lesser product. Supporters of the CCSS admit that Washington’s current math standards are better, but they claim it doesn’t matter. Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars to adopt something that isn’t as good?
  
• The CCSS are a “minimum” AND a “maximum” standard. Our state is allowed to add up to 15% more content to the CCSS, but the costs of adding and assessing the extra are to be borne by taxpayers. It's almost certain we would get the CCSS as is. Regardless, any addition is limited to 15%.
  
• The people don’t own the CCSS. Non-governmental organizations NGA and CCSSO own the CCSS. There is therefore no public accountability for the quality of the CCSS, no public vote against them, no public control over how they will be modified, and no recourse if the people don’t like the results.
  
• Nationalization of public education. With national standards, a national test, a national curriculum, a national database – and no local control – public education is thereby nationalized. Taxpayers will not be in control of what their children are learning, in the classrooms they pay for.
  
• Initially, these initiatives will produce instability and taxpayer costs. Then, there will be continued change and costs, or national paralysis. Centralization of public education initially will cause upheaval as all districts change over – at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars. Supporters have called the CCSS a “living document,” indicating that change is expected. If so, this will be change and costs over which our state, districts, legislators, teachers and parents have little or no control. Another distinct possibility is national paralysis, where no one wants to change anything because then everyone would have to change.
  
• These initiatives will provide less public accountability. With the national standards/tests/curriculum, public education will be turned over to people who don’t know us, and who will never talk with us. It will result in a complete loss of local decision-making, and less real public accountability.
  
  • The process used in Washington State to “provisionally” adopt the CCSS cut the public out of the process until it was all but too late. The public was told one thing, even as a completely different thing was happening. Gov. Gregoire and Superintendent Dorn signed a Memorandum of Agreement on the CCSS with no public notification. A few months later, they were pushing districts to sign on to RTTT (and the attendant CCSS) before the standards were even written.
    
  • When public input finally was solicited, it was after the CCSS had been provisionally adopted. OSPI’s public “surveys” were heavily biased toward their permanent adoption.
    
  • I’ve been trying for almost two years to get answers from the national business and political interests pushing the CCSS, and from the U.S. Department of Education. I haven’t received responses from most of these people, much less answers. The Dept. of Ed appears to be ignoring a Freedom of Information Act request about the CCSS.
    
  • The CCSS were provisionally adopted, pending a legislative review in early 2011. But in this 2011 session, legislators have not had the opportunity to vote against their permanent adoption.
    

   

  [*]Adopting the CCSS/tests/curriculum is a waste of taxpayer money. The money Washington State would get for the Race to the Top initiative will not pay for the costs of adopting the national standards/tests/curriculum. Ultimately, the national standards/tests/curriculum initiatives will cost more than the standards and assessments we have now.

   

  • Washington State taxpayers spent more than $100 million on the development and implementation of the 2008 math standards that are clearer and more rigorous than those in the CCSS.
    
  • State education agencies’ cost estimations for the CCSS often don’t take into account district costs, nor costs for materials, professional development, or the technology mandated by the new “common” tests.
    
  • The money to build current standards and assessments is already spent. There are no savings to be had – not until the state MIGHT make changes at some unknown point down the road. It’s “creative accounting” to call that nebulous assumption “saving money.”
    
  • It isn’t better to spend “federal” money than it is to spend “district” money. “Federal,” “state” and “district” money are all taxpayer money. Taxpayers can’t afford this untested, unproved upheaval.
    
  • Even if Washington adopted the CCSS and got all of the money it could get for Race to the Top, half stays at the state level. The amount going to districts is a few dozen dollars per student per year, and there is no guarantee that ANY of it would go to classrooms.
    

   

   

No taxpayer understands spending hundreds of millions of dollars to adopt standards that are untested, expensive, and demonstrably less rigorous in math than what we have now. Yes, our public education system is weak. The answer is not to give away more control – it is to regain control at local levels, and hold those local people accountable. Something needs to be done, but not this. Not the CCSS. Not RTTT. Not the centralization and federalization of public education. Not the removal of the people’s voice and our vote. We need MORE voice, more choice, and more options for parents and teachers. Competition is good for education.

 

 

The CCSS/common assessments will add to costs, lower standards, eliminate choice, and ultimately not help children learn better. Adopting the CCSS will take our public schools in exactly the wrong direction.

[wapiti]

FWIW, in case anyone's doing some background reading, TERC and the like are "fuzzy math," not "new math." New math was from the 1960s, while fuzzy math didn't really come around until the 1990s. Here's a recent thread.