Common Core....

[Based on Faith Academy]

I babysit my first grade niece. I get the pleasure of working with her on her common core

math. What I don't get is, if you are a parent of a child in ps how do you have any clue

how to do their homework with them? My niece sits down with me and explains these

concepts to me before I check her school work. How can parents help their children if

they don't know what the teachers are looking for anymore? Some examples on her work

are number bonds and 5-group drawings. She was able to show me what they meant by

number bonds but she couldn't even tell me what a 5-group drawing was. I went online to

look what they were. Do we not use manipulative anymore? It seems like more work to get

to the same answers that we've been getting to for centuries.

 

Just my honest opinion.

[go_go_gadget]

What we've been doing for centuries has resulted in an ever-widening gap between the US and other first-world countries in math education, so there's clearly a need for change. That does mean doing things differently, and that there will be a learning curve. If we allow a desire to make sure things look immediately familiar to parents to be the top priority, nothing can ever change. Having said that, the transition could be made much easier by hosting a workshop for parents, or at least sending home some instructions. I get that that would cost a bit, but not nearly as much as changing everything over to Common Core, and then changing it back because parents are in uproar.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well I accidentally did what a lot of people now are calling common core type math. The methods were a bit different than how I was taught, but never in my life have I understood much of what I was taught in math until fairly recently.  To the point where I've gone from hating math to really enjoying math.  If people would just sit down and look at it and give it a chance they'd realize it's not that mysterious.

 

Either way, I don't think it's unusual for parents to be confused by their children's school work.  My parents were confused by my school work too because they had learned things in a different way.  Had they truly been interested they could have learned a bit about it.  And I get it, some parents don't want to or don't have the time and energy.  I just think it's wrong to assume that different means terrible. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

What we've been doing for centuries has resulted in an ever-widening gap between the US and other first-world countries in math education, so there's clearly a need for change. That does mean doing things differently, and that there will be a learning curve. If we allow a desire to make sure things look immediately familiar to parents to be the top priority, nothing can ever change. Having said that, the transition could be made much easier by hosting a workshop for parents, or at least sending home some instructions. I get that that would cost a bit, but not nearly as much as changing everything over to Common Core, and then changing it back because parents are in uproar.

 

Exactly.  What I was taught were procedures.  I had no idea what I was doing or why I was doing it.  So sure I could memorize how to do long division or larger multiplication problems, but for example, if I got midway through a multiplication problem and wondered if I had added the next sets of zeros I'd actually have to start over because I only knew the steps and not why it worked.  Now I am absolutely positively never confused by that.  I always know exactly how many zeros I need.  I can't believe I was not taught this before.

[Beaniemom]

My children's school hosts Math nights for parents to get tips on the math being used. We can also access the textbook and some videos online to help us. I am guilty of telling my 2nd grade dd to help my 1st grade ds with math so I didn't go crazy trying to figure out what they were asking.

[momacacia]

The funny thing is that all of the CC math I've seen (and it hasn't been tons) looks like things we've done in Right Start, Math Mammoth or maybe Beast Academy. Idk if CC is heading more the Asian/mental math route, just being sure that students understand the actual arithmetic concepts, or what? But, having taught my kids this way a bit, I don't understand the uproar. If we had to do math on the broadside of an elephant for my kids to exit high school more math literate than I was/am, I'd be all for it. I'm sure CC math has it's flaws, I'm just trying to figure out what exactly they are.

 

#researchingelephantpurchase

[Beaniemom]

The funny thing is that all of the CC math I've seen (and it hasn't been tons) looks like things we've done in Right Start, Math Mammoth or maybe Beast Academy. Idk if CC is heading more the Asian/mental math route, just being sure that students understand the actual arithmetic concepts, or what? But, having taught my kids this way a bit, I don't understand the uproar. If we had to do math on the broadside of an elephant for my kids to exit high school more math literate than I was/am, I'd be all for it. I'm sure CC math has it's flaws, I'm just trying to figure out what exactly they are.

 

#researchingelephantpurchase

What I have found is that the content is often not the issue but how it is presented in the ps curriculum. My daughter has spent a great deal of time drawing pictorial representations because it was required instead of being able to use another method to solve. Also the vocabulary and phrasing of directions can be confusing.

[go_go_gadget]

The funny thing is that all of the CC math I've seen (and it hasn't been tons) looks like things we've done in Right Start, Math Mammoth or maybe Beast Academy. Idk if CC is heading more the Asian/mental math route, just being sure that students understand the actual arithmetic concepts, or what? 

 

It is. Phil Daro, one of the authors of the Common Core standards, gave a talk on this at our MAA section meeting last year. They absolutely did draw from what's been working so well in Asian schools and Asian-inspired programs like RS and SM, because all of those focus on the concepts rather than procedures. Some of what's had ''Common Core'' slapped on it is garbage, but that's because the publishing companies really don't have much incentive to make good books, since the districts will buy from them regardless. Daro is working on his own--to be published Pearson, I think--and I'm desperately hoping it's widely adopted.

[Coco_Clark]

I babysit my first grade niece. I get the pleasure of working with her on her common core

math. What I don't get is, if you are a parent of a child in ps how do you have any clue

how to do their homework with them? My niece sits down with me and explains these

concepts to me before I check her school work. How can parents help their children if

they don't know what the teachers are looking for anymore?

 

I agree with Go_Go_Gadget, here.  The (very unfortunate) reason that parents are unable to help their kids with CC math ISN'T because this "new" math is unacceptably difficult. Its because our math standards and expectations have not been high enough for a couple decades now.  Only assigning math that every parent can easily understand and teach is never going to get us anywhere, let alone ahead.  I get that that sucks.  It really, really, does.  But it is what it is.  

 

 

Some examples on her work are number bonds and 5-group drawings. She was able to show me what they meant by

number bonds but she couldn't even tell me what a 5-group drawing was. I went online to

look what they were. Do we not use manipulative anymore?

 

Common Core does not state HOW a student should be taught concepts, just WHAT concepts need to be taught.  Therefor it might say students need to learn number bonds and groupings.  It doesn't say how to teach that; whether with drawings, manipulatives, orally, ect.  So if your niece isn't getting manipulative work, that's on the teacher.  That being said, I've been in a TON of 1st grade classrooms and I have never been in nor heard of one, pre or post CC, that doesn't heavily rely on manipulatives.  Neither have I been in nor heard of a 1st grade classroom that sent those manipulatives home for homework. 

 

It seems like more work to get

to the same answers that we've been getting to for centuries.

 

Just my honest opinion.

 

I hear this over, and over, and over again.  The thing that people seem to not understand is that the point isn't to get the answer.  The point is to understand WHY that is the answer.  Learning procedures alone is quick, yes.  But it doesn't provide any conceptual understanding.  Its the conceptual understanding that they are trying to get here.  

[SKL]

I agree, they should distribute teacher guides (or answer sheets) to all parents on the first day of school.

 

My kids started that in 1st grade, and it was the first year their school tried to teach that way.  Their teacher didn't get it either.  Needless to say I spent a lot of time remediating when my kid was 6-7yo.

 

What good is a brilliant teaching method that the kid's teacher(s) don't understand?

 

To answer your question, I bought parallel supplementary materials from Amazon.com and eBay, so I could keep up with what they were supposed to be teaching at school.  Of course I did not realize I needed this until well into their 1st grade year.

[SKL]

The point isn't to get the answer?  I have a couple of problems with that.  First, at some point you need to have a right answer to find out if you actually get the concept.  Second, my kids' school graded every page of their work in 1st grade.  The right answer AND the right method were both required.

 

A few weeks ago my now 3rd grader missed several questions (bringing a 100% to 75%) because she wrote the problems as, e.g., 5x3 instead of 3x5.  (I had reviewed the homework and saw nothing wrong with it.)  Best part of it was that one of the key concepts taught in that chapter was the commutative property.  So much for the importance of knowing how to think about math.  :/

[Reefgazer]

I am vehemently anti-common core for a whole lot of reasons, but the teaching methods for math aren't one of those reasons.  The common core methods of teaching math are sound; they are what many homeschool math curricula have been doing for a long time.  So I don't think it's exactly "new math", and I tend to think the USA's deficiencies with math go a lot deeper than number bonds and 5 group drawings; they are a direct result of the dumbing down of curricula, the goldfish-like attention span of most students today, and the devaluing of education in general. 

 

That said, the students are not given a textbook to refer to or to take home because it is too expensive to buy classroom and take-home texts for students, and administrators also don't want parents teaching their kids math so that they don't instill them with their "bad habits".  In fact, for a super-fun exercise, go and ask your niece's teacher what is the name of the math book they use; they will tell you "There isn't a math book".  Press her further on it and ask "Where do you get your math problems for the worksheets you send home?" and she will tell you the name of a state/teacher/local website.  Press further for the exact URL and she will reluctantly tell you the URL.  Now go to URL and try to find the math problems.  Good luck with that.  Any kid who doesn't have a dedicated tutor/parent by their side to do the internet research/background work you are doing for your niece is screwed (and these are usually the poor, English language learners, or kids of the uneducated who will show us exactly how wide the gap between the haves and have-nots will get).

[go_go_gadget]

The point isn't to get the answer?  I have a couple of problems with that.  First, at some point you need to have a right answer to find out if you actually get the concept.  Second, my kids' school graded every page of their work in 1st grade.  The right answer AND the right method were both required.

 

A few weeks ago my now 3rd grader missed several questions (bringing a 100% to 75%) because she wrote the problems as, e.g., 5x3 instead of 3x5.  (I had reviewed the homework and saw nothing wrong with it.)  Best part of it was that one of the key concepts taught in that chapter was the commutative property.  So much for the importance of knowing how to think about math.  :/

 

Of course the answers do matter, but the process is worth more. That's why teachers want students to show their work, even if the answer is correct.

 

Regarding your second paragraph: I've heard about that scenario before, and I agree with you. That's why I'm looking forward to the curriculum Phil Daro's writing, and hoping it'll be popular with the school districts. Knowing the difference between rows and columns will important eventually in matrix multiplication, but not in third grade. 

[Reefgazer]

I don't buy the bolded for 5 seconds.  Tremendous innovation, growth, ideas, patents, and new products have been come out of the USA for decades prior to the last 2 decades or so.  The problems with math in this country are real, but are not quite that deep, and our slide in practical applications, prestigious awards, and innovations has been fairly recent (within the childhood time-frames of most of the people on the board here) and involves more than just number bonds. 

What we've been doing for centuries has resulted in an ever-widening gap between the US and other first-world countries in math education, so there's clearly a need for change. That does mean doing things differently, and that there will be a learning curve. If we allow a desire to make sure things look immediately familiar to parents to be the top priority, nothing can ever change. Having said that, the transition could be made much easier by hosting a workshop for parents, or at least sending home some instructions. I get that that would cost a bit, but not nearly as much as changing everything over to Common Core, and then changing it back because parents are in uproar.

 

[wapiti]

I think there are two separate problems - the standards themselves and the published materials - but in some cases the problems may be related.

 

My understanding is that language for some portions of the CCSS was somewhat taken from the NCTM standards circa 1990, out of which grew various Fuzzy Math programs (and the ensuing Math Wars), and accordingly, some of the new Common Core published programs may have a fuzzy math flavor, even if that wasn't quite what the CCSS writers were shooting for.  (Sorry, I don't have citations for this at the moment - it was something I read a while ago.)

[Bluegoat]

It seems to me the real problem is with sending kids home with any homework that potentially depends on the understanding of the parents for it to get done.  If there has to be homework at all, it should be things the child understands and just needs to practice or finish up.

 

 

[Beaniemom]

Here are the answers my dd put on her 2nd grade math homework when they asked her to explain why she chose the method she did "The _____ way was just easy for me on this problem." She used a different method each time (I asked and she thought she had to) and got the answers right but didn't know how to explain it. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think there are two separate problems - the standards themselves and the published materials - but in some cases the problems may be related.

 

My understanding is that language for some portions of the CCSS was somewhat taken from the NCTM standards circa 1990, out of which grew various Fuzzy Math programs (and the ensuing Math Wars), and accordingly, some of the new Common Core published programs may have a fuzzy math flavor, even if that wasn't quite what the CCSS writers were shooting for.  (Sorry, I don't have citations for this at the moment - it was something I read a while ago.)

 

For sure I have seen some strange things related to common core.  Although prior to the new standards, my district was using Everyday Math.  I haven't heard anything good about that one!

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

Do we not use manipulative anymore?

 

We never used manipulatives in school.  My guess is the school was mostly just too cheap to buy stuff like that.  Not unless you count the very large box of crayons I asked my parents to buy me so I could use them to do my math (no joke).

[wapiti]

Here's an interesting article on the standards that came up when I was looking for something else: http://ucsmp.uchicago.edu/resources/conferences/2014-04-10/ I may disagree with at least some things this person is saying, but there are some good, interesting points with which I would agree.  (The article is from UCSMP, publisher of Everyday Math.)

[SKL]

Ya know, I blew away the GMAT compared to every foreign student from China and India at my MBA school (with one exception).  My understanding and retention of math in my early 20s was exceptional from an international perspective, despite having attended a rural public school and being decidedly un-mathy.

 

My friend from India (who was on a one-year Rotary scholarship because she'd done so well on some test) had brought her old math books to refresh her memory.  The math books were pretty intimidating - full of lots of things I never had to study - and her score on the math section of the GMAT was lower than mine.

 

So I tend to be skeptical of the whole "international standards" thing.  Sure, they may spend more hours cramming math into brains in some systems, but the outcome isn't necessarily a substantive superiority - at least not a huge one.

 

Being a few points ahead or behind - is it worth throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

 

Besides, just using a better textbook isn't going to work if we still spend a lot less time on math.  My kid learned the stuff because I worked with her for hours upon hours at home.  At school they never spent enough time for an average kid to really understand.  Now the 3rd grade teacher says my formerly struggling kid is one of the star students in math.  It's probably because they just push the class forward regardless of understanding.

[Roadrunner]

I am neutral on common core. I didn't grow up learning "American math," so maybe I don't know how bad it was, but last summer I went through bunch of Engage NY math modules to see what my kid would be doing if we decide to send them back to middle school. I couldn't really articulate what turned me off until I read this article.

 

 

"This requirement of visual models and creating stories is all over the Common Core. The students were constantly told to draw models to answer trivial questions, such as finding 20% of 80 or finding the time for a car to drive 10 miles if it drives 4 miles in 10 minutes, or finding the number of benches one can make from 48 feet of wood if each bench requires 6 feet. A student who gives the correct answer right away (as one should) and doesn't draw anything loses points.

 

Here are some more examples of the Common Core's convoluted and meaningless manipulations of simple concepts: "draw a series of tape diagrams to represent (12 divided by 3) x 3=12, or: rewrite (30 divided by 5) = 6 as a subtraction expression."

 

This model-drawing mania went on in my grandson's class for the entire year, leaving no time to cover geometry and other important topics. While model drawing might occasionally be useful, mathematics is not about visual models and "real world" stories. It became clear to me that the Common Core's "deeper" and "more rigorous" standards mean replacing math with some kind of illustrative counting saturated with pictures, diagrams and elaborate word problems. Simple concepts are made artificially intricate and complex with the pretense of being deeper—while the actual content taught was primitive."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/marina-ratner-making-math-education-even-worse-1407283282

 

The author is a math professor originally from Russia. Having grown up on Russian math, maybe that is why I agreed with her.

[SevenDaisies]

Of course the answers do matter, but the process is worth more. That's why teachers want students to show their work, even if the answer is correct.

 

 

So if a civil engineer uses the proper method in calculating the design for a bridge but gets the wrong answer causing that structure to eventually fail, that is okay because he understood the process?

 

I agree that it's better to understand the problem and to be able to explain it, but ultimately the goal should be to get the right answer. Showing work is good. It allows a teacher to determine whether or not a child understood even if the answer is wrong, but this is math and there is a right and a wrong answer.

 It seems like more work to get to the same answers that we've been getting to for centuries.

 

Those of us, of a certain age, would point out that our parents loved to listen to Tom Lehrer's "New Math", written fifty years ago, which bemoaned the new math standards of the day, and that no parent could help their kids with.

[Coco_Clark]

The correct answer is obviously the final goal. No one has said or insinuated that correct answers do not matter, and especially no one has said that we don't care if engineers building bridges don't know the correct answers to their calculations. My logic is rusty, which fallacy is this again? Unwarranted assumption? Whatever it's called its what makes profitable conversations about common core difficult.

 

Anyways, I stand by what I've said. Conceptual understanding is important. It is EVEN MORE important, especially in those early foundational grades, than the speed and ease of algorithms. If our students get a 100% on every single test by plugging in an algorithm they do not understand, they are worse off than students who sometimes struggle, who sometimes miss questions, and then move on with a deeper understanding of math.

 

I do not care a fig what method my engineers use. But I want them to not only get the correct answer, I want them to understand why.

[Joker]

I am vehemently anti-common core for a whole lot of reasons, but the teaching methods for math aren't one of those reasons.  The common core methods of teaching math are sound; they are what many homeschool math curricula have been doing for a long time.  So I don't think it's exactly "new math", and I tend to think the USA's deficiencies with math go a lot deeper than number bonds and 5 group drawings; they are a direct result of the dumbing down of curricula, the goldfish-like attention span of most students today, and the devaluing of education in general. 

 

That said, the students are not given a textbook to refer to or to take home because it is too expensive to buy classroom and take-home texts for students, and administrators also don't want parents teaching their kids math so that they don't instill them with their "bad habits".  In fact, for a super-fun exercise, go and ask your niece's teacher what is the name of the math book they use; they will tell you "There isn't a math book".  Press her further on it and ask "Where do you get your math problems for the worksheets you send home?" and she will tell you the name of a state/teacher/local website.  Press further for the exact URL and she will reluctantly tell you the URL.  Now go to URL and try to find the math problems.  Good luck with that.  Any kid who doesn't have a dedicated tutor/parent by their side to do the internet research/background work you are doing for your niece is screwed (and these are usually the poor, English language learners, or kids of the uneducated who will show us exactly how wide the gap between the haves and have-nots will get).

 

This isn't true everywhere. This is a district/implementation issue; not common core. Both of my dds have textbooks and they do bring them home. They also have access to an online version of their textbooks that includes videos, practice problems, and other activities if they don't understand something. We've had zero issue here understanding what they are doing.

 

ETA: I also wanted to say that I feel my dds greatly benefit from the block schedules at their schools. They may only have math every other day but those days are 1.5 hours long and they get a lot of actual teaching and practice. Oldest went to a different high school for her first quarter with a regular seven classes every day for 45 minutes each. Math was the subject that suffered the most because she actually was only getting about 30 minutes a day and it was never enough time for the teacher to get into things.

[Beaniemom]

I am neutral on common core. I didn't grow up learning "American math," so maybe I don't know how bad it was, but last summer I went through bunch of Engage NY math modules to see what my kid would be doing if we decide to send them back to middle school. I couldn't really articulate what turned me off until I read this article.

 

 

"This requirement of visual models and creating stories is all over the Common Core. The students were constantly told to draw models to answer trivial questions, such as finding 20% of 80 or finding the time for a car to drive 10 miles if it drives 4 miles in 10 minutes, or finding the number of benches one can make from 48 feet of wood if each bench requires 6 feet. A student who gives the correct answer right away (as one should) and doesn't draw anything loses points.

 

Here are some more examples of the Common Core's convoluted and meaningless manipulations of simple concepts: "draw a series of tape diagrams to represent (12 divided by 3) x 3=12, or: rewrite (30 divided by 5) = 6 as a subtraction expression."

 

This model-drawing mania went on in my grandson's class for the entire year, leaving no time to cover geometry and other important topics. While model drawing might occasionally be useful, mathematics is not about visual models and "real world" stories. It became clear to me that the Common Core's "deeper" and "more rigorous" standards mean replacing math with some kind of illustrative counting saturated with pictures, diagrams and elaborate word problems. Simple concepts are made artificially intricate and complex with the pretense of being deeper—while the actual content taught was primitive."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/marina-ratner-making-math-education-even-worse-1407283282

 

The author is a math professor originally from Russia. Having grown up on Russian math, maybe that is why I agreed with her.

:iagree:

[SKL]

I also think there are some kids who are just not wired to be mathematical thinkers.  Not at the level the educators are shooting for.  For a child who doesn't have that kind of brain, it needs to be OK to just learn how to do math problems, without going through all those gyrations before they are anywhere close to getting a clue.  Let's face it, it isn't a national tragedy if our manual workers don't all revel in the beauty of calculus.

[SKL]

I am fine with kids showing their work at an infantile level ONE TIME, to show they understand the concept.  Not again and again.  What a tedious waste of time.  Do people not remember what it was like to be 6yo?

[Serenade]

I'm curious as to how much these common core math practices will really matter once someone gets to college.  Is the way that students do college-level math really going to change?  What about in engineering  school?  Or graduate physics classes?   What is the impact of Common Core math going to be further down the line?  Honestly, I don't think it will matter.  The people who are good at math will go into math-related fields as they always have.   I guess the presumption is that more people will understand math at earlier ages and therefore a greater number of  people will be interested in pursuing math-related careers.  Somehow I doubt it.  And I don't believe there is a shortage of STEM workers anyhow.  There is a shortage of companies willing to pay STEM workers what they are worth, and these same companies like to complain about the shortage of qualified applicants so that they can hire people from India instead, always at a much lower salary, of course. 

[mamajag]

I think this is more too much too early. 

[Reefgazer]

This is one reason why common core will do nothing to improve math understanding or math scores on international tests.  But this country never learns from its previous mistakes.

I am neutral on common core. I didn't grow up learning "American math," so maybe I don't know how bad it was, but last summer I went through bunch of Engage NY math modules to see what my kid would be doing if we decide to send them back to middle school. I couldn't really articulate what turned me off until I read this article.


"This requirement of visual models and creating stories is all over the Common Core. The students were constantly told to draw models to answer trivial questions, such as finding 20% of 80 or finding the time for a car to drive 10 miles if it drives 4 miles in 10 minutes, or finding the number of benches one can make from 48 feet of wood if each bench requires 6 feet. A student who gives the correct answer right away (as one should) and doesn't draw anything loses points.

Here are some more examples of the Common Core's convoluted and meaningless manipulations of simple concepts: "draw a series of tape diagrams to represent (12 divided by 3) x 3=12, or: rewrite (30 divided by 5) = 6 as a subtraction expression."

This model-drawing mania went on in my grandson's class for the entire year, leaving no time to cover geometry and other important topics. While model drawing might occasionally be useful, mathematics is not about visual models and "real world" stories. It became clear to me that the Common Core's "deeper" and "more rigorous" standards mean replacing math with some kind of illustrative counting saturated with pictures, diagrams and elaborate word problems. Simple concepts are made artificially intricate and complex with the pretense of being deeper—while the actual content taught was primitive."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/marina-ratner-making-math-education-even-worse-1407283282

The author is a math professor originally from Russia. Having grown up on Russian math, maybe that is why I agreed with her.

 

[Reefgazer]

Our parents?!?!? *I* love Tom Lehrer's "new Math".  And "Poisoning Pigeons In The Park", "Masochism Tango", and "We Will All Go Together As We Go", and ...  :)

Those of us, of a certain age, would point out that our parents loved to listen to Tom Lehrer's "New Math", written fifty years ago, which bemoaned the new math standards of the day, and that no parent could help their kids with.

 

[Reefgazer]

The issue is quite common in New York and was in Virginia when Virginia was discussing adopting Common Core.  It is a major driving force behind objections to Common Core math in many states, even if there are exceptions to this situation.  In poor districts, this is amplified because of the tight budgets and no money for books, combined with a prevalence of low SES populations.

This isn't true everywhere. This is a district/implementation issue; not common core. Both of my dds have textbooks and they do bring them home. They also have access to an online version of their textbooks that includes videos, practice problems, and other activities if they don't understand something. We've had zero issue here understanding what they are doing.

 

ETA: I also wanted to say that I feel my dds greatly benefit from the block schedules at their schools. They may only have math every other day but those days are 1.5 hours long and they get a lot of actual teaching and practice. Oldest went to a different high school for her first quarter with a regular seven classes every day for 45 minutes each. Math was the subject that suffered the most because she actually was only getting about 30 minutes a day and it was never enough time for the teacher to get into things.

 

[Tanaqui]

In fact, for a super-fun exercise, go and ask your niece's teacher what is the name of the math book they use; they will tell you "There isn't a math book".  Press her further on it and ask "Where do you get your math problems for the worksheets you send home?" and she will tell you the name of a state/teacher/local website.  Press further for the exact URL and she will reluctantly tell you the URL.  Now go to URL and try to find the math problems.  Good luck with that.

 

That's not the case in the schools here, which are all aligned to common core and which will quite happily tell you what books they use (which is great when you lose the homework notebook and have to order a new one from Amazon because you don't want the teacher telling you they can only issue two replacements per class and you already used up both of them....) and will even invite you into the schools to observe how they're teaching various subjects, including math.

 

Edit: Since you addressed this as I was typing, I will point out that we live in a very poor area in NY, all the schools are Title 1.

 

So if a civil engineer uses the proper method in calculating the design for a bridge but gets the wrong answer causing that structure to eventually fail, that is okay because he understood the process?

 

An engineer who understands the process (rather than just having a filebook of algorithms) is less likely to make an error.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

Those of us, of a certain age, would point out that our parents loved to listen to Tom Lehrer's "New Math", written fifty years ago, which bemoaned the new math standards of the day, and that no parent could help their kids with.

 

What's hilarious is people quote it all over the place now when they want to say "They should teach math the way they used to", but lots of what is stated in that song IS the way the people quoting it learned!

 

The whole first section is about borrowing and carrying (or regrouping/renaming) in math, with cross-outs. Read the lyrics carefully. Who thinks that how he learned (three from two is nine) is less confusing?

 

And then the second part is doing the same equation in base 8. I'm a fan of the dozenal system myself, but at any rate I don't believe common core asks for children to learn about other bases than 10 in elementary school (when one typically learns to do multi-digit subtraction) and it certainly can't be considered dumbing down (which is the usual battle-cry), so I can only conclude that the people typically passing that song around (not you, you had an entirely different and perfectly valid point, unlike most of the time I see it) have no comprehension skills at all, reading or listening. Doesn't say much for their education.

 

[SKL]

The engineers today who understand their jobs probably did not get to where they are by having to draw a gazillion little pictures for math in 2nd grade.

[Tanaqui]

The engineers today who understand their jobs probably did not get to where they are by having to draw a gazillion little pictures for math in 2nd grade.

 

Sure, probably not. And I agree that you can take something much too far, like drawing pictures once the concept is grasped. Tedious busywork!

 

But how many adults today could've been better at math if they had been taught differently as children? It's not the successes we should be looking at, it's the failures. You know, I just read an article on exactly that subject. It was so good, I'm going to re-cap the part that caught my attention.

 

Way back during WWII, a group of mathematicians was asked which part of the planes to fortify. Obviously you can't bulk up the entire plane, because you want it to fly, so where do you put the armor? They were given a whole bunch of returned - but badly shot up - planes to look at. The military was going to shore up the parts that were the most badly damaged.

 

However, that would have been in error. In fact, as pointed out by one of the mathematicians, the best places to put more armor was where the planes hadn't been shot - because planes that were shot in those spots didn't return.

 

So, now, let's say we're decided we should reform the math curriculum. (And some of us are not decided that we should do that, but too late, we're already doing it.) Should we reform it by looking at people who learned a lot of math in previous years... or the ones who didn't? Maybe the first group would've done well no matter what, right? It's the second group who needs help.

 

[*****]

The problem I have with CC or any new method that is adopted is that not enough time is given for teachers to learn it well before being expected to implement it. As a former teacher, I remember attending workshops in order to keep our certification. They were great at the moment and the thought of using new ideas was exciting. But where were we the next day? Back in the classroom. Never enough time was given for us to develop and practice our new methods before using it with the children. Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? I like that some districts have parent nights. Wow! Obviously not in our district, but that is an easy solution to getting everyone on the same track.

 

If the new cc methods we are using now is similar to other Asian programs, then why didn't we just adopt Singapore Math?  At least some districts have already used it, products have already been made, and no one is re-inventing the wheel. I seem to remember a quote from the author of SM that it isn't the method being used that is successful to students, it is the understanding of it by the teacher (who can explain/teach it well). If methods are being switched every few years, teachers again, have no time to learn their subjects and teaching methods as they should. CC is a major shift in the way teachers have to teach math. If they have not been taught this way, they need even more time to learn it well before they should be expected to teach it to others. Duh! Kind of like implementing the metric system. This was something new to the US. It is a major shift in our thinking and we needed time to be able to think in a different way (although I admit we could be beefing this up a little more in our country by now if we are truly serious about changing...). But you get my drift.

 

We have only addressed 1 subject here. Our country should not have expected our schools to adopt cc in every subject all at once. It should have been implemented over time. Really, how were we hood-winked into adopting this knowing that all the old textbooks would have to be thrown out and new ones purchased. With districts always crying for money, why did they not see this as another major expense? 

 

And what about reliability and validity? We were always told to only adopt materials that have possessed these 2. Now, with everything being so new, we know they have not been tested over time.  Don't get me wrong. I understand our schools have needed improvement. I am all for that. But let's use some common sense here. Lack of training for teachers, little or no time for implementation, skills that are not developmentally appropriate for youngsters, lack of funds and ready-made materials...How could our country have been so gullible? I am just so thankful my own kids are just about graduated and I don't have to worry about this in our schooling. 

[SevenDaisies]

 

An engineer who understands the process (rather than just having a filebook of algorithms) is less likely to make an error.

Of course that's true - I agree 100%. The next thing I said was that it is better to understand the why but my point is that the correct answer is the goal.

[SevenDaisies]

I also think there are some kids who are just not wired to be mathematical thinkers. Not at the level the educators are shooting for. For a child who doesn't have that kind of brain, it needs to be OK to just learn how to do math problems, without going through all those gyrations before they are anywhere close to getting a clue. Let's face it, it isn't a national tragedy if our manual workers don't all revel in the beauty of calculus.

And some kids just inherently understand, but can't articulate why they understand. To them the answer and the process are obvious. That needs to be okay too.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I am fine with kids showing their work at an infantile level ONE TIME, to show they understand the concept.  Not again and again.  What a tedious waste of time.  Do people not remember what it was like to be 6yo?

 

I do agree with this.  Maybe not one time exactly, but every time?  No that's really hard for a little kid.  And that would definitely kill anyone's like/love of math.

 

That's been one huge benefit of homeschooling.  We could often just talk out the "why" over and over again.  I still repeat the why and quiz my kids on the why.  They don't have to spend an hour writing it out. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

What's hilarious is people quote it all over the place now when they want to say "They should teach math the way they used to", but lots of what is stated in that song IS the way the people quoting it learned!

 

The whole first section is about borrowing and carrying (or regrouping/renaming) in math, with cross-outs. Read the lyrics carefully. Who thinks that how he learned (three from two is nine) is less confusing?

 

And then the second part is doing the same equation in base 8. I'm a fan of the dozenal system myself, but at any rate I don't believe common core asks for children to learn about other bases than 10 in elementary school (when one typically learns to do multi-digit subtraction) and it certainly can't be considered dumbing down (which is the usual battle-cry), so I can only conclude that the people typically passing that song around (not you, you had an entirely different and perfectly valid point, unlike most of the time I see it) have no comprehension skills at all, reading or listening. Doesn't say much for their education.

 

Haha..."dozenal system".  I like the word dozenal.  How can I work that into a conversation?  LOL 

[Serenade]

 

 

So, now, let's say we're decided we should reform the math curriculum. (And some of us are not decided that we should do that, but too late, we're already doing it.) Should we reform it by looking at people who learned a lot of math in previous years... or the ones who didn't? Maybe the first group would've done well no matter what, right? It's the second group who needs help.

 

 

I guess I'm worried that the overkill in drawing and explanation requirements is going to kill the desire and enthusiasm of people who are naturally good at math.   Kind of the same way that classrooms that teach to the average often kill the curiosity and inquisitiveness of bright children. 

[shinyhappypeople]

"Common Core math" (ie heavily conceptual, using extensive visual models, etc) will work beautifully for some students and be an abysmal failure for others.

I have an interesting example of this in my own family.  Daughter #1 thrives on Math Mammoth because of the visual models, digging deep into the why and so on.  Daughter #2 hated Math Mammoth for the same reasons that it is a good fit for DD1.  It made NO sense to her whatsoever and she developed a loathing for math that continues to this day.  Now imagine if they were in a public school setting.  DD 1 would be a successful math student and DD 2 would shut down, probably figure out enough to get by, but likely never develop any confidence in math.

 

Actually, though, I'm not so sure how successful DD1 would be.  She struggles mightily with written output, even now (age 11).  For her to formulate a sentence explaining why her method worked adds a layer that would be a stumbling block.  Nevermind that she understands the math and produces the correct answer.  No sentence, no credit (or only partial credit).  

 

THAT is the problem.  It's not Common Core math is inherently evil or awful, it's that our children's brains are not "one size fits all" and teachers have been robbed of the flexibility of meeting their students where they're at in a language they understand.  There are a lot of good teachers who have been placed in an impossible situation. :(

 

We talk about this all the time on K-8: some children learn better through more traditional methods, some thrive with a highly conceptual approach.  It's not the approach that matters, it's the end result: Did they learn the material?  Can they use it in life? 

 

And before yet another person says "Teachers are told what to cover, but not how to cover it," remember the high stakes tests the students take are also  high stakes for the teacher.  So, if a problem is going to be presented in a certain way (with certain expectations as to how to solve it) how do you think the teacher will teach it?  If a teacher likes or needs her job, she's going to teach to the test, because those scores directly affect her job stability.

 

[Stellalarella]

Maria Miller of Math Mammoth gives her opinions on Common Core http://www.mathmammoth.com/common-core.php here.  I found that article helpful. 

 

Basically, some of the problems occur when people create poorly written problems in an attempt to meet the standards, or standards are applied incorrectly.  She gives great examples.  

 

I've seen viral facebook posts and online articles about "stupid common core math," and it is frequently an example of something my kids have learned in MUS or MM.  

 

I remember wanting to throw MUS Epsilon (Fractions) out the window because I couldn't immediately understand his presentation of a topic I felt already capable to execute.  I can sincerely understand why parents would dislike (and hate) math curriculums that they cannot understand.  

 

Because of my learning curve in being able to teach the math concepts, I assume that PS teachers are facing the same issue.  Yeah, all those 40 year old 4th grade teachers learned math the same way I did--Here is your algorithm, here is your drill practice, here are your perfectly formulaic story problems.  And repeat 30 times.  1980s math instruction.  

 

There are a whole lot of us who are relearning math--teachers, students mid-way through school, parents trying to help with homework.  

 

I think teachers are going to need a couple more years of solidifying their new math instruction.  Maybe eventually they will be able to explain it better to parents.

 

But heaven help the poor little 6 year olds who are supposed to write out sentences to explain  how they arrived at their answers.  That is just brutal.

 

 

[Reefgazer]

Eh, I was more commenting on age as it relates to enjoying Tom Lehrer, rather than any actual lyrics. But if you're interested in pulling apart lyrics, "We Will All Go Together When we Go" would be an interesting one to analyze. :)

 

What's hilarious is people quote it all over the place now when they want to say "They should teach math the way they used to", but lots of what is stated in that song IS the way the people quoting it learned!

 

The whole first section is about borrowing and carrying (or regrouping/renaming) in math, with cross-outs. Read the lyrics carefully. Who thinks that how he learned (three from two is nine) is less confusing?

 

And then the second part is doing the same equation in base 8. I'm a fan of the dozenal system myself, but at any rate I don't believe common core asks for children to learn about other bases than 10 in elementary school (when one typically learns to do multi-digit subtraction) and it certainly can't be considered dumbing down (which is the usual battle-cry), so I can only conclude that the people typically passing that song around (not you, you had an entirely different and perfectly valid point, unlike most of the time I see it) have no comprehension skills at all, reading or listening. Doesn't say much for their education.

[Momto4inSoCal]

I think a major part of the problem for public schools is testing how deep the childrens knowledge is. As homeschooler we work with our kids daily and we can ask questions to figure out where our kids are in their understanding of the work. To test this you need to ask essay type questions which the schools are doing but there are often a few ways to answer these questions and those different answers aren't wrong. As shown in most conceptual math curriculums there are a few ways to solve a problem if you truly understand it. To test though they need one right answer. You can't say you want kids to think outside the box then mark the problem wrong when they do. Asking a first grader to answer essay questions to explain their answer is a problem too. I don't really know what the amswer is but I definitely think homeschoolers are at a huge advantage when it comes to deeper knowledge since most of our instruction is meaningful conversation.

[Reefgazer]

This is what I think is the core of our country's math problem. I find it very hard to believe that the basic way math was taught at the turn of the 20th to mid century was bad. After all, it produced the largest economy in the world, was enormously productive and innovative, and gave us General Electric, Google, IBM, Boeing, well respected universities, and an almost endless list of innovative companies. Those companies were not run or staffed by math idiots, either. What happened? Yes, I do believe it was included classrooms with no one getting exactly what they need educationally, and no one being truly challenged. But th educational establishment will *never* abandon this practice, so, we homeschool....there are so many cheaper and more effective ways to remedy our math issue in this country, but that will never happen.

Back then they were put in a classroom for gifted or handed some self teaching new math stuff. I had the latter, and I understand what is being taught in CC from that, although if I hadnt had new math I would know it from dolciani PreAlgebra, which all reg. Ed. Kids took in my day.. I also know how badly the middle class reg. Ed. kids are currently being shorted from my own experience, as well as the CC end goal which falls seriously short of Calc in 12th grade.

 

The one size all just doesnt work in the fully included classroom. Not enough time to make up for the lack of adult interaction in some homes, not enough time to take care of medical issues and do math in other cases. Then throw in the variations in visual and kinetic dominant learners, and it gets impossible to move everyone to abstract or pictorial...no manipulatives...by this time of year in grade 2.

[Tanaqui]

I've seen viral facebook posts and online articles about "stupid common core math," and it is frequently an example of something my kids have learned in MUS or MM.

 

Oh, yes, and inevitably they choose the explanation page to show how complicated it all is. Well, yeah, explanations take a long time!

 

I find it very hard to believe that the basic way math was taught at the turn of the 20th to mid century was bad. After all, it produced the largest economy in the world (SNIP)

 

 

 

The US is the third most populous nation in the world. Additionally, unlike most of our most likely competitors during the 20th century, we were not utterly devastated by the first and second world wars - they all happened on somebody else's soil. That means that our factories were able to get up and running fast making civilian products as soon as the shooting stopped.

 

Those two factors probably do more to account for the comparative size of our economy and the relative rank of our universities than anybody's teaching methods.