Common Core....

[luuknam]

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?

 

Haven't read any replies yet, but my son's math workbook has pages in them to be torn out and sent home along with the homework (usually one page at the start of each new unit) with instructions for the parents, explaining all the new-fangled math stuff. Pretty quickly I decided to just read the Spanish side of the instructions, so that if something sounds stupid to me I get to wonder first if it's just me misunderstanding Spanish (at which point I do look at the English side, to conclude that it's just the stupid math, but at least I didn't waste my time, because I did get to practice my Spanish).

 

Of course my philosophy is also that if a kid is too young to do his/her homework on their own, they're too young to have homework, but that's another story.

[Tanaqui]

 

Of course my philosophy is also that if a kid is too young to do his/her homework on their own, they're too young to have homework, but that's another story.

 

Hear, hear.

 

[luuknam]

How much conceptual understanding is there really in 1st grade math? Is there any adult out there (with a normal IQ and not having severe dyscalculia) who doesn't grasp the concepts in addition and subtraction under 20 (which is, iirc, as far as 1st grade math went - my son is in 2nd grade now)?

 

I don't want to derail this thread, but I suspect that for the early elementary grades, it would be best if the teachers would *like* math and feel competent in doing math... something too many teachers in the US supposedly don't, and throwing curriculum changes every few years at them isn't going to make them like math more nor make them better at it.

[SparklyUnicorn]

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.

 

That's not how it is when one is a student in elementary school or high school.  This misses the point entirely.  The answer matters, but when you are learning the process matters a great deal more. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

How much conceptual understanding is there really in 1st grade math? Is there any adult out there (with a normal IQ and not having severe dyscalculia) who doesn't grasp the concepts in addition and subtraction under 20 (which is, iirc, as far as 1st grade math went - my son is in 2nd grade now)?

 

I don't want to derail this thread, but I suspect that for the early elementary grades, it would be best if the teachers would *like* math and feel competent in doing math... something too many teachers in the US supposedly don't, and throwing curriculum changes every few years at them isn't going to make them like math more nor make them better at it.

 

I do think they push certain things unnecessarily young, but you would be very surprised how many people do not get some of these early basic concepts. 

[Stellalarella]

I do think they push certain things unnecessarily young, but you would be very surprised how many people do not get some of these early basic concepts. 

 

Yep.  Just ask someone if she can explain how our number system works.  :)  

[Bluegoat]

I think the problem of being able to teach to the student, and really also in a way that works for the teacher, is a serious one, and one that North American schools anyway have seriously dropped the ball on.

 

You can't do that in a class with too many kids.  You can't do that if what you do is at every moment dictated by the need to pass standerdized tests.  You can't do that when kids are all expected to achieve the same standard at the same age.  And you can't do that without giving teachers the freedom to actually make the teaching decisions.

[Reefgazer]

Not buying it. Long, long after WWII ended, the USA still produced top quality products and innovations, including leading in computer innovation and space exploration (no other country has come close, even now, and we're well past WWII). The decrease in intellectual output is fairly recent; within my generation, although I see the decrease as beginning within my generation. Our universities are *still* the most highly sought out, and they are not run by math morons. Plenty of countries were not physically devastated after the war, and our economy was in the same boat as others' after 1945. The math worked, and not that long ago. Something else is the culprit. But most will continue to tilt at windmills, and nothing will change. 15 years from now, when common core is just another failed program in the dustbin of education, we'll still be having the same conversation.

[Tanaqui]

Not buying it. Long, long after WWII ended, the USA still produced top quality products and innovations, including leading in computer innovation and space exploration (no other country has come close, even now, and we're well past WWII). The decrease in intellectual output is fairly recent; within my generation, although I see the decrease as beginning within my generation. Our universities are *still* the most highly sought out, and they are not run by math morons. Plenty of countries were not physically devastated after the war, and our economy was in the same boat as others' after 1945. The math worked, and not that long ago. Something else is the culprit. But most will continue to tilt at windmills, and nothing will change. 15 years from now, when common core is just another failed program in the dustbin of education, we'll still be having the same conversation.

 

Head starts stack. A small advantage in 1950 becomes a bigger advantage in 1960 and a bigger advantage still in 1980.

 

Also, don't forget, we still have the third largest population in the world - unless you count the EU as a single entity, in which case we have the fourth largest population in the world.

 

Compare this list of countries by GDP with this list of the top ten countries by population. It's not surprising that there's some serious overlap between the ten most populous nations and the ten nations with the highest GDP.

 

[Lanny]

Trying to improve education is a great thing to be doing. I am not completely against Common Core. The Political things in some Common Core courses that I have seen on TV and read about  (AP and probably others), I am violently opposed to. Common Core is illegal in Texas, but Texas has standards and the graduation rate increased, despite requiring 15 EOC (End of Course) exams.  That has been reduced to 5 examinations, so DD will "only" need to take 5 EOC exams.

 

When I mentioned this thread to my wife she said there have been things in the Math courses that DD has taken that she (my wife) doesn't understand, because it is being taught differently than  my wife was taught.

 

I read a couple of the replies and someone wrote that with the dismal test results of students in the USA, ranking about 26  in Math and Science among developed countries, that if they teach Math in a better way, so that more students understand Math, that will help the USA. That's true.

[SKL]

The problem in my experience is that instead of making kids memorize facts and algorithms, they are now asking them to memorize many-step, age-inappropriate, often non-intuitive "processes" beginning in 1st grade.  The result is kids who don't know how to do basic math AND hate seeing the math book come out.

 

They show the "process" and move on.  They don't put in the time or effort to make sure the kids understand.  If you're going to do that, you're better off doing it with simple algorithms than with more complex stuff.

 

Why can't the complex explanations of the concepts behind the algorithms be analyzed when the kids are older and have some number sense?

 

I tutored a 5th grader who was unable to do word problems, though she was great at those algorithms (multi-digit multiplication/division etc.).  I was about 20 at the time and I had never had it broken down for me, but I sat with the girl and we worked through "what we're really doing" when we do those algorithms.  She got it and became really good in math.  At 10 she was ready for that.  At 6, no way.

[CaffeineDiary]

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.

 

I am bitter that you totally stole the point I was going to make!

 

(But I liked your post anyway.)

 

[CaffeineDiary]

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!

 

 

[CaffeineDiary]

My experience is that the kids learning common core math are, generally speaking, doing better at it than their cohort did when I went to school.  Heck, they're doing better at it than I was at that age, and I'm pretty mathy.

 

The "traditional" way we learned math (which is to say the "new" way that we tried during the 1960s and 1970s that didn't really work out) had a huge problem in that it created cliffs off of which kids crashed:  so everyone did fine (more or less) at early arithmetic, and then after pre-algebra you started seeing kids check out mentally, and this continued, year after year, through Geometry, Algebra, and Trig, until finally you were reduced to two classs of 60 kids taking Calculus in a school of 2,000 students.  The way math is taught now correctly puts more emphasis on understanding than on mechanical process (footnote 1), and from what I'm seeing, this emphasis is paying off, across all education levels, in spades.  Common core math is a huge success (footnote 2), and there is no way we will ever go back to the older, wrong way they taught us math in the '60s and '70s.

 

Would you be OK with an English curriculum that taught kids to write papers without understanding what the things they wrote mean?  That's the sort of thing I hear when I hear people saying "Well, why should we waste all this time on explaining the underlying concepts to kids.  Just moving the numbers around like some sort of trained horse should be good enough for them."  This also recognizes the fundamental shift in technology that has occurred: when I was a kid, electronic calculators were an expensive novelty, but now half of your kid's school bus has a computer in their pocket that is about - and I'm not exaggerating - nine orders of magnitude more powerful than what it took to break German cyphers and win World War II.  In that world, mastering the finest details of long division is, I'd argue, almost a waste of time.  I want them to understand division conceptually, I want them to understand how it fits into the more interesting, and much more important, mathematics that is going to change the world as they grow up and grow old.

 

Footnote 1: Because the understanding is the mathematics.  If you are just doing ciphering or rote mechanical processing, what you are doing might be very useful but it is not mathematics.

 

Footnote 2: There are problems with some Common Core implementations, and in particular the course materials from various publishers vary widely, with some of them being offensively awful.  But those publishers would be publishing offensively awful books even if Common Core didn't exist.  The curriculum itself is superb.

 

[Based on Faith Academy]

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.

 

Well said!

[SKL]

Can we really compare what kids know about math today vs. when we were kids?  When we were first graders, we didn't have homework, and our parents were not involved in teaching us math.  We didn't have Title I pull-outs or school tutors.  Also most of us never went to pre-K or anything before that (except maybe "play school").  We didn't have Leapfrog DVDs, ipad apps, or even home learning workbooks.  Also, kids in 1st grade were younger then.  I don't think you can say that if second graders today know a little more math, it must be because the methods used to teach 1st grade are better.  Maybe it's because parents are under so much pressure to tutor at home what used to be 2nd and even 3rd grade math.  (On the other hand, we knew more about time and money, because we were given regular real-life opportunities to use those skills.)  You have to look at the whole picture.

 

It's just like when people say we should copy the methods used in, say, Japanese day schools, because Japanese kids are so advanced.  But they gloss over the fact that those kids spend hours doing evening "cram" courses from an early age.

[Tanaqui]

When we were first graders, we didn't have homework, and our parents were not involved in teaching us math.  We didn't have Title I pull-outs or school tutors.  Also most of us never went to pre-K or anything before that (except maybe "play school"). We didn't have Leapfrog DVDs, ipad apps, or even home learning workbooks.  Also, kids in 1st grade were younger then.

 

Speak for yourself! Very little of what you said is true for me. I had homework, my parents were involved in teaching me math (as were the parents of my neighbors, who attended a different school), my school had Title I pull-outs (something which has been ongoing since the 1960s, so my guess is that most posters here were children at a time when schools did that), and the year I attended pre-k (1987), so did 49% of American children. 30% of American three year olds attended preschool that year. The school entrance cut-off date (must be 5 before Dec. 31 of that year to enter kindergarten) in my area hasn't changed since I attended school either (I know for sure, because my sister and I were born on opposite sides of the cut-off, and thus four years apart in school despite being barely three years apart in age), and I'm not sure there IS an earlier cut-off date anywhere in the US.

 

Admittedly, I didn't have a school tutor, however, many of my classmates in high school had had one at that age. And of course we didn't have Leapfrog DVDs, those not having been invented yet, but I *did* have a number of home "enrichment" workbooks and many more or less educational games for our C64. However, fewer children had access to a home computer then as now - only about 25% of children between the ages of 3 and 17.

[Joker]

Speak for yourself! Very little of what you said is true for me. I had homework, my parents were involved in teaching me math (as were the parents of my neighbors, who attended a different school), my school had Title I pull-outs (something which has been ongoing since the 1960s, so my guess is that most posters here were children at a time when schools did that), and the year I attended pre-k (1987), so did 49% of American children. 30% of American three year olds attended preschool that year. The school entrance cut-off date (must be 5 before Dec. 31 of that year to enter kindergarten) in my area hasn't changed since I attended school either (I know for sure, because my sister and I were born on opposite sides of the cut-off, and thus four years apart in school despite being barely three years apart in age), and I'm not sure there IS an earlier cut-off date anywhere in the US.

 

Admittedly, I didn't have a school tutor, however, many of my classmates in high school had had one at that age. And of course we didn't have Leapfrog DVDs, those not having been invented yet, but I *did* have a number of home "enrichment" workbooks and many more or less educational games for our C64. However, fewer children had access to a home computer then as now - only about 25% of children between the ages of 3 and 17.

 

I agree. I attended pre-k in 1981 with all of my neighborhood friends. My mom was a SAHM and we had her to go home to but there was preschool and it was used by many.  I also might not have had Leapfrog but I watched quite a bit of Sesame Street, School House Rock, Mr. Rogers, and other educational shows of the time. My parents were also very involved in our education. Dh's were even more involved and he's four years older than me and from a different state. He also went to pre-k and pretty much watched the same shows as me.

[Based on Faith Academy]

In response to someone's comment about parents being able to help their children with homework,

if we as parents can't help a child in first grade understand their work then where is our involvement.

One thing I never understood is people sending their children to school and then taking a hands-off

concept to their learning. Do we not care what is being taught to our kids? This is not in regards to

CC but to all aspects of learning. There is such joy in helping your dc understand concepts that just

weren't making sense to them and watching them "get it".

 

I agree that the work should be what the kid already learned and hopefully understands but how many

times have we forgotten some of what we learned in a day. I know for a fact that my niece is required

to have a parent work with her on some stuff and check other work.

 

As a few people mentioned, there are different styles of learning. I love math!! You give me numbers to

subtract and the answer comes to me very quickly but how I work that problem is different than other

siblings of mine. Can we both do it fast and in our head? Yes! But one of us adds up and

one of us subtracts. He uses quantities of ten while I use the whole number. Does that make either of

us wrong? No! Do we both understand how we got there? Yes!  Honestly CC would have been great for

my sibling who looks at parts of things but for myself who looks at a whole picture, it probably would have

slowed me down.

 

 

[SKL]

OK, well when I was in 1st grade, we did not have to learn how to add and subtract multi-digit numbers with regrouping.  And I was in a high-standard school.  We didn't do multiplication until 3rd grade, now they do it in 1st.  That's not a difference in method, it's a difference in early demands and expectations.  It's also the reason both of my kids said they hated math by the end of 1st grade.  Despite all the early exposure and hours of home practice, it took my average kid until well into 2nd grade to get the concept of regrouping.  And what is the big problem if she learned it in 2nd grade, or even later?

 

I just don't see the point.  It's kind of like beating a kid to make him do something he simply cannot do.

[birchbark]

I'm feeling the urge to post some Barry Garelick articles.

 

A New Kind of Problem: The Common Core Math Standards

 

The Myth About Traditional Math Education

 

 

[SKL]

I don't think it was typical for parents to teach math to their 1st graders in earlier generations.  Were there some who did, sure, but most kids learned at school.  Homework for 1st graders was not at all typical when I was a kid (1970s), nor when my younger siblings were kids (1980s).  We actually never had any until 3rd grade.

 

To the question - why do parents leave teaching to the schools - if the kid is doing fine, why not?  I realize the population on this forum may see it differently, but what is wrong with letting the professional educators educate, just monitoring to make sure our kids are progressing?  Do we also expect parents to personally vaccinate their kids, examine their eyes, formulate their breakfast cereal, sew their clothes?

 

Many smart, productive people came out of the system wherein parents trusted schools to educate (or, demanded that they do their job).

[Tanaqui]

OK, well when I was in 1st grade, we did not have to learn how to add and subtract multi-digit numbers with regrouping.  And I was in a high-standard school.

 

Are you sure, SKL? I know you entered school earlier than I did, but all the same, I definitely remember learning that in first grade. And I'm closer to you in terms of first grade entry (1989) than to first graders today. Maybe it varied by state, or maybe your memory is flawed. Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time finding data on who did homework during various years, so I'll leave that utterly unaddressed. (Not that I think homework is a great thing for the early grades - far from it! But I like to go with facts rather than extrapolating from my own personal experience.)

 

It's also the reason both of my kids said they hated math by the end of 1st grade.

 

Yes, in the halcyon days of yore all children loved math.

 

Many smart, productive people came out of the system wherein parents trusted schools to educate (or, demanded that they do their job).

 

And many other people who are neither smart nor productive nor particularly well-educated came out of that system as well. What's your point?

 

 

[fruitofthewomb]

I don't think it was typical for parents to teach math to their 1st graders in earlier generations. Were there some who did, sure, but most kids learned at school. Homework for 1st graders was not at all typical when I was a kid (1970s), nor when my younger siblings were kids (1980s). We actually never had any until 3rd grade.

 

To the question - why do parents leave teaching to the schools - if the kid is doing fine, why not? I realize the population on this forum may see it differently, but what is wrong with letting the professional educators educate, just monitoring to make sure our kids are progressing? Do we also expect parents to personally vaccinate their kids, examine their eyes, formulate their breakfast cereal, sew their clothes?

 

Many smart, productive people came out of the system wherein parents trusted schools to educate (or, demanded that they do their job).

I was born in 1980. I don't have the best memory of early school days but I do remember learning multiplication tables in 3rd grade. Definitely not before. I didn't go to pre-k and I don't remember having homework until 7th or 8th grade-and that was just some bigger project type things. In elementary we only had one kid that I know had special services. He had a hearing impairment. We had a big class-25-and there was an aide around to help the teacher. The teacher was with us te majority of the time (unlike today's teachers-at least in my area). Everyone's experience will be different I course. This is mine. I struggled with math in high school but did very well in college-although I only had to take algebra & psych stats. Maybe another course or two? I have struggled to teach math to my kids-I need hand holding!

 

The public school parents I know hate common core math mainly bc they are expected to help kids at home but they have no clue how to help them. To the parents it doesn't make any sense.

[SparklyUnicorn]

My parents didn't really ever help me with school work for various reasons.  Then again in first grade we didn't do what they do now.  Kindergarten we weren't taught how to read or hell even count past 10. 

 

I know some mentioned stuff like pre-school in the early 80s.  I don't recall much about the early 80s honestly, but I did not know any classmates who had attended preschool.  The only preschools would have been private and hence too expensive for many people. 

 

 

In response to someone's comment about parents being able to help their children with homework,

if we as parents can't help a child in first grade understand their work then where is our involvement.

One thing I never understood is people sending their children to school and then taking a hands-off

concept to their learning. Do we not care what is being taught to our kids? This is not in regards to

CC but to all aspects of learning. There is such joy in helping your dc understand concepts that just

weren't making sense to them and watching them "get it".

 

I agree that the work should be what the kid already learned and hopefully understands but how many

times have we forgotten some of what we learned in a day. I know for a fact that my niece is required

to have a parent work with her on some stuff and check other work.

 

As a few people mentioned, there are different styles of learning. I love math!! You give me numbers to

subtract and the answer comes to me very quickly but how I work that problem is different than other

siblings of mine. Can we both do it fast and in our head? Yes! But one of us adds up and

one of us subtracts. He uses quantities of ten while I use the whole number. Does that make either of

us wrong? No! Do we both understand how we got there? Yes!  Honestly CC would have been great for

my sibling who looks at parts of things but for myself who looks at a whole picture, it probably would have

slowed me down.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/early_years/2012/07/report_fewer_than_half_of_us_children_attend_preschool.html

 

Trying to find stats on preschool attendance.  Even fairly recently plenty of kids do not attend preschool.  I can't imagine preschool attendance was anywhere near half in the early 80s.  I lived in CT btw which still currently has one of the lowest rate of preschool attendance. 

 

Just saying what one's experiences were like in the early 80s does not mean this was widespread and typical.  When I was a young student the expectation on parents was that they get their kid to school on time.  There wasn't even much of a push for parents to read to their kids.  There was by the time I was a parent.  Even got a book in my baby bag at the hospital. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Oh I have vivid memories of repeated timed multiplication drills in third grade. I also remember having too much homework starting in 3rd. My backpack was full every night. It would have been 1983-4 when I was in 3rd.

 

I don't recall my parents helping me with homework. My SM was on the PTA and that was pretty much all the school involvement they had. They never talked to me about college or career planning. Maybe things were different then or they were different IDK.

 

Oh yeah college planning?  Hah no.  I am pretty sure my parents assumed there was no way in hell I could go to college. 

 

I did not grow up with any sort of privilege though.  Maybe those with more money did things differently. 

 

My parents never advocated for me.  They didn't think it was their place to do so. 

 

Obviously my children's experiences have been extremely different than my own. 

[luuknam]

OK, well when I was in 1st grade, we did not have to learn how to add and subtract multi-digit numbers with regrouping.  And I was in a high-standard school.  We didn't do multiplication until 3rd grade, now they do it in 1st.

 

My 2nd grader is in a national school of excellence (whatever that means), and in 1st grade they added up to 20. Maybe they also did things like 50+10=60... don't quite remember. But no carrying and borrowing, and no multi-digit numbers (when you say multi I think think 3+). They won't start multiplication until 3rd grade (he knows how to multiply, but that's because of the apps I had him play with in K - not because of anything he learned in public school).

 

When I went to school (in NL) we didn't do any addition/subtraction until 1st grade, but then halfway through 2nd grade they started multiplication and expected us to know the times tables by the end of 2nd grade (I don't remember if carrying and borrowing was at the end of 1st or at the start of 2nd grade).

 

ETA: I also didn't have any homework until 7th grade, with the exception of doing a presentation once a year or so starting in 4th grade. My son got homework in public school preK, I think once a week, and daily starting in K. Schools vary a lot though - we moved in the middle of his K year, and in the school he was in in TX K was pretty relaxed - whereas the school he's in here in NY, when the teacher tested him in January when he started told me they were already writing in sentences, so my kid was behind. Then they quickly started piling on more evals and therapies and stuff. In TX he'd had an IEP for autism, some speech therapy (I think maybe an hour a week?), and a 1-1 aide for 1 hour a day, which turned out more like a shared aide 3 hours a day because 2 other kids (in his class of 14 kids) also had an aide one hour a day. My son this year has 2 hours of speech therapy, 1 hour of OT, 1 hour of PT, and a full time 1-1 aide, and the short bus. He's also in a class of 25 kids. Academically he's average to well-above average. Conclusion: you really can't make blanket statements about schools as they just vary so much. Here more parents wait a year for their kid to start K as well, to give them "an advantage". In rural Texas I'd never heard of anyone doing that unless the kid was exceptionally slow.

[Tanaqui]

I can't imagine preschool attendance was anywhere near half in the early 80s.

 

I pulled my data from the census of 1985. Or, rather, I pulled it from this article which pulled it from the census of 1985. I think it's less likely that pre-k attendance jumped dramatically between 1980 and 1985 than that there was some serious regional variation and that, as four year olds, we had no clue about national trends.

 

Again, though, that year only 30% of three year olds attended preschool, which is of course much nearer 1/3 than 1/2. I do not know if you're considering 3 year old preschool and 4 year old pre-k to be the same thing.

 

[Serenade]

All I know is that this thread is making me feel old.  LOL.  I attended Kindergarden in 1968.  Oh, and nursery school a couple times a week in 1967 -- those were the days before pre-school, and nursery schools were just for fun and socialization.  I don't think we were taught anything much.  And I don't think we were taught anything much in Kindergarten, either.

 

When I did enter grade school, my parents (and most) weren't involved much at all, except for monitoring our grades and teacher reports.  Parents weren't welcome in schools then, except maybe 3 times a year for a school party, which only the room moms attended anyhow.  Many parents went to PTA meetings, and that was pretty much the extent of their involvement, unless their kid got into trouble. 

 

I think there is SO MUCH PRESSURE on parents today.  Because I am an older parent, and because there have been so many changes in education since I was a child, I was completely shocked at how schools are managed today when my older son started Kindergarten.  There are constant notes that go home to parents, constant phone messages, and today, e-mails and texts, as well.  Parents are expected to participate in the classrooms, and teach their children at home, too.  I was spending so much time teaching my Kindergartener at home anyhow, that I finally decided to pull him out of school and homeschool, because it actually took less time than the whole school rigmarole.  And it was far, far less stress.  

 

[luuknam]

@Serenade: I think today people feel that if you parent "just right" nothing bad will happen to your child, and that if something goes wrong with a kid the parent just didn't do enough. I think for my parents' generation parenting was a lot more relaxed (they're older than you, don't worry).

[SparklyUnicorn]

I pulled my data from the census of 1985. Or, rather, I pulled it from this article which pulled it from the census of 1985. I think it's less likely that pre-k attendance jumped dramatically between 1980 and 1985 than that there was some serious regional variation and that, as four year olds, we had no clue about national trends.

 

Again, though, that year only 30% of three year olds attended preschool, which is of course much nearer 1/3 than 1/2. I do not know if you're considering 3 year old preschool and 4 year old pre-k to be the same thing.

 

Any preschool really.  

[Serenade]

@Serenade: I think today people feel that if you parent "just right" nothing bad will happen to your child, and that if something goes wrong with a kid the parent just didn't do enough. I think for my parents' generation parenting was a lot more relaxed (they're older than you, don't worry).

 

I think you're right.  I know I'm going to feel responsible if my kids don't succeed.   Heck, I feel a lot of pressure as a homeschooler, too, now that my kids are in middle school and high school.   In the end, I didn't really leave stress behind when I pulled my older son out of public school.  I may have just delayed it for a few years.  Those first few years of homeschooling were delightful, though.  Now the pressure mounts yearly. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think you're right.  I know I'm going to feel responsible if my kids don't succeed.   Heck, I feel a lot of pressure as a homeschooler, too, now that my kids are in middle school and high school.   In the end, I didn't really leave stress behind when I pulled my older son out of public school.  I may have just delayed it for a few years.  Those first few years of homeschooling were delightful, though.  Now the pressure mounts yearly. 

 

I'd feel that way even if I didn't homeschool.  Education was not highly valued in my family.  That is where I have differed. 

 

My husband grew up in another country so his views of the situation are much different too.

 

I should not say it was not valued.  I think it was more assumed it was not an option so why bother.  My dad was rightly sore about the fact he had no opportunities for a higher education because of the lousy stupid choices of his parents.  So I think the whole thing just made him quite jaded.  My mother was simply not capable because of health issues. 

[luuknam]

I think you're right.  I know I'm going to feel responsible if my kids don't succeed.   Heck, I feel a lot of pressure as a homeschooler, too, now that my kids are in middle school and high school.   In the end, I didn't really leave stress behind when I pulled my older son out of public school.  I may have just delayed it for a few years.  Those first few years of homeschooling were delightful, though.  Now the pressure mounts yearly. 

 

True, and homeschooling probably does increase that feeling of responsibility. But I meant in general as well. When I was a kid (back in the halcyon 90s), my parents and my friends' parents let us run around outside at 6+yo, going from one playground to the next, with none of the parents knowing where we were at, just expecting us to be home for dinner. If something bad had happened (never did), people would probably have thought that was really unfortunate. Whereas now I get the impression that people would think you're a horribly neglectful parent and if something happened to your kid it was your own fault, even though bad stuff sometimes just happens.

[Momling]

Interestingly, our school district used to use TERC Investigations, a program that took conceptual math to weird extremes, requiring manipulatives and drawings long past the time when they're needed and never teaching or encouraging more efficient algorithms. When the common core standards came, it was realized that TERC did not meet the standards and the district adopted a more balanced program. From my perspective, common core standards have been the best thing that could happen to our math curriculum.

[Library Momma]

My 2nd grader is in a national school of excellence (whatever that means), and in 1st grade they added up to 20. Maybe they also did things like 50+10=60... don't quite remember. But no carrying and borrowing, and no multi-digit numbers (when you say multi I think think 3+). They won't start multiplication until 3rd grade (he knows how to multiply, but that's because of the apps I had him play with in K - not because of anything he learned in public school).

 

 He's also in a class of 25 kids. Academically he's average to well-above average. Conclusion: you really can't make blanket statements about schools as they just vary so much. Here more parents wait a year for their kid to start K as well, to give them "an advantage". In rural Texas I'd never heard of anyone doing that unless the kid was exceptionally slow.

 

This

 

I attended pre-school in the Bronx in the early 70's.  I attended K there as well and I definitely had homework in both English and Spanish.  So many of the students spoke Spanish at home that they pulled out the non-Spanish speakers for Spanish language classes.  When I was in 1st grade we moved to CT where I continued to have homework daily.  My parents never really needed to help me but they were aware of what I was learning. Classes had differentiated learning and gifted program pull-out started in 3rd grade.  By middle school I brought so many books home each day that my backpack was full and I also carried a stack so high I had a hard time seeing over it walking home from the bus.  

 

Fast forward  - I live in CT with my family but in a different town from where I grew up. It is not one of the wealthy towns (each town is it's own district for the most part) but rather middle to upper middle class. School for my children has been very similar to my school experience except for an increased use of technology.  They've drilled multiplication facts, had differentiated learning in every classroom, learned cursive in 3rd grade, taken great field trips, have had similar specials like art, gym and music.  They even started learning to play the recorder in 1st grade just like I did.

 

When my dd was in first grade (now she's in 7th)  people started complaining about the math homework.  This is well before Common Core  - they were complaining about the Everyday Math cirric. and how the "New Math" was so confusing and difficult.  I would see stories of how students (always the same few) would be working for hours every night and their parents couldn't help them.  I would look at my daughter's homework and think that this can't be what they are talking about.  While it was a little different, it wasn't that hard for me to figure out - It was elementary level math.  I would take informal surveys of parents and ask them how long their kids spent doing math homework each night.  Most would say about 10-15 minutes - similar to may daughter's experience.  I chalked up the complaining to people who really weren't comfortable with math themselves or those who would rather blame their child's struggle on the math and not the child.

 

When Common Core started to be implemented in our system two years ago I started to see the same complaints mostly on Facebook(sometimes with even the same problems used as examples) but now the woes were being blamed on Common Core.  Again there were the parents who had children crying for hours every night and the stories of parents with PhDs in physics who could not help their child with their 3rd grade homework.  I still did not see issues with my kids.  Again, I took informal surveys at scout events, karate, flag football soccer and basketball games.  I asked parents if their children struggled with the  math curriculum and how long they spent on homework.  The majority of the people said that no there were no issues.  Most students seemed to spend 10 minutes to a half an hour depending on the student and grade.  There were very few that really had issues and went on a tirade about Common Core - Two of them were the same friends with the angry Facebook posts.

 

Then, and this was the eye opener, I started seeing if parents knew what math curriculum their students were using.  The overwhelming answer -Common Core.  Um, no.  Early elementary uses Everyday Math, middle elementary uses a combination of Everyday Math and Pearson, Middle School uses Pearson and well high school, I haven't reached it yet. It is easy for parents to determine this. Students have the text books and they are available on line as well.  It is also mentioned multiple places on the school website and discussed at meet the teachers night.  The only parents that ever seemed to know this were teachers themselves.

 

Am I the biggest fan of Common Core - meh. Am I a fan of Everyday Math  - not really, it is one of the reasons I started afterschooling.  I felt my kids needed more.  I know there have been standards and always will be standards,  Common Core is fine and in many ways similar to the CT state standards we had previously.  The good school systems look at it as a baseline and struggling school systems think the standards are out of reach.  That was the same with our state standards and will probably be the same with whatever comes after Common Core.  

[Reefgazer]

We'll just have to agree to disagree here, because I'm still not buying it to say that our country has a 70 year headstart in math instruction; it's reaching. I believe that to be false, because for example, Switzerland and Scandinavia were not decimated after World War II, and yet you are saying that they are incapable of producing at the level of the United States? Quite a reach, and an offensive commentary toward the Swiss, as well.

 

I am not advocating returningto the math of the 60s and 70s; that was the problem. I am, however, advocating returning to the math from earlier in the 20th century; it produced.

 

Head starts stack. A small advantage in 1950 becomes a bigger advantage in 1960 and a bigger advantage still in 1980.

 

Also, don't forget, we still have the third largest population in the world - unless you count the EU as a single entity, in which case we have the fourth largest population in the world.

 

Compare this list of countries by GDP with this list of the top ten countries by population. It's not surprising that there's some serious overlap between the ten most populous nations and the ten nations with the highest GDP.

[Reefgazer]

Perhaps this is an age thing. I see some people mention the 1980s as a reference point, and that's considerably younger than I am, as I was fully grown by that time. I had no homework, my parents were completely uninvolved in math, there were no pullouts, pre-K was not universal, and yet my generation is the one that presided over One of the most profitable economies memory, one that was not led by math imbeciles.
 

Speak for yourself! Very little of what you said is true for me. I had homework, my parents were involved in teaching me math (as were the parents of my neighbors, who attended a different school), my school had Title I pull-outs (something which has been ongoing since the 1960s, so my guess is that most posters here were children at a time when schools did that), and the year I attended pre-k (1987), so did 49% of American children. 30% of American three year olds attended preschool that year. The school entrance cut-off date (must be 5 before Dec. 31 of that year to enter kindergarten) in my area hasn't changed since I attended school either (I know for sure, because my sister and I were born on opposite sides of the cut-off, and thus four years apart in school despite being barely three years apart in age), and I'm not sure there IS an earlier cut-off date anywhere in the US.

Admittedly, I didn't have a school tutor, however, many of my classmates in high school had had one at that age. And of course we didn't have Leapfrog DVDs, those not having been invented yet, but I *did* have a number of home "enrichment" workbooks and many more or less educational games for our C64. However, fewer children had access to a home computer then as now - only about 25% of children between the ages of 3 and 17.

[Reefgazer]

The traditional method referred to in this article is exactly the math I'm talking about; well before the 60s and 70s.

 

I'm feeling the urge to post some Barry Garelick articles.

 

A New Kind of Problem: The Common Core Math Standards

 

The Myth About Traditional Math Education

[Reefgazer]

To address your last question, even though I am not SLK. I think her point is that it is not the math that made a difference in achievement. As you noted, plenty of math idiots came out of the system at the same Time that plenty of math geniuses did. There is something else that's causing the failure besides the math method. People tackle the math method because it's a fairly easy thing to remedy, rather than tackle the real problems with the system.

Are you sure, SKL? I know you entered school earlier than I did, but all the same, I definitely remember learning that in first grade. And I'm closer to you in terms of first grade entry (1989) than to first graders today. Maybe it varied by state, or maybe your memory is flawed. Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time finding data on who did homework during various years, so I'll leave that utterly unaddressed. (Not that I think homework is a great thing for the early grades - far from it! But I like to go with facts rather than extrapolating from my own personal experience.)

 

 

Yes, in the halcyon days of yore all children loved math.

 

 

And many other people who are neither smart nor productive nor particularly well-educated came out of that system as well. What's your point?

[Based on Faith Academy]

True, and homeschooling probably does increase that feeling of responsibility. But I meant in general as well. When I was a kid (back in the halcyon 90s), my parents and my friends' parents let us run around outside at 6+yo, going from one playground to the next, with none of the parents knowing where we were at, just expecting us to be home for dinner. If something bad had happened (never did), people would probably have thought that was really unfortunate. Whereas now I get the impression that people would think you're a horribly neglectful parent and if something happened to your kid it was your own fault, even though bad stuff sometimes just happens.

 

This happens all over my neighborhood, I don't understand it with the crazy people that are out there. I get emails when there is

a new person has been added to the list of those who moved within so many miles of my home.

[SKL]

Thing is, you can't make a person math smart just by spending the same little bit of time on math, but changing up the "how."

 

Some kids are gonna be math smart regardless, because they are born that way.  They will learn regardless of method.  These are likely to be the kids who suck at "draw 50 ducks minus 12 ducks," because they figure the answer faster than they can decide how to draw a duck.  Those are the kids who should be encouraged to jump ahead to stuff that is worth their mental energy, if we truly want to raise a generation that has some world-class engineers.

 

The rest of the kids *can* learn to understand math but only if they are given enough time and practice and patience at the age when they can benefit.  And teachers who really understand it themselves.  If they aren't given these, then I don't believe people truly want these kids to become good at math.  By "good at," I mean comfortable with real-life applications that involve math.

[Bluegoat]

OK, well when I was in 1st grade, we did not have to learn how to add and subtract multi-digit numbers with regrouping.  And I was in a high-standard school.  We didn't do multiplication until 3rd grade, now they do it in 1st.  That's not a difference in method, it's a difference in early demands and expectations.  It's also the reason both of my kids said they hated math by the end of 1st grade.  Despite all the early exposure and hours of home practice, it took my average kid until well into 2nd grade to get the concept of regrouping.  And what is the big problem if she learned it in 2nd grade, or even later?

 

I just don't see the point.  It's kind of like beating a kid to make him do something he simply cannot do.

 

That's an issue with a lot of subjects.  For some reason, we in the English speaking world think that by pushing skills to earlier grades, we will end up with more advanced students at the end.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Thing is, you can't make a person math smart just by spending the same little bit of time on math, but changing up the "how."

 

Some kids are gonna be math smart regardless, because they are born that way.  They will learn regardless of method.  These are likely to be the kids who suck at "draw 50 ducks minus 12 ducks," because they figure the answer faster than they can decide how to draw a duck.  Those are the kids who should be encouraged to jump ahead to stuff that is worth their mental energy, if we truly want to raise a generation that has some world-class engineers.

 

The rest of the kids *can* learn to understand math but only if they are given enough time and practice and patience at the age when they can benefit.  And teachers who really understand it themselves.  If they aren't given these, then I don't believe people truly want these kids to become good at math.  By "good at," I mean comfortable with real-life applications that involve math.

 

Yes and I see it as about making more people proficient in at least basic math.  A lot of people don't know basic stuff like how to calculate the tax on something.  They wouldn't even know if they were being ripped off.  They have no clue about stuff like compound interest.  These are practically survival skills.  If more people can be reached with a better method, why wouldn't we be all for it?

[SKL]

Yes and I see it as about making more people proficient in at least basic math.  A lot of people don't know basic stuff like how to calculate the tax on something.  They wouldn't even know if they were being ripped off.  They have no clue about stuff like compound interest.  These are practically survival skills.  If more people can be reached with a better method, why wouldn't we be all for it?

 

I think we're skeptical that more people will be reached with the "better method" of the day.

 

I think more people will be reached with more time to apply the skills, regardless of which "method" or "methods" are chosen for the delivery.

 

And by "more time," I don't mean start 2 years younger.  I mean give math more time in school, give kids in school more opportunity to really work through things with their own brains without fearing consequences for making mistakes or needing more review.

 

My kid asked her 1st grade teacher repeatedly to slow down so she could understand.  The teacher said no.  Both my kid and the teacher told me this, btw.  Teacher has to get through the book in x amount of time, kids who are still trying to understand are SOL.

[luuknam]

This happens all over my neighborhood, I don't understand it with the crazy people that are out there. I get emails when there is

a new person has been added to the list of those who moved within so many miles of my home.

 

I almost never see kids in the 6-12 age range playing unsupervised around here. I'm pretty sure there were just as many crazies in the 90s as there are now. That said, I do live in a different country now than I did then, but from what I've read kids in the US were usually given quite a lot of freedoms like that in the 50s and 60s or w/e.

 

As to why people let their kids play outside unsupervised, I imagine that it depends on the parents - some might just find it to be the easiest thing to do (although seriously, have they not heard of videogames?), but others (including me) believe that you need to gradually increase kids' independence to prep them for adulthood... you can't just supervise a kid full time until they turn 18 and expect them to know how to act like an adult.

[Reefgazer]

When DD was in public school 5th grade, her math teacher (an excellent teacher) looked at the class one day after she had taught something new and told them that she knows they didn't "get it", but she had to keep moving forward because there were other thing she was required to cover that week (our district using pacing guides).  This is definitely an ongoing problem in many places.

I think we're skeptical that more people will be reached with the "better method" of the day.

 

I think more people will be reached with more time to apply the skills, regardless of which "method" or "methods" are chosen for the delivery.

 

And by "more time," I don't mean start 2 years younger.  I mean give math more time in school, give kids in school more opportunity to really work through things with their own brains without fearing consequences for making mistakes or needing more review.

 

My kid asked her 1st grade teacher repeatedly to slow down so she could understand.  The teacher said no.  Both my kid and the teacher told me this, btw.  Teacher has to get through the book in x amount of time, kids who are still trying to understand are SOL.

 

[Tanaqui]

Perhaps, reefgazer, but I notice you've yet to address the fact that GDP and population size are closely linked.

[Reefgazer]

Correct, I did not address it.  Likewise, you did not address the fact you were highly offensive in implying that the Swiss, Scandinavians, Australians and other non-devastated countries after WWII were incapable of keeping up with the USA's innovations, despite their "superior math methods".  At any rate, I am not seeing the connection between GDP and pacing guidelines.

Perhaps, reefgazer, but I notice you've yet to address the fact that GDP and population size are closely linked.