As a person with a legitimate learning disability in Math, Common Core is just cruel. I'm not saying that as a joke, I am dreading when S has to go to school and comes home with math homework, there is no way in hell I'm going to be able to help her. As stupid as it sounds I get anxious thinking about it, and she's only 2.5.
I don't think that sounds stupid. Helping your kid with something that posed a challenge for you is daunting. I am curious though - would the "old way" have been easier for you to help her with? I don't know what form your learning disability takes, but if you struggled learning it the old way would that really be any better? Or no?
As a person with a legitimate learning disability in Math, Common Core is just cruel. I'm not saying that as a joke, I am dreading when S has to go to school and comes home with math homework, there is no way in hell I'm going to be able to help her. As stupid as it sounds I get anxious thinking about it, and she's only 2.5.
I don't think that sounds stupid. Helping your kid with something that posed a challenge for you is daunting. I am curious though - would the "old way" have been easier for you to help her with? I don't know what form your learning disability takes, but if you struggled learning it the old way would that really be any better? Or no?
It might be SLIGHTLY easier, even reading the math solution that teacher wrote on the student's paper, about making the 10 didn't make sense to me.
When I was in school there wasn't a name for it, I now know it's Dyscalculia. I had and still have all the signs that show that I have it.
ETA Add (No pun intended, lol) - I prayer that she inherits her father and uncle's ability in math though and this won't be a problem.
I hope to teach my kids math the way I learned it: cribbage, blackjack, and rummy.
If you really want to make them comfortable with math, add in keeping score for Scrabble.
ETA: I feel like this is more like "Read a book" homework is to phonetics and sight words. Why does math require worksheets? Send me home "play war", "play 21", and "try this sodoku". Math is fun, but worksheets aren't.
I don't think that sounds stupid. Helping your kid with something that posed a challenge for you is daunting. I am curious though - would the "old way" have been easier for you to help her with? I don't know what form your learning disability takes, but if you struggled learning it the old way would that really be any better? Or no?
It might be SLIGHTLY easier, even reading the math solution that teacher wrote on the student's paper, about making the 10 didn't make sense to me.
When I was in school there wasn't a name for it, I now know it's Dyscalculia. I had and still have all the signs that show that I have it.
ETA Add (No pun intended, lol) - I prayer that she inherits her father and uncle's ability in math though and this won't be a problem.
I don't think this will be any more difficult than "old math". Honestly, it's such a conceptually based approach you May be better off.
Post by msmerymac on Sept 22, 2015 16:24:03 GMT -5
Well I learned common core math here today! I also learned that's how I do it in my head. Like 12x11 I will break into 12x10, then add another 12 in my head.
I'm new to Common Core math (my oldest is in first grade), but I kind of love it. I was never great at math -- I did well in math classes, but it was because I was good at memorizing. I never really understood the concepts all that well. So I love that my kids will learn to actually understand the reasoning behind it.
The number line example above confuses me though. Hopefully my kid understands that without my help when they get there in class ;-)
The number line one is pretty easy, if you ignore the (wrong) numbers that were written in by the engineer father. The original problem shows the number line with the arrows and the numbers "121 127 227 327 427" spaced out under the points on the line. Problem to solve is 427-316. So "Jack" correctly subtracted 3 sets of 100 from 427 (big arrows moving left) to get 127, then he subtracted 6 ones (small arrows) to get 121. He only forgot to subtract one set of 10 to get the right answer of 111. The engineer father incorrectly assumes that the smaller arrows are subtracting 6 sets of 10, which doesn't make sense, because the number line is already labeled with the correct value. Jack could continue on that same number line and subtract the 10 after he subtracted the 6 ones, because it doesn't matter which order you do it, as long as you do them all. Which I think speaks to the flexibility that is taught with these methods.
Of course, I am another person who always rearranges numbers in my head to make it easier to do the math, so there's that. That's how I figure out tips/discounts, I just move the decimal once to get 10%, then divide that number in half and add that to the original 10% to get 15%.
I hate Common Core but I would love to have my opinion change.
I cannot logically explain the math in the first picture. How does someone know to 5-2 + 3?
I don't get it either. If you take 2 from 5, then it's not 5 anymore.
It makes sense when you use the ten frame. Make 10 squares, then fill in 8. You will see that you have 2 empty squares, so you know you need 2 to fill up the ten frame all the way. You can take those 2 from the 5.
my only fear is I won't be able to help DD with math when the time comes. I was great at all the Algebra classes, sucked at geometry and trig and really sucked at word problems.
Well I learned common core math here today! I also learned that's how I do it in my head. Like 12x11 I will break into 12x10, then add another 12 in my head.
I just saw this blog post and was coming here to post it! I love that so much, if anyone's still skeptical or confused, this post is an excellent explanation.
I agree with PPs that a lot of what I see in common core math is how I do arithmetic in my head and giving kids various ways to do something is a good thing.
The main criticism I see of common core is parents complaining that they don't understand it and therefore it must be a stupid or useless way to learn. I seriously side eye them. Deciding something is worthless just because you don't understand it is ignorant.
Also, people keep saying the way we learned math as kids is just fine and we don't need this newfangled math. Except, as a society, we suck at math, so clearly the old method isn't working.
I am not convinced quite yet we suck at math because I regard test results, particularly competitive international ones, with suspicion.
The actual objectors to CC, not to be confused with people bitching about it, have-- you know-- actual reasoning for doing so, and we are not ignorant.
What I wonder about is simply the way the first question is phrased. "Tell how you get ten when adding 8+5" makes it sound like ten is the desired sum, when in reality, you are still expected to end up with 13. Now, perhaps this is the phrasing they are using in class, but I don't like the imprecision of it all ;-P
I HATE the phrasing that many of the worksheets use. One of them was something like, "You have a pile of pennies. Without counting the pennies, how do you know if you have an odd or even number?"
Thank God DD1 knew an answer because I would've just fucking thrown up my hands right there. Guess? Have someone else count? Black magic? LOL. She wrote, "You can make the pile into pairs." Which to me counts as counting, but WTF do I know.
The one that did puzzle her was the one that asked her to make a "math mountain" which is one of their solution-drawings that is kind of like this:
15 | | 8+7
So it requires three numbers, but they asked her to use only two numbers to do it. As an adult, I was like, "Okay, that's totally them wanting her to add 7+7 or 8+8, so you're still adding three numbers but two of them are the same", but as a kid reading that question I would've been convinced that I was being asked to do something patently impossible, and she definitely had that as a first impression.
I agree with PPs that a lot of what I see in common core math is how I do arithmetic in my head and giving kids various ways to do something is a good thing.
The main criticism I see of common core is parents complaining that they don't understand it and therefore it must be a stupid or useless way to learn. I seriously side eye them. Deciding something is worthless just because you don't understand it is ignorant.
Also, people keep saying the way we learned math as kids is just fine and we don't need this newfangled math. Except, as a society, we suck at math, so clearly the old method isn't working.
I am not convinced quite yet we suck at math because I regard test results, particularly competitive international ones, with suspicion.
The actual objectors to CC, not to be confused with people bitching about it, have-- you know-- actual reasoning for doing so, and we are not ignorant.
Objecting without understanding is ignorant, which is what I said. What are your reasons for objecting? The only objections I've come across are that parents don't understand or that the way we learned is just fine and there is no need for change or improvement. I would be interested to hear well reasoned arguments against.
I meet many adults who have difficulty with even very basic math, so I don't have trouble believing that we do poorly compared to other countries.
I actually went through Khan Academy Early Math (grades 1-3) so I could make sure I understood everything. I got a "making tens" problem wrong enough times that I had to watch the video. :/
That would annoy me. What's the point of doing homework that isn't reinforcing the classwork?
Yeah it's something I'm keeping an eye on. He's applying the same skills when he's figuring the problems out, so I'm not too concerned at this point. But it concerned me when she mentioned that at BTS night.
Also, can someone please tell me how much that check is written for in the third pic in the OP? I'm just as new math stupid as I was with old math, apparently.
The problem with the check is that it is not written in "Common Core Math." It is something that this dad just made up. I think it's supposed to be $14.03 - a ten frame (but he used an 8 frame in the first amount box?) with 4 more circles and then my best guess is he wants the xs to stand for pennies. This dad is a jerk and an idiot and I wish people would stop sharing that picture. Ten frames are incredibly useful for building number sense and it's things like this check that are making it so hard to get parents on board with these new methods.
I understand some parental suspicion. Education has fads and pendulum swings like anything. Yes, this could be a superior teaching method for math. But we've been through things with reading (phonics! sight words! phonics!) and spelling (it's important! it's not important! it's important!) that lead us to roll our eyes when the new BEST THING EVER gets thrown at our kids.
One more time, Common Core is a set of standards, not a curriculum. Sorry. It's making me a little nuts.
I like the idea of grouping to do arithmetic. DD2, in 6th grade, has been doing that since 1st grade, so it's not like this is new stuff. I also like that there are multiple ways to get to answers. That used to frustrate me as a student...does it matter that my method looked different as long as I got to the right answer? Geez.
What sucks is that the stupid text books for almost all elementary kids for math have "COMMON CORE" at the top. I'm not sure why they need to put that in the title rather than just say in a bubble, "Designed to help meet Common Core math standards."
ETA: And while looking for the book that our district uses, I found this set of elementary workbooks and wish our school would have chosen these!
I don't think that sounds stupid. Helping your kid with something that posed a challenge for you is daunting. I am curious though - would the "old way" have been easier for you to help her with? I don't know what form your learning disability takes, but if you struggled learning it the old way would that really be any better? Or no?
It might be SLIGHTLY easier, even reading the math solution that teacher wrote on the student's paper, about making the 10 didn't make sense to me.
When I was in school there wasn't a name for it, I now know it's Dyscalculia. I had and still have all the signs that show that I have it.
ETA Add (No pun intended, lol) - I prayer that she inherits her father and uncle's ability in math though and this won't be a problem.
I wouldn't stress. Similar to what litebright was doing for her school happens at our school and most of our friends' schools - you get the tutorial pages as a little workbook home with each lesson. The teacher teaches the concepts, then sends home a set of tutorials that are really easy to follow and review for parents. You can read through those and keep up with your kid - it's like 4 worksheets/week that talk about that lesson and how to solve problems different ways. It shows examples and doesn't include the sheets that your kid uses to do the work.
So far our kids do the "old way" and solve the same problem about 2-3 other ways too. IMO the new standards are just written so kids learn multiple ways to solve problems and understand a problem from a different perspective. Even by 4th grade it starts to be more student driven where they can decide which way to solve the problem (at least the more review type ones) - each kid chooses the way that makes the most sense to them.
One more time, Common Core is a set of standards, not a curriculum. Sorry. It's making me a little nuts.
I like the idea of grouping to do arithmetic. DD2, in 6th grade, has been doing that since 1st grade, so it's not like this is new stuff. I also like that there are multiple ways to get to answers. That used to frustrate me as a student...does it matter that my method looked different as long as I got to the right answer? Geez.
What sucks is that the stupid text books for almost all elementary kids for math have "COMMON CORE" at the top. I'm not sure why they need to put that in the title rather than just say in a bubble, "Designed to help meet Common Core math standards."
ETA: And while looking for the book that our district uses, I found this set of elementary workbooks and wish our school would have chosen these!
These are what I used to homeschool kindergarten with DS2. He loved doing school with those.
We use Saxon math starting in grade 1 and I am happy it doesn't include this common core stuff. What we are using now works well and these examples in this thread seem like teaching them would waste so much time. 8+7=15. It's not that hard.
I hope to teach my kids math the way I learned it: cribbage, blackjack, and rummy.
If you really want to make them comfortable with math, add in keeping score for Scrabble.
ETA: I feel like this is more like "Read a book" homework is to phonetics and sight words. Why does math require worksheets? Send me home "play war", "play 21", and "try this sodoku". Math is fun, but worksheets aren't.
DS1 taught himself multiplication by playing Yahtzee. Big fan of gameschooling. There is an adorable game called Sum Swamp that has been helpful for teaching beginning math skills to my kids. It's so much more effective than worksheets.
What sucks is that the stupid text books for almost all elementary kids for math have "COMMON CORE" at the top. I'm not sure why they need to put that in the title rather than just say in a bubble, "Designed to help meet Common Core math standards."
ETA: And while looking for the book that our district uses, I found this set of elementary workbooks and wish our school would have chosen these!
These are what I used to homeschool kindergarten with DS2. He loved doing school with those.
We use Saxon math starting in grade 1 and I am happy it doesn't include this common core stuff. What we are using now works well and these examples in this thread seem like teaching them would waste so much time. 8+7=15. It's not that hard.
Just couldn't help it... link to an the publishers website where it shows that Saxon Math (which is pretty common in homeschooling) aligns and teaches Common Core standards, without even the teaching-parent knowing, I guess.
"For over 30 years, Saxon Math™ has been delivering proven results for students in Grades K–12. The Saxon Math curriculum has an incremental structure that distributes content throughout the year. This integrated and connected approach provides deep, long-term mastery of the content and skills called for in the Common Core State Standards."
And I'd just like to add to this conversation AND the post as a whole that the textbook does not make or break a good teacher. Teachers aren't teaching "Common Core Math" or "Saxon Math" or "Singapore Math" or "SuccessMaker Math" only - they are teaching math and good teachers have been showing multiple ways to understand and conceptualize math concepts for decades.
These are what I used to homeschool kindergarten with DS2. He loved doing school with those.
We use Saxon math starting in grade 1 and I am happy it doesn't include this common core stuff. What we are using now works well and these examples in this thread seem like teaching them would waste so much time. 8+7=15. It's not that hard.
Just couldn't help it... link to an the publishers website where it shows that Saxon Math (which is pretty common in homeschooling) aligns and teaches Common Core standards, without even the teaching-parent knowing, I guess.
"For over 30 years, Saxon Math™ has been delivering proven results for students in Grades K–12. The Saxon Math curriculum has an incremental structure that distributes content throughout the year. This integrated and connected approach provides deep, long-term mastery of the content and skills called for in the Common Core State Standards."
And I'd just like to add to this conversation AND the post as a whole that the textbook does not make or break a good teacher. Teachers aren't teaching "Common Core Math" or "Saxon Math" or "Singapore Math" or "SuccessMaker Math" only - they are teaching math and good teachers have been showing multiple ways to understand and conceptualize math concepts for decades.
Saxon makes a public school curriculum, which uses Common Core standards, and a different homeschool curriculum, which does not. We use the homeschool curriculum. You linked the info for the public school curriculum.
Click on the homeschool link on their website to see what homeschoolers use.
How do they learn common core in 1st grade? I have a 1st grader and so far, they are doing a lot of simple addition and I don't think they are doing CC. But I guess I don't know.
It's, like, math for English majors.
From the very beginning of the year, their math has been like this: (1) Read a word problem such as, "Jane found 3 crayons on the table. She found 4 more on the floor. How many crayons did Jane find in all?" (or have it read to them) (2) Draw a picture. Ex: xxx 0000 (3) Write the equation. 3+4=7 (4) Explain how you got the answer: "I started with 3 and counted on 4 more."
It was hard for DD1 at first because the teacher didn't do a great job at explaining the process, but now she get it, and (hopefully) she'll understand math concepts more easily because of the method!
This right here has been our biggest frustration. Ben has a hard time explaining, and since I learned the old way, I don't know what the 'options' are. I'd say "well you had three crayons and you added four more to get seven. Isn't THAT the explanation?!?" And Ben would say no and cry and carry on. Sorry, kid. I can't help.
I'm new to Common Core math (my oldest is in first grade), but I kind of love it. I was never great at math -- I did well in math classes, but it was because I was good at memorizing. I never really understood the concepts all that well. So I love that my kids will learn to actually understand the reasoning behind it.
The number line example above confuses me though. Hopefully my kid understands that without my help when they get there in class ;-)
The number line one is pretty easy, if you ignore the (wrong) numbers that were written in by the engineer father. The original problem shows the number line with the arrows and the numbers "121 127 227 327 427" spaced out under the points on the line. Problem to solve is 427-316. So "Jack" correctly subtracted 3 sets of 100 from 427 (big arrows moving left) to get 127, then he subtracted 6 ones (small arrows) to get 121. He only forgot to subtract one set of 10 to get the right answer of 111. The engineer father incorrectly assumes that the smaller arrows are subtracting 6 sets of 10, which doesn't make sense, because the number line is already labeled with the correct value. Jack could continue on that same number line and subtract the 10 after he subtracted the 6 ones, because it doesn't matter which order you do it, as long as you do them all. Which I think speaks to the flexibility that is taught with these methods.
Of course, I am another person who always rearranges numbers in my head to make it easier to do the math, so there's that. That's how I figure out tips/discounts, I just move the decimal once to get 10%, then divide that number in half and add that to the original 10% to get 15%.
This is part of my problem - I can't hold the numbers in my head if I rearrange them. I can't hold them in their original form either - lol.
The thing that these parents overlook is that eventually the simple algorithm is taught. It's not like new math is trying to do away with the time-tested quick way for getting a result. The whole point of this approach is trying to build computational fluency and an understanding of what you are actually doing when you write a math equation. The algorithm just comes a little bit later, when everyone hopefully has practiced with the concepts to understand what the algorithm is actually doing.
There are kids under the old system who will see the problem 10,000-600 and go about lining the numbers up on top of each other in the traditional "algorithm" and borrow 1s over and over and over again. That is a huge waste of time, and it shows that you don't have a great understanding of numbers if you do that instead of mentally working with 100s. What this new approach aims to do is help people grasp the underlying concepts better.
Okay, so I think I now understand the "taking away from one number to get the other number to ten" theory, but how do you use CC to solve 10,000-600 if both numbers are already multiples of 10?
As an engineering major in college and math lover, I'm actually sort of excited to learn this new way along with the kids.
From the very beginning of the year, their math has been like this: (1) Read a word problem such as, "Jane found 3 crayons on the table. She found 4 more on the floor. How many crayons did Jane find in all?" (or have it read to them) (2) Draw a picture. Ex: xxx 0000 (3) Write the equation. 3+4=7 (4) Explain how you got the answer: "I started with 3 and counted on 4 more."
It was hard for DD1 at first because the teacher didn't do a great job at explaining the process, but now she get it, and (hopefully) she'll understand math concepts more easily because of the method!
This right here has been our biggest frustration. Ben has a hard time explaining, and since I learned the old way, I don't know what the 'options' are. I'd say "well you had three crayons and you added four more to get seven. Isn't THAT the explanation?!?" And Ben would say no and cry and carry on. Sorry, kid. I can't help.
Oh my gosh, I know. I need like, a common core vocabulary list. The teacher sort of agreed with me that "counting on" was weird linguistically, but I guess once you teach it long enough it seems normal to you.
DD (and I!) will learn whatever language you want, but we need to know what to memorize!