patrick.net

I think that part of the reason for teaching "mental math" now more than years ago, was that back then, students would just learn mental math eventually, becasue of doing enough arithmetic, it just happened naturally, and by necessity.

But these days, becasue of calculators, you will see high school kids going to the calculator to add 8 + 5. So how do you help students develop "number sense." Answer: You teach it and practice it. But the truth is you show students methods and practice things. But ultimately it comes down to what do students internalize. Ultimately the students internal understanding is something that they build for themselves. The teacher is a guide, saying, "try this." "Try this." But for a lot of procedural algorithmic math skills, just like anything else, a lot is going to depend on the students internalization which comes from practice, and how they view it.

It gets very different later when it's more about the conceptual, and problem solving. At that point the teacher's task gets more complicated, becasue curiosity, and a strong and persistent desire to "get it" are not easy to impart.It helps if the students are the types of kids that always enjoyed puzzles.

marcus says

But these days, becasue of calculators, you will see high school kids going to the calculator to add 8 + 5. So how do you help students develop "number sense." Answer: You teach it and practice it. But the truth is you show students methods and practice things. But ultimately it comes down to what do they internalize. Ultimately the students internal understanding is something that they build for themselves. The teacher is a guide, saying, "try this." "Try this." But for a lot of procedural algorithmic math skills, just like anything else, a lot is going to depend on the students internalization which comes from practice, and how they view it.

I get the "Why" they want kids to do it this way. If cognitive abilities of 6 year olds weren't limited, it'd be create. But because they are limited, I'm pretty sure it's going to be a wild failure. There's a reason why teachers around the world don't use the "Anchor/Decompose" method to teach elementary arithmetic.

Number sense comes when you add 8 pennies to 7. Base 10 is picked up along the way.

Common Core is the only curriculum in the world that demands kids have "number sense" to 100 by age 5. No other nation or program in the world demands more than 20.

The solution to the calculator is memorization of basic arithmetic. Frankly it was banned from my school entirely, so I have no experience. Just ban the fucking thing until college.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Some methods are wildly popular for a reason. Other methods are uncommon for a reason.

You never let me down. There's a reason you're a Trump supporter.

marcus says

You never let me down. There's a reason you're a Trump supporter.

I can't be arsed to label that personal.

Do you have another explanation why the preferred Common Core method is used nowhere else at no time in history with 1st graders? Is it because of all the great experience teaching it, it was considered too easy to grasp?

If so, I'd love to hear it.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

1st Graders don't look at anything a quarter as difficult for Reading. They're expected to parse and follow those instructions.

This.

Having a first grader right now that is doing fine in all subjects/skills, the math is just overly complicated for the level they're at. Not saying the math itself is difficult, my kid is getting it, it's just I've noticed that the kids are confused by the way the concepts are being taught. Many parents are confused. Many teachers are old and don't care to learn to teach this new way. So there's a break down in the whole structure of math at probably the most important time in kids lives to learn the basics. I'm open to new things, but being in the trenches with this stuff, I'm really not a fan at all.

Marcus does make valid points about the logic behind why the changes are being made from a mathematical prospective. I just really don't think it was implemented very well at this point. Considering most adults, even successful ones are idiots, I'm not sure what the plan was. A teachers job is hard enough without parental support and this just throws the entire early learning math years in the wood chipper in my opinion.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Do you have another explanation why the preferred Common Core method is used nowhere else at no time in history with 1st graders? Is it because of all the great experience teaching it, it was considered too easy to grasp?

Neither you nor I know exactly what a majority of first grade common core teachers are doing for Math with their students.

You really think some anti-common core video is giving you realistic information, and not the worst horror story from the most angry and clueless right wing parent out there ?

Give me a break. I'm over loaded with work, it's my busiest time. But if you want I could find for you a web site, designed for first grade teachers and you could spend an hour or two researching what really goes on. And then lets talk.

WookieMan says

A teachers job is hard enough without parental support and this just throws the entire early learning math years in the wood chipper in my opinion.

Too much propaganda out there and not enough real information.

Here you go. Get a taste of reality.

https://www.engageny.org/resource/grade-1-mathematics-module-1-topic

So much better, and more interesting than what I was doing in first and second grade math. Drills have their place, but it wasn't exercising that part of my brain nearly as well as this. Actually, the nuns did't do that bad of a job. Truth is I don't remember what we did in first grade. Some of it might have been similar but without the social part.

marcus says

So much better, and more interesting than what I was doing in fist and second grade math. Drills have their place, but it wasn't exercising that part of my brain nearly as well as this.

I totally understand that it might be better. The implementation was thought out poorly in my opinion though. You can't just give a 50 year old teacher a new tool and expect them to know how to use it when they're 5 years from hanging up the chalk and eraser. They're very likely to just print out the lessons and pass it out as homework. Of course they'll try to teach it in the classroom, but I'm highly skeptical of anyone over 45 and teaching taking it that seriously.

I guess I would equate it to the US all a sudden saying everyone needs to drive on the other side of the car & road like in Britain (obviously you'd need a new car). The objective is exactly the same. Point A to B. The motions to drive the car are similar. But it's completely different and foreign for those that had learned right side of the road and left side of the car driving.

The problem is, the 50 year old teacher really has no benefit to drive the new way. The 30-35 year old parents drove the old way. And the kids are being taught to drive the new way. Nobody is telling the parents how their kids are learning the new way and quite frankly older teachers don't care to learn the new way. There's a generation of kids that are essentially crash test dummies for flipping the car and sides of the road mathematically speaking.

I personally don't think common core is necessarily bad. I just wish they'd give parents some more tools explaining it. There's logic behind it for sure. But when you get some of the shit in your kids folder and you ask your kid what the fuck this is and they have a hard time explaining it, then something needs to be adjusted. And it's not just my individual school. Most of my peers with kids are outside our district (multiple districts) and it's a common conversation amongst us.

WookieMan says

Of course they'll try to teach it in the classroom, but I'm highly skeptical of anyone over 45 and teaching taking it that seriously.

You'd be surprised. I dissagree for several reasons.

1) Common core not as different as you think, it's just getting a lot of press. They were talking bout "the new math" when I was in school in the 60s, becasue they were trying to bring the ideas of sets into math, and not only doing computation.

2) teachers are always being asked to try new things, for decades now, it's some new breakthrough methodolgy they are supposed to implement, .to get kids working in groups, reflecting on what they're learning, explaining it to eachother and so on. Especially in the lower grades, where classes are still usually 25 or less in size, teachers are very used to trying new things.. There is a risk that older teachers are jaded, and think it's another flavor of the month methodology. But they go to training's and professional development, and then they combine it with the things they believe in. But yes, the texts and or worksheets parents see, might seem somewhat strange. So the parents have to work a little if they want to get involved in learning what their kids are doing. That's not so bad.

3) The idea that becasue a teacher is 50 they are too tired of teaching or too set in their ways to be passionate about teaching or to take their responsibilities seriously is not true. Especially at that young age level, if anything they've learned to take the best things from new models and methods and incorporate them in to what they do. Kids that age are like sponges. Very curious, and open to new things, making it fun to try strategies out with them. I envy teachers of young children sometimes, becasue working with older teens, is tough at times. They have a lot of other things on their minds, and sometimes don't bring that fresh curiosity to their learning the way young children do.

(although sure - some teachers aren't that great. And certainly some elementary teachers don't love math or teaching math. They shine with reading, or art or whatever . But those types of teachers have been messing up students math potential for decades. IF anything those teachers are the best argument FOR a somewhat scripted curriculum that's rigorous and more interesting. But yes, parent involvement then becomes critical.)

IMO, the only thing that guy exposed is that he's an idiot or a fraud. It's really fucking simple, and for anyone who learns that method, it seems pretty intuitive. I've done math in my head using similar methods for years. Maybe it was taught at some point, or maybe it's just intuition or learning tricks out of necessity. In the time it took this guy to make that video, he should have been able to learn that method well enough to help his kid.

Any problem can be converted into other simpler problems to do in your head. If you subtract 231 from 500, you could do it the 'traditional' way, by converting the 500 to 490 + 10, and then subtracting the 1 from the 10 and the 3 from the 9, and the 2 from the 4 to get 269. On the other hand, it's just as easy to first subtract 230 from 500 to get 270 and then subtract the extra 1. Or, you could add and subtract 19. Subtracting 19 lets you add 19 to the 231 gives 250, subtract that from the 500 to get 250, and then add the 19 back to get 269. Whatever you are used to doing is what becomes intuitive and simple. Teaching multiple methods gets people used to trying a variety of methods to figure out a way to solve some problem or other. Most problems can be solved using many many methods. Math is a perfect playground to teach these types of things.

IMO, that last video is a negative nancy making youtube videos about how terrible math is. He is not helping society. He's what creates a culture that looks down on learning and trying new things.

This whole thread is about how thunderlips11 AKA TwoScoopsPlissken was unable to understand that he did not know the meaning of the phrase "make 10", and therefore he had to get into a long discussion with Marcus and others in order to cover up his ignorance. "Make 10" is a standard trick for paperless and computerless calculations. Using the example of the dimwit propagandist youtuber, and doing "make 10" the right way:

26 +17 = 20 + 6 + 10 + 7 = 30 + 6 + 7 = 30 + 6 + (4+3) = 30 + (6+4) + 3 = 30 + 10 + 3 = 40 + 3 = 43

The idea is that you should be able to do this in your head, but of course it is written down so that the children can learn the principle. It is not to be used as a substitute for doing 26 + 17 the standard way. It is for paperless calculations only, to teach kids how to calculate in their head.

Taking a step back and looking at the big picture, this thread was all a politically-motivated effort to denounce "common core curriculum", which is a favorite target of right-wingers that want each state to control their own school curricula so that they can dumb down and divide and conquer the country by pitting the working population of different states against each other. This is standard Republican procedure since at least 1960, and well known in world history. "State's rights" and all that tripe, look it up.

Sarcastic Summary: It's Obama's fault, again!

The Make10 method has been around probably for thousands of years, as has the traditional method.

Why all over the world, at all times, has the traditional subtraction method of "Carrying the 1" dominated?

There's a reason.

"Nobody in thousands of years before our wonderful enlightened selves thought to do such a thing"
or
"It doesn't work as well as the other method for teaching young children."

Knowing humans, which reason do you think is more likely?

If you think it's a mental shortcut to make 10 by "decomposing" a 7 into 2 and 5 and then "anchoring" the 2 to 8 to make 10 and then adding the remaining 5 to get 15, instead of just memorizing that 8++7=15, then to your Good Health.

With 6 year olds, no less.

This will be as successful as getting rid of Phonics, which left the mostly urban kids it was foistered on with no method of figuring out how to spell or pronounce unfamiliar, new words they read. Fortunately the UK (and the US) is reintroducing Phonics after experimenting with letter formation and Whole Language" with astounding results.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/16/phonics-children-education-research
http://www.pbs.org/parents/education/reading-language/reading-tips/is-phonics-taught-in-my-childs-classroom/
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/jar/Reading_Wars.html

Piaget and Behavioralism FTW. Science over Fluff.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

If you think it's a mental shortcut to make 10 by "decomposing" a 7 into 2 and 5 and then "anchoring" the 2 to 8 to make 10 and then adding the remaining 5 to get 15, instead of just memorizing that 8++7=15, then to your Good Health.

Nobody said it was a good way to figure out what 8 + 7 is. They said that it is a shortcut for doing more complicated problems in your head. Using 8 + 7 as an example is a convenient way to learn the method. Obviously, 8 + 7 should be memorized at some point.

If these things are being taught to kids at an unappropriate age, then everybody should be complaining, because all kids would be failing. If it is only Obama haters that are complaining, that's a different type of motivation. Are 6 yr old kids failing math all over the country?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Nobody said it was a good way to figure out what 8 + 7 is. They said that it is a shortcut for doing more complicated problems in your head. Using 8 + 7 as an example is a convenient way to learn the method. Obviously, 8 + 7 should be memorized at some point.

That was the opening of the thread. The video is about a kid instructed to "Make 10" with 8+7 on homework/quiz.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

If these things are being taught to kids at an unappropriate age, then everybody should be complaining, because all kids would be failing. If it is only Obama haters that are complaining, that's a different type of motivation. Are 6 yr old kids failing math all over the country?

Parents are flipping out, and not just right-wing ones, but that Common Core, despite "Right-wing" propaganda, isn't imposed everywhere by fiat. Some states reject, some states only impose partially, and some states have school districts that in or out of it partially or wholly. Elite Private Schools aren't using it, I notice.

Even CK Louis has complained on twitter that his kids loved math, until they started with this shit, and he can't understand their homework.

Common Core is more than just Make 10. Neuroscientists, Child Research Psychologists, and others are complaining it's good that it's trying to improving math outcomes and generate more mathematical thinking , but does so by front-loading on K-3 students, younger kids who don't have the mental capacity to benefit from "Encouraging Math Thinking". Three-digit arithmetic, Counting to 100, etc. are all things that are being introduced at very young ages not seen in any other nation, including Japan and Singapore as well as Finland. The non-science based assumption is we can "just start earlier" when it's not going to be appropriate due to brain development in the average child.

Sure there is the odd 6 year old who can diagram a sentence or do long division. But 95%+ can't, and can't for genetic, developmental reasons. It's not just "Make 10" which might be a great method for 9-10 year olds to do math in their head, but not appropriate for 6 year olds. You can't speed up cognitive development any more than a child's height.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-education-standards-20150601-story.html

Alternative methods, like lengthening the JHS/HS school day (teachers oppose) to 9 to 5 like adults and using that extra time for more math practice/instruction, or going deeper without going broader (more practice, deeper understanding, but less ground covered) are also options.

Recent evaluations of the state's preschoolers have determined that only 47 percent are ready for kindergarten, compared to 83 percent judged ready last year. This drastic drop isn't the result of an abrupt, catastrophic decline in the cognitive abilities of our children.

Instead it results from a re-definition of kindergarten readiness, which now means being able to succeed academically at a level far beyond anything expected in the past. For example, a child entering kindergarten is now expected to know the difference between informative/explanatory writing and opinion writing. The concern is that preschoolers without that knowledge will not succeed at meeting the new higher-level Common-Core standards. However, I think a more pressing concern is: Why do we have educational standards that are not aligned with even the most basic facts of human development? Clearly these test results show that the problem is with the standards, not the children.

Educational attainment is part of human development, and fundamentally this is a biological process that cannot be sped up. We cannot wish away our biological limitations because we find them inconvenient. Children will learn crawling, walking, listening, talking and toilet training, all in succession at developmentally appropriate ages. Once in school, for skills that require performing a physical task, that are in what Bloom's Taxonomy classifies as the "psychomotor domain," it is understood that children will only learn when they are physically and developmentally ready. No one expects four-year olds to type fluently on a computer keyboard, play difficult Chopin Etudes on the piano, prepare elaborate meals in the kitchen or drive a car.

However, for skills in what Bloom calls the "cognitive domain," the school curriculum has become blind not only to the progression of normal child development but also to natural variations in the rate that children develop. It is now expected that pre-school children should be able to grasp sophisticated concepts in mathematics and written language. In addition, it is expected that all children should be at the same cognitive level when they enter kindergarten, and proceed through the entire grade-school curriculum in lock step with one another. People, who think that all children can learn in unison, have obviously never worked with special needs children or the gifted and talented.

Demanding that children be taught to developmentally inappropriate standards for language and math comprehension is not a harmless experiment. This exercise in futility wastes the time of teachers and students and unethically sets all of them up to fail. It exacerbates the very problems that the new curriculum is supposed to fix. It leaves boys, whose verbal development for biological reasons already lags behind girls, even further behind and will accelerate the trend of fewer boys going on to college. Even today boys only make up about 40 percent of college students nationwide and their numbers will continue to dwindle.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-education-standards-20150601-story.html

TwoScoopsPlissken says

That was the opening of the thread.

And I pointed out in post 22:
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

I agree that one has to learn what 8+5 is out of memory. On the other hand, they are not teaching what 8+5 is here. They are teaching a method with a simple example, to make it easy to learn the method. The method can then be applied to more complicated examples later. Using simple examples to teach a concept and then building up to more complicated cases is a very common way of teaching anything. I'm guessing that is the philosophy behind choosing this example, but it's a safe and logical bet.

You acknowledged this in post 25.

You may have a valid point about the age that kids can learn things. I have no doubt that brain development varies from individual to individual, especially when you account for the different ages of kids in a particular class. However, there ought to be loads of evidence that the vast majority of kids are not learning this math, if you are correct. If it's just a matter of development, these kids who fail and are held back should excel the following year when they are ready for the material. Where is that evidence? I'm not talking about a comedian making jokes or some youtuber ranting. The number of kids failing math should have increased drastically on introduction of common core. Grades should have plummeted. Where is that data? I'm open to learning.
Finally, if that is the case, maybe the lessons should just be delayed. It would not be a shock if a new change had to be adjusted on implementation.
Why attack the whole program?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

The number of kids failing math should have increased drastically on introduction of common core. Grades should have plummeted. Where is that data? I'm open to learning.

Results are in:

In Fall 2015 the NAEP tested a representative sample of high school seniors in the 2016 graduating class. After seven years of Common Core curriculum and assessment, the NAEP tests showed:

The average performance of high school seniors dropped in math and failed to improve in reading from 2013 to 2015. Performance was also down on both tests from 1992, the first year that similar tests were used.

There was a decline in the percentage of students in both public and private schools that are rated as prepared for college-level work in reading and math. In 2013, 39% of students were considered ready for college math and 38% were prepared for college-level reading. But in 2015, only 37% were prepared for college.

Worse, while scores improved for students in the highest percentile group in reading, they dropped in reading and math for students in the lower percentiles. The number of students scoring below “basic” in both subjects also increased from 2013. These were the students that Common Core and the high-stakes testing regime were supposedly designed to support the most.

Test scores for students in 4th and 8th grade who have been trapped in Common Core classrooms with Common Core curriculum for pretty much their entire school careers showed a similar decline in math.

Terry Mazany, the chairman of the governing board for the test, called these results “worrisome.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/results-are-in--common-co_b_9819736.html

What's wrong with these answers? Nothing. Why the "-1"?

Notice that in the first one, 5x3 has to be 5 groups of 3, but in the next question, 4x6 has to be 4 groups of 6. Que?!?!

According to Common Core, or at least their teaching of teachers, it's wrong.

Again, we see method pushed over completely correct and valid answers.

Not necessarily common core, but here is a grading fail:



Kid is right, very observant. Should have gotten extra credit for those answers.

While some of the stats in the article are troubling, it falls short of compelling. It cites things like a year over year drop of 1% of students at some specified level. It discusses a drop in performance over time, but does not mention any control. The article does mention that states have adopted common core at different times. How have the early adopters changes over time compare to late adopters or states that never adopted common core. That would be a nice control group. That's a pretty big problem with the article.
The article mentions that the test that is being used as a yardstick was developed in 1992. Is that the right yardstick to be using? I'm not saying the answer is no. I'm just pointing out another potential issue.
Finally, you made the assertion that common core standards are not developmentally appropriate. I made the comment that failure rates would have gone through the roof if that were true. I don't see any evidence of that.
TwoScoopsPlissken says

Worse, while scores improved for students in the highest percentile group in reading, they dropped in reading and math for students in the lower percentiles. The number of students scoring below “basic” in both subjects also increased from 2013. These were the students that Common Core and the high-stakes testing regime were supposedly designed to support the most.

The difference between the highest and median income in our country has gone through the roof over those years. Suicide rates and drug abuse rates have also gone through the roof. It's not surprising that these things would have a deleterious impact on the difference in achievement between groups of students. These just two examples of many other variables that could easily affect student testing rates. That is why you really need a control to figure out what the impact of common core has been.

Making orange juice by processing oranges in some way, and grilling steaks over a fire in some way have both been around for centuries, why has grilling steaks dominated ?

Stupid question, these are two eniterely different things !


TwoScoopsPlissken says

Why all over the world, at all times, has the traditional subtraction method of "Carrying the 1" dominated?

The reason is you are talking about different things. Using the method described to confirm in your mind that 8 + 5 = 13, is simple and it's a pattern that can be expanded to understand that 59 + 43 = 102 (in your head instantly) . So it's a basic pattern for mental arithmetic. It's not being taught as a substitute for the traditional method, but it is being taught first.

Why ? Many reasons, including that some students would rather reason such simple things as 8 + 5 = 13 rather than memorize it (save memorization for the things you need to memorize in Math - there will be enough of those.)

BUT ALSO BECAUSE WHEN YOU USE THE TRADITIONAL METHOD YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO KNOW THAT 8 + 5 = 13 ! Shouldn't the students that would prefer to choose whether to know 8 + 5 = 13 be allowed to choose whether they prefer to know that only from memory versus knowing it another way (that I personally have always used ), be given the choice, before they move on to the traditional method ?

Isn't giving students a choice in the methods they use something you argued in favor of earlier ?

Adding 8 + 5 or 7 + 6, etc. are subroutines in the traditional method. I say show them different ways of doing these subroutines and let them choose.

But I will add, that in my substantial experience teaching Math, I've learned that students that want to always rely on memory, don't do well in Math, because eventually there are just two many things to remember. (somewhere between algebra and pre-calculus thse students usually get overwhelmed). When possible you need to use reasoning and patterns. And reserve memorization for things you must memorize (which there are plenty of in Math).

This starts early.

Durrr (referring to my typos)

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Finally, you made the assertion that common core standards are not developmentally appropriate. I made the comment that failure rates would have gone through the roof if that were true. I don't see any evidence of that.

The numbers are from 2016, Common Core began around 2008, and it's far from fully implemented yet, but the numbers are not encouraging.

In context, the numbers in the 2000s increased across the board in 4th Grade mathematics - before Common Core was implemented.
The "Aughties" had the biggest gains among 4th Graders for Math Proficiency. When "New Math" was dumped, the Old Method returned, but before Common Core started to be introduced.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2017_highlights/

marcus says

Making orange juice by processing oranges in some way, and grilling steaks over a fire in some way have both been around for centuries, why has grilling steaks dominated ?

So squeezing oranges and grilling steaks are both... uh... food preparation? A better example might be grilling vs. frying steaks, or maybe using propane vs. charcoal grills to cook steak.

"Charcoal is better tasting, but in the beginning let's teach kids to use propane because it's easier to get the grilling process started. Rather than getting a chimney, stuffing it with paper, lighting the paper under the chimney, waiting for the coals to get hot, spreading them on the grill, etc. etc. vs. turning a knob on the propane grill."

Simple is better than Complex. Complexity might deepen understanding but if you can't do the basic operation, nor have the capacity for the understanding behind the complexity, it's just a time wasting, frustration inducing garbage.

What may take months to teach in 1st grade might be taught in a few days in the 4th grade due to the average cognitive ability of 9 year olds being vastly better developed. With less frustration and wasted time all around.

marcus says

The reason is you are talking about different things. Using the method described to confirm in your mind that 8 + 5 = 13, is simple and it's a pattern that can be expanded to understand that 59 + 43 = 102 (in your head instantly) . So it's a basic pattern for mental arithmetic. It's not being taught as a substitute for the traditional method, but it is being taught first.

It's more complicated, involving more steps. The goal is to push a math-thinking process, but the problem is 6 year olds don't have the cognitive development to benefit from such a method.

Teaching the old method gives an instant ready tool that can be deployed now, while the "Math Thinking" can come later when the grey matter is actually wired to comprehend it.

Surprise! More complex methods hurt well-of kids less than poor kids, because the former's parents will teach them the time-tested method of memorization and "Borrowing" method after school.

marcus says

Isn't giving students a choice in the methods they use something you argued in favor of earlier ?

The image at: http://patrick.net/post/1315428/?c=1501089

My god Marcus, reading comprehension?!

The examples above, the kid did not get a choice, he got penalized for grouping the numbers in a way the teacher didn't prefer. Although what that method is, is beyond my understanding since either order he grouped the numbers in, he got points off.

This isn't choice, this is my way or the highway, where "my way" seems to be entirely arbitrary.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

My god Marcus, reading comprehension?!

As if you've taken the time to comprehend anything I've said.

I've had better arguments with a wall.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

This isn't choice, this is my way or the highway, where "my way" seems to be entirely arbitrary.

"It's about different methods."

"Here is a concrete example of a kid using the teacher's 'array' method twice and she marks each one off, even though he alternates the larger and smaller number to make the groups. It's like she's just being an arbitrary asshole using some cloudy cuckoo rules she invents on the fly."

"Ugh, it's Like talking to a wall."

The Common Core standards designers included not a single person except one who was a Math PhD who taught college students in engineering, physics, and well math. This former NASA Consultant and current Sanford Professor was outvoted by Ed.D theory mongers pushing the same collaborative "facilitator" student guided bullshit they've been harping on for 30 years. So what if it works for Asians, what are the Koreans, Japanese and Chinese up to now, 4 hours a night of Math Cram School (rote memorization).

The bizzarre grading of one stupid teacher is not an indictment of the curriculum. There have always been elementary school teachers that do a bad job with Math. This is no different with common core curriculum. This has nothing to do with what I've been arguing, which is the value of decomposing small number for adding small numbers such as
7 + 6. IF a kid doesn't remember, they could use their fingers, but the patterns are nice and are not new. Years ago I'm sure many good teachers taught the same thing using a number line. It's a visualization thing. Maybe its more for visual learners, many of whom are going to be good at Math in the long run becasue of the visual aspects of a lot of higher Math.

IF you know where 8 is on the number line relative to 10, then it's obvious that 8 + 4 is 12. It's possible to "know" this, without memorizing it, and without counting on your fingers. It's really the same as the method at the top of this thread.

Everyone is going to know 8 + 4 is eventually anyway (YOU WOULD THINK) but in this calculator age, it is actually possible for a kid to never learn it. I've seen this happen, A LOT !! Or they sort of know, but want to confirm it with their calculator instead of their mind.

And since you have gone on to other arguments, without conceding anything, I will repeat, adding 8 + 5, or 7 + 6, or 8 + 6 are actually subroutines in the traditional method.

66
+88

To do this using the traditional method, you must know that 6 plus 8 is 14 and that 7 + 8 is fifteen.

It's not steak or orange juice. You can have both. Although red wine sounds like a better combo for steak.

Here you go again. Get a taste of reality.

https://www.engageny.org/resource/grade-1-mathematics-module-1-topic

Again. Reality. That is if you want to know what first grade curriculum is actually like these days,

I'm not totally a fan of everything about common core. But what it's about more than anything is standardizing, at a reasonable level so that all states are doing more or less the same thing. IF it goes away, which might be good, some good will have come from getting mediocre and weak teachers focused more on concepts and problem solving. Not that there isn't a place for drills.

The truth is that MAth scores haven't gone down significantly in the US over the decades. And I take some of the claims above about children being less prepared for kindergarten above with a grain of salt. If true it may be due to parenting. A lot of kids used to not even go to preschool. Myself included. So if a kid isn't prepared for kindergarten, isn't that becasue the parents don't read to them and interact with them enough ? Or perhaps too many children are under nourished ? Or otherwise picking up on the stress that comes with poverty ?

marcus says

It's not steak or orange juice. You can have both.

But not when you lack the cognitive development at 6 years old. Until then, you're better off with Concrete Methods like memorization and simple visual/manipulative counting.

Marcus, I don't know how many ways I can say this.

The teachers are insisting on the number bond method, not saying "Whatever works for you". Again, the example I gave of the kid being right, and even using an array as was asked, but for some reason the teacher is marking both answers off, even though the answers are absolutely correct. If number bonds are a method, then stop insisting kids only use that method. Either it's a free choice to use whatever works for the kid or not. There's tons of evidence put out by angry parents on the Inter Tubes that teachers are pushing the Number Bond woo woo to the exclusion of everything else.

I even saw a kid's specifically correct answer marked "wrong" and the teacher demanding he estimate it with round numbers. The instruction was to get as close to the correct answer as possible, and the kid got the exact answer (using the time tested old fart methods). Who knew it was a key point in STEM where approximate answers are superior to exactly correct results. Sure is training kids to be great at STEM.

The reason we hold off on algebra and other shit until around age 10 or 11 is the same reason Irony and Sarcasm begin to make their appearance in English Books around that age. Kids have an almost non-existent ability to grasp that kind of thinking until just before puberty.

The hardcoded, biological fact is that any sort of beyond basic abstract reasoning doesn't begin until about 10 years old. Until then it's all concrete-based tasks.

If human psychology/neuroscience knows anything, it's the stages of childhood development. It's too bad NCTM thinks they can front-load "Mathematical Thinking" on 1st and 2nd Graders. Or that Asian Group Work is compatible with Western Culture despite decades of rejection by American Society. It's not gonna happen, give it up already and stop torturing parents and kids with the Facilitator/Group Work Extreme Constructivism.

Facilitators are for HS/College/Beyond level work. When you're old enough to think abstractly and create and pursue own goals. Not for kids. Young Children mimic adults. Learning Base10 is not the same as learning to walk.

Finnish teachers are stumped by Common Core 1st Grade Questions, such as the legendary "Pucks? Pennies? in a Teacup" question (Copyright PearsonTM Education). Kids are being asked to read questions that are light years ahead of what they read for reading class. And Finland beats the shit out of the US in Math.
http://taughtbyfinland.com/first-grade-math-tests-in-american-and-finnish-classrooms/

We'll be the only nation in the world that has a standard that has kids in the 1st Grade counting to 100. Straight from horses mou---
http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/K/CC/A/1/

Shit, that's the KINDERGARTEN standard. Holy Fuck Me.

The problem with US Education isn't K-6, it's 6-12. HS students in most states can get away with just one or two math classes, a far cry from Elementary where they have math regularly.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

The teachers are insisting on the number bond method, not saying "Whatever works for you"

OH noes !

Don't tell me they are actually forcing 6 year olds to know that 5 can be thought of as 4 + 1, or 3 + 2,

THE HORROR !!!!

OH my god ! What are they doing to the children !! Tell me they aren't actually forcing young kids to contemplate that 7 is 5 + 2, and yet it's also 4 + 3, or even 6 + 1 !!

What the FUCK. Don't they know that the children aren't ready for that level of abstraction ?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

HS students in most states can get away with just one or two math classes

Wrong. Not these days. Years ago yes.