5 ms·

Yeah, a lot of the hate I saw for common core (I'm a high school math/physics teacher) comes from a lack of number sense on the adults trying to understand it.

Yeah, a lot of the hate I saw for common core (I'm a high school math/physics teacher) comes from a lack of number sense on the adults trying to understand it. Like, I saw parents who were complaining about breaking 634x127 into (600+30+4)(100+20+7) because they didn't understand you can break it up like that and it makes it a bit easier to do the multiplication, then you can just sum the resuts. Sadly, a lot of the elementary school teachers I've encountered also lack that number sense, and some even detest(ed) math. And yet we're asking them to teach it to our kids. I'm not for charter schools usually, but I'd really love to start a charter elementary school where each subject is taught by someone trained in that subject and then with, say, a MAT in elementary ed, as opposed to just a bachelors in elementary ed. I wonder how much better kids would do in math and reading especially, when they have teachers who appreciate math and who like to study literature and read for its own sake.

linuxftw 6y ago
> breaking 634x127 into (600+30+4)(100+20+7) For some people, this is simply too abstract. You can teach children the breakout method or normal method, their understanding doesn't change. They're just memorizing one procedure over another. The ability to analyze how to operations work doesn't improve with common core, it's just more steps. I've seen this first hand. I taught long division to a younger family member that was struggling with whatever nonsense method common core cooked up (something about boxes and dots and circling stuff). They had literally never seen long division, I taught them to divide the same numbers they had on the page in front of them in less than 10 minutes, and they could arrive at the correct answer consistently. I asked the kid to explain the procedure of what they were doing for the common core, they had no idea and lacked the ability to articulate the process whatsoever.
- icelancer 6y ago
  >> I've seen this first hand. I taught long division to a younger family member that was struggling with whatever nonsense method common core cooked up (something about boxes and dots and circling stuff). Yeah, this is happening to my oldest child - they're on multiplication and division and when I showed them short and long division, they had no idea what I was doing. Common core mathematics is far more memorization and repetition. You don't derive how to actually solve the problem. It's shocking to me that this is the sole method we're teaching kids. EDIT: And I actually like the Common Core methodology. But it's very mathematically incomplete.
  - eitally 6y ago
    wtf -- you're 100% wrong. Common Core exactly shows you how to solve problems. It precisely does not focus on rote memorization. Yes, you need to memorize "math facts", but this is limited to simple multiplication tables (and similar). The entire point of Common Core is to teach multiple algorithms by which students can solve problems for which they recognize the pattern. Back in the 90s, when I was in school, I don't recall this kind of rigor in math at all until I got to Calc 2 and needed to actually focus on memorizing patterns & rules for solving integrals. Everything, at that time, was rote memorization.
    - icelancer 6y ago
      >> recognize the pattern >> solve problems These are incompatible, which is what I am saying and the parent above my comment is also saying. >> simple multiplication tables (and similar) If you fail to memorize these, you can derive the answer using your fallback to addition, which you've been shown how to do. In Common Core textbooks and in the class my oldest is in, these are assumed facts. Breaking down how to derive multiplication and division is at least a failure of the teacher in the class, if not the methodology, though I suspect the teacher is pretty good. Common Core relies on a lot of memorization and pattern matching. This is fine, and good for everyday use. It is not learning it from first principles, which makes it hard when your pattern matching engine isn't working properly. Both methods should be taught in an integrated fashion. I support Common Core - and have for a long time - as an adjunct. Not as the primary method of teaching math. Most kids will find Common Core easier, I'll readily admit that. It also has better carryover to everyday use, as I've already admitted. But it lacks rigor. >> Back in the 90s, when I was in school, I don't recall this kind of rigor in math at all until I got to Calc 2 We're likely the same age. My arithmetic classes were far more rigorous than most of my mathematics classes beyond that up until Linear Algebra.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      > It precisely does not focus on rote memorization. This is where the disconnect is. It may have very well been designed with that goal in mind, but common core is is memorization in another form. The form of memorization is worse than the traditional form because it involves more steps, and the steps are very unintuitive. I don't think kids will be able to explain why it works. They might be able to recite definitions and phrases that they were forced to memorize, but they won't be able to put it into their own words. I know, because I've seen it first hand from a kid I consider to be bright. We can blame parents, we can blame teachers, but it doesn't matter. Common core is not optimized or appropriate for childhood education in the US.
- watwut 6y ago
  > You can teach children the breakout method or normal method, their understanding doesn't change Adults utterly confused about (600+30+4)(100+20+7) do prove that they did not understood what is going on. The follow the algorithm, but don't know how to do expressions. And they have been taught the old method. Also, this (600+30+4)(100+20+7) not be too abstract for average intelligence adult.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    I think it's quite possible that your view of 'average' is skewed. Again, you can teach (600+30+4)(100+20+7) but they're not going to understand why it works. They're just going to memorize the steps because that's what someone showed them. That's why common core is a failure. It's a more complex series of steps to arrive at the same result.
    - watwut 6y ago
      If you don't understand that 634 = 600+30+4 or don't understand how parenthesis works by the time you are 12 and you are average or somewhat bellow intelligence, your school system failed you.
      - linuxftw 6y ago
        The addition is simple. As soon as you tell someone that 62 * 20 is the same as 60 * 20 + 2 * 20, you lose them. Try it out and see for yourself.
        sfink 6y ago
        Not if you draw the picture. A rectangle with height divided into 60 and 2, width 20. Then it's obvious the total area is the sum of the two parts. My kids got very comfortable early on with that notation. Switching to the standard algorithm was tough, even after they understood why it was equivalent, because the diagram just makes so much more sense.
        6y ago
dehrmann 6y ago
> I saw parents who were complaining about breaking 634x127 into (600+30+4)(100+20+7) because they didn't understand you can break it up like that and it makes it a bit easier to do the multiplication, then you can just sum the resuts. That's just a more explicit explanation of multiplication in pre-common core math. It's just a different explanation for the same thing.
- dorchadas 6y ago
  That's exactly the problem though. Parents and some teachers don't realize that. They have no clue what they're actually doing, they just follow the algorithm. Which means they have no number sense either, and don't get that they can break up into easier to solve ways and play around with numbers.
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    > and some teachers I guess these are third grade teachers, so maybe it's not a big deal, but WTF?
    - dorchadas 6y ago
      No, it's an extremely big deal as they're the ones tasked with teaching kids how to do it. Blind leading the blind, and so they just memorize whatever new algorithm there is with no explanation from the teacher as to why it works, because the teacher themselves don't know! It makes it a real pain in the ass when they get to high school and try to work with variables, as they have no clue how numbers work.

linuxftw 6y ago

> breaking 634x127 into (600+30+4)(100+20+7) For some people, this is simply too abstract. You can teach children the breakout method or normal method, their understanding doesn't change. They're just memorizing one procedure over another. The ability to analyze how to operations work doesn't improve with common core, it's just more steps. I've seen this first hand. I taught long division to a younger family member that was struggling with whatever nonsense method common core cooked up (something about boxes and dots and circling stuff). They had literally never seen long division, I taught them to divide the same numbers they had on the page in front of them in less than 10 minutes, and they could arrive at the correct answer consistently. I asked the kid to explain the procedure of what they were doing for the common core, they had no idea and lacked the ability to articulate the process whatsoever.

icelancer 6y ago
>> I've seen this first hand. I taught long division to a younger family member that was struggling with whatever nonsense method common core cooked up (something about boxes and dots and circling stuff). Yeah, this is happening to my oldest child - they're on multiplication and division and when I showed them short and long division, they had no idea what I was doing. Common core mathematics is far more memorization and repetition. You don't derive how to actually solve the problem. It's shocking to me that this is the sole method we're teaching kids. EDIT: And I actually like the Common Core methodology. But it's very mathematically incomplete.
- eitally 6y ago
  wtf -- you're 100% wrong. Common Core exactly shows you how to solve problems. It precisely does not focus on rote memorization. Yes, you need to memorize "math facts", but this is limited to simple multiplication tables (and similar). The entire point of Common Core is to teach multiple algorithms by which students can solve problems for which they recognize the pattern. Back in the 90s, when I was in school, I don't recall this kind of rigor in math at all until I got to Calc 2 and needed to actually focus on memorizing patterns & rules for solving integrals. Everything, at that time, was rote memorization.
  - icelancer 6y ago
    >> recognize the pattern >> solve problems These are incompatible, which is what I am saying and the parent above my comment is also saying. >> simple multiplication tables (and similar) If you fail to memorize these, you can derive the answer using your fallback to addition, which you've been shown how to do. In Common Core textbooks and in the class my oldest is in, these are assumed facts. Breaking down how to derive multiplication and division is at least a failure of the teacher in the class, if not the methodology, though I suspect the teacher is pretty good. Common Core relies on a lot of memorization and pattern matching. This is fine, and good for everyday use. It is not learning it from first principles, which makes it hard when your pattern matching engine isn't working properly. Both methods should be taught in an integrated fashion. I support Common Core - and have for a long time - as an adjunct. Not as the primary method of teaching math. Most kids will find Common Core easier, I'll readily admit that. It also has better carryover to everyday use, as I've already admitted. But it lacks rigor. >> Back in the 90s, when I was in school, I don't recall this kind of rigor in math at all until I got to Calc 2 We're likely the same age. My arithmetic classes were far more rigorous than most of my mathematics classes beyond that up until Linear Algebra.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    > It precisely does not focus on rote memorization. This is where the disconnect is. It may have very well been designed with that goal in mind, but common core is is memorization in another form. The form of memorization is worse than the traditional form because it involves more steps, and the steps are very unintuitive. I don't think kids will be able to explain why it works. They might be able to recite definitions and phrases that they were forced to memorize, but they won't be able to put it into their own words. I know, because I've seen it first hand from a kid I consider to be bright. We can blame parents, we can blame teachers, but it doesn't matter. Common core is not optimized or appropriate for childhood education in the US.
watwut 6y ago
> You can teach children the breakout method or normal method, their understanding doesn't change Adults utterly confused about (600+30+4)(100+20+7) do prove that they did not understood what is going on. The follow the algorithm, but don't know how to do expressions. And they have been taught the old method. Also, this (600+30+4)(100+20+7) not be too abstract for average intelligence adult.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  I think it's quite possible that your view of 'average' is skewed. Again, you can teach (600+30+4)(100+20+7) but they're not going to understand why it works. They're just going to memorize the steps because that's what someone showed them. That's why common core is a failure. It's a more complex series of steps to arrive at the same result.
  - watwut 6y ago
    If you don't understand that 634 = 600+30+4 or don't understand how parenthesis works by the time you are 12 and you are average or somewhat bellow intelligence, your school system failed you.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      The addition is simple. As soon as you tell someone that 62 * 20 is the same as 60 * 20 + 2 * 20, you lose them. Try it out and see for yourself.
      - sfink 6y ago
        Not if you draw the picture. A rectangle with height divided into 60 and 2, width 20. Then it's obvious the total area is the sum of the two parts. My kids got very comfortable early on with that notation. Switching to the standard algorithm was tough, even after they understood why it was equivalent, because the diagram just makes so much more sense.
        6y ago

dehrmann 6y ago

> I saw parents who were complaining about breaking 634x127 into (600+30+4)(100+20+7) because they didn't understand you can break it up like that and it makes it a bit easier to do the multiplication, then you can just sum the resuts. That's just a more explicit explanation of multiplication in pre-common core math. It's just a different explanation for the same thing.

dorchadas 6y ago
That's exactly the problem though. Parents and some teachers don't realize that. They have no clue what they're actually doing, they just follow the algorithm. Which means they have no number sense either, and don't get that they can break up into easier to solve ways and play around with numbers.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  > and some teachers I guess these are third grade teachers, so maybe it's not a big deal, but WTF?
  - dorchadas 6y ago
    No, it's an extremely big deal as they're the ones tasked with teaching kids how to do it. Blind leading the blind, and so they just memorize whatever new algorithm there is with no explanation from the teacher as to why it works, because the teacher themselves don't know! It makes it a real pain in the ass when they get to high school and try to work with variables, as they have no clue how numbers work.