5 ms·

I have a kid starting 1st grade and I have just been exposed to common core math for the first time. At a glance I do not understand how it prepares for a futu

I have a kid starting 1st grade and I have just been exposed to common core math for the first time. At a glance I do not understand how it prepares for a future in mathematics or related fields. Interested in hearing from others who have been through common core math first hand or raised a child through the program Also the way i learned to divide in my head is completely backwards and, though it works for me, when i tried to explain it to my wife i realized how completely backwards and inefficient it is, so maybe common core helps with these and other hard-to-internalize concepts?

rahimnathwani 3y ago
When you say 'common core math' are you referring to the standards themselves, or a particular set of textbooks that cover the required material?
koolba 3y ago
> Also the way i learned to divide in my head is completely backwards and, though it works for me, when i tried to explain it to my wife i realized how completely backwards and inefficient it is, so maybe common core helps with these and other hard-to-internalize concepts? What way? The classic way to learn is to be proficient at multiplication up to 10x10 and then solve for the reverse.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
irrational 3y ago
Well, one thing is that I can’t help my kids with their homework. I simply don’t understand the way they do the math these days. They get the same answers, but go through entirely different steps. I remember one parent teacher conference where my kid was in attendance (4th grade). The teacher was showing my kid how to do a problem. I was able to get the answer in my head, but she was using all these boxes and things to get the answer and I could not follow along. I still have no idea how she got the right answer doing that. It seemed incredibly complicated.
- practicemaths 3y ago
  I do not have a child or direct experience with common core. Personally I suspect issues lie more in teachers themselves not being taught correctly than the actual concept behind common core though. From what i can gather it is trying to introduce the concept of factoring earlier which in my opinion makes sense since that is really useful in Algebra and above.
  - j45 3y ago
    Learning to teach is very different than learning, let alone first principles learning for children. Having basic understanding, then skills, then competency to remember and test via assessment in that order can be missing even for graduates. Universities focus on teaching young adults how to teach children. The rest of the world as adults don’t learn how children do.
    - practicemaths 3y ago
      And many teachers have continual education. That means the implementation of common core is also upon teachers with decade(s) of experience being told to teach differently. Regardless, if your child has a nack for maths that is a great advantage over the other children and worth investing in since so few people bother to learn it at all. Additionally it leads to better reasoning and logic in other academic and professional settings as well. Which means a better chance at a higher income and ability to sustain and secure their livelihood and thus afford having their own children possibly. Which means a better chance for continuation of a little bit of yourself.
- monocasa 3y ago
  The point of most of the common core math changes were to teach numeracy rather than rote arithmetic. Remember how some teachers said "you won't just have a calculator on you at all times" and it turned out that we all carry around what would have been supercomputers for the time? Early math education realized that too, and shifted the focus to quickly estimating solutions through understanding the relationships of their numbers so you can go "hey, something's not here" when you work with your calculator, rather than just accepting whatever garbage out came from your garbage in. It is complicated, but the point isn't to get the right answer per se, it's to give kids a geometric intuition of numerical relationships by going through the whole rigamarole.
analog31 3y ago
My kids are now college age, but when they were in K-12, I looked up common core, since the standards are published in several states. Honestly it looked quite a lot like the math that I learned in school, give or take. I took exactly the same school math subjects. The one noticeable difference was that my kids did virtually no proofs. When I was in school, my district used a "new math" curriculum that introduced sets in first grade, and included derivations and proofs. (I'd call a derivation a lightweight proof). High school geometry was almost 100% proofs, and it was a class that a lot of students remembered as their favorite. My kids: No proofs. They solved lots of problems where they were expected to inspect a problem, choose an algorithm, then crunch through it to an answer. Proofs were what made math come alive for me. I could crunch numbers in science class, or on a computer, as I learned programming in 11th grade. I ended up majoring in math, and then added a physics major as well. Math is an extremely confusing and fraught topic for parents, because we all viscerally know it's important for some reason, but nobody can really put their finger on why. Some parents treat it as a form of obedience training, or expect that it will magically confer special thinking skills. We know math is a sorting hat for getting into vaunted STEM programs in college. Very few people use their school math after they finish school. In school, it's treated as a tournament, to reach "levels" and get good "scores." Many of the brightest kids are repelled by this. I would have been. The college math topics are the same as they've been for 50 years. A number of years ago, in between jobs, I taught an introductory math course at a Big Ten university, and the students didn't touch a computer for the entire course. My office didn't have a network connection. If it were up to me, I'd add a lot more computation and data work to K-12 math. And I'd bring back proofs. I envision a balance of four quadrants, not in any particular sequence, but perhaps in a cycle: 1. Arithmetic, which is symbol manipulation up through calculus 2. Computation, which is using computers to solve problems 3. Working with data 4. "Theory" which I associate with proofs and abstract topics My advice as a parent is, first, be prepared for them to follow their own interests. This might include not being interested in math. Be prepared to help them deal with the competition, and to not let it cause them to lose interest. Next, treat it as something interesting and fun at home, separate from grinding through problems.
- calvinmorrison 3y ago
  for the general populace, good arithmetic, with a smattering of practical geometry and trigonometry should be the focus for more years of education.
secabeen 3y ago
Primary school common core math is focused on teaching numeracy and conceptual understanding. Students who want a future in mathematics or related fields will take more formal rigorous math in secondary school, often via a "compaction" program that resembles older math programs that result in completion of Calculus by the 11th or 12th grade. Once your kids get into higher grades, you may end up seeing them be taught the "tricks" that you may have come up with yourself as a math person in previous years. These solutions leverage the students ability to have a functional mental model of how the math works, even if they haven't done as much rote memorization. In a modern world with calculators everywhere, it's better to teach students to be able to identify incorrect calculations quickly over repetitive practice on large, complex sums and products. (Times tables up to 12x12 are still ubiquitous and emphasized, as having those down helps a lot when doing other math.)
- zozbot234 3y ago
  Repetitive practice is important - it's about getting exposure to formal reasoning in a "toy" context. You can't get "conceptual understanding" in math without learning what formality and rigor is for.
currymj 3y ago
i think you're exactly right -- it is trying to take some of the mental tricks that "good at math" students would intuit for themselves, and teach them explicitly. this is good overall, although of course it's possible to ruin anything via bad teaching.

rahimnathwani 3y ago

When you say 'common core math' are you referring to the standards themselves, or a particular set of textbooks that cover the required material?

koolba 3y ago

> Also the way i learned to divide in my head is completely backwards and, though it works for me, when i tried to explain it to my wife i realized how completely backwards and inefficient it is, so maybe common core helps with these and other hard-to-internalize concepts? What way? The classic way to learn is to be proficient at multiplication up to 10x10 and then solve for the reverse.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

irrational 3y ago

Well, one thing is that I can’t help my kids with their homework. I simply don’t understand the way they do the math these days. They get the same answers, but go through entirely different steps. I remember one parent teacher conference where my kid was in attendance (4th grade). The teacher was showing my kid how to do a problem. I was able to get the answer in my head, but she was using all these boxes and things to get the answer and I could not follow along. I still have no idea how she got the right answer doing that. It seemed incredibly complicated.

practicemaths 3y ago
I do not have a child or direct experience with common core. Personally I suspect issues lie more in teachers themselves not being taught correctly than the actual concept behind common core though. From what i can gather it is trying to introduce the concept of factoring earlier which in my opinion makes sense since that is really useful in Algebra and above.
- j45 3y ago
  Learning to teach is very different than learning, let alone first principles learning for children. Having basic understanding, then skills, then competency to remember and test via assessment in that order can be missing even for graduates. Universities focus on teaching young adults how to teach children. The rest of the world as adults don’t learn how children do.
  - practicemaths 3y ago
    And many teachers have continual education. That means the implementation of common core is also upon teachers with decade(s) of experience being told to teach differently. Regardless, if your child has a nack for maths that is a great advantage over the other children and worth investing in since so few people bother to learn it at all. Additionally it leads to better reasoning and logic in other academic and professional settings as well. Which means a better chance at a higher income and ability to sustain and secure their livelihood and thus afford having their own children possibly. Which means a better chance for continuation of a little bit of yourself.
monocasa 3y ago
The point of most of the common core math changes were to teach numeracy rather than rote arithmetic. Remember how some teachers said "you won't just have a calculator on you at all times" and it turned out that we all carry around what would have been supercomputers for the time? Early math education realized that too, and shifted the focus to quickly estimating solutions through understanding the relationships of their numbers so you can go "hey, something's not here" when you work with your calculator, rather than just accepting whatever garbage out came from your garbage in. It is complicated, but the point isn't to get the right answer per se, it's to give kids a geometric intuition of numerical relationships by going through the whole rigamarole.

analog31 3y ago

My kids are now college age, but when they were in K-12, I looked up common core, since the standards are published in several states. Honestly it looked quite a lot like the math that I learned in school, give or take. I took exactly the same school math subjects. The one noticeable difference was that my kids did virtually no proofs. When I was in school, my district used a "new math" curriculum that introduced sets in first grade, and included derivations and proofs. (I'd call a derivation a lightweight proof). High school geometry was almost 100% proofs, and it was a class that a lot of students remembered as their favorite. My kids: No proofs. They solved lots of problems where they were expected to inspect a problem, choose an algorithm, then crunch through it to an answer. Proofs were what made math come alive for me. I could crunch numbers in science class, or on a computer, as I learned programming in 11th grade. I ended up majoring in math, and then added a physics major as well. Math is an extremely confusing and fraught topic for parents, because we all viscerally know it's important for some reason, but nobody can really put their finger on why. Some parents treat it as a form of obedience training, or expect that it will magically confer special thinking skills. We know math is a sorting hat for getting into vaunted STEM programs in college. Very few people use their school math after they finish school. In school, it's treated as a tournament, to reach "levels" and get good "scores." Many of the brightest kids are repelled by this. I would have been. The college math topics are the same as they've been for 50 years. A number of years ago, in between jobs, I taught an introductory math course at a Big Ten university, and the students didn't touch a computer for the entire course. My office didn't have a network connection. If it were up to me, I'd add a lot more computation and data work to K-12 math. And I'd bring back proofs. I envision a balance of four quadrants, not in any particular sequence, but perhaps in a cycle: 1. Arithmetic, which is symbol manipulation up through calculus 2. Computation, which is using computers to solve problems 3. Working with data 4. "Theory" which I associate with proofs and abstract topics My advice as a parent is, first, be prepared for them to follow their own interests. This might include not being interested in math. Be prepared to help them deal with the competition, and to not let it cause them to lose interest. Next, treat it as something interesting and fun at home, separate from grinding through problems.

calvinmorrison 3y ago
for the general populace, good arithmetic, with a smattering of practical geometry and trigonometry should be the focus for more years of education.

secabeen 3y ago

Primary school common core math is focused on teaching numeracy and conceptual understanding. Students who want a future in mathematics or related fields will take more formal rigorous math in secondary school, often via a "compaction" program that resembles older math programs that result in completion of Calculus by the 11th or 12th grade. Once your kids get into higher grades, you may end up seeing them be taught the "tricks" that you may have come up with yourself as a math person in previous years. These solutions leverage the students ability to have a functional mental model of how the math works, even if they haven't done as much rote memorization. In a modern world with calculators everywhere, it's better to teach students to be able to identify incorrect calculations quickly over repetitive practice on large, complex sums and products. (Times tables up to 12x12 are still ubiquitous and emphasized, as having those down helps a lot when doing other math.)

zozbot234 3y ago
Repetitive practice is important - it's about getting exposure to formal reasoning in a "toy" context. You can't get "conceptual understanding" in math without learning what formality and rigor is for.

currymj 3y ago

i think you're exactly right -- it is trying to take some of the mental tricks that "good at math" students would intuit for themselves, and teach them explicitly. this is good overall, although of course it's possible to ruin anything via bad teaching.