re: (Not Common Core)-- Why are they teaching math this way?

quote:

---

How much math outside of teachers and engineers do people actually use on a daily basis past the 8th grade level? I received a minor in math and my major required I take all the engineering level math courses but in 14 years since I left LSU I have not had one project require that I use anything outside of most basic math. So outside of anything I was forced to memorized I don't really recall anything

---

Even though I am using engineering as my example, this doesn't just relate to math. This method can be applied to many things.

quote:

---

Or simply answering 100% of the questions correct.

---

Problem is, the correct answer isn't what is being tested. It's the understanding of a concept that is being tested gauged by ability to perform operations and follow instructions. I agree that they're stupid. But given the system we work in, it's necessary. With a private tutor or home education, it would make very much sense that he not be required to show his work once understanding was determined by the teacher to have been achieved. But on a 20-30-student per teacher level, I don't see that as possible. The ones who get it early remain annoyed. The ones who get it late held them up but eventually catch up. I can't say that it's not a good system. Bringing the bottom of education up (grade school level) is probably worth more of our teacher'a time and tax dollars than nurturing the top.

quote:

---

So you knwo for 100% fact that 5+5=10 wasn't taught before hand? Spiffy.

---

No, I was taught it once and then memorized it. I know E=MC2 too... but I don't rewrite the proof every time.

quote:

---

I was taught the old way, and am an engineer. So you;d think if I was uninformed I'd lean against the new way of teaching stuff.

---

My point was you had no idea they still memorize like crazy, but just their starting facts (doubles, 5's, 10's, doubles minus 1 etc...). You attacked memorization as not being effective while ignoring the very first questions asked illustrated the fact memorization is still required.

quote:

---

I don't think it's memoizing. I'm assuming the kid learns why 5+5=10 the same way he will learn why 5+3=8. You call it memorizing, I call it application.

---

Wait, so when the question said 'doubles fact', you don't think that meant 'doubles fact', you think it means ..... You were better off admitting you don't know this stuff. the kids are taught to memorize doubles, 5's, 10's etc... then instead of memorizing everything else, they can use this subset of facts to get to the answer. It is less to memorize, but is still memorization. You might want to understand what you are arguing for before you do such.

quote:

---

Congrats, the child will get there too.

---

Yes they will, just several months behind from where they would have been.

Finally, when you said:

quote:

---

How will that serve as a good base when your child needs to solve 354x286?

---

you weren't actually inferring these current day techniques would be helpful? OK, not sure what you are trying to argue.

Of course since you have no idea what is being taught and how I can understand the confusion.

quote:

---

Did you write that incorrectly earlier?

---

not going back to read thread but I have two sons one in first one in second grade. I don't believe I did but if I mixed the details, I apologize.

My first grader was expected to read subtrahend on an exam and is learning 5 letter spelling and vocab words.

My 2nd grader was asked to do "grouping" for simple subtraction and is still being tested on doubles plus one facts (although I did not re list those problems under the 2nd grade heading) despite being able to do the multiplication in his head as noted. He is at a 4.1 grade reading level currently and can easily read subtrahend, derivative, or even bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy but that does not mean he knows what those things are without first being taught their meaning.

quote:

---

If you want to introduce a number line to show 4+3 = 7 simply to provide basis for more complicated calculations, feel free, but in the mean time the kid needs to be able to flat out memorize the answer is 7 to function. That is my problem, supplement vs replacement. I am all for supplement.

---

We agree much, much more than we disagree. I take it one step further than you did in this statement and say that there's nothing wrong with testing their ability to apply the number line. Memorization should come after understanding the concept. Many people know that 6x6 is 36 but don't understand why. Then when 12x5 comes around, they must pull out a pen and paper or calculator. I think the more that the basics are enforced, the more it pushes one's ability to perform mental math beyond what is generally memorized ("times tables to ten" as an example). While what is needed to function in everyday society is basic, rapid repetition of such facts, I think that can be attained much later much more easily while the concept of application, if taught early, makes the memorization later much easier. And, in 1st grade, knowing 3+4 isn't useful to your everyday life. As a teenager in the store buying pre-bagged apples for your Mom when she told you to get 7, it is.

quote:

---

I know E=MC2 too... but I don't rewrite the proof every time.

---

You likely never learned that proof, much less had a reason to write it down. So your statement is about as useful as me saying I know the word sassafras.

quote:

---

My point was you had no idea they still memorize like crazy

---

I made that claim? Where?

quote:

---

Wait, so when the question said 'doubles fact', you don't think that meant 'doubles fact', you think it means .....

---

Are you implying that the kids don't learn why 5+5=10 or 6+6=12? They just memorize it and never look back?

quote:

---

You were better off admitting you don't know this stuff. the kids are taught to memorize doubles, 5's, 10's etc... then instead of memorizing everything else, they can use this subset of facts to get to the answer. It is less to memorize, but is still memorization. You might want to understand what you are arguing for before you do such.

---

You should probably stop acting condescending when it's clear you don't know shite and can't make good arguments.

quote:

---

Yes they will, just several months behind from where they would have been.

---

Link?

quote:

---

you weren't actually inferring these current day techniques would be helpful? OK, not sure what you are trying to argue.

---

Somehow I'm not surprised you don't get it.

quote:

---

The issue isn't necessarily with the CCSS, it's with the implementation. There are many students currently in our schools who were taught basic math calculations in the same way that we who are out of school were. For them, we are changing horses midstream. Imagine learning multiplication tables and other math skills through memorization (as we learned), and then have this jibberish thrown at you in the sixth grade and be given no choice but to start using it.

---

Was this tl;dr?

quote:

---

Mine wasn't. They simply use doubles as an easy frame of reference, as most people intuitively do memorize those. At no point was he ever asked to memorize doubles.

---

So when yours was given questions like Q1 in the first post of this thread, what do his teacher mean by 'double facts'?

Both of mine were given complete units on visualizing but then completely memorizing double facts, 5 facts, and 10 facts. Then, as you say, those memorized facts become the framework for double -1 etc...

quote:

---

There are computer programs (Such as Accelerated Math, et al) that teach kids in the same classroom different skills at the same time. Some schools use different programs and some teachers may thing their way is the best way and ignore the computer programs available for a diverse curriculum for students, but there are plenty of schools out there teaching difference levels of math to 2nd graders in the same room. This isn't the math that we learned and I'm only 29.

---

I'm not much younger, and we used computer lab programs for math, reading, and language arts. They were all supplementation, though. It was an opportunity to let the upper end advance and bring the bottom end up at the same time, but it didn't replace classroom instruction, which I think is where the OP's problem exists. It's difficult to tailor a classroom like a computer program for individual attention.