Federal study even shows Common Core sucks

[Coiled03]

I explained why those other methods were taught in my reply to you. You might not have seen it. Click expand on my response to you and it will show.

Unless you're saying that common core requires you to teach all the methods, I'm not seeing your explanation. Maybe I'm just missing it.

 

[VegasMichael]

Unless you're saying that common core requires you to teach all the methods, I'm not seeing your explanation. Maybe I'm just missing it.

Here's what I wrote:

I agree there was zero reason to change things. If kids and parents are frustrated at different methods and the teacher/school demands it be done that way then that's not a Common Core failure that's a teacher/school failure. When I teach multiplication I show the kids a few different ways to solve the problem and leave it up to them which method they want to use. But I always tell them the traditional algorithmic method is fastest and that's the way they will likely do it the rest of their lives. If I have a multiplication problem to solve and I don't have a calculator do you think I use the area model or or box model? Hell no. Traditional algorithm.

If you disagree, explain to me why the traditional methods were good enough to do arithmetic, and even calculus since the time of Sir Isaac Newton, and now, we need new ones. You want to talk about expanding their minds? They're in second and third grade for hell's sake! They'll probably expand their minds more at recess than they will with this garbage.

Traditional methods were fine. Worked for me, worked for you. One of the goals was to get kids more fluent in math, to develop number sense, expose them to different ways problems can be solved. You might be surprised how many kids say, "Wow! That is cool!" when I show them different ways to solve problems. But again, I don't make them adhere to any one method. If a parent comes in and says she showed her child a certain way of doing something and the kid is getting the right answer I am all for it.

The only proof I need that it's messed up is when I see correct answers being marked wrong because an overly complicated method wasn't used to derive it. I know you said you don't do that. But, I've found that to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Coiled03]

Here's what I wrote:

I agree there was zero reason to change things. If kids and parents are frustrated at different methods and the teacher/school demands it be done that way then that's not a Common Core failure that's a teacher/school failure. When I teach multiplication I show the kids a few different ways to solve the problem and leave it up to them which method they want to use. But I always tell them the traditional algorithmic method is fastest and that's the way they will likely do it the rest of their lives. If I have a multiplication problem to solve and I don't have a calculator do you think I use the area model or or box model? Hell no. Traditional algorithm.

If you disagree, explain to me why the traditional methods were good enough to do arithmetic, and even calculus since the time of Sir Isaac Newton, and now, we need new ones. You want to talk about expanding their minds? They're in second and third grade for hell's sake! They'll probably expand their minds more at recess than they will with this garbage.

Traditional methods were fine. Worked for me, worked for you. One of the goals was to get kids more fluent in math, to develop number sense, expose them to different ways problems can be solved. You might be surprised how many kids say, "Wow! That is cool!" when I show them different ways to solve problems. But again, I don't make them adhere to any one method. If a parent comes in and says she showed her child a certain way of doing something and the kid is getting the right answer I am all for it.

The only proof I need that it's messed up is when I see correct answers being marked wrong because an overly complicated method wasn't used to derive it. I know you said you don't do that. But, I've found that to be the exception rather than the rule.

Yeah, I think I missed that reply somewhere. In my opinion, those aren't valid reasons. I was looking for something like, "teaching these alternate methods will provide the kids X (fill in the blank) that they're not getting at all from traditional methods". I don't see that, and I don't think anyone can provide it because the traditional methods provide everything needed related to math.

I won't belabor the point any more than I already have. Thanks for your perspective.

 

[VRYALT3R3D]

Here's what I wrote:


If you disagree, explain to me why the traditional methods were good enough to do arithmetic, and even calculus since the time of Sir Isaac Newton, and now, we need new ones. You want to talk about expanding their minds? They're in second and third grade for hell's sake! They'll probably expand their minds more at recess than they will with this garbage.

When you are writing a math test with a time constraint, the traditional methods are faster and more intuitive. This is just needlessly complicated. I am all for showing people different methods of solving a problem, but not when it slows you down.