New Math - Can Someone explain the value?

[MichiganManLifer]

I was at my younger brothers place earlier this week and his kid was doing math homework. He's a smart kid and was struggling and arguing with my brother on how he needed to do his math homework. When he showed me, it looked like the most backward, low brow (pandering to the dumbest kids that can't figure out the old faithful way we all used math), inefficient way I've ever seen. In fact, i don't think I could invent a dumber, more inefficient set up for math.

Can anyone explain why they are doing this to kids in elementary or middle school (or all school, as far as I know)?

 

[BABiscuit]

Unfortunately, I doubt anybody is going to be able to explain it to you.

 

[Joes Place]

I was at my younger brothers place earlier this week and his kid was doing math homework. He's a smart kid and was struggling and arguing with my brother on how he needed to do his math homework. When he showed me, it looked like the most backward, low brow (pandering to the dumbest kids that can't figure out the old faithful way we all used math), inefficient way I've ever seen. In fact, i don't think I could invent a dumber, more inefficient set up for math.

Can anyone explain why they are doing this to kids in elementary or middle school (or all school, as far as I know)?

I agree; most of it is utter nonsense.

Forcing kids to learn the math using a specific tool and ONLY that tool is worthless. You need to allow them to try using what makes sense to them, so long as it ends up correct and giving them the correct answers (and, will allow them to build on the method as they get into more complex problems).

Many of the 'new math' methods make the problems far more complicated and confusing than they need to be. If a kid ALREADY can figure out how to solve the problem using a way he understands and is right, WHO CARES about some 'common core' method? Use the other methods for the kids who CAN'T figure the problem out, until you hit on the process that clicks for them.

IMO, some of this is because you have incompetent teachers who don't understand the problems.....

 

[CeMar_Clone]

I was at my younger brothers place earlier this week and his kid was doing math homework. He's a smart kid and was struggling and arguing with my brother on how he needed to do his math homework. When he showed me, it looked like the most backward, low brow (pandering to the dumbest kids that can't figure out the old faithful way we all used math), inefficient way I've ever seen. In fact, i don't think I could invent a dumber, more inefficient set up for math.

Can anyone explain why they are doing this to kids in elementary or middle school (or all school, as far as I know)?

Having teachers in my family, I know that the education system is being designed for the stupid kids, not the smart ones.

 

[BABiscuit]

I agree; most of it is utter nonsense.

Forcing kids to learn the math using a specific tool and ONLY that tool is worthless. You need to allow them to try using what makes sense to them, so long as it ends up correct and giving them the correct answers (and, will allow them to build on the method as they get into more complex problems).

Many of the 'new math' methods make the problems far more complicated and confusing than they need to be. If a kid ALREADY can figure out how to solve the problem using a way he understands and is right, WHO CARES about some 'common core' method? Use the other methods for the kids who CAN'T figure the problem out, until you hit on the process that clicks for them.

IMO, some of this is because you have incompetent teachers who don't understand the problems.....

What you described is what my wife says they do. Teach new methods on simpler problems in the hope that they will make it easier to use those methods on more advanced problems. Find what works best for the kid. Also, there is no common core method.

 

[sdhawkeye]

I agree; most of it is utter nonsense.

Forcing kids to learn the math using a specific tool and ONLY that tool is worthless. You need to allow them to try using what makes sense to them, so long as it ends up correct and giving them the correct answers (and, will allow them to build on the method as they get into more complex problems).

Many of the 'new math' methods make the problems far more complicated and confusing than they need to be. If a kid ALREADY can figure out how to solve the problem using a way he understands and is right, WHO CARES about some 'common core' method? Use the other methods for the kids who CAN'T figure the problem out, until you hit on the process that clicks for them.

IMO, some of this is because you have incompetent teachers who don't understand the problems.....

This would be the correct answer. Oh, and .....

 

[Joes Place]

What you described is what my wife says they do. Teach new methods on simpler problems in the hope that they will make it easier to use those methods on more advanced problems. Find what works best for the kid. Also, there is no common core method.

...which is how it should work. I've just seen far too many math problems where the kid is dinged for not solving a problem using a specific method. Show them the methods, and let THEM choose which one makes sense for them to solve the problems, instead of dictating which method to use. Give them the options, because everyone sees the problems differently, and some of the methods just don't make any sense to some kids, or make things too complicated for them.

The 'old math' way I learned, with standard multiplication/division, works fine; and it's great to show other methods too if it helps ingrain the concepts for them.

 

[IACub]

I was at my younger brothers place earlier this week and his kid was doing math homework. He's a smart kid and was struggling and arguing with my brother on how he needed to do his math homework. When he showed me, it looked like the most backward, low brow (pandering to the dumbest kids that can't figure out the old faithful way we all used math), inefficient way I've ever seen. In fact, i don't think I could invent a dumber, more inefficient set up for math.

Can anyone explain why they are doing this to kids in elementary or middle school (or all school, as far as I know)?

Congratulations, you may have just posted something we can all agree on!

 

[Bulldogs1974]

Give a big thank you to Everyday Math, from the university of chicago. The single worst thing I've seen in 20 years of education. Fortunately our school looking at moving away from it, unfortunately we doomed over a decade of grades.

 

[moral_victory]

i don't think I could invent a dumber, more inefficient set up for math

I have confidence that you could.

 

[hawkifann]

...which is how it should work. I've just seen far too many math problems where the kid is dinged for not solving a problem using a specific method. Show them the methods, and let THEM choose which one makes sense for them to solve the problems, instead of dictating which method to use. Give them the options, because everyone sees the problems differently, and some of the methods just don't make any sense to some kids, or make things too complicated for them.

The 'old math' way I learned, with standard multiplication/division, works fine; and it's great to show other methods too if it helps ingrain the concepts for them.

I have one kid in 6th and one in 3rd, so I've seen a lot of the elementary math. One key thing is that they teach these approaches one at a time....meaning that while they're learning one approach, the kids HAVE to work on that approach. Over the course of time, my kids have been exposed to a variety of math problem-solving techniques. Many of them are things I've used over the years to break problems down in my own head. I really, really like the math approach.

 

[PerkyForHerky]

Some of it depends on intent. I used what is basically the new method in high school at Quik Trip when I was at a register, and it was far superior (both quicker and more accurate). It's good for kids (heck, adults) to learn different ways to come about a solution.

 

[hawkifann]

Some of it depends on intent. I used what is basically the new method in high school at Quik Trip when I was at a register, and it was far superior (both quicker and more accurate). It's good for kids (heck, adults) to learn different ways to come about a solution.

It's also teaching them some of the basic laws of math before they even realize they're learning stuff like the transitive property. If someone asks me today what 1329 + 493 is, I'm going to do one of a few things. I'm either going to rough-guess it and go 1300+500 in my head and know that I'm going to be just a touch over 1800 or I'll break the problem up in my head to 1300+400+30+92 and get to 1822. At no point would I bring out scratch paper and stack them for addition where I can carry.

I also think that what looks dumb in 2nd grade is going to be very helpful later when they move on to more complex math. My kids were solving basic algebra problems in 2nd grade without even realizing it and the ability to break numbers up into component parts is going to be very helpful when they start working on fractions later.

 

[hansenhawk]

My 4th grader needed me to help him with it, I couldn't figure it out.

It's BS

 

[Bulldogs1974]

It's also teaching them some of the basic laws of math before they even realize they're learning stuff like the transitive property. If someone asks me today what 1329 + 493 is, I'm going to do one of a few things. I'm either going to rough-guess it and go 1300+500 in my head and know that I'm going to be just a touch over 1800 or I'll break the problem up in my head to 1300+400+30+92 and get to 1822. At no point would I bring out scratch paper and stack them for addition where I can carry.

I also think that what looks dumb in 2nd grade is going to be very helpful later when they move on to more complex math. My kids were solving basic algebra problems in 2nd grade without even realizing it and the ability to break numbers up into component parts is going to be very helpful when they start working on fractions later.

If you are capable of doing that in your head you are capable of carrying a 1.

 

[hawkifann]

If you are capable of doing that in your head you are capable of carrying a 1.

It has nothing to do with being capable of carrying a 1.

 

[iCRUNCH]

My 4th grader needed me to help him with it, I couldn't figure it out.

It's BS

My son is also in 4th, and I struggle with a lot of the questions.

 

[Skidlt]

My wife(no pic) is a 2nd grade teacher and the comments in this thread are a good synopsis of what she hears, sees and teaches.

They are trying to get away form the "drill and kill" method that I learned as a child and had a lot of success with at the time. For today's parents some of the new methods look insanely complicated.

The key to all of this is the teacher and the school. In the "new" math mutiple ways to solve problems are supposed to be presented. When they are doing this one approach may be mandated while they are learning the approach and then they will move on to another. In the end the child is supposed to use whatever approach works best while learning that there are multiple ways to get to the right result.

The problem is when a school or teacher does not understand multiple methods or refuses to teach them based on what they think the "right" method is.

In talking to a few former math majors that I know, that are not in teaching, they generally support "new" math as a way to better math understanding down the road when kids get into the higher levels like calc and algebra.

BTW - I can't help my kids with most of the new methods, but that does not mean that the approach lacks value. It is all in how it is implemented imo.

 

[rocketclone]

The "new" math is interesting. I have seen some of the problems. At first, it does not seem efficient. It seems that the world of business and academia may be on a collision course. We will see. Business wants efficiency and if it takes people longer to do things it may be a problem.

Hopefully this isn't like the whole milk deal. 20 years later you look back and go ooppss

 

[hawkifann]

The "new" math is interesting. I have seen some of the problems. At first, it does not seem efficient. It seems that the world of business and academia may be on a collision course. We will see. Business wants efficiency and if it takes people longer to do things it may be a problem.

Hopefully this isn't like the whole milk deal. 20 years later you look back and go ooppss

I think you have to look at efficiency in the big picture and not just the small picture. Outside of memorization of basic math facts (like single digit addition/subtraction/multiplication/division tables, etc.), the point of math homework in 2nd-5th grade isn't to efficiently get the right answer, it's to learn the basic fundamentals of math so that they can manipulate numbers in the real world later. Doing 23-7 using some of these new techniques looks ridiculous when simply counting back 7 numbers from 23 gets you the right answer, but these new techniques teach the kids that numbers are collections of sets with properties. At the higher levels of math, that's really powerful. It also gives kids the building blocks to let them be pretty confident with estimations and "math on the fly" in the real world.

It's really no different than a cashier learning to count change by starting with the total and then counting up to the bill(s) the customer gave. Something cost $2.87 and the customer pays with a $20? 3 pennies makes $2.90, a dime makes it $3.00, two singles makes it $5, a $5 bill makes it $10 and a $10 bill makes $20. Anyone should be able to do that on the fly, even if they can't do the equivalent of the 2000-287=1713 math problem in their head in the moment.

 

[Greenway4Prez]

My son is in first grade, so he's just scratching the surface on the math front. No complaints so far.

BUT.

If you're going to teach varying methods of math to give the child a broader understanding for when they are older, then why in the hell are they teaching them "sight words" (which is basically memorizing oft-used words) instead of sounding them out? It seems contradictory.

 

[Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo]

Ol' Doodle is just guessing, based on the description, that this was maybe Lattice or Bowtie method. Once you know how they work (and yes, Doodle and Mrs. D had to look up on YouTube to figure Lattice out), they actually make pretty simple sense.

But the great thing about the school district in Prestigious West Bloomington where Little Doodle attends, is that while they teach these newer methods, they also encourage parents to work with their kids to figure out what way works best for them. Little Doodle is well versed now, even though she does not particularly care for math, in (among other things) Lattice, Bowtie, and good old fashioned, tried and true carry/borrow the 1, drop the zero type methods that most of us probably grew up with.

The teachers want the kids to demonstrate SOME level of proficiency at the various methods....but at the end of the day, they simply care that the kid finds a method that works for them.

And yes, some of these methods seem VERY work-intensive for smaller equations....but could be helpful for much bigger equations.

 

[hawkifann]

My son is in first grade, so he's just scratching the surface on the math front. No complaints so far.

BUT.

If you're going to teach varying methods of math to give the child a broader understanding for when they are older, then why in the hell are they teaching them "sight words" (which is basically memorizing oft-used words) instead of sounding them out? It seems contradictory.

How is it contradictory? Sight words are the language equivalent of basic math add/subtract/multiply/divide tables. The "new" ways of solving these math problems are great, but it doesn't get kids out of having to know their basic math facts. If they don't know those, the problem solving methods don't matter.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

Ol' Doodle is just guessing, based on the description, that this was maybe Lattice or Bowtie method. Once you know how they work (and yes, Doodle and Mrs. D had to look up on YouTube to figure Lattice out), they actually make pretty simple sense.

But the great thing about the school district in Prestigious West Bloomington where Little Doodle attends, is that while they teach these newer methods, they also encourage parents to work with their kids to figure out what way works best for them. Little Doodle is well versed now, even though she does not particularly care for math, in (among other things) Lattice, Bowtie, and good old fashioned, tried and true carry/borrow the 1, drop the zero type methods that most of us probably grew up with.

The teachers want the kids to demonstrate SOME level of proficiency at the various methods....but at the end of the day, they simply care that the kid finds a method that works for them.

And yes, some of these methods seem VERY work-intensive for smaller equations....but could be helpful for much bigger equations.

View embedded media

The number of pencil strokes and effort for those are unnecessary

 

[Bulldogs1974]

The problems with showing all of these techniques is that they scratch the surface then move on and come back to it months later or even next year.
Do different kids learn differently yes. Many of the techniques are just cute ways of doing the same thing and it simply serves to confuse more than it helps.
when kids like to come to your class or subject they will do better, outside of parenting I think it's the biggest factor to success. The new math methods have only served to confuse kids and make a much higher % than ever hate math. I have seen it in my own school and had the exact same discussion with other science teachers around the state who are frustrated with declining math skills. While ited math scores have been stagnant many school just simply don't do the computation section anymore which I have no doubt would be ugly.

 

[Chewback]

Ol' Doodle is just guessing, based on the description, that this was maybe Lattice or Bowtie method. Once you know how they work (and yes, Doodle and Mrs. D had to look up on YouTube to figure Lattice out), they actually make pretty simple sense.

But the great thing about the school district in Prestigious West Bloomington where Little Doodle attends, is that while they teach these newer methods, they also encourage parents to work with their kids to figure out what way works best for them. Little Doodle is well versed now, even though she does not particularly care for math, in (among other things) Lattice, Bowtie, and good old fashioned, tried and true carry/borrow the 1, drop the zero type methods that most of us probably grew up with.

The teachers want the kids to demonstrate SOME level of proficiency at the various methods....but at the end of the day, they simply care that the kid finds a method that works for them.

And yes, some of these methods seem VERY work-intensive for smaller equations....but could be helpful for much bigger equations.

View embedded media

That is just silly.