Ask HN: Common Core Math, Better? Or Worse?

> "Most of you are probably already doing this in your head"

This is the cargo cult thinking behind common core. What the self-appointed geniuses behind common core have done is, they observed that high performing students use various mental shortcuts so they don't have to do addition the formal way, or refer to multiplication tables. So they said, "let's not teach students to do addition the formal way, and let's not make them memorize multiplication tables", assuming this would make all the students high performers.

But the reason high performers are high performers is that they did learn addition the formal way and they did memorize their multiplication tables, then proceeded beyond that to adopt mental shortcuts. You can't just skip the foundational stuff.

1. You can't shortcut your way out of not knowing the multiplication table and basic arithmetic. Nobody does this.

2. The "formal way" as you put it is complex and unnecessary. It makes things harder, especially once you hit algebra. If you can't do simple two digit addition in your head by the time you start learning things that involve larger processes like inequalities and quadratic equations you WILL slow down and possibly become frustrated and lose confidence. If you want to get by in these subjects you have to start to depend on the calculator.

But guess what? Now you want to be a computer science major and all of the sudden you have to learn how to graph trig functions and find the instantaneous rate under a curve. Calculators can't help you now. In fact, everything you've just spent 4+ years cheating on must be fully understood at the manual level to even begin to grasp what you need to know now....

What you see in common core is not some magic a genius cabal created out of a Darwinian spite for the rest of mankind. It is an easier process that is used to create a much stronger foundation in mathematics. Nobody is telling kids to not know their multiplication tables, what they are saying is that there is an easier and quicker way to learn math.

That being said, I don't like monopolies and putting one on education is a dismal thing to do. With privatisation (real privatisation down to the accreditation level) you allow different things to be tried rather than one state staying, "This is how things will be done, hopefully we won't all be retarded in 20 years. If not, let's take credit and ignore that thing called the internet. If so, blame the current administration."

If enough people honestly believe "new math" (good song by Tom Lehrer) is the way to go, they can teach it to their kids. If people think what is proven to be better is... well... better, let them do it. When major differences appear in children from the same generation with one group knowing math and another not (like Asia vs. America), there'll be no complaining to do.

> The "formal way" as you put it is complex and unnecessary. It makes things harder, especially once you hit algebra. If you can't do simple two digit addition in your head by the time you start learning things that involve larger processes like inequalities and quadratic equations you WILL slow down and possibly become frustrated and lose confidence.

But how do you learn to do two digit addition in your head? You learn by doing two digit addition on paper over and over again. Students who are good at this will begin to notice patterns and develop shortcuts. You cannot just skip the learning and go right to the shortcuts.

This is the kind of stuff they're peddling under common core: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/346625.php http://twitchy.com/2014/04/10/common-core-insanity-for-six-y...

Nobody is talking about shorcuts.

You learn by starting with the tens place and moving on to the ones place. LEFT to RIGHT. NOT right to left.

27+38

30 + 20 = 50

7+8 = 5+8+2 = 5+10 = 15

50 + 15 = 65

This is a lightning fast process that you do on paper to understand, and in your head in practice. Carrying, as I've said 3 times now is inefficient, slow, and harms the future possibility of doing well in upper level math.

BTW, I'm no stranger to the alternative media. Hell, I still watch the Infowars feed. (I would also say that the english side of common core is appalling.) But you have to recognize that the stuff is 99% bullshit, just as with the case with FOX and CNN. (Note that math can NOT be memorized, you're dealing with infinity.) These sites pander to a specific audience just like everyone else. Hateful/scared people love hateful/scared sites. Its a shame everyone has to spin everything into something bigger than it actually is.

Just the facts. This kind of math is faster, easier to learn, and easier to do. It's results (already proven) create a higher confidence in math and a better ability to perform at the higher levels. This stuff isn't new in any way. It's the same as using an abacus. (You know, those things they used in old one room schoolhouses where you slide the ones and ten places?) And tell me, how well do you think modern Americans compare to children in the 19th century with math? You sell yourself as someone who might know about a certain book by Charlotte Iserbyt, so I assume you know where I'm going with this.

Check out the Khan Academy site listed in the OP and do a little for yourself. Learn it in order to understand it.

First of all, I think that technique is nuts as an educational method. Five and six year olds cannot instantly intuit that 27+38 = (20+30)+(5+8+2) in their heads before they've ever had lessons on doing math the mechanical way, carrying the one, etc. They need to know how to add before they can start doing intuitive pre-processing in their heads. They may be able to do the pre-processing later, after they've seen a lot of math problems, but you can't just skip the basics.

Second of all, did you follow the Twitchy link I posted? At the bottom of the page they have about ten other links to other posts, each pointing to a "technique" or "problem" in a common core math book more absurd than the last. Your "abacus-like" method is less insane than some of them, but the sum total is entirely consistent with what I'm saying: it's a cargo cult mentality.

"Five and six year olds cannot instantly intuit that 27+38 =..."

"... before they've ever had lessons on doing math the mechanical way, carrying the one, etc."

Really? It's not OK to teach the easier way because you don't think it's intuitive (even though it is much more intuitive), but it is OK to teach the harder way that they won't use in upper level math when it's obviously not intuitive? (put one digit at the bottom, subtract one from another, and add three digits instead of 2? wtf? why can't I just add two numbers? children don't have stubborn bias' that cause them to automatically hate everything new)

I don't know if you've noticed but adding 20 and 30 is adding. They need to know how to add? You're not trying.

You're too stubborn to pay attention to yourself and I'm not stupid enough to keep talking to a brick wall.

One cannot intuit until one knows the territory. Intuition is what the good students will develop by the time they get to "upper level math". And they develop it by seeing and solving a lot of math problems step by step. The "hard way" is not as fast as intuition, but it has a set of instructions that can be taught and followed. You cannot just tell the students in first grade: you don't need to follow any instructions, just start intuiting the answers by looking at the big picture.

What you call "the hard way" is the way people have learned addition for a thousand years, and it works. It worked for Newton, Einstein, and the guys who put men on the moon.

Aside: The day I see a Millennial kid make change from a cash register without having to look at the computer screen is the day I might start taking math education advice from your generation...

Aside #2: I too did an image search for 'common core math'. Look what I found! I think they make my point for me:

http://i1.wp.com/truthinamericaneducation.com/wp-content/upl...

http://greenecountyteaparty.ohlc.org/wp-content/uploads/site...

> I'm not a fan of common core at all, but I love how it teaches math.

When the debate started heating up I took a course on common core. The amount of misconceptions surrounding it are surprising. My favorite probably being that the federal government is mandating it, when it was voluntarily adopted by 43 states. Another is that the images being passed around on Reddit and showing up in your search are the mandated way to teach math. They aren't. Nor are Khan Academy's lessons. It is more about landings than the individual stairs. By landing X student should be able to do Y. What stairs you took in between is your business. Lesson plans are still derived by the teachers, some are just awful at their jobs or themselves have misconceptions that they have to follow a hideous thing done by another teacher in another state.

A lot of what people think is required by Common Core is what someone selling something has used Common Core as a selling point (a similar thing happens with HIPAA.)

Sounds like laziness to me, which is of course rampant among teachers.

It does amaze me that googling "common core math" brings up the things it does. Even in a world where we have access to all information, everyone seems to be trying to bullshit everything. I find it very difficult to find the facts on most things.

But when I saw that Khan Academies methods were starting to mirror "The Great Courses" "Secrets of Mental Math"[1] and that it was a part of the common core, I was impressed. Once I started learning things this way, I was better able to handle all math. I used to hate it, dread it. But this kind of thing makes it easy and fun. I'm glad kids are being exposed to it.

[1] http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/secrets-of-mental-mat...

The great thing about common core is the disappearance of multiple-choice tests. Anyone who grew up outside the US will tell you that having to show your reasoning is much superior to picking between ABC and D.

I didn't know that, is that universal or only for math? It definitely makes sense for math as you can get close and easily guess. So you can have no idea what you're doing and still get a 70% or so.

I can count the number of multiple-choice tests I had on the fingers of my hands, and all of them were tests preparing for tech certifications.

When discussing the multiple choice format between students, we've always thought that it's way easier to get the guess the right answer between choices than to show how you got there.

It's even worse outside of math classes, say history, and you're asked "when did $COUNTRY get its independence", obviously, it's much easier when you have a list of choices to choose from.