Is Common Core Math Better? (No)

Many say common core helps students understand math concepts. Is there evidence of that?

[@ChancyC]

I graduated pre common core, so I learned the "old way." I have always been good at math (meaning always got new concepts quickly, scored well on test and generally liked math). My biggest issue with math teachers was they hated how much I did in my head and always told me to "show my work." To which my reply was always, "at this point in the process the answer is obvious, why do I need to write out the last 3 or 4 steps...." it was a source of frustration for all involved. All of this is to say, when I first saw common core math, I thought, "HEY! That is exactly what goes on in my brain when I do math. Yes, let's teach kids that so they can get math like I do and we can all like math." The problem I found... people who struggled with the old math, also struggle with the new math. This leads me to the sad conclusion that some people just have brains that easily get math and some people don't, and the way you show math doesn't really do much. Maybe there is a gray area where there is some benefit, but I think we just end up about back to balance. And maybe we lose some in the confusion of a new system. There isn't a silver bullet.

[@PaulHobbs23]

Yes, I was initially excited to see common core math, because I thought helping kids to see through the algorithms into the details would help them develop their own mental tricks and give them a stronger foundation for more advanced topics. I'm not sure we can actually say that common core approaches are actually *trading off speed for understanding* because if they did, then test scores would also suffer from the lack of speed. Speed is important for test-taking because calculating faster allows you more time to check your answers and get through the easy problems with enough time to ponder the hard ones. Given that the curriculum seems to have no effect on test scores, we can't say that the kids are worse off with common core because it lowers their calculation speed, because we don't actually know that it counterfactually lowers their calculation speed after they have practiced these mental math techniques for a while.

[@crusherven]

I've had a similar observation (common core math is sometimes similar to my mental process), but I think it also shows that mental processes don't always translate well to paper.

[@coolguy4709]

Mental math is taught by yourself. It's not taught to someone else. We all have slightly different things we visualize in our head when we do it. It's up to us to find the method that works best for us.

[@FreddericUnpenstein]

I think I'd have found that "common core" style of math tedious and possibly even a little insulting - being an introvert who doesn't really care about anyone else's friends, I had enough troubles with my own. (That's humour, btw.) I learnt addition of large numbers, much the same as how long-division is done, but adding right to left. After that, we were shown we can collapse the process into a row of one's results, and the ten's results on the next line, and then you just add then again. (Much later, we were also shown that it actually still works left-to-right, though that looks a little strange and you end up having to backtrack carries. That's because addition is commutative - I think the word is…) After that, we're shown the marks up top, as simply a more compact version again. But that first step of simple digit-wise long addition, in the same style as long division, demonstrated the carry concept just fine to me and everyone in my class, at least, so I don't think I got it merely because I was "pretty good at math". I'm not sure this common core math approach, doesn't actually obfuscate that with a whole bunch of extraneous chatter, though I do agree working up to the classic way is probably a good idea, but then drop it in favour of the classic way. The counting way, ended with short numbers - from what I remember, once we knew how to add single-digit numbers, even the dumbest students in the class didn't need it any more. Multiplication and subtraction of large numbers followed the same pattern, and we all got it just fine.

[@MichaelMarmorstein]

As a teacher, I run across this frequently. I think a lot of students think we're just being pedantic when we want them to show steps. But there really are good reasons for this. One is that as problems get more difficult it becomes impossible to keep track of everything in your mind. We want students to have practice showing their work with the easy stuff so that when they get to the math that is extensive enough to really require it, they are ready. Another reason is that one of the skills we want to train is the ability not just to do math, but to communicate it with other people. Mathematical writing is very much an underrated skill - the students I've had that write math well also usually understand it better and can more easily extrapolate concepts to new situations. My rule of thumb is that anything that I personally would need to write out myself instead of doing in my head, I want my students to do as well. I've found that often students who think they can skip steps, end up making mistakes that they would not have made if they had not done so. I definitely think that there are certain minds who are more receptive to math than others - I think it might be less of an ability thing as an interest thing. A mathematician tends to care less about the 'real-world' details and prefer thinking of abstract patterns and structures. People who are more interested in the names and colors and personalities of the cows a farmer can buy, rather than how many can fit in a pen, I think are often very intelligent people but just with a different skill.

[@nyarlothotepxxiii1348]

If they don't understand why they carry the one, then digit places and what numbers are were poorly taught

[@瑠ちゃん]

Based on the stats, it seems common core makes it easier for the kids that would normally be left behind ("basic scores"), but at the same time makes it MORE difficult for the children who would have intuitively figured out why the algorithm works either way (because for them, having it more complicated just makes the intuition more difficult to apply), see "proficient scores". All in all, it seems to drag the smartest and average kids down for the benefit of the slowest children. IMO that is not a good idea. You need those average and above average children to be as skilled as possible, because they''re the ones making up more skilled labour.

[@JohnHayes-x3t]

It is actually reversed. High achievers have a much deeper understanding of math while low achieving students don't learn either way and are lacking the 'cheats' that classic calculation methods offer for a few extra points. Also, the entire point is that while it is slower, comprehension is improved. Thusly, we need to compare untimed tests. Speed doesn't matter, no adult is doing quadratic equations or calculating material stress properties by hand. It would be better to stream the kids so that teachers can target what works for all kids rather than a one size fits all. My kids' school teach common core first for comprehension, then also teach them the classic cheats.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@JohnHayes-x3t A high achiever doesn't learn anything of importance here. A high achieving student should be learning about abstract groups and abstract algebras after they finish simple arithmetic. They need to be moved to things like polynomial rings as quickly as possible and then to pre-calculus and calculus. And, yes, we had to solve quadratic equations in our heads in front of the class. It's not hard unless they are holding you back artificially with nonsense like this.

[@scottekoontz]

Quite the opposite. The advanced students have a better understanding of how the methods work, and were handed several methods that they could then pull from their much larger toolbox of methods for later.

[@superkingoftacos2920]

teach regular, then identify which students need more help and have them learn with common core.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@superkingoftacos2920 Students who need common core belong into special education. Mixing them with the regular student population is bad for both.

[@zealandzen]

We learned the reasoning behind the classical math when we first learned it.

[@scottekoontz]

Every student learned the reasoning, but many parents forget that they did. Instead of dots and lines, in the 1970s and 1980s they were unit squares, rows of 10, squares of 10x10, etc. In fact that is still common today. Also, Common Core is simply a listing of standards. A teacher can choose how they teach any of the concepts that are to be covered just like they could in any other decade.

[@lolz-f6c]

I don’t understand why you have to show why the algorithm works in simple addition. After you learn that if you have two apples and you add two more, that’s four, why would you not understand what’s going on with larger numbers? Breaking it down like this takes so much time, that could be spent on rote learning so you’re not arriving at long division and having to use 3 pages to do one problem. My child doesn’t understand what he’s doing with addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division. He only understands that he has to remember all these steps to get the right answer . It’s such a round about way of learning it, he’s only worried about remembering the series of steps. IMO, it’s a backwards way of learning and developmentally inappropriate.

[@lepidoptera9337]

The reason why they are forcing your child to do this is because there are children in low performing school systems who simply can't remember the "why". So instead of assigning more teachers to those low performing children we have reduced all children to algorithmic machines that work similar to the CPU in your computer. It also doesn't understand what it does, but it does it very well. ;-)

[@petergaskin1811]

There is absolutely no difference between 3 x 5 and 5 x 3. They both equal 15. WTF are you arguing about?

[@Ajia_No_Envy]

How about they just teach both? Idk why math teaches is all 1 or nothing, like it's nerf guns, but there are seriously a lot of different ways ti get to the same answer

[@m.guypirate6900]

that's extremely confusing for young students, worse than either of the options individually

[@Nicoder6884]

The thing is unfortunately a lot of elementary school teachers don’t actually understand math well enough to grasp that there can be multiple ways to work through a problem. Often if you try another method to get the same result, they’ll just be like “sorry, I’m marking that wrong because it’s not what it says in the book. There’s only 1 right answer in math!!”

[@darkpheonix77]

A teacher absolutely should accept a student doing any method that functions and gets to the end. But I don't think you should start out by teaching various different methods for something this simple because it confuses a child. As you get to more advanced things, teaching different methods so that a student can pick, that's useful.

[@treesixtyeight]

Let's see the common core approach used to add a column of twenty three digit numbers...

[@ogdenvonkol5014]

I would NOT have ALL day to watch that

[@alvinjohnson2986]

I obviously grew up the old way. I worked as a 16 year old in a grocery store as a cashier. I learned to count money and to know how to give proper change. To this day, I know before the cashier tells me the amount of change I will receive when I use "real" money. Now I go to the grocery store and despite the "computer" telling the youngsters the proper amount of change. Many times they struggle to give the proper change or just out and out get it wrong. So what is the problem with the old way. It sure worked for myself.

[@jakubjakubowski944]

What exacly are benefits of this "new" method? It is slower, requires more steps and at the end you are still left with 2 numbers you have to add "normally"?.. The only benefit i see is that kid does not have to actually add 7 + 6 because he is doing it "one by one"... but seriously, adding two 1 digit numbers is not something that should be an issue even at 1'st grade level. I am not buying into the "more comprehensible" idea. "Carry the one" is just as arbitrary as "one wants to be its friends". You can easily explain carry the one to child as "You write the number and the one in 13 does not fit anymore! It will join new friends in another column". The whole thing looks like someone trying to "fix" education without clear idea what exacly to fix. Just like most reforms in education that are making things worse more often than they are making things better..

[@Swiheezy2]

Always wonder what combination of factors is leading to lower test scores. I think it's much more than just curriculum

[@lthlnkso]

Likely

[@PaulHobbs23]

the fact that verbal scores are tracking math indicates it's external factors, and has nothing to do with curriculum.

[@eragon78]

Well, the pandemic really didnt help, that was a pretty big factor around 2020 and onwards that almost certainly negatively effected aptitude across the board. That may or may not explain all of the drop in scores, but its definitely a pretty big factor to consider.

[@007kingifrit]

@@PaulHobbs23 are they tracking? science improved and reading was stable according to the video

[@chunkyazian]

I'm a genx who had double major in liberal arts and engineering. I'm now a coder and a father of 2. I can see the idea behind common core. When i was in elementary, we weren't really taught to do math. We were taught to memorize a bunch of procedures(algorithm) and the grown ups called that math. Those who struggled with memorizing them hated math. I've also met those who had a knack for memorizing things and they were quickly weeded out of college level intro physics, where memorizing is not enough. I, amongst the 1/4 of the class that passed the gate keeper, practiced the old way and tried to understand why we were taught those formulas and procedures. We wanted to understand where the formulas came from. College expects you to actually understand what you were taught and come up with something that you weren't, even during exams. That's how scientific progress is made. There's no answer in the back of the book that you have yet to write about your discovery What i don't agree with in this video is the guy is trying to measure performance based on the old yardstick. Again, the old tests measures how well you memorize procedures, not how well you understand math.

[@瑠ちゃん]

To be fair against common core, from what I've seen of it it's just memorising algorithms too. But with pointless steps added.

[@chunkyazian]

@@瑠ちゃん Agree. But notice how the little kid was saying the 10 wants to be with its friend instead of "carry the 1". To me, the former phrase has more meaning. The idea is there, but it needs more time in the oven

[@coolguy4709]

Not even college. Many physics tests in highschool require you to derive equations yourself and/or work exclusively with variables they give you (E.g. Given Theta>0, prove that pushing a load up a ramp is less efficient than picking it straight up, but requires less energy exerted by yourself).

[@WalnutOW]

The new approach does not at all engage the child’s capacity to think of problems in terms of abstract symbols. It’s not immediately obvious (to a child) how the ideas of dots and lines correspond to place value-meaning that teaching common core just robs them of an opportunity at understanding how numbers work.

[@tetsi0815]

I don't know which video you were watching, but to me it seems pretty obvious that the boy absolutely understands that 47 is 4 * 10 + 7 * 1 and what the connection between the dots and the lines is. So my guess is that if (after they fully comprehend "the new way") you teach the boy that ye olde way is the same, but less verbose and how the two connect they will absolutely be able to grasp that without problems and probably outperform children that learned math 30 years ago.

[@JohnHayes-x3t]

@@tetsi0815 This is how my kids' school does it. They teach common core so that they understand the actual mechanics involved, then they show them the classic way and a visual method as well, then all problems rotate to practice all three. That way, they understand it at a deeper level than we did, but they have all the rote memorization techniques as well for speed. Math people tend to understand this, but math is just another language like English or Python. The classic methods are similar to teaching Spanish in class with vocab flash cards and conjugation tables. Common core is more like immersion training where you dig right into the meat of the language. The best method is a mixture of both. Immersion first to give the language life, then reinforced later with flash cards to expand their toolset and 'vocabulary'. Unfortunately, that all takes effort and time, which is really what this debate is all about. Without ability sorting and customized teaching plans, we aren't going to see comprehensive improvement the math isn't the problem, getting them to sit and want to learn is. I suspect that lower achieving students will test better with the old method as it requires less investment but that higher achieving students will greatly benefit from common core. We don't have to choose, we can do both.

[@SharronV]

@@tetsi0815 I agree☝️

[@Schoolfunds1]

Look at how much longer it takes for a simple question. As the questions get more complex, common core becomes less and less efficient

[@magdosandor389]

I think the new method fails to tackle the main problem it tries to address: "wants to be friends" is not a way to understand connection between ones and tens. We just substituted one brainless algorithm with a different one. There is no better understanding.

[@lepidoptera9337]

The standard multiplication algorithm isn't brainless. It's very efficient for the total amount of memorization that it takes. There are more efficient algorithms, but they have a much steeper learning curve. There are slightly easier algorithms but they are very inefficient. The problem is that the standard algorithm is too hard for a few percent of the students in a school with a regular mix of students and it's too hard for twenty or thirty percent of students in schools in socioeconomically poor areas. Instead of solving the socioeconomics problem, which would take care of the multiplication problem, we are dumbing multiplication down.

[@coolguy4709]

I think there's also a misunderstanding that kids don't like numbers and prefer to have them represented by images. As a child, I hated how unorganised it looked when we had to draw pictograms in class, and prefered to have everything represented by numbers and variables because I liked how they worked as a system. Again, education isn't a 1 size fits all.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@coolguy4709 In Germany and other European countries education is tiered. They separate the kids into three parallel but unequal school types after the fourth grade. The slow learners get the least education but are being prepared for their future jobs in the trades (or as line workers, hospitality etc.). There is a middle tear for those who will likely attend technical colleges and then there is an upper tier for those who are preparing for university. There are options for kids to "level up" if they are doing exceedingly well in their tier, but that rarely happens in practice. This way the best students don't have to constantly wait for the slow learners to catch up (which most slow learners won't be able to anyway). It is very effective.

[@travisscharich7270]

I think this is a good view on the topic. I know a lot of older folks don’t like change which I think is fair. I also honestly unsure how much Common Core has helped with math comprehension, but I believe they are going in the right direction and they just aren’t hitting the mark. I think any way we can make concepts easier to grasp and give kids a deeper understanding will help them not to fall behind, to be able to learn other concepts easier, and might even make more kids like math. I think it is sad how many people that I went to school with were left behind by math. They had a hard time and had no one to help them so they hated math and they were unable to see how beautiful and interesting math can be. I accredit a lot of my interest in math to good teachers who cared about me learning. I believe one of the main reasons I ended up studying math at University was because of teachers who showed me how amazing math could be like the one who showed me and tried to explain Gabriel’s Horn to a class that didn’t know calculus at all. In general I think kids getting left behind and curiosity and understanding being under-promoted are some of the biggest downfalls of the education system in the US.

[@007kingifrit]

i don't see why a deeper comprehension of something as simple as arithmetic was really needed. and doesn't this imply we are teaching a method for dumb kids to the general population? we are slowing the best kids down to match the speed of the slow ones.

[@hhht7672]

As someone who learned common core math in school and is now finishing my bachelors in pure math, I think the common core was really helpful. At least when I was in school, you eventually got taught the standard way to do the four operations, but learning several different algorithms for them always gave some new insight to what actually happens when we’re doing multiplication and why all those different ways of doing it are actually the same. More philosophically, I think that this way of teaching gets more to the heart of what math is, which at least in my opinion is understanding and solving problems logically as opposed to memorizing the right hoops to jump through on an exam to get an answer. I think that this is probably part of why test scores went down, because the different algorithms you learn in common core are less for efficiency but more for insight. I was lucky and went to a well funded public school but I can totally see how under funded schools with underpaid teachers in poorer areas who only have ever done it one way would have a lot of trouble teaching the newer methods, especially when they’re worse for exams when it comes down to it.

[@lepidoptera9337]

Dude, we were taught half a dozen algorithms before common core and they were motivated to us by the explicit application of commutative, associative and distributive rules. Math is not the application of logic to problem solving. You claim to be a mathematician and you don't even know what math is? What is wrong with this country????

[@hhht7672]

@@lepidoptera9337 Excuse me but there is not one agreed upon definition of math, but it is commonly seen as a formal system of logical deductions from axioms (usually the Zermelo Fraenkel axioms with the axiom of choice), especially at the higher level. I’m guessing you were taught “new math”, as it was called at the time, based on your comment about learning about the different properties of operations in grade school. That way of teaching math was largely unsuccessful, and common core is kind of like an adaptation of that. I never said that it was not taught that way before, but the way math is taught under common core emphasizes the use of different methods of adding, multiplication, etc to motivate a more holistic understanding of math for elementary school students. I am curious to see if you yourself have a math degree, because math at the advanced undergrad and graduate level is almost entirely about using proof techniques from formal logic to solve problems/prove theorems in different fields of math. In fact, every math major anywhere usually has to take a class on how to write logical proofs before even taking more advanced classes because proofs are the language of mathematics at the highest level. To be completely honest, I know the answer is no because otherwise you would not have written such a braindead comment, and the whole “what is wrong with this country?!” bit screams American right wing chud. Do some investigation before you write comments like this or just get the fuck off the internet.

[@harleylif1929]

I remember in 2nd grade 60 years ago the teacher would not allow me to count with my fingers. So I made marks on the corner of the paper and that was not allowed. Then I used my watch and she took it away .

[@thej3799]

thank you for having a rational discussion about this.

[@Hamajaang]

I don’t know about anybody else but “School House Rock” helped me memorize my times tables via songs and I think that was a way better method. Music helped my math 😂

[@twiedenfeld]

Here's the thing, that method is long and tedious and not good in the long run. But... that has nothing to do with common core. Common core doesn't say teach addition that way. All it says is: teach how to add two digit numbers. The method the little kid was using predates common core and isn't in every textbook. So, why do people think this has something to do with common core? Well, textbooks say common core on the front and these teaching methods are in the same book, so they make a connection that doesn't exist in actuality. The problem with common core is that it doesn't allow for different rates of learning. It says your age determines what you're able to learn and if you don't learn it, you move on to the next thing anyway. This is terrible for math which relies on knowing the thing that came before. Moving on without knowing just buries you deeper in ignorance.

[@dave23024]

It's kind of funny that the common core way is more like how I'd do a problem in my head without writing anything down. Say, the problem is 15 x 15. I'd do 10 x 15 = 150, then the leftover 5 x 15 = 75, then add the two together to get 225.

[@fernandobeltran5485]

There is a big hole in the testing data: If common core takes longer to solve because it gives students room to understand the mathematical algorithm, did testing also provide the appropriate amount of solving time? In other words, was testing set to the classic math algorithm solving standards of 1.5 minutes per equation? If not, the data is not an actual representation of performance and compression levels.

[@tommy8716]

I think looking at the standardised test results so shortly after their adoption isnt entirely fair. I'm sure many teachers didn't like this new method, and parents of course arent going to know it, or want their kids learning this new way. There are going to be "growing pains" for adopting something new like this, especially since it takes much longer. Though, I do think I would've preferred that 10 dots became a line, like the tens side, to make the illustration that much clearer. I also can't imagine anyone expecting kids to do this long term. It seems to me just another way to learn addition. There are tons of tricks I learned growing up for all the mathematic operations, and I remember very few of them. Most math is either done in my head, with a calculator, or written out on a piece of paper that would look like chicken scratch to anyone else.

[@viciouslyeatingaburger]

"I do think I would've preferred that 10 dots became a line" great suggestion though

[@itsamemario6588]

I really enjoyed your curious and unbiased evaluation. We've got a good-thinker over here.

[@fragslap5229]

I don't see how one would determine what "understanding" IS. What is it about "common core" that makes anyone THINK it would improve whatever they believe "understanding" is? I think "common core" is NOTHING more than some committee trying to justify their existence by coming up with something "different" that they could assert was "progressive."

[@lepidoptera9337]

The kid in the video doesn't understand what he is doing. He is simply executing a mental program that gives the correct result. It's the exact opposite of the claims of common core. Of course the entire idea here is exactly that: to program kids to pass tests that aren't actually testing the kids. They are testing school performance.

[@coolguy4709]

This only benefits the "visual" aspect of learning and nothing else. As a child, I remember CLEARLY hating every kind of "visual" method of math with pictograms. I liked working with variables and numbers because they were neater and more organised. The way my parents always taught it to me when I was young was via distributive property 12x25 = (10 + 2)(20 + 5) = 200 + 50 + 40 + 10 = 250 + 50 = 300, but I learned to do mental math using a case by case basis looking for friendly numbers. In this case 25x4 = 100 was friendly, so I broke it up into 3x4x25 = 3x100 = 300. Notice how common core has nothing to do with these methods of mental math, although mental math was the primary reason it was established.

[@casusbelli9225]

The common core method is, basically, russian abbacus, only without abbacus itself. And that stuff was used in the elementary school in the early 20th century.

[@casusbelli9225]

Abacus*

[@casusbelli9225]

The real question is how much time school wastes on that, because the aforementioned abacus thing... we did it in preschool and first grade, and we quickly went over to the classical method.

[@007kingifrit]

ive been hearing about this for 10 years and this is the first time ive bothered to look into what common core actually is but no it seems like some terrible new age idea that never got properly tested because the social sciences are all bunk.

[@lepidoptera9337]

This has nothing to do with social sciences. This is the result of anti-intellectual American politics.

[@SharpBarb]

Thanks for doing what you do. Critical thinking is sorely lacking.

[@shallowfrost]

This is literally just counting fingers at this point

[@lepidoptera9337]

Yes, but that is enough to survive standardized testing and so the teachers at his school will continue to receive their salaries. That is what happens when politics gets involved in the education system. You can thank the republicans for this nonsense.

[@doubledispatch6620]

@@lepidoptera9337 Isn't common core favored more by Democrats? What are you on about?

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@doubledispatch6620 Democrats favor quality education for everybody. That does NOT include the removal of money from schools which don't pass some arbitrary test criteria. That was an invention by "conservatives" who want to boost "charter schools", which are basically just a scam that pretends to be a private school for parents who can't afford a private school.

[@瑠ちゃん]

it's just the same thing but one has 10x the effort writting dots and lines one by one rather than simply writing the number they represent. If a child is at a point where they need dots to understand what a number represents, they're not at the point of adding 2 digit numbers together anyway. Pointless.

[@JohnHayes-x3t]

The issue here is that you don't know what you don't know. You just see counting dots because you don't understand that math is actually just another language like Mandarin or Python. If you wanted to learn Python, we would sit you down and have your write a "Hello World" program. Then we would give you easy problems to work through and solve (counting dots), looking up new commands as needed (placement grouping). You would learn via immersion, which is what common core is really doing 'under the hood'. Conversely, you are suggesting that instead we should first have you memorize the command dictionary and syntactical (grammer) rules. That is precisely how you end up with several generations of kids who all took 3 years of Spanish and can't speak it for shit, because they never learned to understand the language, they just learned some memorized hacks that they promptly forgot upon graduation.

[@PaulHobbs23]

Dots and lines help a child conceptualize what two digit numbers mean to begin with. Starting with that makes sense, but a child should quickly move past it.

[@testtrends7545]

Any tips for someone looking to get a start on statistics?

[@007kingifrit]

in what context? normally one would say major in statistics

[@lepidoptera9337]

Get a statistics textbook and start reading pages 1-267. Then continue until you hit the end of the book. Get a higher level statistics textbook. Rinse, repeat. ;-)

[@GrifGrey]

It's probably just to help kids transition easier to the numerical form. It's not like this is going to be the final way they learn it.

[@lepidoptera9337]

There is no point in learning multiplication several times. That just takes valuable time away from far more important subjects.

[@JohnHayes-x3t]

You unfortunately walked right over a serious flaw in your argument. You began by explaining that common core trades speed for comprehension, then compared outcomes utilizing a timed test. That is not to say that common core is even effective, but to evaluate its effectiveness, a timed standardized test is a poor evaluation. Ideally you could find the data from ADHD and other diagnosed individuals' SAT scores as they receive privately proctored SAT exams with unlimited time. That should be a better comparison. Personally, I think their is value in common core. I have gone through it to 4th grade with my kids and it seems perfectly geared towards how I utilize math as a software developer. As you noted, I need to do understand the math available to me, but I don't need to be fast or even do the math, I only need to understand how to apply it. I'm effectively a General Contractor of Math. I need to understand the French drains of math, but I don't need to dig the trench, only draw the plans and inspect the results. Common core makes more 'sense' to me than the rote memorization of tables and transformations. My son did not learn multiplication with flash cards for example. He learned to group them in his head to count them out and manipulate the factors 'visually'. He then naturally memorized the tables through repetition over time; very similar to language. He is far better at mental math than I am for it, as he can apply transformations on the fly. 76/3 to me is complicated as I have to break the problem down into little parts to fit my memorized tables: 76/3 = 70/3 + 16/3 = [20] + [5] + (16 - 15) = [20] + [5] + 1/3 = 25 + 0.333 = 25.3333 I had to tear all those numbers apart in my head to apply the memorized tables. He doesn't have to do that. He just sorts them into 3 groups visually in his mind and one is left over. Also, once they learn "common core", his school then teaches all three methods at the same time. Each homework problem rotates the method used, so while he manipulates math mentally, when the numbers become too large, he still has the same tools we use to wrangle them. But he also retains a far better innate understanding of what is transforming. I'm a fan. Does it work that well for every child? Absolutely not. It takes great instruction and lots of practice, it very well may leave more behind than classic math. But I don't find that a particularly strong argument against a superior method so much as it illustrates a need to create better comprehensive learning environments in general. We can't keep asking how to teach kids with zero support and zero interest. I think that requires that we do the hard thing by ability grouping and applying different methods as needed. If the old way works best for low achieving students, great. If the higher streamed student gain better comprehension by other methods, all the better. We don't have to choose.

[@lepidoptera9337]

ADHD doesn't prevent you from getting good grades in standard tests with regular allotted time. I have ADHD and was the third best student in my high school. I also have a PhD in physics. What ADHD does is to make it hard to focus on learning material that you don't enjoy. Most kids with ADHD can figure out how to work around that. Multiplication algorithms are not the memorization of tables. They are efficient mental math strategies. Common core doesn't give you efficiency. It also doesn't give you understanding. It simply nudges the schools with the worst performing students across the federal and state standards for schools by sacrificing the students.

[@CallousCoder]

Anything that Bill Gates is somehow involved with is terrible. Therefore common core is also terrible. Carry the one, is obvious when explained to 7 year olds. They managed to teach me it 😂

[@Lesaucissondujour]

The concept of counting by digit column is at least 20 years old. The difference is that we used the concept method and continued on to the practical method. Making tally marks and dinky dots your whole life is no way to make calculations or work figures long term.

[@eragon78]

Its not supposed to be done long term. Its supposed to teach an intuitive way to learn it, and once they understand the core of what is happening, you help them learn faster ways to calculate it. There are tons of shortcuts in math for faster calculations. Even with the "old ways" of doing math. I know tons of tricks for doing multiplication for example that are way faster than doing the "traditional' way of math, by using known multiplication tables as reference points. For example, calculating 54 times 9 is faster if you do 54 times 10 minus 54. This is because 54*10 can be done without the "traditional" method as it's a special case where you just add a 0. Then something like subtraction tends to be faster than multiplication. This can be especially true for really big numbers. Same with stuff like 654*999. Same trick can be used. You can use tricks like that all over to quicken your ability to calculate, that is far faster than the traditional style for certain patterns. But you cant learn those faster methods until you learn how to do the basics first. And thats what common core is trying to do. Common core is trying to be more intuitive than the traditional methods so children can more easily visualize what is going on. Just like how the traditional method is more intuitive than using memorized times tables to speed up calculations, even though its slower. And there are even faster methods to multiply really big numbers using special algorithms like what computers do. Computers dont multiply doing the traditional method because there are faster ways. The goal of school is to get kids to understand the material. You start with slower more intuitive methods, and work your way up from there. Its not designed to be long term. I remember back when I was in school and learned lattice multiplication for example. It was one of the first ways I learned how to multiply, and then only later did we learn the traditional method. But the lattice method made it easier to see what was actually going on. Now, addition is simple enough that it really doesnt need this change imo, but common core does some pretty interesting things when it comes to learning other parts of math. Whether its actually better or not is hard to say, but I dont think the answer is as clear cut as people tend to try to make it seem. There are positives and negatives about it. But ultimately none of these are supposed to be the "end goal" of how you solve the problems. The goal is to teach the underlying mechanisms, and then faster methods and shortcuts can be learned later once the students actually understand the core principle behind it, rather than just learning some method without learning a deeper intuitive understanding. And that deeper intuitive understanding will become important when math gets more complicated later on, with stuff like algebra, geometry, and calculus. People who only learn how to use a specific method without actually understanding the underlying math tend to get lost when moving up to higher level math.

[@007kingifrit]

@@eragon78 i mean is basic math really a problem where we need this sped method? i think they are just using lowest common denominator thinking to lower the standards to the slowest kid's level.

[@eragon78]

@@007kingifrit You dont need any method as long as kids understand the fundamentals of what is ultimately going on. In the modern world with calculators in everyone's pocket, knowing how to do fast mental math is more of a small perk rather than a necessity. And better mental math will also come once kids understand it better. I was just explaining how trading off faster methods of calculation which are less intuitive for slower methods which are more intuitive can help kids learn. Even for the "traditional" way of doing things, it wasnt the fastest, but it was more intuitive to understand than the fastest. So my point was moreso that this tradeoff already existed, and we found it justified before, this is just one step further in that same direction of trading off speed for understanding.

[@JohnHayes-x3t]

@@eragon78 Thank you for a thoughtful contribution to this conversation. It is telling that people with a deep understanding of math are almost universally in favor of common core. Unfortunately, it always seems to be parents who do not understand math who are screaming the loudest to just teach the kids some math 'hacks' so that they can fill out their tests and 'check the box'. They do not understand that we are attempting to give their children a far deeper understanding of and relationship with math. "They do not know what they do not know". I find it that explaining to people that math is not a subject but a language helps a great deal. Many, many people then understand the issue innately because they too wasted three years learning Spanish or French yet cannot speak a lick of it as adults. Why? Because they were taught a language the same way they were taught math. They were handed 30 vocab words to memorize along with conjugation tables for each verb. They then forget all of them when they graduate. Those who learned through immersion though, similar to common core in math, they don't have to reference a mental conjugation table every time they want to ask a girl to bailar. Ask them if foreign language instruction in America requires an overhaul, then ask them why they think that learning German poetry and Bézier curves are somehow different.

[@Radblur]

Basic mental math done quick is an essential of daily life. Paying by cash, calculating how many things you need, estimating cost or other amounts over time, etc. If a grown man whips out their phone calculator to do 47 + 15 or something like that... it's a cause for concern.

[@shaunelliott8583]

I like common core maths because I feel that our species should become extinct soon, and this will only help

[@marc8239]

this kinda reminds me of the 1970s new math debate...

[@lepidoptera9337]

Yes, it does, but it's fundamentally different. The new math back then introduced set theory and logic as a consequence of physical observation (rather than philosophy) in schools. It aimed to teach children a very valuable lesson about the foundations of science and mathematics. This, OTOH, is simply an immure reaction of the teaching community to standardized testing. It is not designed to help children. It is designed to keep the lights on for teachers.

[@alexanderperry1844]

This remains me of "Real Books" for learning reading. It was also rubbish. Now synthetic phonics has been made the default, because it works.

[@scottekoontz]

The two methods shown are the same. The case against classic math is that is it rote memory, avoids understanding what is happening, and results in more errors as a result of not understanding *why* you are doing something. As a former calculus teacher, students who understand how things work progress at a greater clip and will better understand the math in physics and other sciences. The so-called CC approach is exactly what young students were taught in the 70s, 80s, 90s... today. As I recall we used blocks/squares, single squares for ones, a row of 10, 10x10, 10x10x10 to represent powers. All that in the early 1970s. OH NOES!!!! We must have learned that darn Common Core! Wait, how did I ever help my daughters as they learned... the same thing. It's the parents who recall ONLY the "old" method and relied on memorization who have problems helping their kids. I doubt the "I hate CC" parents will know enough to help with calculus since they cannot even remember the method they used early in their own education. Yes, the lines and dots have always been there. Always. The "common core way" is a weird statement. CC is a standards listing. It does not tell you what examples you have to use, and it doesn't insist on a specific method. Almost every beef against CC is a poor example where the math aliterate can guffaw and claim their child should be taught the way they were taught. Want to see how slow subtraction is with the "old" method? 500 - 185. Want to know a better way? Well, it's a CC method and you're going to assume it takes longer, but actually it's "counting change" method. For those claiming there is a "classic" way them you have not been paying attention for many decades. I learned a variation of "new math" in the early 1970s as part of class of advanced students. New Math 100% confused our parents, but all of us (12) became really proficient at math. MDs, math teachers, stock brokers, chemists, etc. New Math was replaced by a few other names before becoming CC (including No Child Left Behind) but mostly they were lists of standards.

[@lepidoptera9337]

The student in the video doesn't understand anything about the difference between a number and its decimal representation and neither do you, it seems. Neither do I get the idea how this kid who is still counting instead of adding will ever be able to understand an epsilon-sigma-proof in calculus. "The new math" was mostly about introducing logic (set theory and Boolean algebra) to children early, so they could understand that mathematical axiom systems are an abstraction of physical operations. It ADDED deep insights into the structural interconnectedness between science and mathematics. This, OTOH, simply takes efficiency in numerical calculations away from the student. I have a strong feeling that you are one of the people who were deeply confused by what the "new math" was trying to achieve.

[@scottekoontz]

@@lepidoptera9337 "neither do you, it seems" Hilarious fail. I have a feeling you are one of this parents who failed at math and are wanting to feel superior. Sad.

[@superkingoftacos2920]

common core is just a visual representation of the same thing

[@lepidoptera9337]

No, not really. Common core is an immune reaction of the school system to the threat of being shut down in poorly performing schools in neighborhoods with poor socio-economics. It's teachers bringing the teaching standard so low that all kids can pass the tests that are being administered to the teachers.

[@lepidoptera9337]

Common core is simply a response of teachers to school performance testing. They have to bring the slowest kids, even kids who belong into special education, up to a trivial standard or the school doesn't pass. What we are losing in the process of saving teacher salaries are the smart kids in these schools. This madness is a consequence of politics... well, most things in life are a consequence of politics. In a democracy you get who you vote for.

[@bigfishoutofwater3135]

As a computer science engineer and a parent, how can I opt out of my child out of learning math this way? Are homeschooling and private schools the only options?

[@GrifGrey]

khan academy and art of problem solving are great resources

[@JohnHayes-x3t]

@@GrifGrey Both Khan Academy and AOPS utilize and align with Common Core State Standards (CCSS), because it works.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@JohnHayes-x3t Yes, and that's why American college students are two years behind their European peers when they enter college. The only highlight in American education are PhD programs... except that they are only producing half as many STEM PhD as the country needs.

[@madeabstract]

Now throw a 3rd number in n watch the kids try to solve 47+16+22. This method is designed to cater to visual learners, not educate the mind. So watch how long it takes kids to do simple addition say they decided to buy an extra candy bar n they're sitting there with their hands tryna figure out how money works still

[@zilord3264]

Better to teach how to use the abacus at that point. Wich would be a great idea imo.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@zilord3264 Yes, it would be because it would teach about different number representations. The better idea, still, would be to teach binary and modulo arithmetic. Oh, wait... they did teach that to me some 50 years ago. It's been public school material forever in countries that have rational school systems.

[@Reelworthy]

We don’t need children to care about math at all professor… only that they are able to accomplish it practically… and quickly.

[@GrifGrey]

if this were true, why not just teach them to use a calculator?

[@Reelworthy]

@@GrifGrey Because we want the child to be able to accomplish it practically in the absence of a reference. We want the child to become a reference.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@Reelworthy But a kid who does it the common core way is not efficient. It has a slightly higher chance of passing standardized testing... but those tests are testing the schools, not the kids.

[@Reelworthy]

@@lepidoptera9337 Which is why common core should be ditched and replaced with the original abstractions that were taught before, that were so efficient, that made us a walking arithmetic reference. Common core has failed miserably, a fact which could have been realized in A/B testing prior to implementation.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@Reelworthy Yes, but that does not solve the problems of kids from neighborhoods with poor socioeconomics, either. What we really need is more investment in poor families. Believe me, educators knew exactly what they were doing there. They were saving educators from politics because they knew that they couldn't save the kids.

[@dysxleia]

I don't hate this video at all and I appreciate the perspective. However, the perspective doesn't resonate with me as a teacher, who has found great utility in using the "common core" ways of thinking at the middle school level to accelerate the translation of arithmetic operations to algebraic ones. I simply find it way easier to elicit that "lightbulb moment" from struggling students with newer methods than classical ones, and it makes teaching way easier. It may be because i deeply understand the new methods, where many teachers may be unconfident with them. I acknowledge that my biggest evidence here is anecdotal, but given that i dont want to flood a KZbin comment with all the little ways I've observed it, i really do think the idea that "common core hasnt helped" is misguided. I'd point to the standardized tests as being the things that don't help, because they struggle to assess the things which common core helps with the most. Also i always take standardized test data with a large grain of salt. Its impossible to know for sure whether the questions on tests from year to year are the same difficulty, and test companies deliberately obfuscate any data related to test question details.

[@lepidoptera9337]

In my school we weren't teaching a "transition" from arithmetic to algebra. We were teaching commutative and non-commutative groups and algebras like modular arithmetic. That's how you get your smartest students to have those "lightbulb moments". Unless you are teaching special education, you don't need any of these tricks. You are correct about one thing: standardized test results have gone up... because you have managed to program your lowest performing students to pass them... barely. What you aren't considering here is the damage you are doing to your highest performers. Oh, wait... you don't care about your high performers. You care about passing the standardized tests that will guarantee your meager salaries. That's not your fault. You got tricked into this nonsense by the politicians... but at least you should have the honesty to admit that.

[@jaromdl]

1st grade parent here. I've been thinking about this a ton. Teaching children to be calculators is dumb. Likely the cause of a math anxiety epidemic and a population of teachers who just continue the status quo without understanding. "When will I use this in real life?" is a question everyone has heard. I mean, before calculators and computers, this made a ton of sense to make sure people knew how to calculate with a pencil .. or slide rule I guess. But, I support any method that emphasizes math intuition. As side quests, algorithms, mental tricks, hand tricks, etc., can be framed as "fun" or to develop interest, but if my kid was running around creating algebraic models, recognizing proportion relationships while baking a cake, or solving problems without remembering how to do long division well on paper (admit - who does this still?), that's a huge educational win. Math is such a powerful tool, and teaching kids to "see" the math in everyday life should be practiced and rehearsed in as many contexts as possible, with as much practice as possible using calculators, Python, p5.js or whatever. Math is just soo good. It's useful in countless ways, and that truth should be on infinite repeat by passionate teachers who "get it". The other benefits -- abstract problem solving, attention to detail, critical thinking, seeing patterns, whatever -- are important too, but just don't kill the vibes! With the dips in test scores, I feel there's so much more to the story. As is easily seen, teacher and parent push-back could sabotage new efforts; the method itself might need refinement; there could be a discrepancy between the test and what's actually being taught. I have no doubt it could be ironed out and raise more kids who both enjoy and know how to use math.

[@lepidoptera9337]

The teachers do understand why they are doing this. They have to because that is the only way the schools in areas with poor socioeconomics can pass the mandated standardized tests. This isn't done for the good of your kids. It's done because the American political system has forced a problem that originates from poverty (and that the system does not want to solve) on the backs of all students. Why? Because kids don't vote. Desperate teachers do. Desperate parents do.

[@jondebeer6863]

Sad to see a math professor can so completely miss the point of education. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. We just need to start teaching basic skills again instead of filling their heads with propaganda and flashy, colorful videos. I can find many convoluted ways to do simple operations, which from a mathematics point of view would be interesting and fun, but for teaching kids, we should stick to what works. All this bullshit is just the result of all these committees having to come up with something. There's no value in it.

[@lepidoptera9337]

It's not the fault of those committees, either. What they were forced to come up with was a way to get low performing schools to pass the standardized tests. They did that by programming the lowest performing students to do trivial tasks in a more or less foolproof way. That is what common core really is. An immune response against the anti-intellectual cancer that we call American politics.

[@rainynight02]

Please tell me this video will have substance on the subject instead of vagaries.... Edit: Wwll, it has more substance than the rest of the videos I've watched had. It MIGHT do as it promises, but test scores don't or can't show such. At best, its slower with more understanding. At worst its slower with less understanding.

[@jessehouse3187]

Umm what if I do kinda both, as in I often group the ones and tens in a similar fashion however I then do regular math to quickly calculate the groups, I kinda get how this new method would help kids understand but the limitation of the speed is damning, and I doubt this would actually increase anything in education

[@stigmontgomery7901]

We put men on the moon without common core maths, so why the change? Unless it's just another way to disadvantage and control out children or try to garner accolades for academics in a place where no improvements are needed.

[@lepidoptera9337]

The change happened because Republicans were trying to destroy the education system by testing school and teacher performance. Instead of identifying the school districts that had problems getting up to the normal standards they lowered the standards for everybody to make it appear as if schools had gotten better. It's just US political craziness at work. Expect much, much more of that during Trump II.

[@TemperedWambat]

do both lmao

[@perspectiveiseverything1694]

Children should not be taught *abstract* mathmatics first. NO PAPER. Math means something. And Montessori base ten manipulatives (pretty bead system) encode this understanding completely, through the child's "work", and w/o pressuring them. They learn what & how to manipulate the beads (numbers) through lessons (fun didactic "puzzles") ...w/o the "political educational jargon" sales pitch. They are literally DOING the algorithms bc that's how you solve. The P.E.S. wastes SO much money continually selling the latest greatest whatever through multi-million dollar contracts w/huge publishing corporations. And it's just a scam for tax dollars. A $5-10k Montessori (entire) CLASSROOM lasts for **decades**, no new curriculums, supplemental systems, workbooks, or textbooks needed.

[@FlashToso]

You made some very flawed assumptions. The past focus was doing the math without understanding, concepts to apply knowledge & solve problems. Many adults panic when seeing even simple word problems. 1st Common Core requires the traditional efficient methods. It does not trade efficiency for comprehension! 2nd NAEP shows top state results are twice the lowest, indicating successful results depend on local & state support. Classwork depends on which textbooks used, even with the same standards. Alternative methods avoid 'one size fits all' to adapt to learners, aid understanding & fit situations like mental math & counting change. Teachers have complained about the lack of quality textbooks & teacher training.

[@lepidoptera9337]

If common core would require the traditional method, then it would teach the traditional method. It doesn't.

[@FlashToso]

@@lepidoptera9337 Reading the Common Core standards prove traditional methods ARE require. Alternative methods avoid 'one size fits all' help understanding & teach mental math & making chagen etc

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@FlashToso If you don't want to teach one size fits all, then teach advanced numerical methods to the top 10% of the classroom while the bottom 10% is trying to catch up to the 18th century. Dude, education is NOT a race to the bottom.