Kid Looks Like A Genius With 8 + 5 Doesn’t Add Up To 10

[RKMBrown]

Why can't there be room for both? When children start to add, then they need to fool around with the process of putting things together. They need to play with numbers, see what happens when you add two positive numbers, what happens when you add two negatives, discover the patterns. Then, they are better equipped to memorize. Because when you memorize with a solid foundation, it's easier to know if the answer that popped into your head makes sense, or if you've memorized wrong.

You'd have a point if the current CC method was one of many ways to learn basic arithmetic, but it's not. It is being used as the only way which is not good.

I learned the number line method, memorization, estimation (similar to the process described in the OP), binary, base 6, and hex in grade school. It was done quite well. There are no Common Core lessons for different methods in grade school, just this one foreign and inefficient method. That's why this is a problem. It's not intuitive and it doesn't actually help later.

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using the Common Core arithmetic method. Post your results.

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using only memorization, post your results.

That's a false premise because I never said that memorization only was correct. But I can do it using only memorization.

The area under the curve y=10-x^2 between the x axis on x=-3 and x=5:

Solve for x=5 minus x=-3 using (10x-1/3x^3)

((10*5) - ((5^3/)3) - (10*-3)-((-3^3)/3))

((50-(125/3)) - ((-30)-(-27/3)))

8 +1/3 - (-21)

29 +1/3

Fail. You said only use a CC method that does not apply to determining area under a curve. You were supposed to only use equivalent math tables as per your own defined rules. You had to go off and use a formula that has nothing to do with the math table memorization technique. Why is that?

I used memorization only to solve the problem as you demanded. You did not demand that I only use equivalent math tables, and I didn't define any rules. You are correct that I worded my initial demand incorrectly so I'll try again:

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using the Common Core method for the arithmetic portion. Post your results.

Never having done CC I'll give it a shot..
Your arithmetic starts here:
((50-(125/3)) - ((-30)-(-27/3)))
You simplified -27/3 to -9 ... without showing your math cc would do it the same way... you then reduced -30+9 to get -21 without showing you math, cc would have the same result and do it the same way. You then simplified 125/3 to get 41 2/3 without showing your math, cc would have the same result and do it the same way you did 120/3 = 40, 3/3 = 1, 2/3 or 41 2/3. You then subtracted 41 2/3 from 50 without showing your math; cc would have the same results 50-40 = 10, 10- 1 = 9, 9 - 2/3 = 8 1/3.

8 +1/3 - (-21)

You then added 21 to 8 1/3 to get 29 1/3, cc would have the same results and do it the same way.

29 +1/3

 

[RKMBrown]

Actually, in real life, precision does not always matter

Most decisions come down to ....Is Option A better than Option B?

Rather than coming to a precise analysis, most decisions can be made by ballpark estimation where it is clear that Option A is clearly the better choice

That's a different kind of problem involving logic.

Math is math, and should be taught as such. Unless, of course, the entire purpose is to teach mental tricks in order to help kids guess the correct answer on prefab standardized tests without learning anything rigorous that will enable them to have a decent career later in life.

When it comes to math, mental tricks are often a useful tool. You don't always have a calculator or precise measuring tools. You go to a store and pick out eight items. You figure those items will come to "about" $16 and the $20 you have in your wallet is enough to pay for it. You do not need to calculate that it will come to $16.38 after tax.

As much as I appreciate being able to figure out what I can afford based on the money in my wallet, that is a life skill that should be taught by parents (and perhaps in school). But it's not the same as rigorous math needed for engineering etc.

I disagree

I think that estimating, using math to think on your feet and using the level of complexity a problem requires are essential math skills and more valuable to most people than learning Calculus

Forcing kids to think that 8+5=10 is not "thinking on your feet..blah blah blah". It's crap.

That's not what it teaches. It teaches essentially that if you look at a line with 20 points on it you can clearly see that when adding 5 to 8 you pass 10 along the way before you get to 13.

 

[RKMBrown]

...if you read the "teacher's" writing on the kid's paper, what she said is perfectly clear. ...

Apparently not. In order to make the teacher's math work, we'd have to interpret "take 2 from 5" as 5-3, as in: take 2 apples from the group of 5 apples and place them in a different group of 8 apples to create a group of 10 apples. The teacher's semantics were anything but clear.

It is hard to tell without knowing the full context of the exercise

Like most things that cause conservative outrage in this country, we only see one question and that ONE question is used as justification to condemn ALL of Common Core

I would have to know what the lesson plan the kids were being taught, what specific skills they were trying to teach and what other questions and classroom exercises covered that material

(raises hand from the back) What's common core?

Common Core is a liberal education system that is being used to indoctrinate our children into a socialist society where they are not taught basic skills and are forced to learn about homosexuality, bizarre sexual practices and freeloading off of those who work

lol that's funny

 

[boedicca]

That's a different kind of problem involving logic.

Math is math, and should be taught as such. Unless, of course, the entire purpose is to teach mental tricks in order to help kids guess the correct answer on prefab standardized tests without learning anything rigorous that will enable them to have a decent career later in life.

When it comes to math, mental tricks are often a useful tool. You don't always have a calculator or precise measuring tools. You go to a store and pick out eight items. You figure those items will come to "about" $16 and the $20 you have in your wallet is enough to pay for it. You do not need to calculate that it will come to $16.38 after tax.

As much as I appreciate being able to figure out what I can afford based on the money in my wallet, that is a life skill that should be taught by parents (and perhaps in school). But it's not the same as rigorous math needed for engineering etc.

I disagree

I think that estimating, using math to think on your feet and using the level of complexity a problem requires are essential math skills and more valuable to most people than learning Calculus

Forcing kids to think that 8+5=10 is not "thinking on your feet..blah blah blah". It's crap.

Without knowing the purpose of the exercise or the skills they are trying to teach, it is hard to draw a conclusion . I am sure that students learning common core do not come out believing that 8 + 5 = 10

That is the problem with rightwing hysteria. They give you one example, totally out of context and then use it as a justification to condemn all of common core

The problem is the teaching program is lousy and doesn't result in an effective education.

 

[boedicca]

That's a different kind of problem involving logic.

Math is math, and should be taught as such. Unless, of course, the entire purpose is to teach mental tricks in order to help kids guess the correct answer on prefab standardized tests without learning anything rigorous that will enable them to have a decent career later in life.

When it comes to math, mental tricks are often a useful tool. You don't always have a calculator or precise measuring tools. You go to a store and pick out eight items. You figure those items will come to "about" $16 and the $20 you have in your wallet is enough to pay for it. You do not need to calculate that it will come to $16.38 after tax.

As much as I appreciate being able to figure out what I can afford based on the money in my wallet, that is a life skill that should be taught by parents (and perhaps in school). But it's not the same as rigorous math needed for engineering etc.

I disagree

I think that estimating, using math to think on your feet and using the level of complexity a problem requires are essential math skills and more valuable to most people than learning Calculus

Forcing kids to think that 8+5=10 is not "thinking on your feet..blah blah blah". It's crap.

That's not what it teaches. It teaches essentially that if you look at a line with 20 points on it you can clearly see that when adding 5 to 8 you pass 10 along the way before you get to 13.

If that's the objective, then a proper question would be ask for the steps to calculate an answer, not this fuzzy language.

It's this type of program that has contributed to the persistent basic illiteracy for a large portion of the country.

 

[rightwinger]

When it comes to math, mental tricks are often a useful tool. You don't always have a calculator or precise measuring tools. You go to a store and pick out eight items. You figure those items will come to "about" $16 and the $20 you have in your wallet is enough to pay for it. You do not need to calculate that it will come to $16.38 after tax.

As much as I appreciate being able to figure out what I can afford based on the money in my wallet, that is a life skill that should be taught by parents (and perhaps in school). But it's not the same as rigorous math needed for engineering etc.

I disagree

I think that estimating, using math to think on your feet and using the level of complexity a problem requires are essential math skills and more valuable to most people than learning Calculus

Forcing kids to think that 8+5=10 is not "thinking on your feet..blah blah blah". It's crap.

Without knowing the purpose of the exercise or the skills they are trying to teach, it is hard to draw a conclusion . I am sure that students learning common core do not come out believing that 8 + 5 = 10

That is the problem with rightwing hysteria. They give you one example, totally out of context and then use it as a justification to condemn all of common core

The problem is the teaching program is lousy and doesn't result in an effective education.

Given the short time it has been around, I doubt if that conclusion can be made

Common Core is the latest rightwing boogeyman and will get the blame for all the ills of our society

 

[boedicca]

As much as I appreciate being able to figure out what I can afford based on the money in my wallet, that is a life skill that should be taught by parents (and perhaps in school). But it's not the same as rigorous math needed for engineering etc.

I disagree

I think that estimating, using math to think on your feet and using the level of complexity a problem requires are essential math skills and more valuable to most people than learning Calculus

Forcing kids to think that 8+5=10 is not "thinking on your feet..blah blah blah". It's crap.

Without knowing the purpose of the exercise or the skills they are trying to teach, it is hard to draw a conclusion . I am sure that students learning common core do not come out believing that 8 + 5 = 10

That is the problem with rightwing hysteria. They give you one example, totally out of context and then use it as a justification to condemn all of common core

The problem is the teaching program is lousy and doesn't result in an effective education.

Given the short time it has been around, I doubt if that conclusion can be made

Common Core is the latest rightwing boogeyman and will get the blame for all the ills of our society

B'loney. Common Core is just another phase of the dumbing down of education via tighter control by the Feds for the benefits of: Teacher Union Campaign Donations and indoctrinating placid sheeple.

 

[RKMBrown]

When it comes to math, mental tricks are often a useful tool. You don't always have a calculator or precise measuring tools. You go to a store and pick out eight items. You figure those items will come to "about" $16 and the $20 you have in your wallet is enough to pay for it. You do not need to calculate that it will come to $16.38 after tax.

As much as I appreciate being able to figure out what I can afford based on the money in my wallet, that is a life skill that should be taught by parents (and perhaps in school). But it's not the same as rigorous math needed for engineering etc.

I disagree

I think that estimating, using math to think on your feet and using the level of complexity a problem requires are essential math skills and more valuable to most people than learning Calculus

Forcing kids to think that 8+5=10 is not "thinking on your feet..blah blah blah". It's crap.

That's not what it teaches. It teaches essentially that if you look at a line with 20 points on it you can clearly see that when adding 5 to 8 you pass 10 along the way before you get to 13.

If that's the objective, then a proper question would be ask for the steps to calculate an answer, not this fuzzy language.

It's this type of program that has contributed to the persistent basic illiteracy for a large portion of the country.

It does ask for the steps to calculate an answer... Your just reading it out of context.

 

[boedicca]

As much as I appreciate being able to figure out what I can afford based on the money in my wallet, that is a life skill that should be taught by parents (and perhaps in school). But it's not the same as rigorous math needed for engineering etc.

I disagree

I think that estimating, using math to think on your feet and using the level of complexity a problem requires are essential math skills and more valuable to most people than learning Calculus

Forcing kids to think that 8+5=10 is not "thinking on your feet..blah blah blah". It's crap.

That's not what it teaches. It teaches essentially that if you look at a line with 20 points on it you can clearly see that when adding 5 to 8 you pass 10 along the way before you get to 13.

If that's the objective, then a proper question would be ask for the steps to calculate an answer, not this fuzzy language.

It's this type of program that has contributed to the persistent basic illiteracy for a large portion of the country.

It does ask for the steps to calculate an answer... Your just reading it out of context.

Not it doesn't. It is poorly worded if that was the intent.

 

[RKMBrown]

I disagree

I think that estimating, using math to think on your feet and using the level of complexity a problem requires are essential math skills and more valuable to most people than learning Calculus

Forcing kids to think that 8+5=10 is not "thinking on your feet..blah blah blah". It's crap.

That's not what it teaches. It teaches essentially that if you look at a line with 20 points on it you can clearly see that when adding 5 to 8 you pass 10 along the way before you get to 13.

If that's the objective, then a proper question would be ask for the steps to calculate an answer, not this fuzzy language.

It's this type of program that has contributed to the persistent basic illiteracy for a large portion of the country.

It does ask for the steps to calculate an answer... Your just reading it out of context.

Not it doesn't. It is poorly worded if that was the intent.

What part of context is confusing? Instructions are not repeated on each and every question. I'll repeat, you are looking at one problem on a sheet of problems. You can't see the context of the question. Yet, you are assuming you know what it says above that problem.

 

[boedicca]

Forcing kids to think that 8+5=10 is not "thinking on your feet..blah blah blah". It's crap.

That's not what it teaches. It teaches essentially that if you look at a line with 20 points on it you can clearly see that when adding 5 to 8 you pass 10 along the way before you get to 13.

If that's the objective, then a proper question would be ask for the steps to calculate an answer, not this fuzzy language.

It's this type of program that has contributed to the persistent basic illiteracy for a large portion of the country.

It does ask for the steps to calculate an answer... Your just reading it out of context.

Not it doesn't. It is poorly worded if that was the intent.

What part of context is confusing? Instructions are not repeated on each and every question. I'll repeat, you are looking at one problem on a sheet of problems. You can't see the context of the question. Yet, you are assuming you know what it says above that problem.

One doen't MAKE 10 when adding 8 and 5. The result is 13, not 10+3.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's not what it teaches. It teaches essentially that if you look at a line with 20 points on it you can clearly see that when adding 5 to 8 you pass 10 along the way before you get to 13.

If that's the objective, then a proper question would be ask for the steps to calculate an answer, not this fuzzy language.

It's this type of program that has contributed to the persistent basic illiteracy for a large portion of the country.

It does ask for the steps to calculate an answer... Your just reading it out of context.

Not it doesn't. It is poorly worded if that was the intent.

What part of context is confusing? Instructions are not repeated on each and every question. I'll repeat, you are looking at one problem on a sheet of problems. You can't see the context of the question. Yet, you are assuming you know what it says above that problem.

One doen't MAKE 10 when adding 8 and 5. The result is 13, not 10+3.

I'll repeat... the question did not ask for the student to add 8 to 5 and write the result. Nor did the question ask the student if they like the question. How many times do we have to tell you what making 10 means Bodey?

 

[R.D.]

8+5
8+5
8+5
8+5
8+5

 

[RKMBrown]

Here for the folks that don't get it yet:

http://www.eduplace.com/parents/hmcam/reviews/pdf/2/2hmmca-cr-01-01-rt.pdf

 

[boedicca]

If that's the objective, then a proper question would be ask for the steps to calculate an answer, not this fuzzy language.

It's this type of program that has contributed to the persistent basic illiteracy for a large portion of the country.

It does ask for the steps to calculate an answer... Your just reading it out of context.

Not it doesn't. It is poorly worded if that was the intent.

What part of context is confusing? Instructions are not repeated on each and every question. I'll repeat, you are looking at one problem on a sheet of problems. You can't see the context of the question. Yet, you are assuming you know what it says above that problem.

One doen't MAKE 10 when adding 8 and 5. The result is 13, not 10+3.

I'll repeat... the question did not ask for the student to add 8 to 5 and write the result. Nor did the question ask the student if they like the question. How many times do we have to tell you what making 10 means Bodey?

How do you make 10 with 8+5?

What a BOGUS question. SRSLY.

But just keep repeating to yourself:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

 

[RKMBrown]

It does ask for the steps to calculate an answer... Your just reading it out of context.

Not it doesn't. It is poorly worded if that was the intent.

What part of context is confusing? Instructions are not repeated on each and every question. I'll repeat, you are looking at one problem on a sheet of problems. You can't see the context of the question. Yet, you are assuming you know what it says above that problem.

One doen't MAKE 10 when adding 8 and 5. The result is 13, not 10+3.

I'll repeat... the question did not ask for the student to add 8 to 5 and write the result. Nor did the question ask the student if they like the question. How many times do we have to tell you what making 10 means Bodey?

How do you make 10 with 8+5?

What a BOGUS question. SRSLY.

But just keep repeating to yourself:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

Can you make 10, yes or no?

 

[boedicca]

Not it doesn't. It is poorly worded if that was the intent.

What part of context is confusing? Instructions are not repeated on each and every question. I'll repeat, you are looking at one problem on a sheet of problems. You can't see the context of the question. Yet, you are assuming you know what it says above that problem.

One doen't MAKE 10 when adding 8 and 5. The result is 13, not 10+3.

I'll repeat... the question did not ask for the student to add 8 to 5 and write the result. Nor did the question ask the student if they like the question. How many times do we have to tell you what making 10 means Bodey?

How do you make 10 with 8+5?

What a BOGUS question. SRSLY.

But just keep repeating to yourself:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

Can you make 10, yes or no?

I already know that 8 + 5 = 13. And I know how to carry the 1. It is not necessary to MAKE 10 to add the two numbers.

 

[RKMBrown]

What part of context is confusing? Instructions are not repeated on each and every question. I'll repeat, you are looking at one problem on a sheet of problems. You can't see the context of the question. Yet, you are assuming you know what it says above that problem.

One doen't MAKE 10 when adding 8 and 5. The result is 13, not 10+3.

I'll repeat... the question did not ask for the student to add 8 to 5 and write the result. Nor did the question ask the student if they like the question. How many times do we have to tell you what making 10 means Bodey?

How do you make 10 with 8+5?

What a BOGUS question. SRSLY.

But just keep repeating to yourself:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

Can you make 10, yes or no?

I already know that 8 + 5 = 13. And I know how to carry the 1. It is not necessary to MAKE 10 to add the two numbers.

Where does it say it is necessary to make 10? Explaining how to make 10 was the problem. I'll ask you again, can you make 10, yes or no? Do you or do you not know what the question is yet?

 

[Rikurzhen]

When it comes to math, mental tricks are often a useful tool. You don't always have a calculator or precise measuring tools. You go to a store and pick out eight items. You figure those items will come to "about" $16 and the $20 you have in your wallet is enough to pay for it. You do not need to calculate that it will come to $16.38 after tax.

As much as I appreciate being able to figure out what I can afford based on the money in my wallet, that is a life skill that should be taught by parents (and perhaps in school). But it's not the same as rigorous math needed for engineering etc.

I disagree

I think that estimating, using math to think on your feet and using the level of complexity a problem requires are essential math skills and more valuable to most people than learning Calculus

Forcing kids to think that 8+5=10 is not "thinking on your feet..blah blah blah". It's crap.

Without knowing the purpose of the exercise or the skills they are trying to teach, it is hard to draw a conclusion . I am sure that students learning common core do not come out believing that 8 + 5 = 10

That is the problem with rightwing hysteria. They give you one example, totally out of context and then use it as a justification to condemn all of common core

The problem is the teaching program is lousy and doesn't result in an effective education.

Exactly right. A pedagogy needs to be validated against results. Does is perform better? I posted upthread on Alberta's roll-out of this form of math instruction. The plummeted down the international math rankings as a result.

I don't know WHY Alberta implemented this nonsense but I can guess - they saw that it was popular here and so they too wanted to be "progressive." What they failed to understand is that Missions #1 for the education system in Canada is different from the US. In Canada the prime mission is to educate their children as best they can while Mission #1 in the US is to close the racial achievement gap. This math pedagogy was designed to fulfill the American mission so it;'s utterly useless in Canada.

This math nonsense goes back a long way. Here is a report from 14 years ago:

Last fall the U.S. Department of Education (DoEd) endorsed a Top 10 list of elementary and secondary mathematics programs favored by its own Mathematics and Science Expert Panel. Five programs received “exemplary” status, and five others were named “promising.”

In write-ups of the programs on the government Web site, the panelists said this about the “promising” Everyday Mathematics for K-6:

“This enriched curriculum includes such features as problem-solving about everyday situations; linking past experiences to new concepts; sharing ideas through discussion; developing concept readiness through hands-on activities and explorations; cooperative learning through partner and small-group activities; and enhancing home-school partnerships.”

To which San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders responded: “Sounds more like marriage counseling than math class.”

Indeed, virtually all of the DoEd-blessed curricula extol the merits of “real world” or “real life” applications of math, with lots of group work, partner quizzes, student role-playing, journals with children’s entries on how they feel about math, copious use of calculators, and group estimating. That’s according to the official descriptions.

In general, the federal government’s Top 10 are from what is called the ‘Whole Math’ genre — a kissing cousin of Whole Language — where basic skills and teacher-directed instruction are played down in favor of pupil-led discovery, or constructivism.
​

The Dept. Of Education's expert panel didn't have any mathematician sitting on it, just lefty ideologues. This is a top-down invention and has been pushed from the Feds down tot he States.

The constructivist approach to mathematics has its fans, notably the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). This is the group that spurred the Whole Math movement with its 1989 standards, to which DoEd’s Top 10 adhere. . . .

But DoEd’s unqualified embrace of the constructivist approach–sometimes called the “New-New Math” — prompted a counterattack by the heaviest artillery yet in the Math Wars. On November 18, 1999, Secretary Richard Riley and staff spilled their morning coffee over a full-page Washington Post advertisement signed by 200 mathematicians, scientists, and other experts calling on Riley to withdraw the federal endorsement of the 10 math programs. Among the signers were four Nobel laureates in physics and two winners of the Fields Medal, the highest honor for mathematicians.

The high-powered group protested the absence of active research mathematicians from DoEd’s Expert Panel. They also objected that DoEd’s Top-10 programs omitted basic skills, such as multiplying multi-digit numbers and dividing fractions.

“These programs [the Top 10] are among the worst in existence,” said Cal State/Northridge math professor David Klein, who helped draft the letter. “It would be a joke except for the damaging effect it has on children.”
​

And notice the Leftest whiny quality of the response:

Some of the panelists fought back. For example, Steven Leinwand accused the 200 scholars of being interested in “math for the elite” alone. Leinwand, math consultant for Connecticut’s education department, said the NCTM and DoEd believe “math needs to empower all students.” However, it was Leinwand who in 1994 wrote in Education Week that continuing to teach children multi-digit computational algorithms was “downright dangerous.”

Although a statutory prohibition prevents DoEd from dictating curricula, Congress provided a way around that restriction in 1994 when it passed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Title IX called on DoEd’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement to set up Expert Panels to endorse top programs in gender equity, safe and drug-free schools, technology, and math and science. Title IX, like Goals 2000 itself, stressed the idea of equalizing academic outcomes for all sub-groups in the student population.

Secretary Riley commented that NCTM has published “the prevailing standards in the country, so we thought that would make sense.” But critics see a deliberate integration of ideological agendas. The architects of NCTM’s 1989 standards declared that social injustices had given white males an advantage over women and minorities in math, and they promised NCTM’s reinvented math would equalize scores. Equality would be achieved by eliminating the “computational gate.”

Klein argues this Whole Math approach “hurts the students with the least resources the most” by depriving them of the computational basics they need as a foundation for higher math. “If kids get a good, solid program in arithmetic, they have a good chance of learning algebra,” he explained, “and algebra’s one of the main gates into colleges.” The Whole Math programs are based on the assumption that “minorities and women are too dumb to learn real mathematics,” he said.​

 

[Rikurzhen]

As much as I appreciate being able to figure out what I can afford based on the money in my wallet, that is a life skill that should be taught by parents (and perhaps in school). But it's not the same as rigorous math needed for engineering etc.

I disagree

I think that estimating, using math to think on your feet and using the level of complexity a problem requires are essential math skills and more valuable to most people than learning Calculus

Forcing kids to think that 8+5=10 is not "thinking on your feet..blah blah blah". It's crap.

Without knowing the purpose of the exercise or the skills they are trying to teach, it is hard to draw a conclusion . I am sure that students learning common core do not come out believing that 8 + 5 = 10

That is the problem with rightwing hysteria. They give you one example, totally out of context and then use it as a justification to condemn all of common core

The problem is the teaching program is lousy and doesn't result in an effective education.

Given the short time it has been around, I doubt if that conclusion can be made

Common Core is the latest rightwing boogeyman and will get the blame for all the ills of our society

This nonsense has been around since the late 80s.