opinion of this cheat sheet for a math situation

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

?

[free my dawg]

HS.

As a student who learned New Math™ from third to eighth grade, it probably stunted my development.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The worst. I understand trying to make kids learn the "how" and "why" of math problems, but this is all superfluous bullsh#t.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Horrible sheet

[Deus Naturae]

HCS.

I wonder whether changing 62 to 60+2 would actually make kids understand what they're doing with the number value columns or whether it would make them think of stacking as even more of an easy gimmick than they already do.

The terminological changes are just silly.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

ohhhhh dear.

[tik 🪀✨]

It doesn't bother me, especially at lower levels. Although that addition problem (I mean, uh, "increasing situation".. yeah, okay, that sounds ridiculous) actually looks more complicated to me. We've put addition inside the addition so you're doing more addition additionally. But if it helps kids ease into math better it's worth a shot. I think a lot of us enjoyed math more than other students so it may be difficult to empathise.

I don't see how this could work after like fourth grade, though. You have to transition into traditional math eventually, don't you?

[DC Al Fine]

The worst. I understand trying to make kids learn the "how" and "why" of math problems, but this is all superfluous bullsh#t.

The problem being, you need to know the "what" before you can learn the "why". This is like putting an infant in the 100 metre dash.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Horrible. What's wrong with traditional math anyway?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

uuugh

[Maxwell]

We all learn differently. Not sure how it's beneficial to uniform and teach math this way and only this way, but I'm sure some people learn it this way.

[Goldwater]

Horrible. "New math: is stupid and ridiculous.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Is this real?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The worst. I understand trying to make kids learn the "how" and "why" of math problems, but this is all superfluous bullsh#t.

The problem being, you need to know the "what" before you can learn the "why". This is like putting an infant in the 100 metre dash.

Except if you're at the point of adding numbers that high, you should probably already know that "66" = "60+6". If they haven't learned that now, then a step's been skipped.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm pretty sure the fact that 60 + 2 = 62 was already in the old stacky method thing.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

We all learn differently. Not sure how it's beneficial to uniform and teach math this way and only this way, but I'm sure some people learn it this way.

Yeah, I can understand how the expanded form in addition might help someone, at least when they are starting out.  But at some point, especially with the clunky terminology as shown here, a new approach becomes more confusing and just generally worse than the perceived need for improvement.

[Maxwell]

We all learn differently. Not sure how it's beneficial to uniform and teach math this way and only this way, but I'm sure some people learn it this way.

Yeah, I can understand how the expanded form in addition might help someone, at least when they are starting out.  But at some point, especially with the clunky terminology as shown here, a new approach becomes more confusing and just generally worse than the perceived need for improvement.

I don't disagree with that. And I don't know why there's such a need for this one miracle method of teaching people. People learn in all of sorts of ways, so these one shoe fits all education solutions are garbage.

[ElectionsGuy]

And then we wonder why we are slipping in education.

[Franzl]

ohhhhh dear.

[politicallefty]

Yikes. What was wrong with the old language?

[7,052,770]

So this document that was typed and printed by some moron teacher to send home to parents (if it's even real -- most things you see like this on the Internet aren't...) is now somehow indicative of an entire federal policy?  Come on people...

Think back to your high school.  Half of the teachers were morons.  We could come up with millions of examples of "why education sucked before Common Core" if we cherry picked the worst of them.


Let me just say this:  As a resident of the 50th-ranked state in education, I'm very glad the Feds are stepping in and forcing us to adhere to a national standard.

[© tweed]

New Math™

Newspeak, yes

[muon2]

Actually the "new" method in the cheat sheet is a much older method than what I expect most of us used to learn addition. It's the math of the abacus familiar to the Chinese, Greeks and Romans. It was still being used by the Russians when they beat the US to space. It's the math used in mechanical calculators, and leads to faster math performance with practice. It especially leads to improved skill at estimation which becomes more important as we have access to electronic calculators to do more precise operations.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Actually the "new" method in the cheat sheet is a much older method than what I expect most of us used to learn addition. It's the math of the abacus familiar to the Chinese, Greeks and Romans. It was still being used by the Russians when they beat the US to space. It's the math used in mechanical calculators, and leads to faster math performance with practice. It especially leads to improved skill at estimation which becomes more important as we have access to electronic calculators to do more precise operations.

I'm not sure about you, but the "new" method is the way I learned math. We just didn't write out the whole 62 = 60 + 2 when we were doing problems, we just had the teacher explain to us and had the understanding that that was what we were doing.

[MATTROSE94]

The worst. In my college, some of the math that they makes us learn is similar to the stuff on this cheat sheet.