I've seen plenty of examples of CC here and elsewhere as well, followed by a bunch of people jumping to the unsupported conclusion that traditional columner math wasn't already taught in an earlier lesson.
Some math methods work best when you have paper and pencil ("the old way"), and others work best when you're trying to do math in your head (what I suspect is the point of the given exercise).
If you are a proponent of CC, then please explain how it is better than the old way.
I am not a proponent of CC. The difference between us is that you (and a whole bunch of FReepers, btw) are basing your arguments on the assumtion that the old way isn't also being taught.
Are children learning faster? Will they be more proficient? Will they be functional in life, art, business and the scientific community? Where are there studies that were made, pro or con, before this standard was made official? Everything I read about the pros of CC are full of empty buzzwords.
I have no idea.
We actually have data now from one early adopter state. I think it was Massachusetts. Scores went from 70th or so percentile to 40th in two years of Common Core. It’s our first empirical evidence of a complete disaster.