Posted on 04/28/2014 7:31:06 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
If the Common Core education reforms introduced by President Obama and supported by big-name Republicans were subject to peer review, they might become a “whatever became of?” question.
“Take, for example, my first-grade son’s Common Core math lesson in basic subtraction,” David G. Bonagura, Jr., writes in an article which appeared in The Education Reporter. “Six- and seven-year-olds do not yet possess the ability to think abstractly; their mathematics instruction, therefore, must employ concrete methodologies, explanations, and examples.”
“But rather than, say, count on a number line or use objects, Common Core’s standards mandate teaching first-graders to ‘decompose’ two-digit numbers in an effort to emphasize the concept of place value. Thus 13 – 4 is warped into 13 – 3 = 10 – 1 = 9. Decomposition is a useful skill for older children, but my first-grade son has no clue what it is about or how to do it. He can, however, memorize the answer to 13 – 4. But Common Core does not advocate that tried-and-true technique.”
The Education Reporter is published by the Eagle Forum, an organization founded by conservative attorney, author and activist Phyllis Schlafly. Bonangura’s article was reprinted by permission from National Review, in which it originally appeared.
Malcolm A. Kline is the Executive Director of Accuracy in Academia.
If you would like to comment on this article, e-mail mal.kline@academia.org.
(Excerpt) Read more at academia.org ...
Shades of the ‘Whole Language’ debacle.
I don’t use verbs. I meant that I might do a calculation and then convert units writing something that looks “nonsensical” like the original “equation” above.
76.2 * 3 = 228.6 / 25.4 = 9 inches
I did the first part of the math in mm, then converted to inches.
Yes, I should write in it separate lines, but life is too short to be overly tedious.
And yes, Common Core is a horrible thing to do do schoolchildren
“You’re equation is correct. Odd that others can’t see it.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Your first word is wrong.
Yes, it is. Got me.
Yet you felt the need to comment on my post. Odd.
Well, it was sarcastic B.S.
The whole point was that the methodologies used in the Common Core ‘standards’ are mostly ‘tricks’ to try and aid the students in passing the test, regardless to whether they understand what they are doing at all.
In the examples I gave, I got the correct answer, but my ‘method’ was wrong. That is what is being taught to them. An EASY way out of actually memorizing the basic math tables for 0-9.
You can’t really build on a false foundation. Children’s foundations are now being built on the whimsy tricks of teachers and administrators who want more money to do less, and only get more if the students test scores improve.
Since there was more than one way to skin that cat, ... Common Core Testing Standards.
I don’t know if it pops up for others, but this is the FIRST THING that I saw, just below the article:
“Jobs for Humanities Majors?”
Pretty much sums it up. We have a bunch of HUMANITIES majors trying to teach math. Is it ANY SURPRISE that our kids aren’t learning jack.
...but that’s OK, the schools that MY KIDS go to are WONDERFUL, and they learn EVERYTHING needed to compete against the Russians and Chinese.
(how FReeper parents rationalize the fact that they STILL send their kids to public school)
That’s not what the original equation said.
I'm not a math teacher but I've been following the conversation here as various participants have been trying to correct the article's author's "math". . . aware all along they were trying to unscrew the unscrewable.
It's not a "wrong equation" because it's not an equation. . . It's a descriptive result of transformation steps of "decomposing" the expression. Decomposing is taking a number apart. For example 5,689 decomposes to 5,000 + 600 + 80 + 9. They are using "warp" for their stepping through the decomposition process to get to their new approach.
We were all taught to add and subtract working a column of numbers from right to left. This common core method teaches a faster, equally valid way using something we all do instinctually when estimating an addition, going left to right, adding the MOST significant figure first, then the next, and so on, ending with the least significant column (if we even bother having by that column a pretty good feel for the estimate), rather than starting with the ones column as we had been taught.
The way we were taught is related to counting—arithmetic—small numbers. The newer way being taught is related to manipulating numbers in groups—mathematics—large numbers. One, the first, I think, is detail oriented, the second more concerned with the overall gross effect. The second can result on faster, more general, estimated, results, that can look at the bigger results and ignore the accurate. The one we learned requires slogging through the least significant detail before reaching the most important data, there's gives that important data and the detail may never be looked at because the estimates were "good enough."
Does every student NEED to know the "decomsition" theory by which the arithmetic and mathematics work, or do they need to learn the rote mechanical systems we learned that will work for counting things?
I have no problem with an understanding of “number decomposition” for students in 4th grade and above. And students should be taught that process.
But Piaget would argue that some children as old as 8 still have not developed beyond conservation of number maturation.
Finally some number facts just have to be memorized and internalized such as the Times Tables. Failing to master these tables makes math computations painfully difficult.
Rote/memorization of basic number facts first is the way to go. Understanding number systems and logical reasoning is built on that foundation.
I compare it to learning a new language. You memorize the basic phrases to get by and then go about understanding grammar and sentence structure. As in most things the WHAT precedes the WHY.
As for whether to teach addition from right to left or left to right, call me old fashioned but I still think right to left serves the child better.
And decomposition strategy has to hit the grouping/carrying/borrrowing wall eventually. It can’t get around it. Try ‘decompositioning’ 95 + 69 without carrying and grouping.
And ‘decompositioning’ left to right is even more ridiculously difficult when you try subtracting 69 from 95. You are expecting a child to see 2 steps ahead. He takes 60 away from 90, and then realizes he has to borrow from the 90 to take 9 away from 5. Going right to left, the student sees the problem immediately.
Young children have a quicker grasp of carrying/grouping the ones and tens place values than the hundreds and thousands. That alone is why computing from right to left seems preferable for kids learning math.
Yep. Math order of operation rules have obviously not been taught well for many years.
It’s also evidenced by the little math challenge posts on Facebook and the majority of wrong answers.
13-3-1 = 13 + (-3) + (-1) = (13-3) -1 = 13-(3+1) = 9
That sign in the last equality above throws a lot of people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.