No doing well with Common Core, but we'll with Singapore math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The most amusing thing about your post...there is nothing concrete about rote memorization.

Also, the parents lamenting the language used in the math, it is undoubtedly the language used in the classroom when the math is taught.

No one is complaining about the language of math per se. Fine to teach and use terms like number sentence, addend, difference and so on. It is the English used for the directions that is the problem. In the examples OP has given the wording in the directions lacks precision and clarity.

I don't know; I think the language in the directions is plenty clear. In the first (top) example, the students are being asked to complete the equation; recall the meanings of "doubles," "count on," "doubles plus one," and "doubles minus one;" and code them with different colors. In the second (bottom) example, the students are asked to listen to the problem--which, of course, we can't hear--and write two different ways to show how the numbers interact mathematically. I don't see a problem with this.

And yet, the massive failure of our children persist.

So clearly, there is a problem with it.

If you're referring to the PISA scores, well, these first graders aren't taking it yet.

I agree, these worksheets are not the most clear. But with a good teacher, the students will be fine, since they will be familiar with the terminology. A parent who complains about the terminology, rather than learning it and using it, won't help her child though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The most amusing thing about your post...there is nothing concrete about rote memorization.

Also, the parents lamenting the language used in the math, it is undoubtedly the language used in the classroom when the math is taught.

No one is complaining about the language of math per se. Fine to teach and use terms like number sentence, addend, difference and so on. It is the English used for the directions that is the problem. In the examples OP has given the wording in the directions lacks precision and clarity.

I don't know; I think the language in the directions is plenty clear. In the first (top) example, the students are being asked to complete the equation; recall the meanings of "doubles," "count on," "doubles plus one," and "doubles minus one;" and code them with different colors. In the second (bottom) example, the students are asked to listen to the problem--which, of course, we can't hear--and write two different ways to show how the numbers interact mathematically. I don't see a problem with this.

One of the PPs complaining about language clarity. On the earlier set of papers OP provided the second page (couldn't see the first in detail) was clearly lacking in the language department.

On the second set that you are referencing, the instructions to the first set were not necessarily unclear. But it asked students to do three different things for each problem. That's a heavy demand on the processing skills of the average first grader and is sure to end up in frustration for many. On the second set, OP's child actually got the problem right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The most amusing thing about your post...there is nothing concrete about rote memorization.

Also, the parents lamenting the language used in the math, it is undoubtedly the language used in the classroom when the math is taught.

No one is complaining about the language of math per se. Fine to teach and use terms like number sentence, addend, difference and so on. It is the English used for the directions that is the problem. In the examples OP has given the wording in the directions lacks precision and clarity.

I don't know; I think the language in the directions is plenty clear. In the first (top) example, the students are being asked to complete the equation; recall the meanings of "doubles," "count on," "doubles plus one," and "doubles minus one;" and code them with different colors. In the second (bottom) example, the students are asked to listen to the problem--which, of course, we can't hear--and write two different ways to show how the numbers interact mathematically. I don't see a problem with this.

One of the PPs complaining about language clarity. On the earlier set of papers OP provided the second page (couldn't see the first in detail) was clearly lacking in the language department.

On the second set that you are referencing, the instructions to the first set were not necessarily unclear. But it asked students to do three different things for each problem. That's a heavy demand on the processing skills of the average first grader and is sure to end up in frustration for many. On the second set, OP's child actually got the problem right.

Yep. Hundreds of critics weighed in saying many of the standards are developmentally inappropriate -- and they are so right.

But the Common Core fanatics are going to find out the hard way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not that PP. Doubles are not the last way to add, they are one of the first ways. One strategy, to use at the beginning of learning about addition. They are not the end goal, although bad math programs/teachers might teach them as if they are. Just one way to use numbers. PP was showing that even Singapore math describes them as a first method, before students memorize addition facts.

There's no need to get angry about doubles, counting on, etc. These are very junior-level strategies that students will soon move on from.

Again, no, Singapore Math does not use doubles. They do have books dedicated to Common Core specifically and maybe that's where people keep getting this quote from.

The original, regular Singapore math does not use doubles. At all. I have used their books for 2-3 years now. No, there is no doubes concept in there. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are selectively quoting from the beginning first semester teachers guide. Counting on and doubles are only used to help kids memorize facts up to 10. By the middle of first grade kids are supposed to have memorized these facts because they are NOT used when adding over 10. Here is the next sentence in the teachers manual that you didn't include.


Students will probably be able to count on 1, 2, or 3 quickly without using fingers. Fingers can be used if needed to begin with. Note that counting on as a strategy is used only for adding 1, 2, or 3 in this curriculum. The goal is quick computation, and with adding on greater numbers, it becomes harder to keep track of how many are added on and to know where to stop without fingers or number lines. Also, adding numbers where the sum is greater than 10 will be taught in the context of the base-10 concept.

So 6 +7 is never taught as a double +/- 1 in Singapore Math.

Well, first of all I was just pointing out that Singapore does indeed have the terminology "doubles" and "Doubles +1" etc. It's a great way to help young children learn how to add two numbers without just plain counting on their fingers. Someone asked "whatever happened to memorization" -- here's the thing. Some kids honestly don't know how to memorize their facts. You can show them flashcards and make them repeat over and over again but it just doesn't sink in. The kids for whom pure repetition of facts works quickly, are likely those who are using these techniques spontaneously. Kind of like how some kids just seem to pick up decoding without needing much explicit instruction.

As for not using the "doubles +1" strategy to teach 6+7 ... yes, that is absolutely true. Singapore Math curriculum isn't some crazy curriculum that someone threw together, it is based on principals that are the most efficient way to teach and learn. That's why kids are taught to decompose numbers quickly (break down into parts) and also they spend a lot of time making number bonds to ten (1+9, 2+8 etc). To learn how to add 6+7 kids take the larger number 7, think about what number they need to add to it to make 10 (a 3) and then they break the other added in 3+ 3.

So 7+6 becomes 7 + 3 + 3 which kids can quickly see is 10 + 3 = 13.

It seems complicated when you write it all out like that, but kids do it very quickly.

This is the kind of mental math and these are the kids of strategies that work very well in Singapore Math. However, people here in the US seem to only halfway understand the concepts and they are applying them inappropriately in the curricula and worksheets they are designing. I'm not wild about activities that have kids coloring the problem based on whether it is a doubles fact or a doubles plus one fact. That's silly. If you have taught the children well, they should be able to just solve the problems using the technique you taught them. They don't need to know the label for the type of problem it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not that PP. Doubles are not the last way to add, they are one of the first ways. One strategy, to use at the beginning of learning about addition. They are not the end goal, although bad math programs/teachers might teach them as if they are. Just one way to use numbers. PP was showing that even Singapore math describes them as a first method, before students memorize addition facts.

There's no need to get angry about doubles, counting on, etc. These are very junior-level strategies that students will soon move on from.

Again, no, Singapore Math does not use doubles. They do have books dedicated to Common Core specifically and maybe that's where people keep getting this quote from.

The original, regular Singapore math does not use doubles. At all. I have used their books for 2-3 years now. No, there is no doubes concept in there. Period.

The Singapore Math Common Core textbooks available in the US are simply Singapore Math curricula organized to align with grade level standards more closely. The regular US math edition does have doubles and doubles plus 1 in the very early grades 9 (using dots as on dice or dominoes) as well as counting on +1, +2, +3. They also have the make a ten strategy and then quickly move to memorizing number bonds. Then to decomposing the second addend to make a ten with the first addend for two addends that will be more than 10.

[Anonymous]

I have an engineering background, and I didn't understand those instruction. I'm terrified of what my two yo will have to figure out when she's older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The Singapore Math Common Core textbooks available in the US are simply Singapore Math curricula organized to align with grade level standards more closely. The regular US math edition does have doubles and doubles plus 1 in the very early grades 9 (using dots as on dice or dominoes) as well as counting on +1, +2, +3. They also have the make a ten strategy and then quickly move to memorizing number bonds. Then to decomposing the second addend to make a ten with the first addend for two addends that will be more than 10.

There are 3 kinds of Singapore math textbooks:

- Common Core Edition
- US Edition
- Standards Edition

I've been using US Edition with my DC. We have covered the 1A and 1B (1st grade), last year we covered K. I have not come across "doubles" concept even once. They're using counting on method for additions under 10, tens and ones for additions above 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree the instructions are confusing. I could only enlarge the second sheet. It says, "Write to make a ten. Then add." Unless the process is explained well by the teacher in advance, coming to the worksheet cold would be very difficult for many students.

The problem is the student doesn't just make a ten. There is another step: the number used to make the ten for the first number must be subtracted from the second number, then the ten is added to the reduced second number. Confusingly, in the second problem, the second number in the equation is the one used to make the ten.

Why couldn't the first line in the picture say: Make a ten from the 9. _9___ + ____ = 10. Subtract the number you used to make the ten from the seven to find the difference 7 - _____ = _____. Add the difference to the ten ____ + 10 = ___.
So 9 + 7 = _____.

Could it be a failure of the teacher to not explain the process well?

Exactly.

You ask a six year old to "make a ten" with numbers 9 and 7. Then add. These worksheets are terribly worded. And the teacher doesn't explain them any more. They're supposed to read the instructions by themselves and follow this gibberish.

[Anonymous]

This OP writing. I have narrowed it down to the fact that DD does pretty good in the actual math, adding and subtracting, comparison, etc.

Where she fails is comprehending what CC instructions tell her to do. (And who can blame her?)

The question is what should I do?

Should I just not worry about it since her math is at a good level. Or should I tutor her on reading and comprehending the school worksheets instructions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree the instructions are confusing. I could only enlarge the second sheet. It says, "Write to make a ten. Then add." Unless the process is explained well by the teacher in advance, coming to the worksheet cold would be very difficult for many students.

The problem is the student doesn't just make a ten. There is another step: the number used to make the ten for the first number must be subtracted from the second number, then the ten is added to the reduced second number. Confusingly, in the second problem, the second number in the equation is the one used to make the ten.

Why couldn't the first line in the picture say: Make a ten from the 9. _9___ + ____ = 10. Subtract the number you used to make the ten from the seven to find the difference 7 - _____ = _____. Add the difference to the ten ____ + 10 = ___.
So 9 + 7 = _____.

Could it be a failure of the teacher to not explain the process well?

Exactly.

You ask a six year old to "make a ten" with numbers 9 and 7. Then add. These worksheets are terribly worded. And the teacher doesn't explain them any more. They're supposed to read the instructions by themselves and follow this gibberish.

The teacher IS supposed to explain the process very well. And kids are supposed to be fluent on their "number bonds that make 10" knowledge before using the make a ten strategy to add two numbers together.

Once the kids "get it" they no longer need to be told to "make a ten" and they can just look at 9+7 and "see" that o course the answer is 16. 8+5 and "see" that the answer is 13. Kids aren't supposed to actually have to write all that down on worksheets after a certain transitional period. Teachers don't really get the method (oraren't being allowed to teach the foundational skills to mastery).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This OP writing. I have narrowed it down to the fact that DD does pretty good in the actual math, adding and subtracting, comparison, etc.

Where she fails is comprehending what CC instructions tell her to do. (And who can blame her?)

The question is what should I do?

Should I just not worry about it since her math is at a good level. Or should I tutor her on reading and comprehending the school worksheets instructions?

First, recognize these are not CC instructions. Find the name of the curriculum and the publisher and complain about the correct thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Singapore Math Common Core textbooks available in the US are simply Singapore Math curricula organized to align with grade level standards more closely. The regular US math edition does have doubles and doubles plus 1 in the very early grades 9 (using dots as on dice or dominoes) as well as counting on +1, +2, +3. They also have the make a ten strategy and then quickly move to memorizing number bonds. Then to decomposing the second addend to make a ten with the first addend for two addends that will be more than 10.

There are 3 kinds of Singapore math textbooks:

- Common Core Edition
- US Edition
- Standards Edition

I've been using US Edition with my DC. We have covered the 1A and 1B (1st grade), last year we covered K. I have not come across "doubles" concept even once. They're using counting on method for additions under 10, tens and ones for additions above 10.

I use the exact same addition and doubles are listed as a strategy in the home instructors guide.

[Anonymous]

Edition! Not addition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This OP writing. I have narrowed it down to the fact that DD does pretty good in the actual math, adding and subtracting, comparison, etc.

Where she fails is comprehending what CC instructions tell her to do. (And who can blame her?)

The question is what should I do?

Should I just not worry about it since her math is at a good level. Or should I tutor her on reading and comprehending the school worksheets instructions?

They are not "Common Core instructions". They are the instructions on her worksheet. Which is not a Common Core worksheet, because there is no such thing.

Multiple posters have made this point multiple times (speaking of comprehension).