Is there a benefit to teaching “old math”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. For example, if I have to multiply 65 * 32, I write it vertically on paper or do it vertically in my head.

65
X 32
——-
130
+ 1950
———
2,080

But my kid does the distributive property breaking down the 65, etc. He doesn’t know how to do it the old way (above), so I am thinking of teaching him but not sure if it is worth it.

How old is your kid? The long way will be taught by 5th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Old math is the equivalent of learning phonics and then moving on to reading and then moving on to understanding.

New math is the equivalent of sight words, spelling errors not being corrected, and expecting understanding without context and most importantly without a solid foundation.

IMHO

That's absurd. The new style goes much deeper into understanding the concepts, and of course errors are corrected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is practical math?

Imitating a calculator by rote, without regard for meaning. Very practical in 1970.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the only benefit is that the parents are more comfortable with it.

+1. My kid is getting so much more out of math class than I ever did. It's just frustrating that I'm largely unable to help with her homework. When she has a question, I mostly have her explain the lesson to me until she reaches the answer on her own.

Sounds wonderful! Learning from your daughter improves her confidence and communication skills. Working it it on her own strengthens her understanding. And you get to improve your math skills along the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is practical math?

Faster. Can be done in your head for the most part.

My new math kids cannot add 44 + 27 in their heads at all. They have to write it out and do the boxes or pyramids.

44 + 27 =

40+4 and 20+7

40+20=60
4+7=11

60
+11
71

Thats the new, fast, mental way that mathematically highly able adults do too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. For example, if I have to multiply 65 * 32, I write it vertically on paper or do it vertically in my head.

65
X 32
——-
130
+ 1950
———
2,080

But my kid does the distributive property breaking down the 65, etc. He doesn’t know how to do it the old way (above), so I am thinking of teaching him but not sure if it is worth it.

I'm not an expert, but if your kid is receptive, why not just teach it? I did some of that and we would do races to complete problems in different ways or having the kids time themselves for similar problems but different methods.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely not. I would have been much stronger in math. DH and I were floored to learn when our kid was in 1st or 2nd that you could invert ones and still come out with the same number, making it so much easier to do. It was a travesty really.

13 + 7 = 17 + 3

🤯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is practical math?

Faster. Can be done in your head for the most part.

My new math kids cannot add 44 + 27 in their heads at all. They have to write it out and do the boxes or pyramids.

44 + 27 =

40+4 and 20+7

40+20=60
4+7=11

60
+11
71

Thats the new, fast, mental way that mathematically highly able adults do too.

NP. “Highly able” people can do 44+27 faster than breaking it down like the above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. For example, if I have to multiply 65 * 32, I write it vertically on paper or do it vertically in my head.

65
X 32
——-
130
+ 1950
———
2,080

But my kid does the distributive property breaking down the 65, etc. He doesn’t know how to do it the old way (above), so I am thinking of teaching him but not sure if it is worth it.

If he can do two digit multiplication in his head, there's no real benefit to learning this algorithm.

https://youtu.be/Sfi4QUlQ4co?si=wditdFBxhVtWHJjS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. For example, if I have to multiply 65 * 32, I write it vertically on paper or do it vertically in my head.

65
X 32
——-
130
+ 1950
———
2,080

But my kid does the distributive property breaking down the 65, etc. He doesn’t know how to do it the old way (above), so I am thinking of teaching him but not sure if it is worth it.

You do realize that what you wrote out is just distributing 32 instead of 65, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is practical math?

Faster. Can be done in your head for the most part.

My new math kids cannot add 44 + 27 in their heads at all. They have to write it out and do the boxes or pyramids.

44 + 27 =

40+4 and 20+7

40+20=60
4+7=11

60
+11
71

You can do all of that in your head, just not the first week you learn how to break it down/simplify it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old math is the equivalent of learning phonics and then moving on to reading and then moving on to understanding.

New math is the equivalent of sight words, spelling errors not being corrected, and expecting understanding without context and most importantly without a solid foundation.

IMHO

That's absurd. The new style goes much deeper into understanding the concepts, and of course errors are corrected.

My point is that it is silly to teach children to understand concepts before they even know the basics. It’s like kids learning to read by recognizing common words (sight words) before they understand the sounds that letters and groupings of letters make.

I’m a firm believer in crawl, walk, run.

But whatever, the old way of teaching math was only effective for generations, and what did people really accomplish? Putting men on the moon, sending probes into space that are STILL transmitting 50 years later. Boring!

I’m sure the new math will help kids optimize their tiktok content generation algorithms more effectively and possibly even work out optimal payment plans to replace their iphones every two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is practical math?

Faster. Can be done in your head for the most part.

My new math kids cannot add 44 + 27 in their heads at all. They have to write it out and do the boxes or pyramids.

44 + 27 =

40+4 and 20+7

40+20=60
4+7=11

60
+11
71

I just asked my rising 6th grader to solve this in her head. She said she added 44 + 20 and then the 7.

I, an old math person, mentally added the 7 and 4 in the ones column and carried the 1. Not sure mine was more efficient.

How your rising 6th grader solved is old mental math, that's how we learnt it in the 80s. Mental math old or new involves breaking the second addend to simple numbers, in this case, 27 is split into 20 and 7, before being added to 44.
You may call yourself old math person, but you picked up an inefficient technique.

[Anonymous]

Hooray for New Math
New-hoo-hoo Math
It won't do you a bit of good to review Math
It's so simple
So very simple
That only a child can do it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Old math is the equivalent of learning phonics and then moving on to reading and then moving on to understanding.

New math is the equivalent of sight words, spelling errors not being corrected, and expecting understanding without context and most importantly without a solid foundation.

IMHO

I think the idea is that it will be more intuitive to more kids. I think ideally you have to approach math from many different angles. The kids need a foothold before they can explore how numbers work.