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

[Anonymous]

I think there is a math vocabulary issue. Doubles, count on, etc are names of techniques. I'm not sure what you don't understand there? You can google them also.

I can't read the problem on the second sheet that the kids had to hear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Common Core is a set of standards, not a curriculum. Your problem is with the school's curriculum and worksheets they're using.

Well, yes. It seems a special curriculum was developed for Common Core and all schools in our area have adopted it. So many people are unhappy about it. At times it's very confusing. It's in this style:

NP. I am totally confused by what it means to "circle names for each number" and then having all numbers that follow. I don't have a kid who is doing common core math yet, though. What does this mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Common Core is a set of standards, not a curriculum. Your problem is with the school's curriculum and worksheets they're using.

Well, yes. It seems a special curriculum was developed for Common Core and all schools in our area have adopted it. So many people are unhappy about it. At times it's very confusing. It's in this style:

NP. I am totally confused by what it means to "circle names for each number" and then having all numbers that follow. I don't have a kid who is doing common core math yet, though. What does this mean?

Also, what does it mean to "write four names for five"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Common Core is a set of standards, not a curriculum. Your problem is with the school's curriculum and worksheets they're using.

Well, yes. It seems a special curriculum was developed for Common Core and all schools in our area have adopted it. So many people are unhappy about it. At times it's very confusing. It's in this style:

NP. I am totally confused by what it means to "circle names for each number" and then having all numbers that follow. I don't have a kid who is doing common core math yet, though. What does this mean?

Also, what does it mean to "write four names for five"?

I am a NP too and I infer that "names" for a number may mean a "math sentence" that equals that number. So, "names" for 7 could be: 3+4, 2+5, 1+6, etc.

And "four names for five" could be: 1+4, 2+3, 3+2, 4+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Common Core is a set of standards, not a curriculum. Your problem is with the school's curriculum and worksheets they're using.

Well, yes. It seems a special curriculum was developed for Common Core and all schools in our area have adopted it. So many people are unhappy about it. At times it's very confusing. It's in this style:

NP. I am totally confused by what it means to "circle names for each number" and then having all numbers that follow. I don't have a kid who is doing common core math yet, though. What does this mean?

Also, what does it mean to "write four names for five"?

I am a NP too and I infer that "names" for a number may mean a "math sentence" that equals that number. So, "names" for 7 could be: 3+4, 2+5, 1+6, etc.

And "four names for five" could be: 1+4, 2+3, 3+2, 4+1.

PS For example, the correct "names" for 7, in the example given above, would be: 1+6, 14-7, 16-9.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
First off, does your DC know how to read? Obviously, your DC can't follow instructions if reading skills aren't there to read the instructions. At this age, I can't believe the teacher doesn't first go over what the kids are supposed to do on these worksheets. I would email the teacher and let her know that your DC doesn't seem to understand the instructions.

If your DC can read to the level of those instructions, then when she brings the work home, tell her to pretend to be the teacher and you the student, and ask your DC to explain what you are supposed to do on the worksheet. You might get a sense of how much she is comprehending. If she doesn't seem to understand, first make sure she understands the math concepts... "double facts", "grouping", etc... Then, have your DC read the first question. Stop. Have DC break it down. Do you understand what "double facts" are.. which are the double facts.. What does the instruction say to do with the double facts?

She reads well, chapter books level. And she comprehends what she reads.

But I had to read this four times myself to understand what needs to be done. And I took Calculus.

I'm not sure six year olds know what "double facts", " addends", "grouping methods". What the hell is " double plus one" supposed to mean?

I definitely am not going to follow this curriculum at home. Singapore math doesn't have all these confusing terminology, it just focuses on simplest and most efficient strategies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
First off, does your DC know how to read? Obviously, your DC can't follow instructions if reading skills aren't there to read the instructions. At this age, I can't believe the teacher doesn't first go over what the kids are supposed to do on these worksheets. I would email the teacher and let her know that your DC doesn't seem to understand the instructions.

If your DC can read to the level of those instructions, then when she brings the work home, tell her to pretend to be the teacher and you the student, and ask your DC to explain what you are supposed to do on the worksheet. You might get a sense of how much she is comprehending. If she doesn't seem to understand, first make sure she understands the math concepts... "double facts", "grouping", etc... Then, have your DC read the first question. Stop. Have DC break it down. Do you understand what "double facts" are.. which are the double facts.. What does the instruction say to do with the double facts?

She reads well, chapter books level. And she comprehends what she reads.

But I had to read this four times myself to understand what needs to be done. And I took Calculus.

I'm not sure six year olds know what "double facts", " addends", "grouping methods". What the hell is " double plus one" supposed to mean?

I definitely am not going to follow this curriculum at home. Singapore math doesn't have all these confusing terminology, it just focuses on simplest and most efficient strategies.

That should be exactly what she knows and has learned in school. Once you know the terminology, it is very simple. Doubles are 4+4, 5+5, etc., which most children learn easily and before other math facts. Counting on, or count plus one, is 4+1, 5+1, etc., which is simply counting one more number. So a double plus one is another way of adding 4+5, by breaking it up into 4+4+1, which is easier for some children.

We didn't learn this terminology in school so it looks complicated and intimidating, but it's simple, once you understand what they're talking about. And the children should be learning this in school, so that it is easy for them. Is her math teacher new, or not explaining well?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That should be exactly what she knows and has learned in school. Once you know the terminology, it is very simple. Doubles are 4+4, 5+5, etc., which most children learn easily and before other math facts. Counting on, or count plus one, is 4+1, 5+1, etc., which is simply counting one more number. So a double plus one is another way of adding 4+5, by breaking it up into 4+4+1, which is easier for some children.

But why make kids memorize doubles? Why fill their heads with unnecessary terms and strategies? What exactly this whole "double" concept is for? It's useless for additions and useless for multiplication. In multiplication are you going to say to your kids "Doubles times three?"

I came a very strong school of math. And anything that wasn't the shortest, most elegant solution was not accepted in my math classes.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. Here is the most recent worksheet that came home from my MCPS first grader. It seems pretty clear to me, but maybe our school is using a different curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Common Core is a set of standards, not a curriculum. Your problem is with the school's curriculum and worksheets they're using.

Well, yes. It seems a special curriculum was developed for Common Core and all schools in our area have adopted it. So many people are unhappy about it. At times it's very confusing. It's in this style:

NP. I am totally confused by what it means to "circle names for each number" and then having all numbers that follow. I don't have a kid who is doing common core math yet, though. What does this mean?

Also, what does it mean to "write four names for five"?

I am a NP too and I infer that "names" for a number may mean a "math sentence" that equals that number. So, "names" for 7 could be: 3+4, 2+5, 1+6, etc.

And "four names for five" could be: 1+4, 2+3, 3+2, 4+1.

PS For example, the correct "names" for 7, in the example given above, would be: 1+6, 14-7, 16-9.

Argh! So annoying that makers of these workbooks cannot use clear English.

It says look at the picture. Fine, I've looked. Then it asks the child to write two addition facts. Child wrote down two. What the child no doubt did not do (we don't see the whole page) is write down two number facts illustrated by the pictures. Would it have been so hard to spell that out? So far I think the child is following the instructions--as they were written.

Then we get to circling names for numbers. The child does not see the word "seven" so he doesn't circle any. Who could blame him? Would it have been so hard to write: "For each number, circle the number sentences that are names for it"?

Then of course we get to writing four names for 5. I don't blame the child for going to Sergio and fries at this point. Again, could they not have said write four number sentence names for 5?

At my work, we would seriously ding staff who wrote with this lack of clarity.

The children deserve better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That should be exactly what she knows and has learned in school. Once you know the terminology, it is very simple. Doubles are 4+4, 5+5, etc., which most children learn easily and before other math facts. Counting on, or count plus one, is 4+1, 5+1, etc., which is simply counting one more number. So a double plus one is another way of adding 4+5, by breaking it up into 4+4+1, which is easier for some children.

But why make kids memorize doubles? Why fill their heads with unnecessary terms and strategies? What exactly this whole "double" concept is for? It's useless for additions and useless for multiplication. In multiplication are you going to say to your kids "Doubles times three?"

I came a very strong school of math. And anything that wasn't the shortest, most elegant solution was not accepted in my math classes.

Doubles are very handy. Once you know 5+5 is 10, it makes it easier to figure out that 5+4 is 9 and 5+6 is 11 simply by subtracting or adding 1. Thus, by memorizing one fact you can leverage that knowledge to know three facts. Saxon math, which is not exactly a well of new math gone crazy, has children learn doubles very early on for this very reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That should be exactly what she knows and has learned in school. Once you know the terminology, it is very simple. Doubles are 4+4, 5+5, etc., which most children learn easily and before other math facts. Counting on, or count plus one, is 4+1, 5+1, etc., which is simply counting one more number. So a double plus one is another way of adding 4+5, by breaking it up into 4+4+1, which is easier for some children.

But why make kids memorize doubles? Why fill their heads with unnecessary terms and strategies? What exactly this whole "double" concept is for? It's useless for additions and useless for multiplication. In multiplication are you going to say to your kids "Doubles times three?"

I came a very strong school of math. And anything that wasn't the shortest, most elegant solution was not accepted in my math classes.

Memorizing doubles is an easy way for kids to learn how to add quickly --- 6 + 6 = 12. Then what is 6 + 7? You know 7 is 1 more than 6, so answer is 12 + 1 . These terminologies are just a quick way to communicate a concept.

Don't worry. By end of 3rd grade (or beginning 4th), your kid will be expected to have memorized the times tables. But, at first, they will learn concepts like 2 x ? is the same as doubles. See, they have already memorized the 2x table by 1st grade.

BTW, all throughout math, you have to know math terminologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That should be exactly what she knows and has learned in school. Once you know the terminology, it is very simple. Doubles are 4+4, 5+5, etc., which most children learn easily and before other math facts. Counting on, or count plus one, is 4+1, 5+1, etc., which is simply counting one more number. So a double plus one is another way of adding 4+5, by breaking it up into 4+4+1, which is easier for some children.

But why make kids memorize doubles? Why fill their heads with unnecessary terms and strategies? What exactly this whole "double" concept is for? It's useless for additions and useless for multiplication. In multiplication are you going to say to your kids "Doubles times three?"

I came a very strong school of math. And anything that wasn't the shortest, most elegant solution was not accepted in my math classes.

The idea behind doubles is that many/most children already know them. My kids learned them at 3 or 4 in preschool, so it is already in their repertoire, and they are very familiar with them. It's a starting point for them, when adding two numbers. If your children naturally and easily learned all of her number facts, then she can just go straight to them, without resorting to these other methods.

Also, the idea is that children will learn a variety of ways to gain number fluency, so that eventually they will be able to go straight to the easiest, shortest, and/or most elegant solution. But they don't start them out there, in first grade. May be better, may not be, but that's how they're doing it nowadays. I remember the epiphany I had in calculus, when we derived all the geometry formulas for area and volume, etc. Finally, all those geometry formulas made sense, weren't pure memorization. But I wasn't ready to learn calculus in middle school, so we could only do the formulas.

[Anonymous]

Oops, trying again with what seems to be a more common sense approach to 1st grade CC-aligned math.