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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually doubles aren't even mentioned as a term, in Common Core. This is what is stated as an objective for first grade, which is where you'd expect the concept of doubles and doubles plus one to be taught:

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/1/OA/

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.1.OA.C.6

Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10.

Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

I don't get it. Doubles and doubles + 1 are right there. What did you mean when you said they're not in CC?

"Equivalent but easier or known sums" could be doubles but doesn't have to be doubles. It could be also be (for example) 7 + 5 = 7 + 4 + 1 if the child knows 7 + 4 but not 7 + 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't get it. Doubles and doubles + 1 are right there. What did you mean when you said they're not in CC?

I said it wasn't mentioned as a term. As the earlier PP posted, the "known sum" could be any known sum, not specifically a sum of the number to itself (a "double" fact).

I still think teaching some facts as "doubles" makes sense. If kids play board games, or dominoes (unlikely nowadays I know) they see doubles a lot (in many games, rolling doubles means you get to roll again, that kind of thing), and memorizing doubles facts basically is preparation for your x2 multiplication facts. The first type of skip counting a child learns is counting by 2s, usually -- all the even numbers -- so matching those answers to your doubles facts is a pretty easy concept as well. Trying to move from knowing your doubles, to knowing a fact is a double plus one, might not be quite so simple for some kids.

Anyhow bottom line -- according to Common Core by the end of 1st grade, all facts to 10 should be memorized and fluent. All facts to 20 should be memorized and fluent by the end of 2nd grade. So after 2nd grade, kids who are working on grade level shouldn't need to be using ANY of the above listed strategies anymore -- the facts should be mastered by memory. Common Core doesn't state HOW they should be mastered. The standard lists possible strategies as examples, but doesn't specify any particular one must be used. The choice of which strategy to use or whether to use it is a curriculum decision... and a teacher or school decision.

[Anonymous]

SM is nothing like CC. SM is clear and easy to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SM is nothing like CC. SM is clear and easy to understand.

Singapore math does not do the explaining the answers and stuff like that. However, many strategies people complain about are indeed in Singapore math. Mind you, none of the lattice multiplication stuff. But I have found it very helpful to have Singapore math books around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SM is nothing like CC. SM is clear and easy to understand.

That is factually incorrect. A lot of the Common Core math standards are based on Singapore Math.

http://www.achieve.org/files/CCSSandSingapore.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OP, the two worksheets you posted didn't seem at all complicated to me.

But you're not a six year old, are you?

I don't know. I look at the instructions on Singapore Math, on Kumon, even Critical Thinking Mathematical reasoning. The latter on is very wordy but is clear and at least very logical.
When I see DD's worksheets she brings from school I find them hard to read myself.

No, but I have a 6 year old. In fact, a 6 year old with language difficulties. I was SO stressed about common core math. But he's not having any major problems with it, and could definitely do this worksheet (with a alittle bit of assistance with actually reading the directions)
OP's daughter doesn't understand what "doubles" and "counting on" mean. OK, that's not the end of the world. OP or the teacher should help the child to learn those things.
The goal of 1st grade math shouldn't just be to get the right answer to any given addition problem. The goal of first grade math (like the goal of first grade reading) should be to help build foundational skills to a lifetime of learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If your math skills were that strong, you would have no trouble understanding the value of learning these strategies, especially for kids who don't immediately comprehend it.
Also, the "shortest, most elegant solution" is an appropriate approach once you understand the fundamentals (which is not the same thing as memorizing a bunch of facts and equations. The point of math right now isn't to get to the answer to 3+4 as quickly as possible, it's to understand why 3+4=7, and to understand multiple ways of thinking about the solution so that, when you get more advanced, you're more capable of arriving at the "shortest, most elegant solution."

I don't see the value of the doubles strategies. Because you're confusing the kids. You're giving them 3 different strategies - doubles, count on, tens and ones.

Doubles are useless because a) you can't use them in additions above 10[i][u]; b) kids already pretty much memorize all the additions within 10; c) they confuse kids who are trained to use tens and ones for adding.

No one uses doubles besides CC. Singapore math doesn't use doubles, Kumon doesn't use doubles, Critical Thinking doesn't use doubles.

My education in math was in Russia. Russia had an excellent math education. We never used doubles. It's looks like a Common Core invention and it's full of crap like this.

Huh? 20+20, 100+100, 8 million + 8 million. Those are all excellent use of doubles.
But hey, if they don't use it in Russia we should clearly scrap it.

My child in Virginia learned doubles and Virginia is not a Common Core state, so I think you are not as well informed as you think you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SM is nothing like CC. SM is clear and easy to understand.

This is my main complaint with CC. We could have saved a hell of a lot of money and frustration just adopting the Singapore curriculum and using leftover funds to retrain teachers and set higher expectations at the teacher training level. Of course, that wouldn't look good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SM is nothing like CC. SM is clear and easy to understand.

This is my main complaint with CC. We could have saved a hell of a lot of money and frustration just adopting the Singapore curriculum and using leftover funds to retrain teachers and set higher expectations at the teacher training level. Of course, that wouldn't look good.

Which Singapore curriculum? Singapore itself no longer uses the Singapore Math textbooks people (including me) use in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SM is nothing like CC. SM is clear and easy to understand.

This is my main complaint with CC. We could have saved a hell of a lot of money and frustration just adopting the Singapore curriculum and using leftover funds to retrain teachers and set higher expectations at the teacher training level. Of course, that wouldn't look good.

I remember reading here that years ago four MoCo elementary schools tried Singapore Math, all but one school abandoned it within a year or two. Apparently teachers found them hard to teach. The test score dropped. However, C2.0 is remarkably similar to Singapore math. iIt is just much more awkward and cumbersome with a large dose of reform math flavor. wherever it differed from SM is not an improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SM is nothing like CC. SM is clear and easy to understand.

This is my main complaint with CC. We could have saved a hell of a lot of money and frustration just adopting the Singapore curriculum and using leftover funds to retrain teachers and set higher expectations at the teacher training level. Of course, that wouldn't look good.

I remember reading here that years ago four MoCo elementary schools tried Singapore Math, all but one school abandoned it within a year or two. Apparently teachers found them hard to teach. The test score dropped. However, C2.0 is remarkably similar to Singapore math. iIt is just much more awkward and cumbersome with a large dose of reform math flavor. wherever it differed from SM is not an improvement.

I seem to remember that part of the problem was that some teachers didn't understand the material and methods. They really aren't hard to teach or understand at all. I find the old Singspore math books (not the CC version) to be remarkably straightforward, with a better emphasis on mental math than other stuff I've had. I'm a teacher myself and have seen enough to know that there are way too many teachers who lack strong math skills out there.

Until e resolve that problem, we'll never fix our math woes regardless of how much we spend redesigning curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I remember reading here that years ago four MoCo elementary schools tried Singapore Math, all but one school abandoned it within a year or two. Apparently teachers found them hard to teach. The test score dropped. However, C2.0 is remarkably similar to Singapore math. iIt is just much more awkward and cumbersome with a large dose of reform math flavor. wherever it differed from SM is not an improvement.

It was a pilot program. The test scores overall did not drop.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2003/SingMathYear2.pdf

This is a very long report from 2005 about using Singapore Math in the US: http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Singapore_Report_Bookmark_Version1_0.pdf About the pilot in MCPS, it says, "The Montgomery County outcomes were positively correlated with the amount of professional training the staff received. Two Singapore pilot schools availed themselves of extensive professional development and outperformed the controls; two other pilot schools had low staff commitment coupled with low exposure to professional training and were actually outperformed by the controls. Professional training is important in helping teachers understand and explain the nonroutine, multistep problems in the Singapore textbooks. Teachers also need preparation to explain solutions to Singapore problems, which often require students to draw on previously taught mathematics topics, which the Singapore textbook, in contrast to U.S. textbooks, does not reteach."

In my own experience with Singapore Math at home, I think that students would be more successful if they started with it from K or first grade, rather than suddenly coming upon it after several years of a different math curriculum. And I think that the teachers at any grade would also need to start with K or 1 and then work through systematically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SM is nothing like CC. SM is clear and easy to understand.

This is my main complaint with CC. We could have saved a hell of a lot of money and frustration just adopting the Singapore curriculum and using leftover funds to retrain teachers and set higher expectations at the teacher training level. Of course, that wouldn't look good.

I remember reading here that years ago four MoCo elementary schools tried Singapore Math, all but one school abandoned it within a year or two. Apparently teachers found them hard to teach. The test score dropped. However, C2.0 is remarkably similar to Singapore math. iIt is just much more awkward and cumbersome with a large dose of reform math flavor. wherever it differed from SM is not an improvement.

I seem to remember that part of the problem was that some teachers didn't understand the material and methods. They really aren't hard to teach or understand at all. I find the old Singspore math books (not the CC version) to be remarkably straightforward, with a better emphasis on mental math than other stuff I've had. I'm a teacher myself and have seen enough to know that there are way too many teachers who lack strong math skills out there.

Until e resolve that problem, we'll never fix our math woes regardless of how much we spend redesigning curriculum.

I read an article recently that stated this very thing, especially in the younger grades, and this is adding to the problems with the changes to the math standards. Some districts have provided "math specialists" and much more teacher training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I remember reading here that years ago four MoCo elementary schools tried Singapore Math, all but one school abandoned it within a year or two. Apparently teachers found them hard to teach. The test score dropped. However, C2.0 is remarkably similar to Singapore math. iIt is just much more awkward and cumbersome with a large dose of reform math flavor. wherever it differed from SM is not an improvement.

It was a pilot program. The test scores overall did not drop.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2003/SingMathYear2.pdf

This is a very long report from 2005 about using Singapore Math in the US: http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Singapore_Report_Bookmark_Version1_0.pdf About the pilot in MCPS, it says, "The Montgomery County outcomes were positively correlated with the amount of professional training the staff received. Two Singapore pilot schools availed themselves of extensive professional development and outperformed the controls; two other pilot schools had low staff commitment coupled with low exposure to professional training and were actually outperformed by the controls. Professional training is important in helping teachers understand and explain the nonroutine, multistep problems in the Singapore textbooks. Teachers also need preparation to explain solutions to Singapore problems, which often require students to draw on previously taught mathematics topics, which the Singapore textbook, in contrast to U.S. textbooks, does not reteach."

In my own experience with Singapore Math at home, I think that students would be more successful if they started with it from K or first grade, rather than suddenly coming upon it after several years of a different math curriculum. And I think that the teachers at any grade would also need to start with K or 1 and then work through systematically.

I think the bold part is important. A lot of teachers may not even be able to work out the word problems in later years if they were not exposed to them before. Singapore Math is a teach to mastery curriculum and does not spiral back ad nauseum like a lot of the other textbooks do. So if someone started teaching forth grade, she may really not able to do it without extensive prep and training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SM is nothing like CC. SM is clear and easy to understand.

This is my main complaint with CC. We could have saved a hell of a lot of money and frustration just adopting the Singapore curriculum and using leftover funds to retrain teachers and set higher expectations at the teacher training level. Of course, that wouldn't look good.

Common Core isn't a curriculum. How schools teacher to the standards is up to schools. Montgomery County Public Schools wants to have a math 2.0 curriculum, whatever it is? That's their decision. They certainly could adopt Singapore Math Curricula instead. Both curricula could be used to teach to the Common Core standards.

Nationwide, no one has adopted a Common Curriculum. I think that is actually the problem. I think it would be great if the entire US (or at least those states involved in Common Core, agreeing to common standards) actually adopted a common curriculum for math, the Singapore Math curriculum. But hell it was hard enough getting states just to agree to standards. Getting them to agree on one curriculum? Will never ever ever happen.