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

[Anonymous]

A lot of the curricula that came out common core compliant early on were crappy ones that were already outsourcing their creation overseas to asia. It has taken awhile for the better math curriculas to come out with common core versions.

My kids' school had everyday math and I really did NOT like it. It was not good for my ods. I ordered Beast Academy (which is a new curricula (common core compliant) and we use that at home. They have come out with 3rd, 4th and part of 5th grade so far. It is graphic novel style and really quite good. My kids love it.

We were doing math in the car the other day and I asked my first grader to do 9 + 6. He said 15 and I asked him how he did it, thinking that he did 9+1+5 or 6+4+5. But no. Instead he said 6 is 2 times 3 and 9 is 3 times 3 so if you take 5 3s you get 15. He is in LOOOVEEEE with multiplication right now so it is not surprising he found a way to make it a multiplication problem.

Reminds me of the expression, when all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail. lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the curricula that came out common core compliant early on were crappy ones that were already outsourcing their creation overseas to asia. It has taken awhile for the better math curriculas to come out with common core versions.

My kids' school had everyday math and I really did NOT like it. It was not good for my ods. I ordered Beast Academy (which is a new curricula (common core compliant) and we use that at home. They have come out with 3rd, 4th and part of 5th grade so far. It is graphic novel style and really quite good. My kids love it.

We were doing math in the car the other day and I asked my first grader to do 9 + 6. He said 15 and I asked him how he did it, thinking that he did 9+1+5 or 6+4+5. But no. Instead he said 6 is 2 times 3 and 9 is 3 times 3 so if you take 5 3s you get 15. He is in LOOOVEEEE with multiplication right now so it is not surprising he found a way to make it a multiplication problem.

Reminds me of the expression, when all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail. lol.

Beast Academy looks great--but it appears they haven't yet done the second and first grade levels yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. Maybe for older kids it's good to learn different tricks to solve a math problem. For little kids who don't know any math and are learning it for the first time it's very confusing. They should be taught the most consistent and effective way and practice it consistently to ensure the concept sticks.

I find that CC math lacks consistency. For example, last year in K they learnt to count coins. But because it was not reinforced in the first grade and they haven't come back to that subject they don't remember any of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Maybe they adopted the standards, but not the curriculum. When I compare SM textbooks we use at home with CC worksheets DD brings from school, it's a night and day difference. SM is very clear, easy to understand and consistent. CC is a mess.

Here is another problem DD brought. All of them are a way to take apart 7 except for 8-7. But they expect one right answer. The person who wrote this curriculum should be fired.
Math requires precise and clear language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I disagree. Maybe for older kids it's good to learn different tricks to solve a math problem. For little kids who don't know any math and are learning it for the first time it's very confusing. They should be taught the most consistent and effective way and practice it consistently to ensure the concept sticks.
I find that CC math lacks consistency. For example, last year in K they learnt to count coins. But because it was not reinforced in the first grade and they haven't come back to that subject they don't remember any of it.

What is your education, experience, and training in teaching math at the elementary school level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Maybe they adopted the standards, but not the curriculum. When I compare SM textbooks we use at home with CC worksheets DD brings from school, it's a night and day difference. SM is very clear, easy to understand and consistent. CC is a mess.

Here is another problem DD brought. All of them are a way to take apart 7 except for 8-7. But they expect one right answer. The person who wrote this curriculum should be fired.
Math requires precise and clear language.

Singapore Math is a curriculum. The Common Core standards are not a curriculum. There is no Common Core curriculum, and there are no Common Core worksheets. There are many different curricula that are aligned to the Common Core standards. Some of these curricula are good. Some of these curricula are bad.

(If I had a nickel for every time I have typed this, I'd have a lot of nickels.)

I don't know which of these curricula your daughter's school uses. Do you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I disagree. Maybe for older kids it's good to learn different tricks to solve a math problem. For little kids who don't know any math and are learning it for the first time it's very confusing. They should be taught the most consistent and effective way and practice it consistently to ensure the concept sticks.
I find that CC math lacks consistency. For example, last year in K they learnt to count coins. But because it was not reinforced in the first grade and they haven't come back to that subject they don't remember any of it.

What is your education, experience, and training in teaching math at the elementary school level?

I'm not a trained teacher. I'm a parent, my education level is post graduate. I've been teaching math to my DC and she's ahead by a grade level at this point.

I volunteered in her school's Santa shop this year and half of second graders that came in were not able to count how much money they had or count how much their purchases would total up to, and needed assistance with counting. This was disappointing to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Singapore Math is a curriculum. The Common Core standards are not a curriculum. There is no Common Core curriculum, and there are no Common Core worksheets. There are many different curricula that are aligned to the Common Core standards. Some of these curricula are good. Some of these curricula are bad.

(If I had a nickel for every time I have typed this, I'd have a lot of nickels.)

I don't know which of these curricula your daughter's school uses. Do you know?

I know that CC is a standard. I have no problem with their set of standards. I have a problem with the way they teach math. The school is following a textbook that someone wrote and somehow this piece of garbage got approval by the some Education department somewhere.

I have seen many other examples over the Internet of equally bad examples from other textbooks. So that, in combination with rising rates of home-schooled kids, leads me to think it's not just our school and it's not just our state, it's a common problem (pun intended).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Singapore Math is a curriculum. The Common Core standards are not a curriculum. There is no Common Core curriculum, and there are no Common Core worksheets. There are many different curricula that are aligned to the Common Core standards. Some of these curricula are good. Some of these curricula are bad.

(If I had a nickel for every time I have typed this, I'd have a lot of nickels.)

I don't know which of these curricula your daughter's school uses. Do you know?

I know that CC is a standard. I have no problem with their set of standards. I have a problem with the way they teach math. The school is following a textbook that someone wrote and somehow this piece of garbage got approval by the some Education department somewhere.

I have seen many other examples over the Internet of equally bad examples from other textbooks. So that, in combination with rising rates of home-schooled kids, leads me to think it's not just our school and it's not just our state, it's a common problem (pun intended).

Then you don't have a problem with Common Core, but rather the curriculum and how it's implented. That might seem like a small semantic argument, but it gets a lot of people confused about the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I disagree. Maybe for older kids it's good to learn different tricks to solve a math problem. For little kids who don't know any math and are learning it for the first time it's very confusing. They should be taught the most consistent and effective way and practice it consistently to ensure the concept sticks.
I find that CC math lacks consistency. For example, last year in K they learnt to count coins. But because it was not reinforced in the first grade and they haven't come back to that subject they don't remember any of it.

What is your education, experience, and training in teaching math at the elementary school level?

I'm not a trained teacher. I'm a parent, my education level is post graduate. I've been teaching math to my DC and she's ahead by a grade level at this point.

I volunteered in her school's Santa shop this year and half of second graders that came in were not able to count how much money they had or count how much their purchases would total up to, and needed assistance with counting. This was disappointing to see.

Yes, there are many people who think that they know all about teaching math because they were math students/have a post-graduate degree/do math with their children at home. But the fact is that they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Maybe they adopted the standards, but not the curriculum. When I compare SM textbooks we use at home with CC worksheets DD brings from school, it's a night and day difference. SM is very clear, easy to understand and consistent. CC is a mess.

Here is another problem DD brought. All of them are a way to take apart 7 except for 8-7. But they expect one right answer. The person who wrote this curriculum should be fired.
Math requires precise and clear language.

Umm...I don't understand why you posted the above example as bad? 2 of those problems show a way to add to 7 (which is not the same as taking 7 apart), and one shows how to take apart 8, the one the teacher circled is an example of taking apart 7 (which is when you start with the number 7 and subtract a smaller number).

I think you need to meet with your child's teacher and find out what curriculum they are using, and then ask how you can reinforce the vocabulary and learning at home because your child is struggling. You are probably confusing your child to no end by complaining about the math the school is teaching and then using different vocabulary and different methods at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I know that CC is a standard. I have no problem with their set of standards. I have a problem with the way they teach math. The school is following a textbook that someone wrote and somehow this piece of garbage got approval by the some Education department somewhere.

I have seen many other examples over the Internet of equally bad examples from other textbooks. So that, in combination with rising rates of home-schooled kids, leads me to think it's not just our school and it's not just our state, it's a common problem (pun intended).

Yes, it is a common problem. There were plenty of bad math textbooks and workbooks and curricula before the Common Core standards, and the Common Core standards (not surprisingly) have not magically solved this problem.

But as the PP says, your objection is not to the Common Core standards. Your objection is to the bad math teaching in your daughter's school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: That might seem like a small semantic argument, but it gets a lot of people confused about the issue.

It wouldn't be so if the textbooks didn't say "CC worksheet" on every page.

Also, the tests are exactly the same as textbooks. It's not the right answer that gets graded, but the way it's solved.

They don't ask DD to calculate 7+8, they ask her to do it their way as the only right way. If she doesn't use doubles and calculates it by making tens and ones, it's a wrong answer.


My DC meets the CC standards having been taught by SM curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here is another problem DD brought. All of them are a way to take apart 7 except for 8-7. But they expect one right answer. The person who wrote this curriculum should be fired.
Math requires precise and clear language.

Here are the standards the worksheet is referring to (I think):

CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.A.1
Use addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.

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).

Whether the worksheet should be referring to these standards is another question. However, I agree that with the PP that 6+1=7 is not taking apart 7, it's putting together 7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Umm...I don't understand why you posted the above example as bad? 2 of those problems show a way to add to 7 (which is not the same as taking 7 apart), and one shows how to take apart 8, the one the teacher circled is an example of taking apart 7 (which is when you start with the number 7 and subtract a smaller number).

Are you kidding? How is 7=6+1 not taking apart 7?

"To take apart" means to separate into two or more parts. It doesn't say anything about "+" or "-".