Is there a benefit to teaching “old math”?

[Anonymous]

Students are tested and required to show their new math work so they must master that, but I did show mine other options for how to do same problems for couple reasons: a different way to double-check if had right answer and in some cases knew the other way would make more sense for mine b/c how they see things. For the other ways, some were old math but some were new to me that found on internet that wish had been taught the “tricks” when in school. All to say, yes, teach different ways because sometimes it actually helps student understand the new way and vice versa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

🤯

I didn't learn this either. It's not that I couldn't solve either of those simple problems, it's that I never spent any time thinking about math, beyond memorization, and never got a grasp of how numerical expressions relate.
I remember learning new things watching Odd Squad with my kid - suddenly seeing why different tools work. I love that my DD's math class starts with "why" and emphasizes that many different approaches get to the same place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It scales up to larger numbers too, like 887 + 264.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Mop up that word vomit and try again to put together a coherent idea.

[Anonymous]

The kids (at least mine) are taught the old ways too--but the difference is they understand why they work. "Carry the 1" isn't mathematical understanding unless you understand that you are adding the ones and adding them to the tens.

If your child never learned them, you can absolutely teach a procedure if you think it will improve their mental math skills.

--math teacher

[Anonymous]

We taught our kids old math (we were older Gen X parents and cut to the chase) and had teachers get upset with us. They said we were "damaging" our kids' ability to learn math. What it really meant is our kids no longer had the patience in class for drawing nine pineapples or stars to represent 3 x 3 = 9. They just wrote "9" and circled it, because we drilled the times tables up to 12 in them, and timed them at home doing simple, third grade multiplication. Here are ten problems, do as many as you can in one minute. We made it low stakes and fun. Our youngest is really good at math. By 7th grade, it's all old math, anyway.

[Anonymous]

We’re in Arlington, so not AAP. They use the Dreambox app in addition to the curriculum. My kid learned “new math” and what felt like 6 different methods to do double digit multiplication - and then finally learned it the way I learned it. Once he got to the traditional way, he seemed to have a solid grasp on what he was doing and how to estimate an answer in advance and catch mistakes himself.

[Anonymous]

Oh wow, on paper I do old math, but I’ve always done the new style in my head. That’s really neat!

I think whichever way works best with your learning/processing style is great. Happy like to hear that they’re teaching both.

[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 agree with this. My children were taught using new math from 3rd-5th grade. It is not as intuitive as claimed, especially when poorly taught. I think new math needs a lot more time and excellent, highly prepared teachers. Unfortunately, we can't rely on that.

I found out during the pandemic that neither of my kids could do long division by hand without a calculator. I recommend this as a test of whether your kids have absorbed new math or not.

For some of us, drill and kill on rote steps works better than new math problem-solving techniques. Because math is boring for a lot of kids. Being expected to engage, hypothesize, and problem-solve with just a pile of numbers, manipulatives, or printed formulas can actually be worse than being taught a math technique and replicating it. However, pedagogical innovation continually assumes engaged learners and excellent teachers. Faulty assumption at its root.

My husband was taught using new math by excellent teachers and it makes sense to him. I can't even help with the homework using the new math methods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We taught our kids old math (we were older Gen X parents and cut to the chase) and had teachers get upset with us. They said we were "damaging" our kids' ability to learn math. What it really meant is our kids no longer had the patience in class for drawing nine pineapples or stars to represent 3 x 3 = 9. They just wrote "9" and circled it, because we drilled the times tables up to 12 in them, and timed them at home doing simple, third grade multiplication. Here are ten problems, do as many as you can in one minute. We made it low stakes and fun. Our youngest is really good at math. By 7th grade, it's all old math, anyway.

New math stops when the workbooks no longer have color.

[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

I agree with this. My children were taught using new math from 3rd-5th grade. It is not as intuitive as claimed, especially when poorly taught. I think new math needs a lot more time and excellent, highly prepared teachers. Unfortunately, we can't rely on that.

I found out during the pandemic that neither of my kids could do long division by hand without a calculator. I recommend this as a test of whether your kids have absorbed new math or not.

For some of us, drill and kill on rote steps works better than new math problem-solving techniques. Because math is boring for a lot of kids. Being expected to engage, hypothesize, and problem-solve with just a pile of numbers, manipulatives, or printed formulas can actually be worse than being taught a math technique and replicating it. However, pedagogical innovation continually assumes engaged learners and excellent teachers. Faulty assumption at its root.

My husband was taught using new math by excellent teachers and it makes sense to him. I can't even help with the homework using the new math methods.

Yes. There are "Math Wars" to go with the Reading Wars. Virginia actually fell on the right side of the Math Wars in the early 2000s and didn't go for the stupidity, but failed to do so when they came around again.
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who grew up intuitively doing math the way that is now being taught, I imagine the benefit of teaching old math is that some kids understand/visualize solving math problems better the old way, just like I understood/visualized solving math problems better the "new" way, even before it was being taught. But that's an individual kid benefit, that I think would only help if schools taught both and kids could choose. If your kid is doing fine with the current curriculum I don't actually believe there are any gaps that old math covers.

ya my kid was forced to use these models for things that they already understood. It was more unhelpful than anything but I figured exactly what you're saying. I think some people just learn differently and this new math is geared toward a specific type of learner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Mop up that word vomit and try again to put together a coherent idea.

That you, Lucy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We taught our kids old math (we were older Gen X parents and cut to the chase) and had teachers get upset with us. They said we were "damaging" our kids' ability to learn math. What it really meant is our kids no longer had the patience in class for drawing nine pineapples or stars to represent 3 x 3 = 9. They just wrote "9" and circled it, because we drilled the times tables up to 12 in them, and timed them at home doing simple, third grade multiplication. Here are ten problems, do as many as you can in one minute. We made it low stakes and fun. Our youngest is really good at math. By 7th grade, it's all old math, anyway.

I'm younger Gen X but I did drill n' kill with my own kids during Covid and they memorized their multiplication and division facts through 16 because of it. They're in middle and high school now and all qualified to take Algebra in 7th grade due to SOL and IOWA test scores. I have no idea if drill n' kill helped with that but it probably didn't hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a benefit to teaching my elementary school kid “old math”? I was taught math in the 80s, and feel that the way they teach math now in school leaves gaps. We are now studying double digit multiplication and division.

I heard a mathematician talk about this. Benefit of old way is speed of mental calculation. A lot of the algorithms we learned were established when it was useful to do calculations by hand/in your head because nobody had phones/computers with them all the time. Downside is that the old way is not the best way to learn concepts. The modern math is better for grasping concepts behind the math.

If you want, you can supplement at home with the old way and just explain that it is the old way. However, I wouldn't try to derail the teaching and try to contradict the teacher. Unless the teacher is incompetent and can't teach the new way. I think this is problem, though. Parents can't understand what's going on and can't tell if things are being taught well!