Is there a benefit to teaching “old math”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, that's the problem with the new math. It is not an alternative way of doing math, it is THE way. If your work shows old math instead of new math, you will lose points.

[Anonymous]

Yes, yes, yes

1. Order, structure and lining up the right columns comes back around in Calculus. There are lots of kids who actually get Calculus when they take it but do very very poorly because small mistakes upstream carry through to the end.

2. Calculation - speed and accuracy in calculation can help your child not have to struggle with this when they move into higher level math.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read all the posts, but I disagree that there is no benefit to the way we did it when we were kids. It was MUCH faster. I think the greater emphasis on understanding in the current methods is wonderful but that the curriculum should move on much more quickly to practicing. Kids who are intuitively strong at math don't need to these labor intensive, breaking everything into steps OVER AND OVER AND OVER. They need practice. In the 70s and 80s, the pendulum was too far into rote repetition and practice. Now it has swung too far the other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts, but I disagree that there is no benefit to the way we did it when we were kids. It was MUCH faster. I think the greater emphasis on understanding in the current methods is wonderful but that the curriculum should move on much more quickly to practicing. Kids who are intuitively strong at math don't need to these labor intensive, breaking everything into steps OVER AND OVER AND OVER. They need practice. In the 70s and 80s, the pendulum was too far into rote repetition and practice. Now it has swung too far the other way.

It's still rote.
Just a different kind of rote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Same for me. I was terrible at math and topped out at algebra II. Fortunately my son is gifted in math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

I think this is true for a lot of people.

The hazards with the "teach everything" approach are threefold:

1. Kids who get math really quickly and can intuit whys and concepts are bored unless they are on an accelerated math track where they learn every way of doing it super fast.
2. Kids who have a math or learning or processing related disability can often get confused by 3 different ways to do everything and would do much better really focusing in on just one way of doing it...and that should probably be the fastest and surest.
3. Poor teachers don't typically spend the time necessary to connect the different ways of doing things together or make sure the kids actually understand each way. They just throw out a menu of options - or worse have the kids do a "project" and teach each other the options - and hope one sticks. It leaves the less strong math students behind. This is NOT a problem with good teachers, but if every teacher were amazing we'd have a lot fewer problems.

[Anonymous]

End of day, I will take old or new math being taught so long as not taught by the ES AAP teacher ours had who told class she “never really got math” when she was little and that that “math is hard.” Yes she was new to FCPS that year, but ES math is or should not be advanced for a teacher even if AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

I think this is true for a lot of people.

The hazards with the "teach everything" approach are threefold:

1. Kids who get math really quickly and can intuit whys and concepts are bored unless they are on an accelerated math track where they learn every way of doing it super fast.
2. Kids who have a math or learning or processing related disability can often get confused by 3 different ways to do everything and would do much better really focusing in on just one way of doing it...and that should probably be the fastest and surest.
3. Poor teachers don't typically spend the time necessary to connect the different ways of doing things together or make sure the kids actually understand each way. They just throw out a menu of options - or worse have the kids do a "project" and teach each other the options - and hope one sticks. It leaves the less strong math students behind. This is NOT a problem with good teachers, but if every teacher were amazing we'd have a lot fewer problems.

I'm just going to point out for all the advocates of "old math" because it was faster and the new math has kids who already get it bored... Hate to break it to you but the kids who get it quickly were STILL bored back in the day, because we STILL spent time doing "old math" over and over and over again when we didn't need to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

I think this is true for a lot of people.

The hazards with the "teach everything" approach are threefold:

1. Kids who get math really quickly and can intuit whys and concepts are bored unless they are on an accelerated math track where they learn every way of doing it super fast.
2. Kids who have a math or learning or processing related disability can often get confused by 3 different ways to do everything and would do much better really focusing in on just one way of doing it...and that should probably be the fastest and surest.
3. Poor teachers don't typically spend the time necessary to connect the different ways of doing things together or make sure the kids actually understand each way. They just throw out a menu of options - or worse have the kids do a "project" and teach each other the options - and hope one sticks. It leaves the less strong math students behind. This is NOT a problem with good teachers, but if every teacher were amazing we'd have a lot fewer problems.

I'm just going to point out for all the advocates of "old math" because it was faster and the new math has kids who already get it bored... Hate to break it to you but the kids who get it quickly were STILL bored back in the day, because we STILL spent time doing "old math" over and over and over again when we didn't need to.

True story.
Teaching various ways to approach math is probably a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

I think this is true for a lot of people.

The hazards with the "teach everything" approach are threefold:

1. Kids who get math really quickly and can intuit whys and concepts are bored unless they are on an accelerated math track where they learn every way of doing it super fast.
2. Kids who have a math or learning or processing related disability can often get confused by 3 different ways to do everything and would do much better really focusing in on just one way of doing it...and that should probably be the fastest and surest.
3. Poor teachers don't typically spend the time necessary to connect the different ways of doing things together or make sure the kids actually understand each way. They just throw out a menu of options - or worse have the kids do a "project" and teach each other the options - and hope one sticks. It leaves the less strong math students behind. This is NOT a problem with good teachers, but if every teacher were amazing we'd have a lot fewer problems.

I'm just going to point out for all the advocates of "old math" because it was faster and the new math has kids who already get it bored... Hate to break it to you but the kids who get it quickly were STILL bored back in the day, because we STILL spent time doing "old math" over and over and over again when we didn't need to.

Yeah, memorizing the multiplication tables is boring. "You don't have to like it, you just have to do it.". As opposed to new math, where if you don't like it, you don't do it. And you count on your fingers forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

I think this is true for a lot of people.

The hazards with the "teach everything" approach are threefold:

1. Kids who get math really quickly and can intuit whys and concepts are bored unless they are on an accelerated math track where they learn every way of doing it super fast.
2. Kids who have a math or learning or processing related disability can often get confused by 3 different ways to do everything and would do much better really focusing in on just one way of doing it...and that should probably be the fastest and surest.
3. Poor teachers don't typically spend the time necessary to connect the different ways of doing things together or make sure the kids actually understand each way. They just throw out a menu of options - or worse have the kids do a "project" and teach each other the options - and hope one sticks. It leaves the less strong math students behind. This is NOT a problem with good teachers, but if every teacher were amazing we'd have a lot fewer problems.

I'm just going to point out for all the advocates of "old math" because it was faster and the new math has kids who already get it bored... Hate to break it to you but the kids who get it quickly were STILL bored back in the day, because we STILL spent time doing "old math" over and over and over again when we didn't need to.

PP here. I was one of those "get it quickly" kids. I also learned math via Saxon, the ultimate in drill and kill. My education was such that when I was bored, I just skipped to the next Saxon book until I wasn't bored any more. Note I did mention an accelerated track in my first post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

I think this is true for a lot of people.

The hazards with the "teach everything" approach are threefold:

1. Kids who get math really quickly and can intuit whys and concepts are bored unless they are on an accelerated math track where they learn every way of doing it super fast.
2. Kids who have a math or learning or processing related disability can often get confused by 3 different ways to do everything and would do much better really focusing in on just one way of doing it...and that should probably be the fastest and surest.
3. Poor teachers don't typically spend the time necessary to connect the different ways of doing things together or make sure the kids actually understand each way. They just throw out a menu of options - or worse have the kids do a "project" and teach each other the options - and hope one sticks. It leaves the less strong math students behind. This is NOT a problem with good teachers, but if every teacher were amazing we'd have a lot fewer problems.

I'm just going to point out for all the advocates of "old math" because it was faster and the new math has kids who already get it bored... Hate to break it to you but the kids who get it quickly were STILL bored back in the day, because we STILL spent time doing "old math" over and over and over again when we didn't need to.

Yeah, memorizing the multiplication tables is boring. "You don't have to like it, you just have to do it.". As opposed to new math, where if you don't like it, you don't do it. And you count on your fingers forever.

[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.

Think about the problem a bit and you realize that 65 is a multiple of 5, and 32 is a power of 2.
So you do:

65 * 32 = 13 * 5 * 2 * 16 = 13 * 4 * 4 * 10 = 52 * 4 * 10 = 208 * 10 = 2080

People trained in the "old ways" use the vertical math only if their 2-second check doesn't find a faster way that maps to already memorized facts.
You basically rearrange prime factors in ways that map to already memorized facts like '13 * 4' (4 suits in a deck of cards), or obvious ones (like 52 * 4 = 208).
Or is that the "new way?" Doubt it.

[Anonymous]

There have been several “new math” curricula over the past 50 years. My “new math” from the 1970s was different from the “new math” of the 1980s, and so on.

What actually works for math is to teach 1 method which always works, and then have lots of repetition so that method is memorized. Not a popular answer, but its what the data show. Go see the circa 1990 CBS 60-Minutes episode on Saxon Math - and then cry about all the kids who did not learn math because of various ineffective math curricula.

Ed School faculty cannot get tenure for saying any existing curriculum/approach works well. To get published and thus get tenure, they always need to “invent” a different approach and say it is better than whichever approach is in use at that time.

It is sad really, and it is in large measure also how reading instruction became such a mess (even though lots of data for many decades has said Phonics is what works for all kids).