Excellent summary about what is so wrong about the MCPS math curriculum

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous

Nope, I should have said algorithmic fluency. To multiply three-digit numbers takes understanding but it also takes a bunch of single-digit calculations. Nine multiplication and six additions before carries (I could program a computer to do it). Mess up any of those and the answer is wrong. That may happen because basic facts are weak (or just slow enough that concentration falters) or because there hasn't been enough practice executing the chosen method, lack of fluency. I was referring to the latter. Yes, all the methods work and they aren't even very different. But the time spent wading through methods actually comes at the expense of practice. This same meticulousness is needed for Algebra just as much as the understanding is.

It may come at the expense of practice but it comes at the benefit of understanding.

For what it's worth, I haven't noticed any weakness in basic facts under Curriculum 2.0. On the contrary, in fact. For my pre-2.0 kid, the principal and teachers explicitly told the parents that it was the parents' responsibility to make sure that the kid learned their math facts. For my 2.0 kid, there was lots and lots and lots of repetition in class. In fact, this is one of the things that people specifically complain about on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous

Nope, I should have said algorithmic fluency. To multiply three-digit numbers takes understanding but it also takes a bunch of single-digit calculations. Nine multiplication and six additions before carries (I could program a computer to do it). Mess up any of those and the answer is wrong. That may happen because basic facts are weak (or just slow enough that concentration falters) or because there hasn't been enough practice executing the chosen method, lack of fluency. I was referring to the latter. Yes, all the methods work and they aren't even very different. But the time spent wading through methods actually comes at the expense of practice. This same meticulousness is needed for Algebra just as much as the understanding is.

It may come at the expense of practice but it comes at the benefit of understanding.

For what it's worth, I haven't noticed any weakness in basic facts under Curriculum 2.0. On the contrary, in fact. For my pre-2.0 kid, the principal and teachers explicitly told the parents that it was the parents' responsibility to make sure that the kid learned their math facts. For my 2.0 kid, there was lots and lots and lots of repetition in class. In fact, this is one of the things that people specifically complain about on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous

Nope, I should have said algorithmic fluency. To multiply three-digit numbers takes understanding but it also takes a bunch of single-digit calculations. Nine multiplication and six additions before carries (I could program a computer to do it). Mess up any of those and the answer is wrong. That may happen because basic facts are weak (or just slow enough that concentration falters) or because there hasn't been enough practice executing the chosen method, lack of fluency. I was referring to the latter. Yes, all the methods work and they aren't even very different. But the time spent wading through methods actually comes at the expense of practice. This same meticulousness is needed for Algebra just as much as the understanding is.

It may come at the expense of practice but it comes at the benefit of understanding.

For what it's worth, I haven't noticed any weakness in basic facts under Curriculum 2.0. On the contrary, in fact. For my pre-2.0 kid, the principal and teachers explicitly told the parents that it was the parents' responsibility to make sure that the kid learned their math facts. For my 2.0 kid, there was lots and lots and lots of repetition in class. In fact, this is one of the things that people specifically complain about on DCUM.

Well, what I'm noticing is my DS, too, has understanding, but he was never tripped up by this stuff, so I expect that. However, his ability to execute a longer calculation without error is kinda craptastic. It's the algorithmic fluency bit. He understands multiplication, he does know the algorithm, but every time he was asked to use it was on a page of two word problems and if he made an error he would get partial credit for setting up the problem and his understanding. Sometimes he would get a note: you have a calculator!. He is not at the stage where a calculator is justified. And jumping straight to word problems may sound like sophistication, but he would be better served by a page of 30 multiplication problems (he'll thank me later I'm sure). Just to be clear 31*12 is algorithmically equivalent to (3x+1)(x+2). Anyone who can't do the first by hand with accuracy is no more ready to deal with the second expression than someone who truly doesn't believe in multiplication. 2.0 pays way to much lip service to the un-measurable concept of understanding but has no real appreciation of where any of this is leading.

[Anonymous]

So far, things are going fine for my second-grader with the new curriculum. She is not someone whom I would have tagged as a math stand out, but she seems very comfortable now doing calculations in her head, including breaking up more complex numbers into easier to add numbers ( for example 24+32 is tackled by first adding 20+30, etc.) , which I think is something this curriculum explicitly teaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, what I'm noticing is my DS, too, has understanding, but he was never tripped up by this stuff, so I expect that. However, his ability to execute a longer calculation without error is kinda craptastic. It's the algorithmic fluency bit. He understands multiplication, he does know the algorithm, but every time he was asked to use it was on a page of two word problems and if he made an error he would get partial credit for setting up the problem and his understanding. Sometimes he would get a note: you have a calculator!. He is not at the stage where a calculator is justified. And jumping straight to word problems may sound like sophistication, but he would be better served by a page of 30 multiplication problems (he'll thank me later I'm sure). Just to be clear 31*12 is algorithmically equivalent to (3x+1)(x+2). Anyone who can't do the first by hand with accuracy is no more ready to deal with the second expression than someone who truly doesn't believe in multiplication. 2.0 pays way to much lip service to the un-measurable concept of understanding but has no real appreciation of where any of this is leading.

When I was in elementary school, I could do (and did do) pages and pages of multiplication problems accurately and quickly, but I couldn't have told you that 31*12 = 30*12 + 1*12, or that a good way to solve 31*12 in your head is 31*10 + 62. My kid can do these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, what I'm noticing is my DS, too, has understanding, but he was never tripped up by this stuff, so I expect that. However, his ability to execute a longer calculation without error is kinda craptastic. It's the algorithmic fluency bit. He understands multiplication, he does know the algorithm, but every time he was asked to use it was on a page of two word problems and if he made an error he would get partial credit for setting up the problem and his understanding. Sometimes he would get a note: you have a calculator!. He is not at the stage where a calculator is justified. And jumping straight to word problems may sound like sophistication, but he would be better served by a page of 30 multiplication problems (he'll thank me later I'm sure). Just to be clear 31*12 is algorithmically equivalent to (3x+1)(x+2). Anyone who can't do the first by hand with accuracy is no more ready to deal with the second expression than someone who truly doesn't believe in multiplication. 2.0 pays way to much lip service to the un-measurable concept of understanding but has no real appreciation of where any of this is leading.

When I was in elementary school, I could do (and did do) pages and pages of multiplication problems accurately and quickly, but I couldn't have told you that 31*12 = 30*12 + 1*12, or that a good way to solve 31*12 in your head is 31*10 + 62. My kid can do these things.

+1 I'm a math person, but I only figured out that you can do multiplication that way much later than ES, on my own. No one taught it to me. My ES kids are being taught this at school. I think it's great. I really like how they are focusing on the "making 10 strategy" in the early years. I also figured out on my own much later that this was an easy way to add.

[Anonymous]

What I'm saying is there should be some of both. It's great that they are doing making tens strategies and if that helps them to understand multiplying polynomials later that's important. But the practice component is also beneficial. Someone who understands multiplying polynomials but makes mistakes 25% of the time is going to run into trouble. Doing a page of math problems is both another way learning about arithmetic and practices the meticulousness that will be needed later. It's just the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Math is all about understanding but don't forget how much muscle memory and experience is at play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I'm saying is there should be some of both. It's great that they are doing making tens strategies and if that helps them to understand multiplying polynomials later that's important. But the practice component is also beneficial. Someone who understands multiplying polynomials but makes mistakes 25% of the time is going to run into trouble. Doing a page of math problems is both another way learning about arithmetic and practices the meticulousness that will be needed later. It's just the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Math is all about understanding but don't forget how much muscle memory and experience is at play.

The simple solution is to give your child a page of math problems at home for practice.

[Anonymous]

Yep, that's what I do as mentioned above.

[Anonymous]

The elementary curriculum was slow, repetitive, and boring for my child. Now that my youngest is taking IM, he has MORE gaps than my prior kids who were under the old curriculum for elementary school.

With that being said, I think the Algebra, Geometry, and Algebra 2 curriculum has potential if teachers actually teach the curriculum with the materials that have been developed and in the order the new curriculum has been designed to be taught. One teacher my son had was actually on the writing team and the class was very engaging and he was very proficient in the material.

He now struggles with a teacher who started using the new county materials then gave up and reverted to her old lesson plans and textbook. His class and the other classes at our high school are struggling to pass the county assessments despite getting As and Bs on the school assessments. Given the poor prognosis for the midyear exam, they have spent since January 4th teaching for the exam. This is a teacher and ultimately an administrative problem at the school because they are NOT teaching the curriculum as it has been designed to be taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I'm saying is there should be some of both. It's great that they are doing making tens strategies and if that helps them to understand multiplying polynomials later that's important. But the practice component is also beneficial. Someone who understands multiplying polynomials but makes mistakes 25% of the time is going to run into trouble. Doing a page of math problems is both another way learning about arithmetic and practices the meticulousness that will be needed later. It's just the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Math is all about understanding but don't forget how much muscle memory and experience is at play.

well, I don't know about other schools, but my DC has had practice worksheets at school, like 30 double digit addition/subtraction questions they had to finish in 1 or 2 minutes - type of thing. DC is also supposed to do 10min of math practice at home as part of HW M-Th. I bought a math workbook that DC does for practice and as part of this HW; I also have printed free math worksheets online for DC to do as part of the 10min math HW. They can also play math games online that are timed. So, there are ways for kids to practice this at home to get that muscle memory.

I also think it's great that they are learning simple algebraic equations and word problems at such an early age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The elementary curriculum was slow, repetitive, and boring for my child. Now that my youngest is taking IM, he has MORE gaps than my prior kids who were under the old curriculum for elementary school.

With that being said, I think the Algebra, Geometry, and Algebra 2 curriculum has potential if teachers actually teach the curriculum with the materials that have been developed and in the order the new curriculum has been designed to be taught. One teacher my son had was actually on the writing team and the class was very engaging and he was very proficient in the material.

He now struggles with a teacher who started using the new county materials then gave up and reverted to her old lesson plans and textbook. His class and the other classes at our high school are struggling to pass the county assessments despite getting As and Bs on the school assessments. Given the poor prognosis for the midyear exam, they have spent since January 4th teaching for the exam. This is a teacher and ultimately an administrative problem at the school because they are NOT teaching the curriculum as it has been designed to be taught.

This is where my younger DS is too, and what I was trying to explain above.

I'm not impressed with the revised Algebra and Geometry courses, perhaps they're already changing but my older DS was in Algebra two years ago and Geometry last year. I couldn't be certain the teachers used the provided curriculum exclusively but I thought they did. I thought the geometry in particular really didn't gel. They tried to introduce some concepts like rigid transformations into the discussion of congruent figures. That is powerful as long as the full machinery is available. But they don't have that luxury, they are limited to rotations by 90 degrees, reflections about the axes and y=x, and translations because those are the only cases where the new coordinates are immediate to plot. So examples were cooked where two triangles are congruent because a rotation by 90 degrees takes one to the other. But they couldn't say anything about ALL triangles that are congruent. So after spending some time developing the idea of transformations, they're just abandoned without a punch line.

The other problem was algebra was grafted on top of the geometry at every opportunity. This was clearly intended to keep those skills sharp, the spiral, but it also muddies the discussion of new material. And sometimes there was a genuine clash between the algebra problem and the geometry problem if one were to take the time to think about both.