Is there a benefit to teaching “old math”?

[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.

Lightning fast solution, just do 13*16 and add a 0, done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lightning fast solution, just do 13*16 and add a 0, done.

How do you change 65*32 into 13*16 and just add a 0? That wouldn’t be intuitive to me.

[Anonymous]

There is a benefit if your child is struggling with the new math. Heck, I barely understand it. Or if you have a child with special needs as I do, it may make more sense to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lightning fast solution, just do 13*16 and add a 0, done.

How do you change 65*32 into 13*16 and just add a 0? That wouldn’t be intuitive to me.

Factor 65 = 13*5, and 32 = 2*16, then combine a 2 and 5 to make a 10 which adds a zero at the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lightning fast solution, just do 13*16 and add a 0, done.

How do you change 65*32 into 13*16 and just add a 0? That wouldn’t be intuitive to me.

Factor 65 = 13*5, and 32 = 2*16, then combine a 2 and 5 to make a 10 which adds a zero at the end.

I don't think that will save ANY time.
It is literally easier to multiply 65 by 2 and then multiply 65 by 3 than to multiply 13*16

[Anonymous]

Its now new math. Its actual numeracy and understanding how things work when you add and subtract and multiply. You can teach the column way later. But the current methods if figuring out multiple ways to get the answer result in better understanding and for many, faster mental arithmetic.

[Anonymous]

I think it is important to remember the Common Core curriculum was specifically developed to counter the effects of unearned white privilege.

[Anonymous]

Math is math, but the reasoning behind it was developed based on certain factors and assumptions that didn’t include everyone. As a result, math may come easily to some but is difficult for others to grasp. If mathematical concepts were approached like the Egyptians did when building the pyramids, we might not even need the Pythagorean theorem, which emerged a thousand years later. The current education system has prioritized the Pythagorean theorem over the simpler and more intuitive mathematics that underpinned those monumental structures. A revisit or revision is worth considering!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Math is math, but the reasoning behind it was developed based on certain factors and assumptions that didn’t include everyone. As a result, math may come easily to some but is difficult for others to grasp. If mathematical concepts were approached like the Egyptians did when building the pyramids, we might not even need the Pythagorean theorem, which emerged a thousand years later. The current education system has prioritized the Pythagorean theorem over the simpler and more intuitive mathematics that underpinned those monumental structures. A revisit or revision is worth considering!

- and simultaneously addressing unearned white privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Math is math, but the reasoning behind it was developed based on certain factors and assumptions that didn’t include everyone. As a result, math may come easily to some but is difficult for others to grasp. If mathematical concepts were approached like the Egyptians did when building the pyramids, we might not even need the Pythagorean theorem, which emerged a thousand years later. The current education system has prioritized the Pythagorean theorem over the simpler and more intuitive mathematics that underpinned those monumental structures. A revisit or revision is worth considering!

Let's go back 5000 years and learn our math from the Egyptians!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Maybe you and your son are similar but your son benefited from the new math.

[Anonymous]

My kid eventually learned the same methods I was taught in the 80s, but he learned a lot of other methods and approaches first. It was like the new math was working up to the old school way - but first showing kids how to estimate the answer to know if their answer is correct, then different ways to approach the same problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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).

We have computers now. We have no use for people who memorize methods but don't understand how to apply or generalize.