There's really no benefit in showing the old math way.

The reason why there's always such an uproar about Old vs New math is because parents don't know how to do the new math so they can't help their kids with homework.

The oldest Gen Z members are now 27/28 and will soon be parents if they aren't already. Gen Z is the first generation that was fully new math.

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.

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

I just asked my rising 6th grader to solve this in her head. She said she added 44 + 20 and then the 7.

I, an old math person, mentally added the 7 and 4 in the ones column and carried the 1. Not sure mine was more efficient.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the only benefit is that the parents are more comfortable with it.

+1. My kid is getting so much more out of math class than I ever did. It's just frustrating that I'm largely unable to help with her homework. When she has a question, I mostly have her explain the lesson to me until she reaches the answer on her own.

That's the right way to help your DC.

But to address teaching old math and new math, they teach both, as long as there is time, and the teacher or student isn't absent that day (my DS was out sick the day his teacher taught long division so he didn't learn it and eventually figured it out himself in 6th grade). But since they teach lots of inefficient ways to solve problems along with the old efficient way, kids don't realize that they should use the efficient way. Instead they pick whichever way to solve the problem that they like the best. And then they cannot add, subtract, multiply or divide efficiently.

This highlights another crucial difference. Old math emphasized practice and drills, because that is how one actually *learns* pretty much anything.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the only benefit is that the parents are more comfortable with it.

+1. My kid is getting so much more out of math class than I ever did. It's just frustrating that I'm largely unable to help with her homework. When she has a question, I mostly have her explain the lesson to me until she reaches the answer on her own.

That's the right way to help your DC.

But to address teaching old math and new math, they teach both, as long as there is time, and the teacher or student isn't absent that day (my DS was out sick the day his teacher taught long division so he didn't learn it and eventually figured it out himself in 6th grade). But since they teach lots of inefficient ways to solve problems along with the old efficient way, kids don't realize that they should use the efficient way. Instead they pick whichever way to solve the problem that they like the best. And then they cannot add, subtract, multiply or divide efficiently.

Anonymous wrote:Could someone explain the difference between old and new?

There are several videos on YouTube.

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

Anonymous wrote:I think the only benefit is that the parents are more comfortable with it.

+1. My kid is getting so much more out of math class than I ever did. It's just frustrating that I'm largely unable to help with her homework. When she has a question, I mostly have her explain the lesson to me until she reaches the answer on her own.

I think the only benefit is that the parents are more comfortable with it.

Could someone explain the difference between old and new?

What is practical math?

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.

Old math was practical math.

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.