Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't see the value of the doubles strategies. Because you're confusing the kids. You're giving them 3 different strategies - doubles, count on, tens and ones.

Doubles are useless because a) you can't use them in additions above 10; b) kids already pretty much memorize all the additions within 10; c) they confuse kids who are trained to use tens and ones for adding.

No one uses doubles besides CC. Singapore math doesn't use doubles, Kumon doesn't use doubles, Critical Thinking doesn't use doubles.

My education in math was in Russia. Russia had an excellent math education. We never used doubles. It's looks like a Common Core invention and it's full of crap like this.

My child in Virginia learned doubles and Virginia is not a Common Core state, so I think you are not as well informed as you think you are.

My child in Maryland learned doubles before there were Common Core standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't see the value of the doubles strategies. Because you're confusing the kids. You're giving them 3 different strategies - doubles, count on, tens and ones.

Doubles are useless because a) you can't use them in additions above 10; b) kids already pretty much memorize all the additions within 10; c) they confuse kids who are trained to use tens and ones for adding.

No one uses doubles besides CC. Singapore math doesn't use doubles, Kumon doesn't use doubles, Critical Thinking doesn't use doubles.

My education in math was in Russia. Russia had an excellent math education. We never used doubles. It's looks like a Common Core invention and it's full of crap like this.

Actually doubles aren't even mentioned as a term, in Common Core. This is what is stated as an objectve for first grade, which is where you'd expect the concept of doubles and doubles plus one to be taught:

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/1/OA/

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.1.OA.C.6

Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10.

Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

I don't get it. Doubles and doubles + 1 are right there. What did you mean when you said they're not in CC?

Anonymous wrote:
I don't see the value of the doubles strategies. Because you're confusing the kids. You're giving them 3 different strategies - doubles, count on, tens and ones.

Doubles are useless because a) you can't use them in additions above 10; b) kids already pretty much memorize all the additions within 10; c) they confuse kids who are trained to use tens and ones for adding.

No one uses doubles besides CC. Singapore math doesn't use doubles, Kumon doesn't use doubles, Critical Thinking doesn't use doubles.

My education in math was in Russia. Russia had an excellent math education. We never used doubles. It's looks like a Common Core invention and it's full of crap like this.

Actually doubles aren't even mentioned as a term, in Common Core. This is what is stated as an objectve for first grade, which is where you'd expect the concept of doubles and doubles plus one to be taught:

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/1/OA/

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.1.OA.C.6

Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10.

Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If your math skills were that strong, you would have no trouble understanding the value of learning these strategies, especially for kids who don't immediately comprehend it.
Also, the "shortest, most elegant solution" is an appropriate approach once you understand the fundamentals (which is not the same thing as memorizing a bunch of facts and equations. The point of math right now isn't to get to the answer to 3+4 as quickly as possible, it's to understand why 3+4=7, and to understand multiple ways of thinking about the solution so that, when you get more advanced, you're more capable of arriving at the "shortest, most elegant solution."

I don't see the value of the doubles strategies. Because you're confusing the kids. You're giving them 3 different strategies - doubles, count on, tens and ones.

Doubles are useless because a) you can't use them in additions above 10; b) kids already pretty much memorize all the additions within 10; c) they confuse kids who are trained to use tens and ones for adding.

No one uses doubles besides CC. Singapore math doesn't use doubles, Kumon doesn't use doubles, Critical Thinking doesn't use doubles.

My education in math was in Russia. Russia had an excellent math education. We never used doubles. It's looks like a Common Core invention and it's full of crap like this.

My child in Virginia learned doubles and Virginia is not a Common Core state, so I think you are not as well informed as you think you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is defending bad instructions on a worksheet.

Yes, there is an Everyday Math curriculum aligned to the Common Core standards.

There were plenty of PPs who said because I can figure it out it's just fine and one even said OP's child just must not be that good in math. Sorry to sound shrill, but poor writing in children's texts really bothers me. Such a disservice to them.

Also on the other common core thread most of the posters thought having a very language heavy math curriculum was a good thing and if kids with language problems were at at a disadvantage that just means the school should provide more supports. As if. They somewhat ridiculously divided the world into verbal and nonverbal kids and obtusely overlooked, despite multiple posts, that verbal children on the low range of normal have difficulties with language-ladened math curriculums.

Do you disagree with this?

No not at all. I followed it with "As if." Spend some time on the SN boards to see how easy it is to get supports for the really language impaired and nonverbal. Then you would understand that low normal language kids wouldn't have a chance in million at getting any support at all.
Clear language serves everyone best.

And that's the problem. Not the Common Core standards.

Also, everybody is in favor of clear language (unless their deliberate purpose is obfuscation, which does happen sometimes). It's just that not everybody agrees on what clear language is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is defending bad instructions on a worksheet.

Yes, there is an Everyday Math curriculum aligned to the Common Core standards.

There were plenty of PPs who said because I can figure it out it's just fine and one even said OP's child just must not be that good in math. Sorry to sound shrill, but poor writing in children's texts really bothers me. Such a disservice to them.

Also on the other common core thread most of the posters thought having a very language heavy math curriculum was a good thing and if kids with language problems were at at a disadvantage that just means the school should provide more supports. As if. They somewhat ridiculously divided the world into verbal and nonverbal kids and obtusely overlooked, despite multiple posts, that verbal children on the low range of normal have difficulties with language-ladened math curriculums.

Do you disagree with this?

No not at all. I followed it with "As if." Spend some time on the SN boards to see how easy it is to get supports for the really language impaired and nonverbal. Then you would understand that low normal language kids wouldn't have a chance in million at getting any support at all.

Clear language serves everyone best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is defending bad instructions on a worksheet.

Yes, there is an Everyday Math curriculum aligned to the Common Core standards.

There were plenty of PPs who said because I can figure it out it's just fine and one even said OP's child just must not be that good in math. Sorry to sound shrill, but poor writing in children's texts really bothers me. Such a disservice to them.

Nobody was defending bad instructions. They were saying that they did not think that those instructions were bad.

My 2nd grader brought home math HW today that stated to solve double digit math addition using the most "efficient" method. School follows CC standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is defending bad instructions on a worksheet.

Yes, there is an Everyday Math curriculum aligned to the Common Core standards.

There were plenty of PPs who said because I can figure it out it's just fine and one even said OP's child just must not be that good in math. Sorry to sound shrill, but poor writing in children's texts really bothers me. Such a disservice to them.

Also on the other common core thread most of the posters thought having a very language heavy math curriculum was a good thing and if kids with language problems were at at a disadvantage that just means the school should provide more supports. As if. They somewhat ridiculously divided the world into verbal and nonverbal kids and obtusely overlooked, despite multiple posts, that verbal children on the low range of normal have difficulties with language-ladened math curriculums.

Do you disagree with this?

I think when people talk about language heavy they were talking about explaining your answer type of situation. None of the OP's exam requires writing words. Can the explanation be a bit better? Sure. But at least one of them showed her DD did not really understand making ten.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is defending bad instructions on a worksheet.

Yes, there is an Everyday Math curriculum aligned to the Common Core standards.

There were plenty of PPs who said because I can figure it out it's just fine and one even said OP's child just must not be that good in math. Sorry to sound shrill, but poor writing in children's texts really bothers me. Such a disservice to them.

Also on the other common core thread most of the posters thought having a very language heavy math curriculum was a good thing and if kids with language problems were at at a disadvantage that just means the school should provide more supports. As if. They somewhat ridiculously divided the world into verbal and nonverbal kids and obtusely overlooked, despite multiple posts, that verbal children on the low range of normal have difficulties with language-ladened math curriculums.

Anonymous wrote:I think coloring by labels is indeed unnecessary. However, it is not that time consuming a task.

I wouldn't even mind coloring by type of problem if it was the only thing the child was asked to do with the problem. Asking them to do multiple things with the same problem puts a too heavy demand on most six year olds.

I think coloring by labels is indeed unnecessary. However, it is not that time consuming a task.

Anonymous wrote:PP at 7:42, what is your education and experience in teaching math to 5-6-7-year-olds? Everybody seems to think that they learned math when they were 5-6-7, so they know how to teach math to 5-6-7-year-olds. But that's not true.

I have used Singapore Math with my 2 children, so I feel confident saying that Singapore Math works with the two children I have used it with. But I am not going to go around saying that Singapore Math works with every child, or that I am an expert in teaching math, or that Singapore Math's way is the only way.

I'm 7:42 ... I am an elementary school teacher who has taught math to students in grades K, 1 and 2; I also have researched methods of teaching number sense and arithmetic in depth.

I agree -- just because you learned to add and subtract when you were age 5, 6 or 7, doesn't mean you know how to teach children to do it. And just because you have a degree in advanced math or engineering, doesn't necessarily mean you know the most efficient way to teach children how to add and subtract.

The methods in Singapore Math are highly efficient ways to teach basic number sense and arithmetic, however. Will they work with every student? I would say yes, they should; unless that student is severely learning disabled to the point where he or she is unable to do things like count with one to one correspondence or cannot remember more than 2 numbers at a time (unable to count 1,2,3,4,5....). Are these methods necessary? No, many children can learn basic math skills using different methods; but the Singapore Math way is the most efficient I have seen and if taught correctly should have a high success rate in a short period of time. Many of the Common Core math standards seem to support the Singapore Math curriculum, however I fear many teachers (and curricula writers) don't truly understand the logic behind what are good standards. THey bring more into the curriculum than is needed, overly complicate things, and leave parents and students confused and spinning their wheels doing things that are certainly not required by the standards. (Like coloring sums according to a label instead of just having students solve the problems.)

Nobody is defending bad instructions on a worksheet.

Yes, there is an Everyday Math curriculum aligned to the Common Core standards.