Bingo! Math IS a language of its own and until this new curriculum respects/understands that basic fact, it will be "out of whack." I agree with the quotes post above that suggests that "math-consultants" rather than mathematicians have written the curriculum.

There is nothing wrong with figuring this out in the beginning. But it needs to get moving. And they need to do a lot more repetition without having to put it in words every single time. After all, math is a language so that we can put these relationships on symbols and equations and not have to use words.

My child in private school gets this stuff and I can now answer it properly because it's a continuation of the grouping addition stuff she got in 2nd grade that I had to figure out last year.

Anonymous wrote:Montessori children are all taught to understand what concretely is actually going on with multiplication. I see no problem with the way it was taught.

Yep, I was curious so asked my 2nd grader. He drew 8 groups of 3 ten blocks and said 240. He was in Montessori through K.

Anonymous wrote:It is too boring because they don't teach the right stuff or give the right homework. It is that simple.

Could you tell me what is "the right stuff" and "the right homework"?

Montessori children are all taught to understand what concretely is actually going on with multiplication. I see no problem with the way it was taught.

It is too boring because they don't teach the right stuff or give the right homework. It is that simple.

See, I thought all these 3rd grade math threads were about how the kids were all bored with the math because they had done it before and understood it. It doesn't sound like this child understands it. So is MCPS math super bad because it's too hard or too easy or what? I'm trying to keep up.

What is the difference between the standing algorithm and these words other than the former being more elegant and less prone to mistakes?

Of course the standard algorithm (for multiplying a two-digit number by a one-digit number) is an algorithm based on place value and the properties of operation. But does the child understand this? Well enough to explain?

I was taught to do the algorithm. I was not taught to understand the algorithm.

Anonymous wrote:PP at 21:00 -- adding on that this assumes that the child understands that 30 is 3 tens, and that 31 is 3 tens plus 1 one; i.e., concepts about place value and regrouping/composition/decomposition.

From the mouth of the chief author of the common core standard:
William McCallum
"I also don't understand why the author believes that the standard algorithm is not an algorithm based on place value and the properties of operation. What exactly is it based on if not those?"

I bought a well rated Math Textbook for 3rd grade and worked through that with my 3rd grader during this academic year.

Every evening we try and finish the homework which the school assigns as fast as we can (10 minutes tops...I help... happy to do an average job), and then get down to the business of learning other stuff.

I am trying hard not to let MCPS schooling interfere with his education.

PP at 21:00 -- adding on that this assumes that the child understands that 30 is 3 tens, and that 31 is 3 tens plus 1 one; i.e., concepts about place value and regrouping/composition/decomposition.

^^ meant to say 30 x 8 = 240

The idea is not to teach 30 x 8 = 24, where 8 groups of 30 is 240, so that can then be misconstrued as "well what do I do with 31 x 8?"

The idea is to teach students about what a multiple is. In this case, multiples of 10s. Your child should have learned what a multiple of 10 is, and what a multiple of 10 isn't. If the work they did in class (which includes groupings of 10s for "larger" multiplication) held up in homework, the student should realize that all numbers ending with 0 in the ones place will be a multiple of ten, and using the grouping strategy to explain.