Anonymous wrote:Singapore Math emphasizes making 10's. So in in one example 8+7 the only choice to solve is doubles plus/minus one. I use Singapore Math with my first grader and he has been taught to see the problem as the 8 needs 2 more to make a 10, 7-2 is 5 so 8+7 = 10+ 5= 15. Now that he is working in the second grade book he has no problem mentally adding by grouping larger numbers into 10's. So 28 + 37, he can rapidly switch to 28+2 = 30, 37-2 =35 so 30 + 35 =65. Or he can switch it to 50+ 15=65. I don't think kids should get marked down because they manipulate the numbers a different way.

Exactly. Tens and ones are most logical and most efficient solution. This is how the rest of the world operates.

You're confusing them with this bs:
8+7= 8+8-1

when the rest of the world teaches them
8+7 =8+2+5

When you get to two digit and three digit numbers, how will your "double" strategy work?
How will you explain this with doubles: 87+11?

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.

Singapore Math uses doubles and counting on.

https://www.singaporemath.com/v/sf_pmcctg1a.pdf

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That should be exactly what she knows and has learned in school. Once you know the terminology, it is very simple. Doubles are 4+4, 5+5, etc., which most children learn easily and before other math facts. Counting on, or count plus one, is 4+1, 5+1, etc., which is simply counting one more number. So a double plus one is another way of adding 4+5, by breaking it up into 4+4+1, which is easier for some children.

But why make kids memorize doubles? Why fill their heads with unnecessary terms and strategies? What exactly this whole "double" concept is for? It's useless for additions and useless for multiplication. In multiplication are you going to say to your kids "Doubles times three?"

I came a very strong school of math. And anything that wasn't the shortest, most elegant solution was not accepted in my math classes.

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 think this right here is what most adults have a problem with. Some parents want their kids to get to the most advanced level as quickly as possible, so they don't like it when kids have to spend weeks understanding what should be an easy math concept.

Also, too many adults have the mentality of "this is how I learned it, and it was good enough for me to take calculus in 11th/12th grade so why can't my kids learn it the same way". Well, because even though *you* may have learned it one way and did well doesn't mean many others did. Americans just generally suck at math, including adults, and even our teens these days don't do as well in the critical thinking section of standardized tests compared to other countries:

http://educationbythenumbers.org/content/top-us-students-fare-poorly-international-pisa-test-scores-shanghai-tops-world-finland-slips_693/

"* Stagnation. U.S. scores on PISA exams haven’t improved over the past decade. See here. That’s a bit of a contrast from the NAEP exam where American students have been showing modest improvement. I believe the NAEP exam plays to U.S. strengths of simple equation solving. It has fewer word problems where students have to apply their knowledge to a new circumstance and write their own equations and models."

Common Core "standards" are making the math illiteracy in this country much much worse.


And now we have the test results to show it.

I don't know how you can know that. Most of the states have only recently implemented CC standards, and the article was for the 2012 PISA, and states that in the past decade, math achievement has been stagnant -- from 2002 to 2012 pre-CC. So, that tells me that whatever math standards we had in the past 15 yrs hasn't made those kids who took the 2012 pisa test do any better in math. These kids would be in their early 20's now. So, young adults in the US do more poorly than young adults in a lot of the other countries.

You say CC will make it worse. We don't have the results yet. And no, PARCC results would be comparing apples to oranges since the results in the article are from the PISA test, not PARCC.

In any case, I see my 2nd grader doing basic algebra under CC standards. I don't think I was doing that in 2nd grade. Seems pretty advanced to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That should be exactly what she knows and has learned in school. Once you know the terminology, it is very simple. Doubles are 4+4, 5+5, etc., which most children learn easily and before other math facts. Counting on, or count plus one, is 4+1, 5+1, etc., which is simply counting one more number. So a double plus one is another way of adding 4+5, by breaking it up into 4+4+1, which is easier for some children.

But why make kids memorize doubles? Why fill their heads with unnecessary terms and strategies? What exactly this whole "double" concept is for? It's useless for additions and useless for multiplication. In multiplication are you going to say to your kids "Doubles times three?"

I came a very strong school of math. And anything that wasn't the shortest, most elegant solution was not accepted in my math classes.

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 think this right here is what most adults have a problem with. Some parents want their kids to get to the most advanced level as quickly as possible, so they don't like it when kids have to spend weeks understanding what should be an easy math concept.

Also, too many adults have the mentality of "this is how I learned it, and it was good enough for me to take calculus in 11th/12th grade so why can't my kids learn it the same way". Well, because even though *you* may have learned it one way and did well doesn't mean many others did. Americans just generally suck at math, including adults, and even our teens these days don't do as well in the critical thinking section of standardized tests compared to other countries:

http://educationbythenumbers.org/content/top-us-students-fare-poorly-international-pisa-test-scores-shanghai-tops-world-finland-slips_693/

"* Stagnation. U.S. scores on PISA exams haven’t improved over the past decade. See here. That’s a bit of a contrast from the NAEP exam where American students have been showing modest improvement. I believe the NAEP exam plays to U.S. strengths of simple equation solving. It has fewer word problems where students have to apply their knowledge to a new circumstance and write their own equations and models."

Common Core "standards" are making the math illiteracy in this country much much worse.


And now we have the test results to show it.

Way to wave the banner of ignorance. That article is commenting on test scores from 2003-2012. Common Core standards weren't implemented in most schools until the 2013-2014 school year, so they have absolutely nothing to do with the lack of improvement in student performance, except to the extent they were a response to how poorly we perform.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That should be exactly what she knows and has learned in school. Once you know the terminology, it is very simple. Doubles are 4+4, 5+5, etc., which most children learn easily and before other math facts. Counting on, or count plus one, is 4+1, 5+1, etc., which is simply counting one more number. So a double plus one is another way of adding 4+5, by breaking it up into 4+4+1, which is easier for some children.

But why make kids memorize doubles? Why fill their heads with unnecessary terms and strategies? What exactly this whole "double" concept is for? It's useless for additions and useless for multiplication. In multiplication are you going to say to your kids "Doubles times three?"

I came a very strong school of math. And anything that wasn't the shortest, most elegant solution was not accepted in my math classes.

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 think this right here is what most adults have a problem with. Some parents want their kids to get to the most advanced level as quickly as possible, so they don't like it when kids have to spend weeks understanding what should be an easy math concept.

Also, too many adults have the mentality of "this is how I learned it, and it was good enough for me to take calculus in 11th/12th grade so why can't my kids learn it the same way". Well, because even though *you* may have learned it one way and did well doesn't mean many others did. Americans just generally suck at math, including adults, and even our teens these days don't do as well in the critical thinking section of standardized tests compared to other countries:

http://educationbythenumbers.org/content/top-us-students-fare-poorly-international-pisa-test-scores-shanghai-tops-world-finland-slips_693/

"* Stagnation. U.S. scores on PISA exams haven’t improved over the past decade. See here. That’s a bit of a contrast from the NAEP exam where American students have been showing modest improvement. I believe the NAEP exam plays to U.S. strengths of simple equation solving. It has fewer word problems where students have to apply their knowledge to a new circumstance and write their own equations and models."

Common Core "standards" are making the math illiteracy in this country much much worse.


And now we have the test results to show it.

Singapore Math emphasizes making 10's. So in in one example 8+7 the only choice to solve is doubles plus/minus one. I use Singapore Math with my first grader and he has been taught to see the problem as the 8 needs 2 more to make a 10, 7-2 is 5 so 8+7 = 10+ 5= 15. Now that he is working in the second grade book he has no problem mentally adding by grouping larger numbers into 10's. So 28 + 37, he can rapidly switch to 28+2 = 30, 37-2 =35 so 30 + 35 =65. Or he can switch it to 50+ 15=65. I don't think kids should get marked down because they manipulate the numbers a different way.

Anonymous wrote:
But why make kids memorize doubles? Why fill their heads with unnecessary terms and strategies? What exactly this whole "double" concept is for? It's useless for additions and useless for multiplication. In multiplication are you going to say to your kids "Doubles times three?"

I came a very strong school of math. And anything that wasn't the shortest, most elegant solution was not accepted in my math classes.

Here is basically what you are saying: "I learned math, so I know how to teach math." But that is incorrect.

Anonymous wrote:

NP. I am totally confused by what it means to "circle names for each number" and then having all numbers that follow. I don't have a kid who is doing common core math yet, though. What does this mean?

There is no such thing as "Common Core math".

There are plenty of bad math worksheets out there. Your example is one of them. Some of these have "Common Core" stamped on them. That doesn't make them "Common Core math". That makes them bad math worksheets that somebody stamped "Common Core" on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That should be exactly what she knows and has learned in school. Once you know the terminology, it is very simple. Doubles are 4+4, 5+5, etc., which most children learn easily and before other math facts. Counting on, or count plus one, is 4+1, 5+1, etc., which is simply counting one more number. So a double plus one is another way of adding 4+5, by breaking it up into 4+4+1, which is easier for some children.

But why make kids memorize doubles? Why fill their heads with unnecessary terms and strategies? What exactly this whole "double" concept is for? It's useless for additions and useless for multiplication. In multiplication are you going to say to your kids "Doubles times three?"

I came a very strong school of math. And anything that wasn't the shortest, most elegant solution was not accepted in my math classes.

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 think this right here is what most adults have a problem with. Some parents want their kids to get to the most advanced level as quickly as possible, so they don't like it when kids have to spend weeks understanding what should be an easy math concept.

Also, too many adults have the mentality of "this is how I learned it, and it was good enough for me to take calculus in 11th/12th grade so why can't my kids learn it the same way". Well, because even though *you* may have learned it one way and did well doesn't mean many others did. Americans just generally suck at math, including adults, and even our teens these days don't do as well in the critical thinking section of standardized tests compared to other countries:

http://educationbythenumbers.org/content/top-us-students-fare-poorly-international-pisa-test-scores-shanghai-tops-world-finland-slips_693/

"* Stagnation. U.S. scores on PISA exams haven’t improved over the past decade. See here. That’s a bit of a contrast from the NAEP exam where American students have been showing modest improvement. I believe the NAEP exam plays to U.S. strengths of simple equation solving. It has fewer word problems where students have to apply their knowledge to a new circumstance and write their own equations and models."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That should be exactly what she knows and has learned in school. Once you know the terminology, it is very simple. Doubles are 4+4, 5+5, etc., which most children learn easily and before other math facts. Counting on, or count plus one, is 4+1, 5+1, etc., which is simply counting one more number. So a double plus one is another way of adding 4+5, by breaking it up into 4+4+1, which is easier for some children.

But why make kids memorize doubles? Why fill their heads with unnecessary terms and strategies? What exactly this whole "double" concept is for? It's useless for additions and useless for multiplication. In multiplication are you going to say to your kids "Doubles times three?"

I came a very strong school of math. And anything that wasn't the shortest, most elegant solution was not accepted in my math classes.

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."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That should be exactly what she knows and has learned in school. Once you know the terminology, it is very simple. Doubles are 4+4, 5+5, etc., which most children learn easily and before other math facts. Counting on, or count plus one, is 4+1, 5+1, etc., which is simply counting one more number. So a double plus one is another way of adding 4+5, by breaking it up into 4+4+1, which is easier for some children.

But why make kids memorize doubles? Why fill their heads with unnecessary terms and strategies? What exactly this whole "double" concept is for? It's useless for additions and useless for multiplication. In multiplication are you going to say to your kids "Doubles times three?"

I came a very strong school of math. And anything that wasn't the shortest, most elegant solution was not accepted in my math classes.

My kid is learning the multiplication tables now. For 3's, I might indeed, say: Double then add another. It's a strategy.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Here it is:

I wouldn't say that more "common sense" so much as a different part of the process of learning math, and a bit more beginner than the other worksheets that were posted. When kids are learning addition/subtraction and figuring out word problems, first they start with making symbols/marks that they can count to get the answer so they understand what addition is. Once they have that, then they start just using the digits to represent numbers, and learning some basic math facts and how to use them to get faster. So, for instance, memorizing all of the doublings (1+1=2, 2+2=4, 3+3=6, etc.), and how to count up one or down from there if they're trying to solve 6+5 or 6+7. They also learn counting on, where they don't have to count every single object, they start with the first number and then count up from there (e.g., 6+3 becomes 6, 7, 8, 9 to get the answer). Once they've got the hang of manipulating numbers in their head, they should go ahead and memorize the rest of the basic math facts (to the extent they haven't done so already) so they gain speed in their calculations.

I have no problems with the problems given by 11:11, but the OP's example was something else. I have never heard of using "names" to describe an addition fact. I don't even like the word math sentence. This child does deserve better.

Having said that, I will work with her in figuring out the terminologies used by the teacher. If she really does indeed understand the math, she should have no problem doing the worksheet no matter how ridiculous the terminology is.

I have no trouble with words like addends, sum, double facts. I, however, strongly dislike the made up terminology such as "names" used in the OP's example.

Sorry. Here it is: