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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow, on paper I do old math, but I’ve always done the new style in my head. That’s really neat!

I think whichever way works best with your learning/processing style is great. Happy like to hear that they’re teaching both.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

I think this is true for a lot of people.

The hazards with the "teach everything" approach are threefold:

1. Kids who get math really quickly and can intuit whys and concepts are bored unless they are on an accelerated math track where they learn every way of doing it super fast.
2. Kids who have a math or learning or processing related disability can often get confused by 3 different ways to do everything and would do much better really focusing in on just one way of doing it...and that should probably be the fastest and surest.
3. Poor teachers don't typically spend the time necessary to connect the different ways of doing things together or make sure the kids actually understand each way. They just throw out a menu of options - or worse have the kids do a "project" and teach each other the options - and hope one sticks. It leaves the less strong math students behind. This is NOT a problem with good teachers, but if every teacher were amazing we'd have a lot fewer problems.

I'm just going to point out for all the advocates of "old math" because it was faster and the new math has kids who already get it bored... Hate to break it to you but the kids who get it quickly were STILL bored back in the day, because we STILL spent time doing "old math" over and over and over again when we didn't need to.

Yeah, memorizing the multiplication tables is boring. "You don't have to like it, you just have to do it.". As opposed to new math, where if you don't like it, you don't do it. And you count on your fingers forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow, on paper I do old math, but I’ve always done the new style in my head. That’s really neat!

I think whichever way works best with your learning/processing style is great. Happy like to hear that they’re teaching both.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

I think this is true for a lot of people.

The hazards with the "teach everything" approach are threefold:

1. Kids who get math really quickly and can intuit whys and concepts are bored unless they are on an accelerated math track where they learn every way of doing it super fast.
2. Kids who have a math or learning or processing related disability can often get confused by 3 different ways to do everything and would do much better really focusing in on just one way of doing it...and that should probably be the fastest and surest.
3. Poor teachers don't typically spend the time necessary to connect the different ways of doing things together or make sure the kids actually understand each way. They just throw out a menu of options - or worse have the kids do a "project" and teach each other the options - and hope one sticks. It leaves the less strong math students behind. This is NOT a problem with good teachers, but if every teacher were amazing we'd have a lot fewer problems.

I'm just going to point out for all the advocates of "old math" because it was faster and the new math has kids who already get it bored... Hate to break it to you but the kids who get it quickly were STILL bored back in the day, because we STILL spent time doing "old math" over and over and over again when we didn't need to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow, on paper I do old math, but I’ve always done the new style in my head. That’s really neat!

I think whichever way works best with your learning/processing style is great. Happy like to hear that they’re teaching both.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

I think this is true for a lot of people.

The hazards with the "teach everything" approach are threefold:

1. Kids who get math really quickly and can intuit whys and concepts are bored unless they are on an accelerated math track where they learn every way of doing it super fast.
2. Kids who have a math or learning or processing related disability can often get confused by 3 different ways to do everything and would do much better really focusing in on just one way of doing it...and that should probably be the fastest and surest.
3. Poor teachers don't typically spend the time necessary to connect the different ways of doing things together or make sure the kids actually understand each way. They just throw out a menu of options - or worse have the kids do a "project" and teach each other the options - and hope one sticks. It leaves the less strong math students behind. This is NOT a problem with good teachers, but if every teacher were amazing we'd have a lot fewer problems.

I'm just going to point out for all the advocates of "old math" because it was faster and the new math has kids who already get it bored... Hate to break it to you but the kids who get it quickly were STILL bored back in the day, because we STILL spent time doing "old math" over and over and over again when we didn't need to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow, on paper I do old math, but I’ve always done the new style in my head. That’s really neat!

I think whichever way works best with your learning/processing style is great. Happy like to hear that they’re teaching both.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

I think this is true for a lot of people.

The hazards with the "teach everything" approach are threefold:

1. Kids who get math really quickly and can intuit whys and concepts are bored unless they are on an accelerated math track where they learn every way of doing it super fast.
2. Kids who have a math or learning or processing related disability can often get confused by 3 different ways to do everything and would do much better really focusing in on just one way of doing it...and that should probably be the fastest and surest.
3. Poor teachers don't typically spend the time necessary to connect the different ways of doing things together or make sure the kids actually understand each way. They just throw out a menu of options - or worse have the kids do a "project" and teach each other the options - and hope one sticks. It leaves the less strong math students behind. This is NOT a problem with good teachers, but if every teacher were amazing we'd have a lot fewer problems.

I'm just going to point out for all the advocates of "old math" because it was faster and the new math has kids who already get it bored... Hate to break it to you but the kids who get it quickly were STILL bored back in the day, because we STILL spent time doing "old math" over and over and over again when we didn't need to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow, on paper I do old math, but I’ve always done the new style in my head. That’s really neat!

I think whichever way works best with your learning/processing style is great. Happy like to hear that they’re teaching both.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

I think this is true for a lot of people.

The hazards with the "teach everything" approach are threefold:

1. Kids who get math really quickly and can intuit whys and concepts are bored unless they are on an accelerated math track where they learn every way of doing it super fast.
2. Kids who have a math or learning or processing related disability can often get confused by 3 different ways to do everything and would do much better really focusing in on just one way of doing it...and that should probably be the fastest and surest.
3. Poor teachers don't typically spend the time necessary to connect the different ways of doing things together or make sure the kids actually understand each way. They just throw out a menu of options - or worse have the kids do a "project" and teach each other the options - and hope one sticks. It leaves the less strong math students behind. This is NOT a problem with good teachers, but if every teacher were amazing we'd have a lot fewer problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow, on paper I do old math, but I’ve always done the new style in my head. That’s really neat!

I think whichever way works best with your learning/processing style is great. Happy like to hear that they’re teaching both.

Same. Old math on paper is convenient when I don't feel like thinking or am tired and want to make sure I get it right, but the vast majority of time I do math in my head using approaches that are more similar to new math techniques (but were never explicitly taught in my day that I recall, just intuitively understood that for example it's easier to mentally break 47x82 into three quick/easy problems of 40x80, 7x80, 47x2, and add the result... or just do 50x80 if I need an approximate value)

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow, on paper I do old math, but I’ve always done the new style in my head. That’s really neat!

I think whichever way works best with your learning/processing style is great. Happy like to hear that they’re teaching both.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts, but I disagree that there is no benefit to the way we did it when we were kids. It was MUCH faster. I think the greater emphasis on understanding in the current methods is wonderful but that the curriculum should move on much more quickly to practicing. Kids who are intuitively strong at math don't need to these labor intensive, breaking everything into steps OVER AND OVER AND OVER. They need practice. In the 70s and 80s, the pendulum was too far into rote repetition and practice. Now it has swung too far the other way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

ya my kid was forced to use these models for things that they already understood. It was more unhelpful than anything but I figured exactly what you're saying. I think some people just learn differently and this new math is geared toward a specific type of learner.