Well doesn't this thread just show that there are many ways to use math. Someone uses words. Someone uses diagrams. Another person only numbers. There are also many ways to teach math. None is perfect for every child or teacher. Someone (or their parents) is always unhappy. There is no answer to this debate.

Anonymous wrote:I think common core was put in to help the white students do math better vs the asians who are already good at it. In fact it may be a barrier to the asians. I think this is another way of trying to level the playing field by hurting asians.

Huh? How so? I'm Asian, my kids are (well, half), and they are fine with 2.0 math and all that explaining they have to do. Well, they hate having to write the explanations but at least they can verbalize it.

I think common core was put in to help the white students do math better vs the asians who are already good at it. In fact it may be a barrier to the asians. I think this is another way of trying to level the playing field by hurting asians.

I think this is why Americans are so bad at math and come up with things like 2.0. There is a general disinterest in anything that is difficult. Everything should be easy. Everyone should get an A or B. If you need to work hard in school then something must be wrong with the school.

I am the Computer Engineer that posted above and I could not agree with you more! Seriously, someone could hold a gun to my head and say agree more, and I'd be like "impossible, I can't". I will disagree with one (minor) point, many of the foreign students did not do as well because while they could do the math, they could not apply the concepts. Some how under the old bad system we managed have the knowledge to be superior to every other country in the world with our designs and innovations. The mantra of everyone in the world is better than us was common back then to, but I just don't think it is true.

Fluency isn't about just memorizing random facts which I think many people get caught up in. Fluency is about performing more and more difficult calculations with speed so that those relationships are part of your working memory. This allows you to pull these quickly when you encounter more complex math problems. If you lack fluency, you'll struggle to keep up in more advanced classes and work based problems.

In my college you ALWAYS had to describe how you derived the equation, there is nothing new about that. The rote work is what provides fluency out of working memory just like the previous poster wrote.

When my HGC math-gifted child asks for help on how to write an explanation for why she knows 3/5 is less than 2/3 and I explain you find the common denominator of 15 which makes the problem 9/15 < 10/15.

She tells me that she hasn't been taught how to find the common denominator and they are supposed draw a diagram of boxes and shade and write a sentence about the boxes. I am perplexed. She says some of the kids in class know how to find the common denominator but she has never been taught how to. She is far enough along in her curriculum that drawing boxes is a time waste, she needs to just be doing the math.

I fully understand the reason for a graphic drawing to show the difference, but she also needs to know how to find the common denominator and do simple fraction math. It is a dumbing down of math so that everyone can draw a box, because not everyone can do the math or understand the concept of a common denominator.

I agree, that at some point, you have to be able to do math quickly in your head.

Higher level math is not really done in your head, back in the old days you had points deducted on exams for skipping steps. Do you know square roots and cube roots by heart? Yes because you use them so often, but it's mainly pencil to paper and show your work.

Its the requirement that the explanation be given in words and sentence form that is the problem. If the students were allowed to represent their understanding by reverse engineering the problem, showing diagrams, equations or other visual approaches that more elegantly and accurately convey understanding then that would be fantastic.

I worked in a hardcore development environment, every office had a white board and we used MEANINGFUL diagrams for high level concepts constantly and this is also how we were taught in college. If we long hand wrote out sentences for higher level conceptual designs (other than specifications) when working collaboratively no work could have been accomplished.

I also worked as a TA and honestly some people just don't get math, no matter how many diagrams and explanation I provided, but they had other strengths and often transferred into another programs which were a better fit.

The problem with C2.0 is that they go over the same thing over and over again. Box diagram after box diagram, writing sentence after sentence.

I asked my child last night what the difference was between the HGC and her previous regular question. She said kids would just ask questions that were obvious over and over again, when she just wanted to get to work and done. I feel sorry for the higher achieving kids (which there are plenty of!) that are stuck in regular classes, that is why every elementary school should have advanced math classrooms, instead of lumping everyone together to the point of making the brighter kids hate math because they are doing busy work drawing boxes, dots, and graphs well beyond when they have grasped the concept.

Anonymous wrote:
As a parent, I struggle with the new curriculum too, because it's not how *I* learned math. I was very accelerated myself and it wasn't until far too late that I understood the real-life applications for the algorithms I was learning. What is a quadratic equation really representing? What are you doing when you calculate an integral, and why would you ever need it? I appreciate that my kids are breaking down the problems into parts that I might not recognize, but that it will give them a better foundation as they advance. I see why it's not enough that my kids are getting the right answer -- which they frequently do -- they have to explain how they got there. Could CC/2.0 be rolled out better? Yes, absolutely. But I get tired of reading all the doom/gloom here about how it's contributing to the downfall of Western Civilization or it's part of some master conspiracy by Starr to destroy MCPS so that illegal immigrants can take over. Or that there is no value to teaching our kids how to solve problems in multiple ways and to explain -- in words -- how it is done.

Exactly this. The difference is not simply getting the right answer, but knowing why it's the right answer, and why you can do what you just did, in math terms. That's the goal. The words are not the goal -- the words are one way to demonstrate understanding. Just getting the right answer does not demonstrate understanding. Conversely, words (for people without verbal disabilities) do not impede understanding, despite what many posters on DCUM seem to believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can see how lower reading/writing skilled students would be forced to relearn how to do math in a verbal way and fail at it.

Math is NOT a verbal discipline!!! There is a reason why math includes numeric values, symbols, and equations. You do not build foundational math skills or approach complex math later on with a verbal method any more than you write a storytelling novel using numeric, values, symbols and equations.

I really wish that we could have immersion day for the math phobic language arts people driving this curriculum. Kids K-3 would only be allowed to read Biscuit and pre-reader level picture books despite their reading level. All written work would need to be expressed in 0s and 1s, the core of binary ASCII text code. We can then see how they enjoy the deeper, rich language sense that we are giving them.

Real life math problems consists of words. They are not laid out for you in a nice, neat formula. I'm in IT. When writing an algorithm the problem is usually first presented to me in words. I have to translate those words into an algorithm. So, it is vital that you understand how to "read" a math problem.

The tip off is that you said IT and translate them to an algorithm. You have no fucking clue what you are doing. You are probably someone who gather requirements.

I'm one of the few people that does both..gather requirements *AND* write code. It's easy to find developers. It's much harder to find developers that can do the analysis, understand the problem, and translate them to code.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can see how lower reading/writing skilled students would be forced to relearn how to do math in a verbal way and fail at it.

Math is NOT a verbal discipline!!! There is a reason why math includes numeric values, symbols, and equations. You do not build foundational math skills or approach complex math later on with a verbal method any more than you write a storytelling novel using numeric, values, symbols and equations.

I really wish that we could have immersion day for the math phobic language arts people driving this curriculum. Kids K-3 would only be allowed to read Biscuit and pre-reader level picture books despite their reading level. All written work would need to be expressed in 0s and 1s, the core of binary ASCII text code. We can then see how they enjoy the deeper, rich language sense that we are giving them.

Real life math problems consists of words. They are not laid out for you in a nice, neat formula. I'm in IT. When writing an algorithm the problem is usually first presented to me in words. I have to translate those words into an algorithm. So, it is vital that you understand how to "read" a math problem.

So when they ask you to setup the printer do you translate that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can see how lower reading/writing skilled students would be forced to relearn how to do math in a verbal way and fail at it.

Math is NOT a verbal discipline!!! There is a reason why math includes numeric values, symbols, and equations. You do not build foundational math skills or approach complex math later on with a verbal method any more than you write a storytelling novel using numeric, values, symbols and equations.

I really wish that we could have immersion day for the math phobic language arts people driving this curriculum. Kids K-3 would only be allowed to read Biscuit and pre-reader level picture books despite their reading level. All written work would need to be expressed in 0s and 1s, the core of binary ASCII text code. We can then see how they enjoy the deeper, rich language sense that we are giving them.

Real life math problems consists of words. They are not laid out for you in a nice, neat formula. I'm in IT. When writing an algorithm the problem is usually first presented to me in words. I have to translate those words into an algorithm. So, it is vital that you understand how to "read" a math problem.

The tip off is that you said IT and translate them to an algorithm. You have no fucking clue what you are doing. You are probably someone who gather requirements.

As a parent, I struggle with the new curriculum too, because it's not how *I* learned math. I was very accelerated myself and it wasn't until far too late that I understood the real-life applications for the algorithms I was learning. What is a quadratic equation really representing? What are you doing when you calculate an integral, and why would you ever need it? I appreciate that my kids are breaking down the problems into parts that I might not recognize, but that it will give them a better foundation as they advance. I see why it's not enough that my kids are getting the right answer -- which they frequently do -- they have to explain how they got there. Could CC/2.0 be rolled out better? Yes, absolutely.

Its the requirement that the explanation be given in words and sentence form that is the problem. If the students were allowed to represent their understanding by reverse engineering the problem, showing diagrams, equations or other visual approaches that more elegantly and accurately convey understanding then that would be fantastic.

Fluency isn't about just memorizing random facts which I think many people get caught up in. Fluency is about performing more and more difficult calculations with speed so that those relationships are part of your working memory. This allows you to pull these quickly when you encounter more complex math problems. If you lack fluency, you'll struggle to keep up in more advanced classes and work based problems.

Anonymous wrote:When I went to college for Computer Engineering, and ground through all 3 units of Calculus, by the way the culmination was 3-d Calculus, which is really crazy hard.

You just put your head down and churned out numbers and equations, until you could do them in your sleep.

Honestly that taught me more about process and organization than if I did half the work and then wrote down some blah, blah, blah explanation.

You have to understand the theory and application to derive the original formula, but when you get down to the brass tacks of any engineering discipline it is about the numbers, and knowing how to get to the answer.

Writing a bunch of explanation about how you get the final value in the actual equation is not going to help anyone. Sometimes it just comes down to good old fashioned hard work.

NP here -- I have to agree with the PP who says even the hardcore techies do, in fact, have to be able to communicate what they're doing in words, and to discover the mathematic problem in the context of words. I don't want my IT people in silos where are they think about are the numbers in isolation from the context within which we work -- and I certainly want them to be able to communicate effectively with users (frequently not very tech-savvy) to determine what the problem is and how to solve it.

As a parent, I struggle with the new curriculum too, because it's not how *I* learned math. I was very accelerated myself and it wasn't until far too late that I understood the real-life applications for the algorithms I was learning. What is a quadratic equation really representing? What are you doing when you calculate an integral, and why would you ever need it? I appreciate that my kids are breaking down the problems into parts that I might not recognize, but that it will give them a better foundation as they advance. I see why it's not enough that my kids are getting the right answer -- which they frequently do -- they have to explain how they got there. Could CC/2.0 be rolled out better? Yes, absolutely. But I get tired of reading all the doom/gloom here about how it's contributing to the downfall of Western Civilization or it's part of some master conspiracy by Starr to destroy MCPS so that illegal immigrants can take over. Or that there is no value to teaching our kids how to solve problems in multiple ways and to explain -- in words -- how it is done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I went to college for Computer Engineering, and ground through all 3 units of Calculus, by the way the culmination was 3-d Calculus, which is really crazy hard.

You just put your head down and churned out numbers and equations, until you could do them in your sleep.

Honestly that taught me more about process and organization than if I did half the work and then wrote down some blah, blah, blah explanation.

You have to understand the theory and application to derive the original formula, but when you get down to the brass tacks of any engineering discipline it is about the numbers, and knowing how to get to the answer.

Writing a bunch of explanation about how you get the final value in the actual equation is not going to help anyone. Sometimes it just comes down to good old fashioned hard work.

I agree with bolded. But in order to understand theory and know how to apply them, you have to read the problem, which in most cases, are presented to you in words. You have to know why xyz theory works for a specific problem. This is what I think 2.0 math is trying to address. Whether MCPS has done so effectively with their curriculum, I don't know. But I do know, that at a higher level math, you do have to understand (whether explained verbally or just in your head) why a theory works for xyz problem.

I think the point of having to explain your thinking in 2.0 math is to make the kid think critically and analytically. I agree, that at some point, you have to be able to do math quickly in your head. But, I think too many people, kids and adults included, just do the math because "that is how I learned it". There is not enough "you do it this way because of xyz."

The problem with common core implementation in general and c2.0 in particular is that explaining math in words is overdone too early and for too simple stuff. Eventually we all need to be able to explain what we are doing. But forcing very young children using words to explain very obvious math is going to turn some children off math. It is also absolutely unfair to those who are more mathy but not verbally advanced kids.

PP here. The bolded I totally agree with. I think some teachers accept diagrams or drawings as explanations rather than just words. If you have such a child (that is not verbal), then maybe you could talk to the teacher about using that method instead.

Anonymous wrote:

When I went to college for Computer Engineering, and ground through all 3 units of Calculus, by the way the culmination was 3-d Calculus, which is really crazy hard.

You just put your head down and churned out numbers and equations, until you could do them in your sleep.

Honestly that taught me more about process and organization than if I did half the work and then wrote down some blah, blah, blah explanation.

You have to understand the theory and application to derive the original formula, but when you get down to the brass tacks of any engineering discipline it is about the numbers, and knowing how to get to the answer.

Writing a bunch of explanation about how you get the final value in the actual equation is not going to help anyone. Sometimes it just comes down to good old fashioned hard work.

I think this is why Americans are so bad at math and come up with things like 2.0. There is a general disinterest in anything that is difficult. Everything should be easy. Everyone should get an A or B. If you need to work hard in school then something must be wrong with the school.

The Chinese are not naturally smarter at math than American-born children. They just go through an educational system that expects very hard work and diligence in learning the subject. Americans would collapse under that system because it way to rigorous for our culture. We need TV time!

This is OK but trying to fool ourselves that there is a magic way of pretending math is a language arts activity so it feels easier, and everyone can make believe they are doing it without effort is silly. Its like thinking you can become a good soccer player without ever taking your butt off the bench. It doesn't work and it doesn't help our kids.

The Chinese (and Koreans) children spend a lot of time after school in tutoring classes. This is partly the reason why they score higher. They spend a heck of a lot more time doing academics. But I don't want these Hagwons (as they are known in Korea) to be the norm here. It's crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I went to college for Computer Engineering, and ground through all 3 units of Calculus, by the way the culmination was 3-d Calculus, which is really crazy hard.

You just put your head down and churned out numbers and equations, until you could do them in your sleep.

Honestly that taught me more about process and organization than if I did half the work and then wrote down some blah, blah, blah explanation.

You have to understand the theory and application to derive the original formula, but when you get down to the brass tacks of any engineering discipline it is about the numbers, and knowing how to get to the answer.

Writing a bunch of explanation about how you get the final value in the actual equation is not going to help anyone. Sometimes it just comes down to good old fashioned hard work.

I agree with bolded. But in order to understand theory and know how to apply them, you have to read the problem, which in most cases, are presented to you in words. You have to know why xyz theory works for a specific problem. This is what I think 2.0 math is trying to address. Whether MCPS has done so effectively with their curriculum, I don't know. But I do know, that at a higher level math, you do have to understand (whether explained verbally or just in your head) why a theory works for xyz problem.

I think the point of having to explain your thinking in 2.0 math is to make the kid think critically and analytically. I agree, that at some point, you have to be able to do math quickly in your head. But, I think too many people, kids and adults included, just do the math because "that is how I learned it". There is not enough "you do it this way because of xyz."

The problem with common core implementation in general and c2.0 in particular is that explaining math in words is overdone too early and for too simple stuff. Eventually we all need to be able to explain what we are doing. But forcing very young children using words to explain very obvious math is going to turn some children off math. It is also absolutely unfair to those who are more mathy but not verbally advanced kids.

When I went to college for Computer Engineering, and ground through all 3 units of Calculus, by the way the culmination was 3-d Calculus, which is really crazy hard.

You just put your head down and churned out numbers and equations, until you could do them in your sleep.

Honestly that taught me more about process and organization than if I did half the work and then wrote down some blah, blah, blah explanation.

You have to understand the theory and application to derive the original formula, but when you get down to the brass tacks of any engineering discipline it is about the numbers, and knowing how to get to the answer.

Writing a bunch of explanation about how you get the final value in the actual equation is not going to help anyone. Sometimes it just comes down to good old fashioned hard work.

I think this is why Americans are so bad at math and come up with things like 2.0. There is a general disinterest in anything that is difficult. Everything should be easy. Everyone should get an A or B. If you need to work hard in school then something must be wrong with the school.

The Chinese are not naturally smarter at math than American-born children. They just go through an educational system that expects very hard work and diligence in learning the subject. Americans would collapse under that system because it way to rigorous for our culture. We need TV time!

This is OK but trying to fool ourselves that there is a magic way of pretending math is a language arts activity so it feels easier, and everyone can make believe they are doing it without effort is silly. Its like thinking you can become a good soccer player without ever taking your butt off the bench. It doesn't work and it doesn't help our kids.

Anonymous wrote:When I went to college for Computer Engineering, and ground through all 3 units of Calculus, by the way the culmination was 3-d Calculus, which is really crazy hard.

You just put your head down and churned out numbers and equations, until you could do them in your sleep.

Honestly that taught me more about process and organization than if I did half the work and then wrote down some blah, blah, blah explanation.

You have to understand the theory and application to derive the original formula, but when you get down to the brass tacks of any engineering discipline it is about the numbers, and knowing how to get to the answer.

Writing a bunch of explanation about how you get the final value in the actual equation is not going to help anyone. Sometimes it just comes down to good old fashioned hard work.

I agree with bolded. But in order to understand theory and know how to apply them, you have to read the problem, which in most cases, are presented to you in words. You have to know why xyz theory works for a specific problem. This is what I think 2.0 math is trying to address. Whether MCPS has done so effectively with their curriculum, I don't know. But I do know, that at a higher level math, you do have to understand (whether explained verbally or just in your head) why a theory works for xyz problem.

I think the point of having to explain your thinking in 2.0 math is to make the kid think critically and analytically. I agree, that at some point, you have to be able to do math quickly in your head. But, I think too many people, kids and adults included, just do the math because "that is how I learned it". There is not enough "you do it this way because of xyz."