Do the new common core standards for math actually lead to better outcomes long term?

Too early to tell. And depends on the question being asked.

@zenvelo I thought it had been tested in other states or other countries? They just put it into place for all the children in the US without any data? I hope that isn’t the case.

It has only been in existence for five years.

Scary.

It came into use because most states had different scoring and testing standards.

I don’t have hard data, but I can tell you that most of the older children in my daughter’s elementary school are struggling. Her school just started common core this year. She is in 5th grade and has always excelled and enjoyed math up until this school year. Many of her classmates who enjoyed math now hate it and end up in tears because they struggle to understand the concepts being taught. Many parents can’t help because it is also confusing for them.

It’s sad to see smart children who always received top scores above 90 now bringing home papers in the 60–70 range.

No, for reasons such as @jonsblond says. As long as the kids aren’t able to learn life skills, they’ll fail. And unless we give up the Common Core nonsense, failing this much this bad will drag them down for the rest of their lives.

I’m interested to see how this will develop over time. I’ve seen some of the arithmetic approaches, and I find them to be quite intuitive – in my experience, they’ll allow kids (and later adults) to do math in their heads easier. I’ve talked to friends who are also mathy and who think the approach will make them less likely to be able to solve complex problems. I don’t see any reason to agree with that, but I guess we’ll find out in due course.

I think the biggest problem is going to be the implementation. As @jonsblond says, it’s awful to expect kids to completely re-envision math when they’ve already been taught for some years under the old system. It would have made far more sense to begin the new system with Grade 1 students, and let current students graduate out with the math they know. Regardless, a good math student – one who really gets it, should be able to adapt to this. If, however, they were getting good grades because of “just-do-it-this-way” tricks and memorization (which is an awful way to learn math), then their grades will sink – because they didn’t truly understand the material to begin with. Ideally, fewer students will fail to understand the concepts with the new approach. That’s the point.

And of course, parents are freaking out, because many of them already don’t understand math well – and now the familiar structure is being taken away from them, so they can’t help with homework. That’s also a huge barrier to the success of the students, since the heavy homework loads mean that parents are basically required to help. And then… having their parents continually say that what they’re learning is stupid is not going to make it any easier for them.

This is one of the examples of arithmetic that I’ve seen sent around, with hair-on-fire “what are they teaching!” messages on Facebook. It looks unwieldy and difficult for people who learned to stack two numbers to subtract, using “carry-over” methods. The problem is, it’s really hard to do that kind of subtraction in your head. The method shown in the image is actually how I do mental subtraction most of the time. Yes, there are more steps, but they’re really easy steps, and they make intuitive sense. You can do that work without a pen and paper. That’s a good skill to have.

Missouri is opting out and writing a state-specific teaching guide.

Regardless, a good math student – one who really gets it, should be able to adapt to this.

This is true. My daughter has improved and is not struggling like she was a few weeks ago. I’m worried about the students who will fail to understand or give up because it is too difficult.

I think your suggestion is perfect @dappled_leaves. Schools should have started with the youngest children and let the older children continue with what they are already familiar with.

@dappled_leaves What prompted my question was a facebook friend posted about how he does math in his head and how it is some of what common core teaches. His example was 98×96 and indeed his method was an easier way to figure this in my head once I understood how he did it. But, after asking him a few questions I felt that he wouldn’t probably do as well as me in higher and more complex math. Things like figuring how much an item would cost if it retailed at $80 and then had a 30% discount had many many more steps the way he figured it, and he still was using similar methods. I tend to use whichever is best for the situations and the numbers. Bit as I said, he taught me something in terms of multiplying more complex numbers, but so what really. In terms of figuring in our heads, I would almost never need to multiply 96 and 98 in my head, but I like to easily figure our 30% off when I am shopping.

I asked him if he can do algebra; spin the equation around. My example was if you know you were charged $48.15 for an item and tax is 7%, what was the retail price of the item. I wanted to know if he knew how to do it in the calculator in one step. He gave me how he would estiate it in his head. Then I told him how to do it in a calculator. He said he would know how to do it, but I had already given the answer, I am not so sure. Most people know how to add tax to an item, but when they have to do the reverse they get tripped up because they don’t know how to flip it around. I am more concerned with understanding algebra, geometry, and fractions (and I din’t mean big complex problems, just the basics) than doing large number multiplication in ones head, especially in the day if calculators in phones.

@jonsblond That sucks. @snowberry has a good point that switching methods midstream might be worse than just starting with it to begin with. I think it’s good to show different methods, but I think the child should be able to do the math with whichever valid method they prefer. Show their steps and get the right answer is an A in my book. I am very afraid of the very thing you indicate, that children will be less likely to enjoy math with some of these new methods. A friend of mine who is a teacher likes it though, she isn’t teaching the last couple of years, but she does have elementary age children. But, she also isn’t a big math person. I think most people in teaching aren’t. I don’t think most Elementary Ed teachers were mathematically inclined, although they might have done ok in math. Maybe I am wring, but that is my impression from my friends who are teachers. Nothing wrong with it, I hated reading, and still don’t read books much at all, and people think that is awful. We each have our thing.

I just don’t want the “math kids” to know hate math. Whose going to be doing the math if the mathematically inclined now dread it.

@JLeslie

I’m curious about an example you mentioned above where you said that you asked him what the price of an item costing $80 would be after a 30% discount. You said that it took him many many more steps to get the answer than usual.

Did I understand correctly that he was using the new Math methods?

If so, I’m curious about how many steps it could possibly take to subtract $24 from $80.

I mean that’s a pretty straightforward problem that even I, a Math dunderhead, can do in my head rather quickly.

So this guy advocating this “better” Math method takes many many steps?

I don’t get it. Granted, I majored in English and never had to teach beyond 3rd and 4th grade, but this seems kind of preposterous.

I’m just glad I don’t have to teach this new “improved” version of Math :)
It might very well send me straight to the looney bin :)

@JLeslie “I just don’t want the “math kids” to know hate math. Whose going to be doing the math if the mathematically inclined now dread it.”

But this is the point. They are trying to make more of the kids into “math kids”. Trying to demystify what is already intuitive to some of us.

I have no idea what Common Core is teaching about percentages. But if faced with your example of taking 30% of $80, I would simply figure out 10% and multiply that by 3. So, $8×3 = $24. It’s an easy and fast mental calculation, and along the same lines as the arithmetic example I showed.

@dappled

Yeah. That’s exactly what I would do. Hence my confusion about how it could take many many more steps.

Plus doing it in 10% increments does indicate an understanding of the basic principles involved. And isn’t that the whole goal of teaching Math? Comprehension and understanding rather than just pointlessly memorizing seemingly unrelated steps by rote?

@Buttonstc But isn’t that what they’re teaching? If not, what are they teaching instead?

@dappled

When you reference “they’re” are you referring to those teaching the new Common core or those who previously used other methods?

I’m a little confused here…

But isn’t that what those using the Common Core methods are teaching? If not, what are they teaching instead?

Quite right. Sometimes personal pronouns are no one’s friend.

Right. You and I are asking the same Q in response to the guy defending Common core who is taking many many steps to do a very simple percentage calculation.

What the h is he teaching? And how is this any kind of an improvement?

I’m just so glad I can observe from the sidelines and don’t have to tangle with this stuff :)

@Buttonstc No… I’m asking what the percentage calculation is that takes many steps. I was comparing my own method to the Common Core method, saying that I’d guess that’s how they approach it. If you do know how they approach it, I’m interested in hearing more.

As far as I know, the “guy” @JLeslie was referring to isn’t using many more steps – or at least, like the arithmetic example that I posted, he’s using many more simple steps to do the same thing we used to do in a single, terribly complicated step.

The point is – the number of steps is beside the point. It’s the ease of calculation that matters, and how clearly you can see your destination from your starting point. I actually think that’s good.

But, as I said, I haven’t really looked at more than their arithmetic methods. I don’t know that I’d particularly love all of it.

No, I don’t know how they approach it; hence my Q.

I’m just having difficulty understanding how such a simple straightforward calculation as the one given in the example could take “many many more steps” (and that’s a direct quote, not my interpretation.).

It just seems to me that something so straightforward is bring needlessly complicated.

But, as I said, Math is definitely not my forte, that’s for sure :) So maybe I’m missing something here. But it just piqued my interest. I am really glad I don’t have to deal with it in real life.

@Buttonstc @dappled_leaves when the Facebook guy and I were discussing it he pointed out writing out all the steps is different than how fast we do it in our head, and I agreed with that, because some steps are like reading the word cat. We know it so well as adults we barely need to think about it.

If I do the $80 take 30% off problem I do 8×7=56. To me that is one step in my head. 10–3 and 7 are so synonymous in my head as an adult it is the same thing and not a “step” I think most adults would agree with that. The decimal is ignored, because we know the answer is not going to be $560 or $5.60, because we are dealing with a fairly simple number.

He said:

Percentages are working in units of 10 and just moving decimals. 10% of $80 is $8. 30% is 10% three times so 8+8+8=$24. So 80–20-4 is 60–4 or $56 for the final price.

Basically, he did what you are doing, but added in breaking dies 24 into tens and ones. I don’t understand why people do the subtraction with the more complicated numbers. Needing to add 10% 3 times is odd to me too. If you have to figure the 30% first (which again I wouldn’t with this example) is 8×3 that hard that you can’t just come to 24? He and I were discussing what we do in our heads at this point, not writing it out for a 5th grade teacher.

Also, just to add more info; below is his explanation of 98×96, and I do agree his method when mastered is faster for multiplying double digit numbers together in one’s head:

At this point in my life I combine steps from practical experience so I’ll explain this the same way I’d explain it to my daughters without skipping steps.

If I were to write it out on paper it would look asinine and stupid because it is many more steps. Doing them in my head allows me to break the problem down into more but much simpler and faster steps that I can process without writing and allows me to come up with the answer faster than most people can write out the problem and do it the way we were taught in school.

This is the point of the common core people hate, it is stupid on paper but faster once you can learn to do it quickly in your head without the need to write it out on paper or use a calculator.

First and foremost we need the simplistic understanding that multiplication is basically the same thing as “counting by” so 5×4 is counting by 5 four times (5, 10, 15, 20) and division is “counting backwards by” 9/3 is counting backwards by 3s from 9 (9, 6, 3) until you can’t go further.

Understanding that, the first step becomes to look at the problem and convert it to units easier to work with in your head which for me is 2s, 5s and multiples of 10s.

So in the problem 96×98 I know that I have to count by 96 ninety eight times, The simple rule of adding 0s when multiplying by multiples of 10 though is easier to work with. So I’m going to make the problem in my head ((96×100)-96–96). The next step is easy, just move the 0s and it’s 9600–96-96. But dealing with subtracting 96 twice still requires writing it down and reducing numbers they way we were taught so I’m going to change it again. I know from simple counting that 96 is 4 less than 100. So I’m going to make the problem 9600–100+4–100+4. At this point I combine the addition and subtraction elements because they’re easy enough to work with 9600–200+8. Which is 9400+8.

The reason that Common Core gives for multiplying in the way you showed or subtracting the way @dappled_leaves showed, is that they want students to understand the reasons why things are done. That is a good thing to do, but the danger is that it can be done too much and at too early an age. There is something to be said for initially teaching rote methods so that students gain experience and confidence in doing the basics. Once this is accomplished, it can be instructive to show variations on the basics. For example, the 96×98 problem can be written as (100 – 4)(100 – 2), which is fairly easy to do in your head.

I want to add that the question I have about turning off math kids really matters in my mind if the methods don’t turn less likely math kids into math kids.

Someone needs to grow up and be the engineers of the world, and if it isn’t the mathematically inclined then it’s going to need to be someone else.

Maybe this method does create more math people in the end, I don’t know, hence the Q.

Being able to multiply large numbers in our heads does not an engineer make. Someone doing a calculus problem doesn’t care about multiplying large numbers in their head.

@LostInParadise I agree that once a person gets to 100–4 100–2 in their head it’s an easier method for doing numbers like that in ones head. I said that all along. I think kids should be taught all the methods.

However, not understanding why 8×7 is the same as 8×3=24 80–24=56 or worse using 80–20=60 60–4=56 because the person is so accustomed to breaking numbers into tens and ones means to me not a math person.

Nothing wrong with not being a math person. I’m not a reading person.

I think we are in agreement. The thing that irks me most about Common Core is the constant testing of everything. I would not teach (100 – 4)(100 – 2) until algebra class. I would use it as an example in teaching the laws of algebra or perhaps as an example of FOIL. I would not require that students memorize this example or that they be able to apply it to other problems. It is presented in the hope that it increases understanding and as a kind of fun example of what you can do. In the same vein, recreational math problems should be presented. They would be purely optional, though some class time would be devoted to having the students present their solutions. I know from my own limited experience and from that of others that recreational math is a good hook to get students interested in math who might not be math persons.

@JLeslie, @dappled_leaves, @Buttonstc: I do a little something different with the 30% off discount off of $80. I do “3 dollars x 8 = 24 dollars off. 80 – 24 =.”

I think it’s too soon to tell what the long term outcomes of Common Core will be. In my daughter’s school, it’s just been started this year.

I know what she’s learning in her 2nd grade math class is deconstructing and constructing math problems.

The mom of one of her 4th grade friends told me the dad (Wall St banker) is helping their daughter with the math and he’s sitting with her for an hour trying to figure it out.

@dappled_leaves I actually think if they are going to teach the “new” way to break down the multiplication if two digit numbers it should be before algebra. Algebra class is a whole different thing altogether in my mind and usually starts in 8th or 9th grade. By that time multiplying in your head is less important, not more.

@jca I’m working with am Engineer who can barely do his son’s 2nd grade math homework.

You still are subtracting the harder numbers, but 80–24 isn’t that hard. Not that it matters. The way you do it is fine, it is basically what everyone above said. I use that when the one step way isn’t simple. I use whichever way I can handle the numbers fastest in my head. I just know I am usually at the answer while other people are still subtracting if say I’m with you shopping for instance and we are estimating what something will cost, because I don’t need to do the subtraction step.

I’ll give another example:

$90 20% off. 9×8 is $72. I think that’s much easier than 90–18, but maybe subtraction is easier for you than me. I always feel like I need to double check my subtraction.