The only thing that scares me more about the future of our childern then the "new math" are the NPCs unironically defending it by saying, that it gives the kids better and deeper understanding of ADDITION.
If your kid has a problems understanding the number 7, and you need him to draw 7 lines, he's either retarded, or so insanely under-educated that you can just send him to Africa at this point.
@LukeAlmighty > Say you want to add two-digit numbers. The old-school way millennial parents were taught involved putting one on top of the other and carrying, if necessary. Now, students are encouraged to rethink how they arrange the numbers. Moldavan gives the example of 41 + 29. You could rewrite 29 as 30, which is a rounder, "friendly number." Then, you turn 41 into 40 (also "friendly"). You've subtracted 1 from 41, and added 1 to 29, so that cancels out. And now you have your product: 70.
> Another strategy is called "making 10s." "Say you want to add 8 + 6 + 2," says Moldavan. "You might rearrange the numbers so you can quickly make a 10. So, you'll add 8 + 2, and then add 6 to get 16."
This is what I've always done in my head. What is wrong with it?
@applejack
Because that is not, what is being done. When you showed me the example, I also did make 10s in mmy head. Obviously, that is the superior method.
So, you can clearly understand, that the understanding of the making 10s was not locked behind the common core.
The point actually seems to be to delay the abstraction of numbers from objects into digits. You do know, that the number 13 represents ............. but it's easier, faster and less prone to mistakes, when you can write 2 symbols instead of 17. This also delays the point, where kids actually start thinking about the abstract systeems instead of thinkking about this long and complicated process.
YES, I SAID IT. The common core is more systematic and less abstract, then the old way. Therefore, it will lead to lesser understanding of why abstraction is useful.
@LukeAlmighty Using dots is stupid, but otherwise this seems much better
We were tought to add and carry in school, but I somehow mentally reached what this is trying to teach anyway. It was never taught to me
It's more abstract and less systematic because you're learning to rearrange complex problems into more but simpler problems. This is the right way to solve any kind of problem
@applejack
> This is the right way to solve any kind of problem
See? Here comes the problem. We were tought, that the simplification of the issue is importand, and that as long as you can orient yourself around the issue, you are golden.
That is the exact oposite though of this. This is a rigid system made to be as robotic as counting individual dots. No understanding can be gained from that.
@LukeAlmighty We agree then, right? Just a different definition of "new maths"
The image just shows a much worse way to do add and carry. While the article I found for "new maths" is not that
@applejack
No, we do not agree on even the premise. You say, that teaching the understanding of numbers is the point of common core.
Meanwhile, I say, that the point of common core is total systematization to the point, where a deeper understanding cannot be gained.
@applejack
Teaching to make 10s was never connected to common core, and as a proof should be sufficient, that we both use that system. It is intuitive, and was always thought.
