## What The Hell Is This? Common Core Math!!!

These are, apparently, examples of elementary math problems taken from Common Core lesson plans.

Now, I’ve always had a good aptitude for math, as have many people who visit this blog.  I’m familiar with various numerical systems and thought.

What shows you how to find 15-7????  You find out what 15-7 is by understanding fundamentals of subtraction.  Adding to 43?  WTF are they thinking?  If I tried to expose that garbled illogical bs to my grandchildren I’d ensure that they’d never understand math properly!

Who is doing this to our children?

h/t Dirk via Twitchy

This entry was posted in Education. Bookmark the permalink.

### 95 Responses to What The Hell Is This? Common Core Math!!!

1. Latitude says:

I can not think of one single thing that would be useful for??

• suyts says:

It’s insane!

• Bruce says:

Perhaps teaching Democrats how to handle money…?

• jimmmmy says:

YAY! You went political. Ted Cruz doesn’t need math when he has god. Happy bible reading.

• Robert Oswalt says:

What does that mean…? So you think common core is a good thing? Bible reading is a bad thing? What are you talking about? (just aski’n)

• Preston Park says:

It makes “math” harder for boys.

• suyts says:

• kim2ooo says:

I went to the store yesterday – I gave the man \$2.00 for the \$1.50 item and he me back a nickel…

The answer is \$.11 cents , teacher.

• suyts says:

Exactly, you’re shown how to find this by \$1.50-.11 or something.

• kim2ooo says:

Teacher, I just hold out all the money in my pocket and what he doesn’t take……. is the answer – what was your question?

• Bob says:

She says she helps them then get the right answer. Thanks for lying. Anymore elphants in the room?

• philjourdan says:

Bob – Don’t get radical! (Sorry, that was an old saying that my older sister’s boyfriend use to always tell her – not that it did much good).

Actually, your comment does not indicate or prove that Kim is lying. Helping them get the right answer does not mean they do not get credit for a wrong answer as long as they can explain it.

2. kim2ooo says:

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

3. Anything is possible says:

ROTFL! I never realised adding 26 and 17 was so difficult.

When I grew up, our currency system had 12 pennies to the shilling, and 20 shillings to the pound.

Our weight system had 16 ounces to the pound, and 14 pounds to the stone.

Our measuring system had 12 inches to the foot, 3 feet to the yard, and 1760 yards to the mile.

If you couldn’t do maths, you were pretty much screwed.

Teachers made darned sure kids could do maths……

• kim2ooo says:

He he he he!

From some posters here, I don’t think math has been taught in quite awhile.

i.e. “Math is not arithmetic”

• PhilJourdan says:

Always wondered how many pounds in a stone.

This is insane!!! No wonder none can make change for a dollar!

• suyts says:

Yes, the idea of actually teaching math instead of….. whatever the heck that crap is.

4. Jim Masterson says:

The first one is (c). Basically they are doing the following:
15 – 7 = 15 – (5 + 2) = 15 – 5 – 2 = 10 – 2 = 8.

What’s wrong with teaching tricks to simplify the calculation? I guess I’m in the minority here. I sometimes round numbers up to get an approximate answer as a check on the more accurate answer. I’m surprised no one else here uses similar mathematical tricks.

Jim

• DirkH says:

Ok, but what you solved is not a mathematical problem – you mananged to crack their linguistic code.

The math problem would have been, “what is 15 – 7”.

• Lars P. says:

Jim, the question “which substraction sentence shows you how to find 15-7” and the possible answer is just confusing crap.
To think what the question is about and what do they want for an answer wastes more time then to make the substraction. As Dirk said, it’s just cracking the linguistic code, one has to understand the narrow mind of the question maker.

• Jim Masterson says:

It seems clear to me. However, it’s probably easier to do the subtraction in base two:
15 – 7 -> 1111 – 0111 = 1000 -> 8 😉

Jim

• philjourdan says:

Now that I agree with. 😉

Of course that in itself is beyond the teachers.

• Jim Masterson says:

In general, the conversion to binary and back to decimal would take far longer than the gain in math ease. However the binary addition table is extremely easy to learn:
0 + 0 = 0
1 + 0 = 1
0 + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 0 with carry 1

The binary subtraction table is just as simple:
0 – 0 = 0
1 – 0 = 1
0 – 1 = 1 with borrow 1
1 – 1 = 0

The sum (or difference) has a special name–it’s called the “exclusive or.” In hardware, the combination of an “exclusive or” gate with an “and” gate (for the carry) is called a “half adder.” Two half adders give a full adder (obviously) that handles both the digits from the operands and the carry from the lower digits. Only one of the half adders will generate a carry, if present, so the carry bits are simply or-ed for the next level. The carry bits ripple through each level. What takes binary hardware addition a longer time is waiting for the carrys to ripple through all the adders. If you use end-round-carry, then you have to wait for the carrys to ripple through all the adders twice. One hardware speed-up is to use more logic to add multiple digits in one step. What you gain in speed, you also gain in cost and complexity of the adders.

Jim

• Jim Masterson says:

And for 15 – 7, you don’t have to borrow in base two.

>>
DirkH says:
October 5, 2013 at 1:43 am

The math problem would have been, “what is 15 – 7″.
<<

Isn’t that obvious from the first statement? What does “15 – 7” mean to you?

I would assume that the teacher/textbook covered the technique prior to this little test. The intention of the question writer would have been clear to the test takers.

But learning your x – 7 table would have made the technique less necessary. I remember using flash cards to learn addition and subtraction. And I remember memorizing the multiplication tables. That “new math” concept was a really bad idea. I thank my lucky stars that I was taught the old method that actually works.

Jim

• DirkH says:

Jim Masterson says:
October 5, 2013 at 6:51 am
“DirkH says:
October 5, 2013 at 1:43 am
The math problem would have been, “what is 15 – 7″.”
Isn’t that obvious from the first statement? What does “15 – 7″ mean to you?”

Well, duh, yeah. The drivel that they write is redundant. That’s what I wanted to say.

That meta-mathematical “Guess what we mean” multiple choice test would have scared me as the nerd kid that I was. I had no problems at all understanding the rules for decimal numbers. But I have absolutely no insight, to this day, what a soft sciences teacher is about when he asks me, guess a/b/c/d which of these unrelated, redundant, idiotic statements would have “helped” you solving the trivial problem.

I think this is a way of the “soft science” socialists to infiltrate the otherwise impenetrable world of mathematics and get a handle on the nerd kids.

• kim2ooo says:

I think this is a way of the “soft science” socialists to infiltrate the otherwise impenetrable world of mathematics and get a handle on the nerd kids.

Ding! ding! ding!

If you look at the whole “Common Core” program – It is to SELL books… and with the guarantee / protectionism of the Government, to those that publish.

• kim2ooo says:
• kim2ooo says:

Look again, at this UTUBE…

The audience is comprised of teachers required and paid to attend this Common Core math class.

• DirkH says:

kim2ooo says:
October 5, 2013 at 9:23 am
“Look again, at this UTUBE…
The audience is comprised of teachers required and paid to attend this Common Core math class.”

Well, at least in the end they still correct the wrong result. Next step wil be “creative math” where that will be discouraged. Everyone gets a price!

We have in German elementary schools now a “creative” way of (non)teaching ortography; kids are not corrected for writing a word wrong. Like in medieval times they can use any spelling they think fits what they hear. They learn “writing” really fast!

Of course, after they have gotten used to their individual ortography, reading texts is very hard for them, as they now have not learned how a word is REALLY written and therefore can’t recognize it easily.

It creates huge amounts of functional analphabets! Teachers very happy! Even Ur-Leftist Der Spiegel has now criticized it!
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-98091072.html

• philjourdan says:

They have been doing that here for at least the last 16 years. I know, the teachers told me that is what they wanted my kids to do!

Thankfully, we were able to teach them correctly.

• kim2ooo says:

What’s wrong with teaching tricks to simplify the calculation?

Questions 🙂
Are you “simplifying” the calculation by adding more steps to get the same solution?

More steps = more chances of mistakes.

Did this method provide more accurate solutions? By this question; I’m not talking about the solvers accuracy – but the solutions accuracy – does the solution become more accurate?

Was there a need to change? Did the old system fail to produce the correct solution and warrant a complete makeover to increase the accuracy?

I sometimes round numbers up to get an approximate answer as a check on the more accurate answer.

When you are “rounding up” you are in the “checking” phase – not the solving phase. It’s a “quesstimate” and perfectly legal in the “checking” phase, but not in the solving phase.

There are some; who justify this common core method, because Johnny can’t do math.

If you can’t teach Johnny to rote memorize basic math i.e. multiplication tables etc. – how does adding 6 more steps [ and one step is guesstimation ] improve Johnny’s chances of becoming math proficient?

If it doesn’t change the solutions accuracy… and introduces more chances of mistakes, who benefits?

Who’s selling the teacher workshops, workbooks etc.?

IMO; Johnny can’t do basic math – because teachers stopped teaching basic math.

• Jim Masterson says:

So your criterion is more steps = bad; fewer steps = good? Let’s try the second example:

26 + 17 = 26 + 4 + 13 = 30 + 13 = 43; four steps (three if you don’t count the first one).

And let’s do it the old fashion way:

26 + 17 = 20 + 10 + 6 + 7 = 20 + 10 + 13 = 20 + 10 + 10 + 3 = 40 + 3 = 43; A little longer.

I can do both in my head, but their way was a little faster and easier.

Jim

• kim2ooo says:

Actually, I do it in my head: 6+7 = 13 …carry the 1… 2+1=3 add 1 = 43

2 steps if you don’t count the auto carry 🙂

• Jim Masterson says:

You’re combining steps. That could be more error prone. 😉

Jim

• kim2ooo says:

Now 🙂

“Did this method provide more accurate solutions? By this question; I’m not talking about the solvers accuracy – but the solutions accuracy – does the solution become more accurate? “

• kim2ooo says:

Jim Masterson says:

October 5, 2013 at 11:19 am

You’re combining steps. That could be more error prone. 😉

Jim
————–

Actually, no.

What I did…was “rote memorized” my addition basic math skills.

I KNEW that 6+7 = 13 …. I didn’t need to go searching.
I KNEW that 2+1=3…I didn’t need to go searching.

HOW? I was taught to rote memorize basics…. and had retained the facts that these are absolutes in math. In other words I had checked and verified these as correct – I no longer needed to verify all steps.

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
Actually, I do it in my head: 6+7 = 13 …carry the 1… 2+1=3 add 1 = 43

2 steps if you don’t count the auto carry
<<

What’s interesting is that you’re skipping steps, and you don’t even know it. Where does 6 + 7 come from? (step 1) 6 + 7 = 13 (step 2) carry the one (step 3, there’s no auto carry) next equation 2 + 1 (step 4) 2 + 1 = 3 (step 5) add in carry 3 + 1 = 4 (step 6) combine computed units digit and computed tens digit = 43 (step 7). You’re skipping steps.

>>
Actually, no.
<<

Actually, no?

>>
What I did…was “rote memorized” my addition basic math skills.

I KNEW that 6+7 = 13 …. I didn’t need to go searching.
I KNEW that 2+1=3…I didn’t need to go searching.
<<

Good for you. You probably know your math facts better than I do. I didn’t ask you to go searching. You’re trying to argue a point that I’m not opposed to. I just think that after learning the basics, techniques are useful too. Are you going to prevent me from using similar techniques to solve math problems?

When you outlaw math techniques, only outlaws will use math techniques.

>>
HOW? I was taught to rote memorize basics…. and had retained the facts that these are absolutes in math. In other words I had checked and verified these as correct — I no longer needed to verify all steps.
<<

In other words, you’re skipping steps. Well, not actually. You’re still doing those steps, but you think you’re not doing those steps.

Jim

• philjourdan says:

Math is a continuous subject, not a semester course. Each course builds on the ones before it. So you learned to add with sticks in grade school (rote memorization). 8 sticks and 5 sticks give you 13 sticks.

Once you get into dozens or hundreds, you should not be using sticks any longer. Yet that is what this exercise in futility is doing. It is taking them back to the first grade and match sticks.

If they have not gotten it by the 3rd grade, they are not going to get it. And this just confuses the ones that have gotten it.

And that is my point. In my HS Calculus class, there were no girls. There was one in my Trig and Analyt class. They knew the match sticks, but just did not care to figure out what the eventual value of a parabolic curve was.

• kim2ooo says:

So is your argument … we should be teaching fuzzy math [ feel good ] over algorithmic skills? That there are no absolutes in math?

IMO; This isn’t about how you, or I, worked to solve the problem, because we KNOW the absolutes.

These kids are being taught; absolutes don’t have as much weight as “investigative skills” [ review the UTUBE, again ].

BTW: In Moscow, where this math approach was invented, at schools for the gifted and talented, it failed.

So we have no – none – zilch.. successful pilot program – yet, Common Core effectively imposes this experimental approach on the entire country, without any piloting.

IF you can’t teach the “absolutes” in math – what happens to higher math?

– Common Core replaces the traditional foundations of Euclidean geometry with an experimental approach.

– Common Core excludes certain Algebra II and Geometry content that is currently a prerequisite at almost every four-year state college.

– Common Core fails to teach prime factorization and consequently does not include teaching about least common denominators or greatest common factors.

– Common Core fails to include conversions among fractions, decimals, and percents.

– Common Core de-emphasizes algebraic manipulation, which is a prerequisite for advanced mathematics, and instead effectively redefines algebra as “functional algebra”.

– Common Core does not require proficiency with addition and subtraction until grade 4, a grade behind the expectations of the high-performing states and our international competitors.

– Common Core does not require proficiency with multiplication using the standard algorithm (step-by-step procedure for calculations) until grade 5, a grade behind the expectations of the high-performing states and our international competitors.

– Common Core does not require proficiency with division using the standard algorithm until grade 6, a grade behind the expectations of the high-performing states and our international competitors.

– Common Core starts teaching decimals only in grade 4, about two years behind the more rigorous state standards, and fails to use money as a natural introduction to this concept.

– Common Core fails to teach in K-8 about key geometrical concepts such as the area of a triangle, sum of angles in a triangle, isosceles and equilateral triangles, or constructions with a straightedge and compass that good state standards include.

Click to access PioneerInstitute_CoreELARecommendations.pdf

• Jim Masterson says:

I think you have another agenda. I was just pointing out that you were skipping steps. I also use short-hand techniques to do math quickly. The other stuff you’re listing has nothing to do with my original support of math techniques.

Do I think the “new math” was good idea? No.
Do I think teaching math facts is a bad idea? No.
Do I use various math techniques to solve problems quickly (in my head)? Yes.

Just because Common Core is a train wreak, doesn’t mean that everything associated with it is bad.

Jim

• philjourdan says:

i understand you are just explaining it and not supporting it, but I still fail to see how it is in any way “easier”. Different? Sure, as you pointed out numerous times, it goes back to the basics. It is like the kids did not learn anything before they found themselves in the 3rd grade.

• kim2ooo says:

Jim Masterson says:

October 7, 2013 at 2:09 pm

I think you have another agenda.

Please, don’t leave me hanging. Share what you think is my agenda. 🙂

I was just pointing out that you were skipping steps.
Actually, no…I was not skipping steps – I utilized mathematical absolutes. 6+7 = remain absolutely 13.

I do not need to justify it “every-time”… it’s a mathematical absolute.

I also use short-hand techniques to do math quickly. You are able to do those ‘short-hand’ techniques because you are concretized in mathematical absolutes.

The other stuff you’re listing has nothing to do with my original support of math techniques.

But it does have to do with what is being taught – And that is what this post / thread is about.

Do I think the “new math” was good idea? No.
Do I think teaching math facts is a bad idea? No.

Do I use various math techniques to solve problems quickly (in my head)? Yes. [ bolding mine ]… Again, YOU AND I , are steeped in math absolutes…These kids are not – nor are they taught them.

Just because Common Core is a train wreak, doesn’t mean that everything associated with it is bad.

I’ve added links at the bottom… maybe you can show me what isn’t part of the train wreck called Common Core?

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
Please, don’t leave me hanging. Share what you think is my agenda.
<<

You’re going ballistic over me supporting the two examples in this post. I just said that I use techniques just like the examples and that I don’t object to teaching them.

>>
Actually, no…I was not skipping steps — I utilized mathematical absolutes. 6+7 = remain absolutely 13.
<<

In octal, 6 + 7 = 15. In hexadecimal, 6 + 7 = D. In Boolean, (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1) + (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1) = 1. You’re assuming base 10; you’re selecting operands based on some criteria not stated. You ignored a carry step, because you didn’t count it.

>>
I do not need to justify it “every-time”… it’s a mathematical absolute.
<<

It’s only absolute after you assume certain axioms. There are many different algebras.

>>
You are able to do those ‘short-hand’ techniques because you are concretized in mathematical absolutes.
<<

I was taught some math facts. I don’t think they are “concretized” in me.

>>
But it does have to do with what is being taught — And that is what this post / thread is about.
<<

And the examples are what I was commenting about.

>>
Again, YOU AND I , are steeped in math absolutes…These kids are not — nor are they taught them.
<<

>>
I’ve added links at the bottom… maybe you can show me what isn’t part of the train wreck called Common Core?
<<

The two examples in this post.

Jim

• kim2ooo says:

Jim Masterson says:

October 7, 2013 at 3:39 pm

>>
Please, don’t leave me hanging. Share what you think is my agenda.
<<

You’re going ballistic over me supporting the two examples in this post.

C’mon… he he he he 🙂

• kim2ooo says:

Mr. Masterson, did you read this pdf?

Click to access PioneerInstitute_CoreELARecommendations.pdf

I know you really like these two examples – I got past that a long time ago, I personally don’t care what tricks you use, I’ve told you so. These examples are not written for you, or I.

*waving my hands* 🙂 we don’t matter.

Question : Will you be teaching Common Core Math to your children or Grandkids? If not: why?

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
Mr. Masterson, did you read this pdf?
<<

Do I have to?

>>
*waving my hands* we don’t matter.
<<

Thanks, I needed that–I think.

>>
Question : Will you be teaching Common Core Math to your children or Grandkids? If not: why?
<<

I’m not a teacher, so probably not.

My grandson often makes statements like this:
“Me and John enjoy playing soccer.”

Got any ideas on how to correct this manner of speaking, or is it thoroughly ingrained in the younger generation?

Jim

• kim2ooo says:

I’m not a teacher, so probably not.

My grandson often makes statements like this:
“Me and John enjoy playing soccer.”

Got any ideas on how to correct this manner of speaking, or is it thoroughly ingrained in the younger generation?

No, I got no ideas. 😉
I do have an idea that he will, eventually, grow out of it.

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
philjourdan says:
October 8, 2013 at 11:46 am

i understand you are just explaining it and not supporting it, but I still fail to see how it is in any way “easier”. Different?
<<

I already explained why, Phil–fewer steps. See https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/what-the-hell-is-this-common-core-math/#comment-100592.

Jim

• philjourdan says:

Same number of steps Jim. As you tried to explain to Kim, she was taking steps for granted. To get the answer still requires the same number of steps, but is more convoluted the “new math” way. As I stated before, if they have not learned match sticks by the 3rd grade, chances are they never will. And it will not be any easier. 10-2 is STILL borrowing from the 10s place. Just like 15-7.

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
philjourdan says:
October 8, 2013 at 10:39 am

And that is my point. In my HS Calculus class, there were no girls. There was one in my Trig and Analyt class.
<<

Looking at the girl(s) and not paying attention to the teacher? Tsk, tsk, tsk. 😉

Jim

• philjourdan says:

high School – male teen – what else would I be doing? 😉

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
philjourdan says:
October 10, 2013 at 6:10 am

Same number of steps Jim. As you tried to explain to Kim, she was taking steps for granted.
<<

I agree with you–I, too, was taking steps for granted. They just seem shorter, because I can do them faster in my head. But that was the point–wasn’t it.

Jim

• philjourdan says:

That is what rote memorization is – taking steps for granted.

• Bob F says:

Actually Jim, you skipped steps.
“26 + 17 = 26 + 4 + 13 = 30 + 13 = 43; four steps (three if you don’t count the first one).”

where did the 4 come from? That’s right, you skipped
26 ~ 30, 30 – 26 = 4 (that’s 2 more steps)
more if you include: 30 – 26 = 30 – 20 – 6 = 4
Where did the 13 come from? You must’ve skipped another step.
17 – 4 = 10 + 7 – 4 = 10 + 3

resulting in
26 + 17 = 20 + (6 + (30 – 20 – 6 = 4) = 10) + (10 + 7 – 4 = 10 + 3) = 20 + 10 + 10 + 3 = 43

And if anyone thinks that makes more sense than the old fashioned method it’s not that they are bad at math, it’s that they’ve had a section of their brain removed.

• suyts says:

Jim, I think all people who regularly work with numbers develop their own “tricks” or shortcuts when calculating in your head. For instance, I’ve always, with larger numbers added the tens/hundreds first. For instance, for me 425+536, without paper, is, 420+530=950+11=961. But, that’s just what works for me. I certainly wouldn’t want to formalize to everyone. Mostly because that’s not the proper way to teach addition. Yes, it works, and I can quickly do such calcs in my head. Usually I can have the answer to adding 4-5 digit numbers in my head before most can reach for their pencils. But, that doesn’t teach basic addition.

The base and the rules are of the utmost importance. These have to be first. If a child can’t do 15-7 without the shortcuts, then there is no hope for that child. Will they learn the shortcuts and then the foundations?

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
I certainly wouldn’t want to formalize to everyone. Mostly because that’s not the proper way to teach addition.
<<

The “new math” was a major math teaching mistake. But these methods are techniques. To say they’re wrong is going a little too far the other way. Whatever works and gets the right answer (sometimes quickly) works for me.

Jim

• suyts says:

Well, right Jim, and I understand what you’re saying. But, you and I both know that later, the children will have to justify their work. There is much to be said about coming up with the correct answer, but, later, the path to the correct answer becomes important, as well,. Shortest distance to a point?

Simplicity and direct routes are important at the early age. It would save us from the elegant and sophisticated formulas which are constructed from confusion. I think much of what we see in climate science today is the result of the “new math”.

• kim2ooo says:

“I think all people who regularly work with numbers develop their own “tricks” or shortcuts when calculating in your head.”

We can developed / use these “tricks” ONLY because we are grounded in mathematical absolutes.

• philjourdan says:

Actually, what this “CC Math” shows is that kids are no longer taught to do things in their heads. They have calculators! We learned the tricks because we had to. They learn tricks that make no sense really (why is 10-2 less complicated than 15-7? You still have to BORROW from the tens!).

I bought some fast food the other day, and offered a coupon. They had to manually ring up the coupon. The original charge was for \$12.98. The coupon gave it to me for \$8.99. A difference of \$3.99 (the ‘estimate’ is \$4 because 12-8 is 4). The MANAGER thought it was \$3 even.

That is CC math for you.

• philjourdan says:

I figured out what they are doing. But it seemed a lot more convoluted and complicated that way. What is wrong with KISS?

• kim2ooo says:

The questions many have, can you [ Common Core ] justify the need to change, not only math, but history, language arts, etc.?

• kim2ooo says:

Because they are teaching “Investigative skills ” over absolutes.
And these are to be done in a “round table” discussion….

What could go wrong with that?

Heaven knows, I’m not against teaching logic skills 101 [ See Posts by David Appell and PHd ] – we need go no further to see the very real need. 🙂

• Douglas says:

Good job, Jim. Then the 26 + 17 problem could be written as 26 + 4 + 17 – 4 (Adding and subtracting 4 in the same line doesn’t change the answer.) Then, (26 + 4) + (17 – 4) = 30 + 13 = 43 So, the kids have to know that 6 + 4 = 10, but not that 6 + 7 = 13. How about trying this? 26 + 17 = 20 + 6 + 10 + 7 = 20 + 10 + 6 + 7 = 30 + 13 = 43 But this would require the advance concept of 6 + 7 = 13, and that the order of the addition doesn’t change the answer.

• suyts says:

Well, obviously it’s been much too long since I checked my moderation bin. Douglas, my sincere apologies. You’re now welcome and approved to comment freely.

• Jim Masterson says:

At this point, Douglas, I don’t know if you’re patting me on the back or making fun of me. Since this conversation (which was almost two years ago [did I do the math right?]), I have changed my mind about common core–it’s really FUBAR.

Although I agree with teaching techniques, these techniques are borderline nonsense.

>>
But this would require the advance concept of 6 + 7 = 13, and that the order of the addition doesn’t change the answer.
<<

I think I still use my fingers (and toes) for solving those advanced concepts. I’m afraid to even consider discussing the commutative property these days.

Jim

• Marley says:

This has always been the way I intuitively solve math problems. If you have an equation like 9+7, I would turn it into 10+6 in my head because that’s much easier. The above problem of 26+17, 26 takes 4 from 17 and it becomes 30+13, which is way easier to solve in your head. The above explanation is exactly how I would solve 15-7 in my head, so they’re just teaching kids tricks that people who are good at math do intuitively.

5. grumpydenier says:

• Jim Masterson says:

They might be training climate scientists with this fancy math, Grumpy.

Jim

6. kim2ooo says:
7. kim2ooo says:

I’ve always thought talk was cheap, just show it to me in writing. Well here it is in writing. A list of links we’ve checked out documenting proof of what Common Core is trying to indoctrinate our children with. Many of these you will find appalling, but they are real. You need to be looking at the books and papers they are teaching your kids with.

There’s more here:

• kim2ooo says:
• kim2ooo says:
• kim2ooo says:
8. kim2ooo says:
9. DirkH says:
• kim2ooo says:

🙂

10. kim2ooo says:

This will teach you what they are teaching in Common Core Math.

11. kim2ooo says:
12. NickAtNight says:

To be fair, I do things like this in my head occasionally with larger numbers or multiplication, by breaking up the equation into multiple easier to do parts. But… I have a B.S. in engineering physics and a M.S. in mechanical engineering. I often help my 9 year old nephew with his common core math worksheets, and more often than not there is a problem on there that makes me cock my head to the side and say, “whut?”.

• suyts says:

Nick, welcome and thanks. Sorry about the wait in moderation, now that you’ve been approved, you can comment freely.

13. joebus says:

Anybody who thinks math should be done like this should eat my ass and then die from herpes. Thank you for listening to my feelings.

• philjourdan says:

Gee, Joebus, why don’t you tell us how you really feel? 😉

14. GB says:

I 100% agree with Twitchy!!! This Common Core crap is setting our kids up for failure. Our education level in the US is rated low but this isn’t going to help. The CC method causing more frustration among our children and parents….. kids thinking they are stupid. This isn’t just the folks on this blog…I have had numerous conversation with parents in different school districts who state the same concern. Stop pushing the concepts…just teach math and stop giving pre-test to kids to see what they know before they are even taught it!!!!

This is BS….frustrating our kids isn’t the answer. Frustration = failure in my book. The kicker is most teachers don’t even know how to teach it right. The higher powers just putting their noses within our education system!!!

• suyts says:

GB, thanks and welcome. Yes, this CC stuff is pure imbecility. It’s as if they’re intentionally trying to dumb down our children. Sorry about the wait in moderation. You are now approved for commenting without moderation.

James

15. Tony W says:

Intentionally designed to wreck our children.

• suyts says:

Tony, I’m very sorry about the wait in moderation. I 100% agree with your comment. You’re now approved to comment freely without moderation.

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
Tony W says:
July 18, 2015 at 3:34 pm

Intentionally designed to wreck our children.
<<

They’re already wrecked, Tony. You should see the little brains of mush running around here in the People’s Republic of Washington State crying about climate change.

Jim

16. ken says:

Omg that is absolutely Fucking RETARDED…why are they teaching this shit to kids…you are going to ruin their thought processes…stop this shit or you will pay the price…by having very confused and frustrated kids and teens…that is the ending result of teaching this bullshit.

• suyts says:

Yes, this is what they’ve been doing to our children and our nation …. for years. Now, they’re perfecting their assault on American intellect and ability.

Ken, I don’t typically allow for the curse words, but, for this post, yeh it’s BS. Welcome.

17. Teresa Pereda says:

And how exactly is this garbage necessary for every day life? I believe COMMON SENSE is better than this junk. Who thought of this disgusting mess?

• suyts says:

Very sorry about the long wait in moderation. I really need to check my email more often.

18. hailey762 says: