Rant about modern elementary education

[MarkXIX]

I have a daughter in the 5th grade who has nightly homework assignments during this new school year. I am college educated, 34 years old and successful in all of my careers. Why is it that basic long division is hard for me to assist my daughter with?

I'll tell you why, because some asshole decided they should add educational theory and "extra math" into what was a simple endeavor for many of us growing up. Allow me to demonstrate. Which method did you learn and what makes the most sense?

I was taught Method #1 and this method makes far more sense to me. It deals with smaller numbers, no inane placement of zeros and no large number subtraction and then figuring out what number I divide by next.

Method #2 is the one that my kid brings home and then is confused about. Imagine my surprise when I teach her Method #1, she catches on, and then I get a message from the teacher a few days later about how she is learning Method #2 and I should help her do it that way so she doesn't fail her next math assignment. Who gives a shit as long as she can do it easily and efficiently, which Method #1 proved to be.

Add to that the relative confusion that ensues after I have to take a few minutes to read her text book to understand how Method #2 is working. Now my kid, who thought I was smart, sees me trying to figure out how to do this math she learned in class. Suddenly, she loses confidence in her ability to do the math because not even Dad can do it.

Bottom line, who thinks of this crazy shit that my kids are being taught today? Who in the hell thought it would be better to break from the basics of the procedure and add in a bunch of extra shit that doesn't even really apply to most common tasks?

 

[Riceninja]

youre just mad that method 2 made you look like a punk infront of your kid

 

[olds]

What did the teacher say when you asked it why they were teaching #2?

 

[Jeff7]

I'd learned Method #1 as well.

And I also don't see why the teacher would say that she's going to fail the next assignment if she uses a slightly different method. Math doesn't need to be about learning how to follow rigid steps. It's about finding an effective way of solving a problem, and it seems that this teacher doesn't understand that.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I don't get what the problem is. They are essentially the exact same method except method 2 uses 0's to help keep track of place. I learned one way and easily switched back and forth.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I was taught mostly Method #1, but instead of listing everything in a long ass vertical column, we just wrote the next number after the previous one we just divided.

For example, 56-54 = 2, so the "2" would be written very small right above and inbetween the 6 and 8. So then you'd know the next number to divide would be "28". Then the 1 would be written very small in between the 8 and 9, so you'd know the next number to divide would be "19, and so forth.

That way you kept everything in one line horizontally instead of wasting paper the long vertical way.

And yes, the teacher is silly. There's no way your daughter would "fail the test" as long as she gets the right answer, regardless of what technique she uses.

 

[PottedMeat]

yeah they're pretty much the same, sounds like the teacher is just inflexible. teaching & grading 1 thing exactly the same way to ~30 kids is just easier on him.

 

[Jeff7]

...
And yes, the teacher is silly. There's no way your daughter would "fail the test" as long as she gets the right answer, regardless of what technique she uses.

Well, sort of.

 

[Chris27]

btw, 56898/9 is 6322

 

[SphinxnihpS]

The only difference between the two methods is one adds a lot of extra writing and subtraction for no purpose. I suppose they fail based on following direction instead of learning math. I also suppose the teacher does not know how to do it via method one... LMFAO.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

btw, 56898/9 is 6322

Haha, I just realized that too.

 

[Kirby]

tell the teacher to lick your taint

 

[coxmaster]

I learned both methods.. since, well, its the same thing :hmm:

 

[darkswordsman17]

I was taught method one, but method 2 doesn't throw me off at all. I wasn't sure what the deal was until the teacher gave you that message.

Your little spiel about it causing her to lose confidence isn't justified on your part, she should lose confidence if method 2 is enough to throw you off to the point that you don't know how to do it, then she should lose confidence if your ability to help her with math. I can't even imagine how bad you'd be at algebra, let alone calculus if something like that can throw you off so much.

I'm mixed on the response of the teacher. It is very possible that its been proven that teaching it a different way is better (I hope you don't think that just because you learned it a certain way decades ago that it can't be improved upon, which is the response of way too many parents), but any teacher should be able to discern the difference.

It might be something that works better for most children, and while there is a minor extra step (adding the zeroes), they also see how it cancels out. Reasoning like this I could see paying dividends in higher math as showing full work makes it easier to follow and understand. Sure it adds a bit of extra steps, but it helps most people keep things straight.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

They're exactly the same. Method 1 is slightly better IMO because writing all these zeros with no benefit is slightly tedious, but both lead to the right answer and use the exact same mathematical principles.

Oh. And I think someone's already pointed it out already, but 9 x 7 =! 54.

 

[MarkXIX]

btw, 56898/9 is 6322

Ah shit! It wasn't easy creating the image I posted in Powerpoint, but there's no excuse for that mistake!

 

[TecHNooB]

i learned method #1 and method #2 makes more sense.

 

[Fingolfin269]

btw, 56898/9 is 6322

Hah no shit I was sitting here thinking I must have learned method #3... the one that yields the correct answer.

 

[nageov3t]

method 2 makes more sense to me.

don't remember which I was taught.

 

[MarkXIX]

i learned method #1 and method #2 makes more sense.

I disagree that method #2 makes more sense. You're expecting someone to ignore numbers and remember to add and subtract others. Seems easier to simply deal with a few numbers at a time rather than the larger numbers in method #2.

 

[Linflas]

I have a daughter in the 5th grade who has nightly homework assignments during this new school year. I am college educated, 34 years old and successful in all of my careers. Why is it that basic long division is hard for me to assist my daughter with?

I'll tell you why, because some asshole decided they should add educational theory and "extra math" into what was a simple endeavor for many of us growing up. Allow me to demonstrate. Which method did you learn and what makes the most sense?

I was taught Method #1 and this method makes far more sense to me. It deals with smaller numbers, no inane placement of zeros and no large number subtraction and then figuring out what number I divide by next.

Method #2 is the one that my kid brings home and then is confused about. Imagine my surprise when I teach her Method #1, she catches on, and then I get a message from the teacher a few days later about how she is learning Method #2 and I should help her do it that way so she doesn't fail her next math assignment. Who gives a shit as long as she can do it easily and efficiently, which Method #1 proved to be.

Add to that the relative confusion that ensues after I have to take a few minutes to read her text book to understand how Method #2 is working. Now my kid, who thought I was smart, sees me trying to figure out how to do this math she learned in class. Suddenly, she loses confidence in her ability to do the math because not even Dad can do it.

Bottom line, who thinks of this crazy shit that my kids are being taught today? Who in the hell thought it would be better to break from the basics of the procedure and add in a bunch of extra shit that doesn't even really apply to most common tasks?

They've been screwing with it for at least 50 years. My father used to bitch about "new math" but I don't think they used much of it in our schools then. Now they have something called "Math Investigations" that seems to universally rile the parents but the School Board so far ignores them.

 

[waggy]

both methods are the same and should not confuse anyone.

but i would be upset with the teacher if they marked the student down for using method 1 and getting the answer right.

 

[dighn]

#2 is slightly more clear because the numbers at each stage is written out explicitly instead of in an partial, location sensitive way. it's also less error prone that way. that said it is more verbose and I've never had a problem with #1. if the teacher is inflexible/lazy about I say just stick with #2 for now. it's not really a big deal because both are correct and how you do long division isn't that relevant in the long run and you daughter can switch to whatever method she prefers later on.

 

[nageov3t]

#2 is slightly more clear because the numbers at each stage is written out explicitly instead of in an partial, location sensitive way. it's also less error prone that way.

that was my thought, considering that it's 5th grade we're talking about here.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Meh, schools teach what the federal government wants them to teach. I don't have a problem with either approach. My hang up with how math was taught in the dark ages was the use of 'Manglish' (my term for math terms like divisor, operand, aliquot and, all the names for different relationships). They actually used to test for these definitions on math tests when I was in elementary school. I always got the problems correct and always failed on definitions.