Fourth Grade Math Problem. --Oct 15th updates in post #69

[design_mom]

Ugh. I hate when that stuff happens! And it's particularly frustrating that the teacher doesn't even seem to understand that the answer is wrong.

My DD is also in 4th grade. They are working on multiplication and for a problem like 6,428x4, they are not being taught by the same way we are (multiply 4x8, write down the 2, carry the 3... multiply 4x2, add the 3 that you carried, etc.).

They have to do it (6,000 x 4) + (400 x 4) + (20 x 4) + (8 x 4) -- Heck it takes her 10 minutes and a half sheet of paper to figure out a "simple" multiplication problem -- and she's good at math! I guess I understand the concept they're trying to show, but...

 

[PollyannaMom]

Wow. That's just nuts.

In my opinion, putting method before results is a bad strategy in the first place, but to then insist on a faulty method - yikes!

I wonder if possibly some of the new textbooks were written too quickly, and have a few errors, and the teacher is trusting the book too much?

I like bellarella's letter, and hope it makes it way to the right person at the school.

 

[kaytieeldr]

The objective is to use mental math and change place value to the nearest ten in order to do so, not subtract 29 from 653. This was taught within our class extensively and aligns to the ** State Learning Standard 4.NBT.4 which states: The student will add and subtract multi-digit whole numbers using the standard algorithm. The strategy being taught in this section is to mentally add or subtract larger numbers, by taking and giving to make one number end in a ten, hundred or thousand.

Then the answer should have been 620, and the teacher's wrong.

 

[Aneille]

Ugh. I hate when that stuff happens! And it's particularly frustrating that the teacher doesn't even seem to understand that the answer is wrong.

My DD is also in 4th grade. They are working on multiplication and for a problem like 6,428x4, they are not being taught by the same way we are (multiply 4x8, write down the 2, carry the 3... multiply 4x2, add the 3 that you carried, etc.).

They have to do it (6,000 x 4) + (400 x 4) + (20 x 4) + (8 x 4) -- Heck it takes her 10 minutes and a half sheet of paper to figure out a "simple" multiplication problem -- and she's good at math! I guess I understand the concept they're trying to show, but...

See I think teaching the distributive method is sound and should be taught. In reality once you get the hang of it, it is so much easier. I can multiply 6,428 x 4 in my head using that method. If I didn't, I would have to use the method I was taught in school (same way as you were taught) and its nearly impossible to do in your head.

In real life, knowing the rounded number is often times good enough to start. It helps for test taking, looking for errors at work, figuring out a # to start with etc.

But since most of us weren't taught that way, its new for many of our teachers.

Edited to add that I also think they should be shown the carrying over method like we were taught as well. Every child is different and while 1 method makes sense for some, it doesn't for all. It is the concept that needs to be understood.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

See I think teaching the distributive method is sound and should be taught. In reality once you get the hang of it, it is so much easier. I can multiply 6,428 x 4 in my head using that method. If I didn't, I would have to use the method I was taught in school (same way as you were taught) and its nearly impossible to do in your head.

In real life, knowing the rounded number is often times good enough to start. It helps for test taking, looking for errors at work, figuring out a # to start with etc.

But since most of us weren't taught that way, its new for many of our teachers.

The methods that are being taught look to be based on Singapore Math. These are good methods if the teacher knows what she is doing. The teacher should have understood why she got the problem wrong. The problem is the teacher, not the method.

 

[Robbi]

Teaching mental math is actually a great thing. However, the teachers don't understand the concept so they should not be teaching it. It is extremely sad they don't understand mental math because it is easy to understand.

I hope the parent of this 4th grader explains it to the entire 4th grade teachers. If the teachers still think they are right, I would leave. I would then march myself to the office and talk to the principal. And it is SAD we have to have this conversation! I think I'm going to throw up!

I'm afraid it seems the teacher is mental. The poor thing can't even figure out the correct answer and refuses to admit it's wrong.

 

[leebee]

Ugh. I hate when that stuff happens! And it's particularly frustrating that the teacher doesn't even seem to understand that the answer is wrong.

My DD is also in 4th grade. They are working on multiplication and for a problem like 6,428x4, they are not being taught by the same way we are (multiply 4x8, write down the 2, carry the 3... multiply 4x2, add the 3 that you carried, etc.).

They have to do it (6,000 x 4) + (400 x 4) + (20 x 4) + (8 x 4) -- Heck it takes her 10 minutes and a half sheet of paper to figure out a "simple" multiplication problem -- and she's good at math! I guess I understand the concept they're trying to show, but...

Just wait until they make her do lattice!!!

While I agree that different children learn differently, at different rates, I think it confuses EVERYONE when they make them all learn all these different methods. I can't tell you how many kids I teach (resource room for math support) who, when I show them the direct, old fashioned way to do whatever kind of math problem, say, "But that's so easy! Why don't they teach it like that?"

I have two basic problems with the situation in the original post. First... the teachers don't understand what they are being told to teach. If they are using a math program anything like ours (Everyday Math), they have been told that they have to complete the entire program each year, so the kids are prepared to "move on" the next year. This means they are teaching at break neck pace, and don't have time to think or teach... and the kids don't have time to learn. It's crazy, but it meets the requirements and supposedly enables the kids to do well on the standardized tests (HAH!). Secondly, I think it's GREAT to be able to do mental math and estimate/adjust to get the correct answers. However, I think it's more important to teach the BASICS first, and make sure the kids can do it backwards and forwards, before even considering something like this. That the student cannot figure out how to do this worries me... after all, he's a GT kid (I think... did I confuse posters?) and should be able to grasp these concepts if they are being taught correctly.

 

[disykat]

I figure there are a few ways this could go.

1)The teacher makes a mistake, figures it out in a day or two, and fixes it.

2) Teacher makes a mistake, which is immediately pounced upon by a parent. Teacher now is embarrassed, irritated, and defensive.

IMO, a good way to handle it would be to explain it to your child and let it go, then just stay watchful for other problems.

 

[marcotter]

That's what this common core is teaching now days

 

[ilovefh]

All the fourth grade teachers agree it doesn't matter if you come up with the wrong answer as long as you grasp the concept? In math? Where there is usually only one right answer to each equation? (As far as I know; if it's different for higher math, don't tell me. I practically failed calculus and will not understand a word you are saying). All I can say is "Wow."

This is what we're being taught in our multitude of Common Core trainings.

The latest tidbit we learned was not to teach algorithms. We we're told algorithms were created at a time when there was no technology and thus a need to speed up solving. We were told they are not applicable now and we should be teaching conceptually. My concern is if we teach only conceptually and we don't give them a way to solve things quickly when they get to higher math they will be bogged down!

One of the things being thrown around by the common core gurus we meet with is that even if a kid got the answer wrong if they can justify it they will receive points on the next phase of standardized testing. ( I haven't researched this claim so I'm not sure if it's true, it's just what our trainer is telling us.)

 

[Ceila]

This is what we're being taught in our multitude of Common Core trainings.

The latest tidbit we learned was not to teach algorithms. We we're told algorithms were created at a time when there was no technology and thus a need to speed up solving. We were told they are not applicable now and we should be teaching conceptually. My concern is if we teach only conceptually and we don't give them a way to solve things quickly when they get to higher math they will be bogged down!

One of the things being thrown around by the common core gurus we meet with is that even if a kid got the answer wrong if they can justify it they will receive points on the next phase of standardized testing. ( I haven't researched this claim so I'm not sure if it's true, it's just what our trainer is telling us.)

First, if you are a teacher, you should know that Common Core is a set of standards. Your training is likely on the curriculum your district selected. That would be based on CC, but it's important to remember that what you are being trained in does not necessarily reflect how other districts are teaching the standards.

Second, not every district that uses CC has discontinued teaching algorithms. Again, that is a fault in your curriculum, not in CC.

Third, the comment about getting an answer wrong but justifying it to receive points is basically what math teachers (and others) have done for years - partial credit. Really nothing new there.

 

[bellarella]

I figure there are a few ways this could go.

1)The teacher makes a mistake, figures it out in a day or two, and fixes it.

2) Teacher makes a mistake, which is immediately pounced upon by a parent. Teacher now is embarrassed, irritated, and defensive.

IMO, a good way to handle it would be to explain it to your child and let it go, then just stay watchful for other problems.

Normally I would agree. However, in this case there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the concept being taught, and that isn't something as I a parent I can "check" (because likely there won't be another problem on this issue). The OP's posts weren't threatening. It is the teacher who dug in and in digging in and "explaining" herself, has made what I would normally assume to be a careless error (no big deal) seem like a real problem with understanding the foundation of the curriculum. Unfortunately, I have had experience with primary school teachers who could not handle the math they were supposed to teach -- the newer math requires not just the ability to do calculator math, but to teach the much more advanced concepts that used to be taught in middle school and sometimes high school.

I'm guessing with enough time, the teacher would have figured out that 653-29 really should have been 624. But the explanation she was giving strongly suggests that she really doesn't get that 653-(30-1) does not equal 653-30-1. That means more training needs to be done.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

First, if you are a teacher, you should know that Common Core is a set of standards. Your training is likely on the curriculum your district selected. That would be based on CC, but it's important to remember that what you are being trained in does not necessarily reflect how other districts are teaching the standards.

Second, not every district that uses CC has discontinued teaching algorithms. Again, that is a fault in your curriculum, not in CC.

Third, the comment about getting an answer wrong but justifying it to receive points is basically what math teachers (and others) have done for years - partial credit. Really nothing new there.

Normally I would agree. However, in this case there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the concept being taught, and that isn't something as I a parent I can "check" (because likely there won't be another problem on this issue). The OP's posts weren't threatening. It is the teacher who dug in and in digging in and "explaining" herself, has made what I would normally assume to be a careless error (no big deal) seem like a real problem with understanding the foundation of the curriculum. Unfortunately, I have had experience with primary school teachers who could not handle the math they were supposed to teach -- the newer math requires not just the ability to do calculator math, but to teach the much more advanced concepts that used to be taught in middle school and sometimes high school.

I'm guessing with enough time, the teacher would have figured out that 653-29 really should have been 624. But the explanation she was giving strongly suggests that she really doesn't get that 653-(30-1) does not equal 653-30-1. That means more training needs to be done.

This teacher needs more intensive training or she shouldn't be teaching math at all.

 

[jenben8426]

First, if you are a teacher, you should know that Common Core is a set of standards. Your training is likely on the curriculum your district selected. That would be based on CC, but it's important to remember that what you are being trained in does not necessarily reflect how other districts are teaching the standards.

Second, not every district that uses CC has discontinued teaching algorithms. Again, that is a fault in your curriculum, not in CC.

Third, the comment about getting an answer wrong but justifying it to receive points is basically what math teachers (and others) have done for years - partial credit. Really nothing new there.

Those who write the standards have cooperated with those who write the tests. Those who write the tests are talking to those who write the curriculum (and are being funded by the federal government to boot). The districts are choosing curriculum based on what the children will see on the new tests.

You may strongly believe that the Common Core Standards are "just standards" but opponents of common core see that everything is VERY interconnected. On the common core website there are lists and lists of sample curriculum that can be selected and is "truly common core aligned". The districts are choosing what are on those "sample" lists because that is where the testing will come from.

 

[ford family]

I figure there are a few ways this could go.

1)The teacher makes a mistake, figures it out in a day or two, and fixes it.

2) Teacher makes a mistake, which is immediately pounced upon by a parent. Teacher now is embarrassed, irritated, and defensive.

IMO, a good way to handle it would be to explain it to your child and let it go, then just stay watchful for other problems.

So, what happens to the children who continue to be taught incorrectly by this teacher but are not fortunate to have a parent who is able to realise the error and explain what is wrong?

The problem with your scenario is that you assume that the teachers will even realise that there is an error which sounds unlikely to me.

Condemning other children to be taught badly rather than "embarrassing" a teacher seems a poor exchange.

ford family

 

[FlightlessDuck]

This is what happens when a teacher is trying to teach a technique that is new to him or her and doesn't understand.

Regardless of the curriculum.

 

[nugov2]

This is what we're being taught in our multitude of Common Core trainings.

The latest tidbit we learned was not to teach algorithms. We we're told algorithms were created at a time when there was no technology and thus a need to speed up solving. We were told they are not applicable now and we should be teaching conceptually. My concern is if we teach only conceptually and we don't give them a way to solve things quickly when they get to higher math they will be bogged down!

One of the things being thrown around by the common core gurus we meet with is that even if a kid got the answer wrong if they can justify it they will receive points on the next phase of standardized testing. ( I haven't researched this claim so I'm not sure if it's true, it's just what our trainer is telling us.)[/QUOTE]

I don't see the problem with this. The child understands the concept and can even carry out the steps, but makes a simple error and will still get majority credit. If they do not sure their work the only option is right/wrong...credit/no credit. This gives the students the opportunity to show that while they made a simple error they still get the concept. This has been going on in math classes since I was a kid and has nothing to do with CC.

 

[nugov2]

Those who write the standards have cooperated with those who write the tests. Those who write the tests are talking to those who write the curriculum (and are being funded by the federal government to boot). The districts are choosing curriculum based on what the children will see on the new tests.

You may strongly believe that the Common Core Standards are "just standards" but opponents of common core see that everything is VERY interconnected. On the common core website there are lists and lists of sample curriculum that can be selected and is "truly common core aligned". The districts are choosing what are on those "sample" lists because that is where the testing will come from.

That may be true, but each district should have people who are intelligent enough to say this is a good way to get the results we need while this isn't. It is also the lazy way to just buy a kit that advertises it will teach the standards and not go through and decide what will and won't work with the specific population of students in that district. Those books are tools for the class and should not be relied upon as the only source teachers are using to teach. If they are that is a very poorly run district.

If there are districts out there doing it successfully(mine and several in our area are) and they are doing it in ways that make sense and have nothing to do with these ridiculous methods I have seen posted all over the internet. It makes me think one of two things...you really have administrators who have no business being in education or your schools were so far behind academically and now cannot take the huge academic leap CC is requiring...which I do feel BTW, is the biggest problem with CC. It should be rolled out in the younger grades 100%, but older students need to be gradually introduced to the new standards. The unfortunate thing is that once again many districts waited until the last minute to develop a curriculum and they could have started in the younger grades earlier and they wouldn't have the problems they now have.

 

[ilovefh]

First, if you are a teacher, you should know that Common Core is a set of standards. Your training is likely on the curriculum your district selected. That would be based on CC, but it's important to remember that what you are being trained in does not necessarily reflect how other districts are teaching the standards. Second, not every district that uses CC has discontinued teaching algorithms. Again, that is a fault in your curriculum, not in CC. Third, the comment about getting an answer wrong but justifying it to receive points is basically what math teachers (and others) have done for years - partial credit. Really nothing new there.

Oh I know about common core, believe me! Check my other posts on the subject!

Our district has actually not chosen a specific curriculum per se, but they have paid several "experts" tons of money to come teach us about "common core." In fact, just this week we commented how funny it was that two different experts they hired taught us two opposing things.

One said that a math practice 5 means students choose their own tools and the other said no, that's wrong, the teacher chooses the tools .

One said teach conceptual first then algorithm, one said no algorithms at all.

Believe me, I know what Common Core is and as I've said before I don't know if I like it yet or not because I have yet to see it implemented with fidelity.

As standards they are fine, not much different than the standards I teach now. I think it can't hurt to have the same standards country wide.

And I know about partial credit too! I just gave it this week on a test using function tables where the students did everything correctly except they made mistakes with integer operations. They clearly showed me they know the concept just made calculation errors.

What I meant was students showing how they solved it (a way that does not show conceptual understanding) but they can justify what they did so they get points. Again, this is something one of our "experts" is telling us. But I know for a fact that she and her partner travel the country teaching this so we're not the only district she is telling this to.

 

[dis-happy]

See I think teaching the distributive method is sound and should be taught. In reality once you get the hang of it, it is so much easier. I can multiply 6,428 x 4 in my head using that method. If I didn't, I would have to use the method I was taught in school (same way as you were taught) and its nearly impossible to do in your head.

In real life, knowing the rounded number is often times good enough to start. It helps for test taking, looking for errors at work, figuring out a # to start with etc.

But since most of us weren't taught that way, its new for many of our teachers.

Edited to add that I also think they should be shown the carrying over method like we were taught as well. Every child is different and while 1 method makes sense for some, it doesn't for all. It is the concept that needs to be understood.

Not nearly impossible at all. I find it quick and easy to do in my head, and faster than the other method where you then have to add 5 more numbers after multiplying.

Haven't read the Little House books in a few years (due to the younger three being boys) but there is a scene where Laura is standing there doing mental math orally in front of a panel of people, both multiplication and long division iirc. The problems were far longer than anything listed here. This country is going downhill. Yes, we have calculators and cash registers to tell us how much to pay, but it's becoming rare for people to be able to function without them.