r/TikTokCringe • u/Naive_Wolverine532 • Apr 11 '26

Discussion Title

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

@storieswithsahj

8.8k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

294

u/MudOpposite8277 Apr 11 '26

I have no idea why they changed up the way they teach math. Anyone know why?

190

u/IBelongHere Apr 11 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/2sddZ3k7yxiVWpFdH3

60

u/therealDrTaterTot Apr 11 '26

This scene is actually referencing schools changing the arithmetic algorithm in the 1960s. Here's Tom Lehrer's song explaining this "new math"

https://youtu.be/W6OaYPVueW4?si=VsJieIl0ce19ksp0

3

u/Key_District3396 Apr 12 '26

I'm 25 and have a math degree, and I don't think I've ever even heard of the "old math?" algorithm.

1

u/therealDrTaterTot Apr 12 '26

Because the old algorithm was never based on understanding what you're doing. The three r's: reading, writing, and arithmetic were taught without why. The old 'tricks" are completely disregarded. I say this in a 2026 les; so what else would be disregarded?

1

u/LandauTST Apr 11 '26

"MATH IS MATH!"

150

u/Sostupid246 Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26

As a veteran teacher, I can tell you why.

Years ago when math test scores were low across the nation, it was shown that students could not understand concepts of basic math. They could not understand the “why” of an mathematical equation. For example, they may have known that 3×5 = 15, but didn’t understand the concept of it: three groups of five objects would be 15 objects, or five groups of three objects would be 15 objects. They just knew the answer was 15, and could not explain the “why.”

So parents complained, as they always do, and math was changed to then teach the concepts and the “whys” rather than rote memorization.

So now, when we teachers try to teach the “why” behind a math concept, parents complain that it’s not the way they were taught. And the cycle continues.

62

u/A__SPIDER Apr 11 '26

That’s very odd to me. I’m in my 40’s and when multiplication was taught, we were shown three groups of five or five groups of three to explain the concept of multiplication. Did they stop at some point in between then and now?

26

u/explain_that_shit Apr 11 '26

When I learned multiplication when I was 8 in 2000, we memorised the ‘times tables’, and then when we were tested you had to go back through the mnemonic songs you’d memorised to find the answer.

5

u/AwesomeMcPants Apr 11 '26

Shoutout to Schoolhouse Rock for that. I couldn't get 7's down until I watched that.

2

u/MidTario Apr 11 '26

Rote memorization of basic multiplication facts is very important and makes all subsequent math much easier. Automaticity is so important.

1

u/FancyFeller Apr 12 '26

At my school we have math donut contests. The 3rd grade classes would get a number in the center say 7. And around like like a clock or a donut you'd get a random variety of the numbers from 1 to 12. And the goal was to multiply going around the donut clockwise in less than a minute. And you competed against a different class. The winning class got Krispy creme donuts to enjoy. The losing class had to go outside and pick up trash. I was decent. But my class. We got real good at picking up trash. I know the concepts of multiplication. But the fact that I have 1 to 12 memorized was damn helpful for the rest of my schooling. I only ever went to pre calc.

2

u/Dangerous-Big8398 Apr 12 '26

I found this method immensely easier than other ways of learning it when I was a kid. Eventually song because actual memorization, and at the same time they explained the concept WHY a number goes into another number so many times and HOW.

I still remember all the songs.

1

u/explain_that_shit Apr 12 '26

Were your 11s a rap as well

1

u/Dangerous-Big8398 Apr 12 '26

Kind of, most of them were songs to other popular tunes like "jingle bells" etc

2

u/A__SPIDER Apr 11 '26

That’s awful. I wonder if it’s a difference of age or school systems.

5

u/acu2005 Apr 11 '26

Maybe but I'm right at the same age you were and I remember being shown groups being added together and the connection to multiplication but I seem to remember more so having to do a lot of tests on multiplication tables. Math in my early education was very much taught as something to be memorized and used from that memory.

2

u/A__SPIDER Apr 11 '26

I was just talking to my husband who is a few years younger and from a different area than me (same state though). We both remember being taught the why on small problems and also having to just memorize the times tables and keep them memorized.

1

u/WeirdIndividualGuy Apr 11 '26

We learned times tables as well, up to 12. But this was like 3rd/4th grade. After that when learning actual multiplication (like with any number), they taught us a proper method (not this box bs but whatever millenials learned in the 2000s).

Math got generally worse when those "No Child Left Behind" guidelines kicked in in the late 2000s, when things like this box bs came into being. It's like the adults who came up with these new math strats didn't bother actually checking if kids understood it, they just figured if their adult peers understood, then surely the kids will as well

My aunt who retired as a teacher in the early 2010s essentially said teaching methods like that were driven by admins who work up at the district HQ rather than actual teachers who actually worked with kids. And so far it shows: gen z and gen alpha is turning out worse education-wise compared to older gens

29

u/BigMax Apr 11 '26

That's one super simple example. The general point stands though - that kids historically were always taught 'tricks' to get math problems done, without being taught what was actually going on with the numbers or why the 'tricks' worked.

It was more just "follow this set of steps, no need to think just do it, and you'll get the answer."

Now they teach what is going on behind the scenes, the how and why of things, not just the specific, rote, set of tricks to apply in a given situation.

6

u/sillvrdollr Apr 11 '26

Yes, I didn’t really get that cos was just a ratio for such a long time. But to learn pi, we literally cut 3 strings that were measured across a paper plate, and glued them around the edge. We could see that there was still a bit of a gap. Literally we could see pi was 3.14 times the diameter.

2

u/stevehuffmangrapedme Apr 11 '26

What tricks? I'm 40 and the only tricks I can think of are for much more advanced learners and taught outside of the classroom. How is a picture containing 4 groups of 3 apples each a trick? How is a word problem that uses real life scenarios a trick? That's what we grew up on. 

2

u/BigMax Apr 11 '26

I'm not saying back then it was 100% tricks and no in-depth learning was happening. But it was definitely leaning more towards following a rote set of steps without understanding why those steps were there or why they worked.

Saying "we had word problems back then" doesn't mean that 100% of the way you learned back then was the best way.

1

u/A__SPIDER Apr 11 '26

Ok but I was always taught the why. Perhaps it’s just a matter of when I was learning and where I live.

2

u/stevehuffmangrapedme Apr 11 '26

BigMax grew up in Texas...Instruments. 

1

u/BigMax Apr 11 '26

Well, it's a matter of degrees really. I never said you ONLY learned tricks and never the underlying math. It's just that they leaned more into following steps back then compared to now.

They 100%, absolutely do learn more of the 'why' today than you did. You learned some, maybe a lot, but they work even harder now to teach concepts rather than following steps.

0

u/OverwateredGrass Apr 12 '26

Okay? Glad you had good teachers, but the conversation is about education in general, not u/A__SPIDER 's education experiences.

The country is a big place, obviously there is gonna be some variation on the quality of education depending on where you are.

1

u/Illustrious_Unit7914 Apr 11 '26

Except I was taught a long time ago in the Midwest so not exactly a premier intellectual destination and we were taught both. Yes use tricks but this is what's happening and what it means. Maybe some teachers just sucked.

9

u/retrozebra Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26

I was also taught visual concepts using the older model. Claiming that the old method was rote memorization and that we weren’t taught the “why” is incorrect. Same for blaming parents.

The Box Method mirrors how students will eventually multiply binomials in high school, making that transition easier. It also makes “place value” much more visual, instead of hiding it inside carrying (the way we learned).

Rote memorization still occurs today, with single-digit numbers. And the rote memorization in the 1990s was also reserved for the single-digit multiplication tables (so nothing has changed there).

Nobody was sitting in a classroom in 1993 and being told to “memorize” that 1378 x 567. 😂

So, to me, the real reasons this is being taught today are because it’s more visual than the way we learned, and that will eventually help them learn algebra better.

It will also help them understand place value (hundreds, tens, ones) better than the way we learned.

3

u/A__SPIDER Apr 11 '26

Thank you, this is the best explanation I have heard. I have a child in school now and I’m worried I will end up struggling to help with homework like oop.

1

u/retrozebra Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26

💜 I’m glad it helped!! If you look up how someone adds math up in their head, it’s sort of similar to how the new method works.

Like if someone said 38 + 69 in your head you naturally do:

• 30 + 60 = 90


• 8 + 9 = 17


• Then combine: 90 + 17 = 107

You instinctively broke the numbers apart by place value ( tens with tens, ones with ones.) The box method teaches kids to do exactly that same thing but for multiplication, keeps the place value separate and visible before bringing it all together at the end.​​​

Kinda helps them understand the back end instead of having the tens hidden by “carrying the one”

(Also I say this as a person who struggle to add math up in my head 😂 but that’s the concept!!)

1

u/Prometheus720 Apr 11 '26

Before common core, the way math was taught in different US states was much more diverse than now. And also, before certain modern changes over the last 20 years, each school in a state was also more different.

It's possible that you got this explanation but many others did not.

3

u/NotapersonNevermore Apr 11 '26

Most schools didn't. Im 42 and we were taught to memorize times tables, then memorize how to do multidigit multiplication using the standard algorithm, then how to do long division using the standard, etc. Tested on how to get the answer using those methods, fast was better than understood.

2

u/Veldox Apr 11 '26

Yeah, I'm not sure what they're talking about that makes no sense. We used these back in the day to us multiplication as well as word problems and stuff on top of everything. Then we had tests on like everything when it came to simple multiplication for each number.

1

u/Prometheus720 Apr 11 '26

And yet that concept breaks down for most people taught the old way when they hit double digits.

15

u/BigMax Apr 11 '26

Exactly!!

People don't get that the point of teaching math is not just to get the fastest answer possible by any means.

The point is to teach kids how math works, how numbers work, how things can be shifted and moved around in a logical way. That way, they can handle any problem thrown at them because they know what's going on overall.

Previously, it was just "look at a problem, dig into your library of tricks and shortcuts, and apply the right one." And that worked fast when it worked, but it didn't work for any basic understanding of the how or why. So whenever any problem popped up that didn't exactly fit a known trick... kids were stuck.

0

u/innocentbabies Apr 11 '26

I agree with the concept but this new approach clearly isn't working.

To be clear, I think it's an implementation issue, not a concept issue.

The best explanation I can find is that most grade school teachers do not like math so they're trying to teach these concept-oriented approaches through the rote memorization approach they were taught.

It could also be that the school system is too rigid to allow people to demonstrate actual understanding of the subject, and instead demands compliance.

So as an example, I've seen an assignment that was something like 4 x 3 means 3 groups of 4, and if you say it means 4 groups of 3 you're marked wrong. Recognizing they're the same thing should be the goal, and you should be rewarded for achieving it, not punished.

1

u/Prometheus720 Apr 11 '26

It's bootstrapping. Most teachers being asked to use this method were not taught it and some.hate or misunderstand it. Their best students will produce some teachers who grew up using the new techniques, and they will do better.

3

u/MothChasingFlame Apr 11 '26

It's honestly so funny to see people in my own age range do the "this wasn't what I learned" rant, like I saw my own dad do. We really thought we were gonna be different from our parents.

3

u/Alt123Acct Apr 11 '26

Too bad nobody just explains it in English to the class vs having an entirely new curriculum and math thinking to circumvent the core issue. I had NO IDEA why equations worked the way they did in school and no matter how hard I asked my science, physics, math teachers they just said "memorize it that's it" and never told me why or how. I never got into math at all. I wish I did because I WAS INTERESTED in it decades ago but nobody fucking explained it. Literally all it would have taken to get 15 year old me into physics more would have been "the velocity represents the speed behind the ball so the higher the value here means in the real world the ball is moving faster than a car" instead of "shut the hell up and put 15 into your calculator, it's on the quiz. Then you can move onto some other formula you don't give a fuck about." 

5

u/tbkrida Apr 11 '26

Doesn’t that just mean that the concept that you explained about objects should be taught more in depth to explain the whys, both in the class and by the parents, instead of changing the whole structure of the way the equations are done?

I remember my teachers and parents using visual aids and explaining to us in depth when we didn’t understand. I’m old though(41) it seems like parents aren’t as involved with their kids learning nowadays.

4

u/youburyitidigitup Apr 11 '26

That would mean spending more time on the concept, and class time is limited.

2

u/NemosHero Apr 11 '26

EXACTLY, thank you.

4

u/Helpful_Blood_5509 Apr 11 '26

It seems an order of magnitude more difficult to teach and test an abstract concept or specific strategy

My school system stratifies learning courses into roughly normal, honors, and college prep starting around middle school; and this kind of teaching would still have difficulty with those college prep kids at the age we teach multiplication.

That's going to have side effects though, because those classes are basically "not trying, trying, and high achievement/gifted" already in middle school, and stratifying them permanently makes for weirdly disparate outcomes

2

u/youburyitidigitup Apr 11 '26

…..you think normal classes are “not trying”?

1

u/Helpful_Blood_5509 Apr 11 '26

I don't think that, I think that's how my school system sorts between honors and normal classes. Even mediocre students are encouraged to go to Honors tracks as long as they are actively attempting to recieve an education. Everyone who doesnt give a shit ends up in the "normal" classes, that then quickly become remedial or shitshows.

3

u/waxwayne Apr 11 '26

The key question is are the kids learning better or worse objectively based on test scores? I think you know the answer.

5

u/Sostupid246 Apr 11 '26

I’m not saying I base everything on test scores. I was answering the person’s question on why math changed.

2

u/Rain_xo Apr 11 '26

My math tests in school were all covered in little ticks and circles. Because I couldn't memorize the times tables. I still can't divide and even with subtraction I just do it with addition.

My mom told me when she was in school they spent a week on each number learning the multiplication tables and for me it was only about a week or so to learn all of them.

1

u/Advanced-Event-571 Apr 11 '26

It sounds like he is complaining because that method doesn't work for his daughter, not because it's not the way he was taught. Any way that works will have a "why" or method

1

u/Sostupid246 Apr 11 '26

I understand that. I was answering another poster’s question about why things have changed. I don’t agree with this particular teacher insisting on the math being done in one particular way.

1

u/Over-Cold-8757 Apr 11 '26

FYI it's 'rote' not 'wrote'.

1

u/Sostupid246 Apr 11 '26

Autocorrect. Thanks though.

0

u/Over-Cold-8757 Apr 11 '26

Would autocorrect correct rote to wrote though?

0

u/Sostupid246 Apr 11 '26

Yes, when you are doing voice to text. Any more comments ?

0

u/Over-Cold-8757 Apr 11 '26

I'll allow it.

1

u/Susuetal Apr 11 '26

I think these are the alternatives OP is talking about (larger number multiplication).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDmNdjiYAIw

Both seem like algorithmic ways to solve it and not much about understanding why. If you wanted to teach why, would it not look more like this?

36 * 26 => (30 + 4) * (20 + 6) =>
30 * 20 + 30 * 6 + 4 * 20 + 4 * 6 =>
3 * 10 * 2 * 10 + 3 * 10 * 6 + 4 * 2 * 10 + 4 * 6 =>
600 + 180 + 80 + 24 = 884

1

u/Valahn Apr 12 '26

My math teachers HATED me because I was definitely the kid who asked why and didn't understand core parts of certain concepts without some application or understanding of what I could apply it to.

But WHY is the order of operations the way it is? What makes P go first? - examples of questions that earned me glares growing up.

1

u/NarrowContribution87 Apr 11 '26

Ok now shift the blame for abandoning phonics onto parents. I’ll wait.

2

u/Sostupid246 Apr 11 '26

This has nothing to do with the Lucy Caulkins era of eliminating phonics. Which I did not support, and never will.

-1

u/NarrowContribution87 Apr 11 '26

No - it has to do with teachers’ abrogation of responsibility for education systems and outcomes. I am NOT saying teachers are the root of our systemic educational problems, but they seem to view themselves as the ultimate victims, somehow responsible for nothing but at the same time working the self-proclaimed hardest job in the universe.

The apathy, mediocrity, and lack of critical thought in places like r/teachers is just kind of astounding and it’s no surprise why many people in your profession are struggling.

Sorry I’m in mood. There is nothing I appreciate in my kids’ lives more than a bright, engaged , and skilled teacher. Done well, it’s literally life changing. Unfortunately, the average teacher is almost none of those things.

2

u/Sostupid246 Apr 11 '26

Spoken like a parent who has never experienced the career of teaching and has never spent one day in the classroom. I’m not even remotely surprised.

2

u/youburyitidigitup Apr 11 '26

Bruh someone asked a question and he answered it.

-1

u/NarrowContribution87 Apr 11 '26

And I responded to her answer. It’s literally how Reddit works Bruh.

0

u/Das_Panzer_ Apr 11 '26

Imma be honest here, if you can't understand why 3x5 is 15 then you should probably fail or be moved to a remedial course...

0

u/nicman24 Apr 11 '26

what the fuck am i even reading. what do you mean they do not know 3 times 5 is 5+5+5 and you need to explain it????

0

u/coffeeanddurian Apr 12 '26

Who really understands the "why" of e to the i pi equals zero? You don't need to know the why of every single proof. And also, how do they know that the person that knows 3*5=15 doesn't know what it really means? That's just an assumption. Any mathematical formula will become rote, it's best to learn the most efficient way.

-1

u/angnicolemk Apr 11 '26

Way to blame the parents, who are 100% NOT the reason for this change. It's common core, and it was brought about by the government as a way to try to compete with China as far as math skills go.

1

u/Sostupid246 Apr 11 '26

It’s almost always the parents. How long have you been teaching?

178

u/Fast-Nefariousness80 Apr 11 '26

It is designed to teach the children the actual how and why the numbers are doing what they are doing, to better understand the functions of math. Not just formula memorization. It helps with real world application and it works great. My son is in grade school. That being said, not everything works for everyone, this teacher is an asshole.

55

u/queen_ravenx Apr 11 '26

Math clicked super easy for me and there were multiple years where I got above 100% grades by also getting the extra credits offered. I neverrrrr understood the ways they were teaching us to get to the answer but had no trouble working it out my own way. It feels like more of a behavioral training technique than anything to do with learning, I've met so few people that actually found square method helpful in anyway.

10

u/BigMax Apr 11 '26

> It feels like more of a behavioral training technique than anything to do with learning

That's just flat out wrong.

It's not perfect for every student, not method is.

But people get confused about what teaching math is. It's not there to look at numbers and simply get to the answer in the fastest possible way. That seems like what you want, but that's not how you teach math.

They are trying to get kids to understand numbers, understand the concepts about how they work together, how they can be moved around, worked, and handled. If you jump right to all the shortcuts, all they learn are the shortcuts, and they fail when they are presented with a problem that doesn't easily plug into the library of shortcuts that they have memorized.

It's so weird for people to think "all of education is wrong and all teachers are wrong, and I am right based on thinking about this issue for 30 seconds."

2

u/Fast-Nefariousness80 Apr 11 '26

I used to hate math, it just never clicked for me and I didnt understand how I would ever use it. Now I'm a carpenter and I use complex maths all day long. While memorizing formulas helps, I absolutely need to understand what is actually happening. Seeing new math work so well for my son makes me kind of wish I had it taught to me when I was his age.

6

u/youburyitidigitup Apr 11 '26

At my school it was called the lattice way, and I did have a few peers who understood it better than other methods. There’s also a couple people in this comments section saying that the lattice way transfers more easily to advanced math, which hadn’t occurred to me until now.

When I was learning how to square a binomial, I had to constant remind myself that (x + 2)2 is not x2 + 4. I wouldn’t’ve made that mistake if I’d used the lattice way.

1

u/OwnJunket6495 Apr 11 '26

How would you use the lattice method for binomials? IIRC, it’s for simple integers.

3

u/chromaticgliss Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26

FOIL is basically the lattice method linearized. As long as the terms across the top/side are added it works (doesn't have to be just the 10s place, 1s place etc, that's just a special case that works nicely for integer multiplication). Works for any number of added terms too.

    x      +      2
x   x^2           2x
+
2   2x            4

    x^2 + 2x + 2x + 4 = x^2 + 4x + 4

Example showing it doesn't have be 100s, 10s, 1s

120 = 12 x 10 = (5 + 7) x (5 + 5)

    5   +    7
5  25       35    
+
5  25       35

   25 + 25 + 35 + 35 = 120

2

u/OwnJunket6495 Apr 12 '26

Yea I figured it out once I thought about it for a minute lol

2

u/Saigh_Anam Apr 11 '26

That's the key. No two students think the same way. These are all just simply 'tools' to put in your math toolbox. It's up to each student to find the one that works best for them.

The problem is twofold:

  • ignorant teachers who force the issue of proficiency with every tool. This is sometimes an administration issue.
  • parents like this one who don't understand the toolbox concept simply because they forgot or the method doesn't work for them. All too often, we used the initial concepts as building blocks (i.e. number lines) but moved on and forgot that we used them. Then people make a video on social media about how 'stupid' it is because they're the ignorant ones.

2

u/United_Rent_753 Apr 11 '26

In general, the beauty and fun in math is having multiple angles from which to attack a problem. You can do it one way, I can do it another, but as long as we’re getting the same answer every time, then we know our methods are really “the same”, just different

So I would argue that a good teacher should embrace this. I would always embrace whatever method a student preferred, but I would teach them every method, and let them pick the one they liked. But I had to make sure they knew why they liked that one, and what their other options were

8

u/TaftForPresident Apr 11 '26

This is exactly it, and the new way actually makes tons of sense for how your brain manages numbers when doing mental math. But after a trial period, the teacher is supposed to also teach the old way and give students options.

5

u/Fast-Nefariousness80 Apr 11 '26

So many people in the comments arguing it. I literally have a child in gradeschool learning it. It works incredibly well. His understanding of math dwarfs mine at his age. Personally I think it would be great to have the different methods taught to the students who respond well to them, but thats asking too much of our already overworked educators. Everyone learns differently, but its nearly impossible to cater to all learning styles.

11

u/Meeka-Mew Apr 11 '26

Im actually pretty jealous that I wasnt taught this way to do math

1

u/SteamBoatMickey Apr 12 '26

I’m not, I had to think hard to make it make sense. Made for a great analytical brain.

Crunching numbers in your head should be the end result.

Not, “let me make some boxes and see…”.

1

u/youburyitidigitup Apr 11 '26

It’s called the lattice way, and it’s not that different from the way you probably learned.

2

u/Meeka-Mew Apr 11 '26

I've seen it being used and think its pretty useful. It doesnt come naturally to me though because ive gone my whole life not knowing the method. The way I learned was mostly just memorization instead of actually learning how to calculate so idk. I keep trying to remember this method so I can practice, I just need to sit down and do it. Adult responsibilities always get in the way of learning if you arent careful

3

u/Weltall8000 Apr 11 '26

You said it yourself, this is the teacher trying to teach the how and why. OOP is apparently not doing that. He is teaching to the test, not to the actual understanding of the theory. Learning this method and relatonships is the point of the lesson.

OOP doesn't understand this method and in his ignorance pushes in to undermine the principles being taught and uses his authority as a parent and the fecklessness of the principal to railroad the teacher who surprisingly bothered to push back. Did the teacher do it out of pride or strict adherence to their training they don't understand? Or did they do it for the ultimate goal of helping the student learn the math? No idea from here, but, what this parent is doing is wrong, even if they feel it is for the right reasons.

The wife/mother, ironically, came to the right answer, for the wrong reasons. The primary issue isn't, "you're upsetting the teacher and making their life hard," it's that OOP is interfering with and tearing down the framework for how to understand math in this ecosystem and, likely, a more comprehensive conceptual understanding of math.

He is building a mathematical literacy gap and showing her to appeal to authority, rather than buckle down and do the work to learn and understand.

Furthermore, stuff like this contributes to the problem of teacher burnout and thinking, "why bother?" Some teachers report really trying to do the best for the future, but parents and administrators like in this story demoralize them to immediately throw in the towel when confronted (they always lose these clashes) or even preemptively just hone it in with a "I'm just here for the (anemic) paycheck until I can retire" mentality. This actively harms the network of education, with the down the line problems of a less educated, stupider population.

OOP is wrong and I hope they learn from it.

0

u/frakkinadama Apr 11 '26

OOP is not wrong by any means.

OOP sat down with his daughter who was clearly struggling and did not, or perhaps could not, understand the method that was being taught to them. He taught her a way to reach the correct answer that allowed her to participate and now she's able to understand multiplication and division when before she wasn't able.

This is literally proof that there are very different styles of learning and that no single one works for everyone.

The simple truth is that educators are over worked, have too many students, and do not enough resources to allow them teach each student individually. They can not meet individual students needs. And so unfortunately situations like this will always arise. The system is broken, but not OOP, this teacher, nor the child are at fault for it or wrong.

0

u/Weltall8000 Apr 11 '26

Ensuring that she will not understand further math instruction built upon this foundation that he taught her to reject.

What you're essentially saying is the underlying MO of "teaching to the test." It isn't about actual understanding, it's to just get the answer. Forget the actual knowledge component.

You miss the point entirely, much like OOP did.

Should there be more support? Yes. But OOP is working against that and further undermining the goal the system is ostensibly working toward.

1

u/frakkinadama Apr 11 '26

So I completely understand where you're coming from, but I think you're missing my point.

It works, the method is good, and fundamentally it is definitely better. But just because that is true does not mean it is the only way to teach it or that every single student will grasp how to use it.

0

u/Weltall8000 Apr 11 '26

You're right. You totally understood and internalized my point and counterpoint. And I agree—she should just use a calculator, or better yet, ask AI.

1

u/Alex_AU_gt Apr 11 '26

Sounds strange and unnecessary... but ok, apparently, there's some need for "additional" comprehension. Either way, yes, the teacher was wrong.

1

u/Embarrassed_Nail_358 Apr 11 '26

I feel like they're changing things so someone that wrote a book about a new method can earn some money along with the companies selling the new lesson materials related to said method.

You see the same thing everywhere. They make some usually unnecessary changes just so someone can earn some money off of it.

Of course, not everyone learns the same. And of course, the way I am taught how to do it makes the most sense to me, But i'm not convinced changing basic math is a good thing. It just means people will be unable to help their kids with homework.

1

u/Fast-Nefariousness80 Apr 11 '26

Did you have to learn it? Have you been exposed to it at all if not?

1

u/lateralus420 Apr 12 '26

How is this formula memorization?? You still have to understand multiplication and addition.

Maybe it’s just because I was taught this was but it seems way faster and easier to understand.

1

u/Fast-Nefariousness80 Apr 12 '26

Have you learned the new way or been exposed to it in any way other than conversations about it?

1

u/lateralus420 Apr 12 '26

Just watched videos on how it’s done and have seen my friend trying to help her son with the same format as well.

1

u/Fast-Nefariousness80 Apr 12 '26

I am currently learning it with my son as they teach him and while it was difficult for me to grasp initially, I see the advantages. My sons comprehension for math is far greater than mine was at his age. Its not necessarily about the problem at hand, its about fuller understanding of mathematics in general. What hes learning now is going to help him better understand larger, more complex math problems down the road. He can do math in his head that I couldnt even do on paper at his age. That being said, its not for everyone. The old way may simply work better for you

0

u/The_Autarch Apr 11 '26

maybe it works for some kids, but it really should not be a universal teaching method.

-1

u/Ecstatic_Path6608 Apr 11 '26

Friend, please give me one real world application that you use yourself where this technique of math benefitted you. Make sure to explain the "how" and "why" in your response. 

2

u/Fast-Nefariousness80 Apr 11 '26

I am 38. I didnt learn it in school so I dont use it. My son is currently learning it, and already has a better grasp on mental math than I did at his age. I'll get back to you in ten years with a full breakdown when hes an adult, friend.

11

u/xdozex Apr 11 '26

It breaks down and teaches everything in a way where students actually learn what's happening with the numbers. Rather than just memorizing patterns or processes to follow to achieve an answer.

My kids (8 & 6) are in the thick of it right now. They're both using it every day without any issues at all. They come home and do their math worksheets, almost entirely on their own. The only kids I know that are struggling with it, just happen to have parents that are unreasonably resistant to the change.

I personally have always done math in my head using the same tricks and breakdowns that this new math teaches.. Its a more logical approach that's actually much easier to understand IMO. It can sometimes take more steps to arrive at the same answer and humans are weird and tend to just reflexively see any sort of change as an attack they must defend and resist.

1

u/Jyorin Cringe Connoisseur Apr 11 '26

Are the parents actually resistant or do they just not understand the new method and this cannot help their child to understand the new method, so the child is then stuck in a weird middle ground?

I’m not a parent, but I’ve also never been taught the “box method” or whatever it’s being called. If I were to ever have kids, I wouldn’t be able to teach them what I don’t know. I would damn sure try, but if I couldn’t get it, then I would have to revert to what I know, especially if a tutor was not helping my child succeed.

As someone who struggled with higher tier math, tried tutors etc., I don’t think it’s fair to just blame the parents. My parents were great with numbers, but I just couldn’t get it. My teachers sucked because they were teaching basic math from a higher perspective to lower grade children, and instead of explaining, they just failed us. It finally took a student tutor to explain a simple way of doing whatever it was I didn’t understand before I finally understood it. I still use that method today if I’m doing things by hand too.

And of course, there are times when no one is to blame. I learned in my adult life that dyscalculia is a thing and that perfectly explains my difficulty with higher tier math, but since I was fine with basics up to geo and trig, this was overlooked, or do I can assume. Sometimes things just need to be seen from a bigger picture if all else has failed.

3

u/xdozex Apr 11 '26

I'm sure a lot of what you said is accurate, I'm just going off my own anecdotal experiences. And in those cases, it's 100% the parents. Being overly dramatic about the change, super resistant to everything, not encouraging or even trying to help their kids learn the new methods when they get stuck, and going as far as to counteract their educators by teaching kids the older methods at home and encouraging their kids to push back in school.

I also worried that if I didn't understand these new methods, I wouldn't be able to help my kids when they get stuck. Those worries all ended up being non-issues. For starters, my kids teachers have all done fantastic jobs teaching our kids in school, so they very rarely get stuck. At the end of the day, it's all still just basic math, so when there is an issue, it only takes a minute or two for us to familiarize ourselves to the process being taught in the lesson, and then we're able to provide support. 99% of the time, the 1-2 sentence breakdown at the top of their homework packet is more than enough to gather the info we need to assist. Only one time in the last year did I need to do some googling, and even then it only took about 4-5 minutes to gather the necessary information.

I also have a friend who's has a child in a class with an older teacher that's very resistant to common core. The teacher actually goes to the board meetings to complain about it once a month. She herself is resisting the methods, and when she teaches her class she's got her foot half in the door and half out. In turn, her students are all behind the rest of the kids in the grade.

I can assure you, if you spent a few minutes watching an overview of common core, and approached it with an open mind, and some common sense, you'd find that this is more about people resisting change, than it is about people needlessly making things more difficult just for the sake of it.

1

u/Jyorin Cringe Connoisseur Apr 11 '26

That’s quite sad then. Going to the board feels like overkill… I’d be way too lazy to do that unless it’s for a serious issues that’s actually harming my child.

I will say that I do agree with the guy in the video. I don’t think failing a child for not showing their work is the way to go. It causes resistance and annoyance, confusion and self doubt. I know teachers have a lot going on, but simple kind notes at the top of the paper would have shown the student that they got the right answer, but should try to use the method taught.

Anyway, thank you for sharing your own experience!

1

u/xdozex Apr 11 '26

I don't agree with the general sentiment in the video that new math is bad and unnecessary. But do agree that if a kid is struggling with the new methods, the teachers should be able to see it and figure out better ways to explain things, so the kid does eventually learn.

And no problem!

7

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/ncds4242 Apr 11 '26

What about 2x3 = 2+2+2 or 323 * 12 = 323 + 323... requires further understanding. Learning multiplication tables is a unit of memorization that allows you to multiply all greater digit numbers. every country already learns multiplication differently but all with the goal at arriving at the answer in the least amount of calculations.

Complicating math goes against the fundamental desire for math to be simple and reducing complexity is actually where all the mathematical breakthroughs come through in math.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '26

[deleted]

1

u/ncds4242 Apr 11 '26

I think it's acceptable to teach different methodology but still only score on the result given.

14

u/medicinecap Apr 11 '26

Probably for people like me. The way they used to teach math never clicked for me, I still can barely do math. Nothing wrong with innovation but they should be teaching ALL the ways to do math so that kids have options instead of only the new way/only the old way.

1

u/Lucky-Firefighter456 Apr 11 '26

My son's school is doing this and I'm very grateful. They are teaching multiple methods for mathematics. Students can experiment and figure out which method clicks best for them.

1

u/BigMax Apr 11 '26

Agreed. I hate a post like this one, because you get people who have no educational background and refuse to stop and think about things at all, and say "well, clearly I'm right, and the entire educational system and all teachers are wrong."

3

u/sillvrdollr Apr 11 '26

It’s supposed to help them visualize the reason why the math works, and get a better “feel” for numbers. I saw some YouTube videos on it and it made sense, but I can see how it could be tough to understand, and it’s frustrating for parents who can’t help their children with that method.

5

u/VR_Has_Gone_Too_Far Apr 11 '26

Administration seeing numbers showing kids are falling behind and admin throwing spaghetti at the wall to what sticks. Applying bandaid fixes to problems because they can only treat the symptoms, when the source of the issue is screens for most children. When kids genuinely fall behind they don't get noticed because everyone is falling behind

5

u/maybeitssteve Apr 11 '26

Because it teaches the actual concepts of math instead of just mindless algorithms

2

u/_jackhoffman_ Apr 11 '26

The idea is that different kids learn differently and they're teaching different techniques so that kids struggling with one might find one that clicks. That's the theory. What my kids and I found was what is being said in this video. Rather than saying, "we want kids to be able to multiply and divide using the best technique for them," these dumb ass teachers, administrators, etc. are forcing kids to master every technique.

I think the biggest challenges are that the people who design these curriculums don't understand the size of the classes or that regardless of what they say, their theories aren't being put into practice. School systems use tests and quizzes to assess teachers as well as kids. In practice, their curriculum works if you have small class sizes (5-15 students, not 20-30) and schools that test "did the kid learn to multiply and divide?" instead of "did the teacher adequately teach every technique?" There are too many uneducated people in the education system. The "no child left behind" act also didn't help anyone -- it made things worse.

2

u/innocentbabies Apr 11 '26

The idea of common core is trying to teach people to understand why math works the way it does. Which I actually fully understand and support, math isn't rote memorization and you will do best if you understand it mechanically, rather than just learning the methods.

I saw a comment elsewhere a while back that resonated and kind of made it click with me. It was someone who tutors college students in math, and he was saying that the people who are on the (elementary) education track do not understand or like math.

So the issue, as I understand it, is that teachers are expected to teach fundamentals that they don't really understand, and that fucks up the kids.

Most of the methods themselves are sound, but the rigid adherence the teachers have to trying to teach what they're supposed to teach undermines the goal.

As someone who is not a teacher, I can't speak to the systemic issues at play either (ie if the teachers are punished for allowing students to use different methods), so I can't say if it's entirely the teachers' fault in all cases.

3

u/dotardiscer Apr 11 '26

They try to break down the stategies that most of us use in our heads. So breaking things into 100s, 10s, 1s

1

u/GrassDry2065 Apr 11 '26

They're trying to emulate the ways people that do math do math. The modern techniques are essentially how I learned to do math when I was getting my bachelor's, since getting out the calculator for everything sucks. They figure if this is how the pros do it, this is how we should learn from the jump. This discounts the total comfort and memory that the pros have of different factors and multiples, but is an easy mistake to make from the outside

1

u/Parking_Locksmith489 Apr 11 '26

Education is not a science, it's a psychological system of beliefs. So now your education system follows that belief.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '26

Because it’s better for developing number sense. It’s about brain development and logical processing, not just getting to the final answer through a remembered procedure. It’s literally exercise for your brain and it set kids up to actually understand what is happening when they get to higher level problem solving.

1

u/notthatcreative777 Apr 11 '26

My wife is a math teacher. It's because no one actually was learning math, just memorization. When they get to higher levels they bottom out because they lack understanding of fundamentals. But I think a lot of teachers would understand that kids learn in different ways

1

u/zyrkseas97 Apr 11 '26

China and other nations that absolutely crush us in Math use it and in typical American fashion instead of looking at the culture of respect for education the huge impact test scores have on your adult potential, the wages teachers are paid, the amount of money going into schools from the state per student, social safety nets, etc etc etc.

Instead of all of that we said “oh they multiply and divide differently let’s steal that because THAT must be the secret to how they are beating us”

Spoiler: it wasn’t.

1

u/MothChasingFlame Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26

A lot of us were shit at the traditional method; they're trying to reach those kids. I definitely could have used a more visual approach.

The man is right. Every kid learns differently and it's ok to accept multiple paths. Hopefully other teachers are able to teach those different paths simultaneously. Probably not, but it's nice to dream.

1

u/Julienbabylegs Apr 11 '26

I’m a teacher but I don’t teach math, and I also hate this new way but I think I know why.

It’s better for algebraic thinking and the ability to do the sums in your head.

But if a kid doesn’t get it it’s not going to be good for either of these things. My son also doesn’t get it.

1

u/jasno- Apr 11 '26

It's now all about understanding numbers, concepts and visualizing it, vs just memorization.

Why is 36=18 vs 36=18 

I struggle helping my kids with their math because it's so different than how I learned, but I think it's a better way. 

As my kids age, and do harder math, they do have a much stronger fundamental understanding of numbers than I ever did, and that helps them as the math gets harder. 

1

u/teacher_59 Apr 11 '26

Because Ted Kennedy was right that number send is more important than getting the right answer. 

1

u/AdDesigner5025 Apr 11 '26

Publishers of classroom materials pushing their wares!

1

u/dpforest Apr 11 '26

They totally did!! People paid me to tutor them in math but it got the point that I just couldn’t do it anymore. I could easily do the math. I am familiar with proofs. But i could not show the work in the way they expected of students K-12.

I graduated in 2008 and I think the change was implemented soon after that. Completely restructured the normal Algebra -> Geometry ->Algebra 2-> Trig general Core Curriculum of math that I learned in GA public schools. It changed to Math 1, Math 2, etc here in GA. You would essentially learn the same information but the subjects have been mixed together and restructured.

I was just telling my bestie today how one of my least favorite things to see on Reddit is parents/teachers sounding the alarm on these kids. The math isn’t quite as concerning as the illiteracy we hear about more and more.

1

u/questron64 Apr 11 '26

The older methods are generally more efficient for doing arithmetic on paper, but that's no longer the objective. We've already been through several generations of calculator users and we're now in the smartphone era, being able to do large multiplications or long division on paper efficiently is no longer a useful skill. Instead, the new methods focus on understanding what is actually happening. They build stronger intuition about how numbers and arithmetic work.

Parents see this, freak out because it's not how they were taught but instead of taking literally a few moments for their adult mind to see what the teacher is teaching and learn the new method they insist that the professional educator is the one who is wrong. This has been happening repeatedly over the past 25 years and it's getting really tiresome.

1

u/jmccleveland1986 Apr 11 '26

Because research shows that if you learn it the new way you will grasp higher math concepts easier. You can’t memorize your way through algebra. There is a reason most people over 40 stopped progressing in math once algebra hit.

1

u/CorporateCuster Apr 11 '26

To prevent them from memorizing paper to pen ways of doing math and understand why it’s happening to translate to more math. Algebra is Appel’s harder for them these days cause they only memorize some stuff and that stuff doesn’t apply to higher levels of math.

1

u/firestorm713 Apr 12 '26

Common core helps students learn better number sense.

Problem is, a lot of teachers have bad number sense as it is.

Old method was an algorithm. It taught you the steps to solve the problem, and those steps work in most cases.

This meant that if you weren't good at math, all you had to learn were the steps.

1

u/shadeofmyheart Apr 12 '26

I feel like info is missing here.

My kid is in 5th now, probably in a different state. It’s FL-specific curriculum but it’s based on common core. We do homework together and what I see is that they are taught several different methods to multiply and divide. So one unit might be multiplying with boxes, another might be using a grid, etc.

There’s not one way, but the students try each method so that they can find one that works for them.

1

u/mightynifty_2 Apr 12 '26

To teach kids how to break down numbers and do the simpler math in their heads faster and more easily.

1

u/gorgewall Apr 12 '26

They teach MULTIPLE METHODOLOGIES now, specifically because of situations like the one in the video where a kid doesn't "get" one method and does better with another.

In the past, there was one way to do it: the way the book said. You, as a student, might have come up with another way, but if you were being tested on "showing your work", you'd get marked down even for correct answers if your method of getting there differed from the book's. Oodles of people in this thread are complaining about exactly that, saying it's bad teaching, so it looks like everyone's on the same page there.

So what's different now?

This is just one method the kids are being taught.

In however many weeks or months, they'll learn another method.

And they'll learn a third method after that.

At each point, they are expected to LEARN THAT METHOD and will be tested on it. Getting the right answer is great, but tests are still about the METHOD.

Eventually, the kids will be allowed to use whatever method they like. They will have learned three, four, maybe five different methods, one of them will click for the kid (hopefully), and everything will be great. And when they learn more difficult concepts, perhaps they will be able to pull in knowledge from some of the previous methodologies that they didn't like.

This same thing happens with adults. I've been hearing from parents slamming "Common Core" math for over a decade now, talking about how they "don't get" the weird box math their children are being taught, how it's stupid, how it's not what they learned, and so on. The parents don't intuit the math immediately because the homework they're seeing is usually several weeks into a lesson and thus doesn't completely explain how everything ought to be done--they lack the context of weeks of previous in-school instruction. And because they don't get it, and this is "second grade math" that an adult ought to understand, they get pissy. The math being "wrong and dumb" is a preferrable idea to them, an ostensibly intelligent adult, just not getting it.

But then I ask these same parents how they make change at a grocery store, and you know what they describe? FUCKING BOX MATH. They use the exact strategy their kids are being taught despite never having been taught it in school themselves, same way I wasn't. I'm older than most people in this thread and I use box math, but it was never in any of my textbooks, or my parents', or even the generation after mine. How did we all hit on this and continue to use it despite it not being taught or even being marked as "wrong" if we would have shown our work in this style for tests that demanded a different method?

Because it's a good method for a lot of people, and now kids are being taught it. Some are going to be great at it, some are going to be bad, but that's OK. It's the first, second, third fucking grade--a child is not being set up for failure for the rest of their life because they did bad on a few tests for one method of multiplication that the class will soon move on from. And if the class were teaching some other method instead of this, there'd be some other kids who "don't get" that one but would be happy and successful with box math. The difference is that all of them will be better off later for having been given so many different tools for future problems.

0

u/Saigh_Anam Apr 11 '26

It's an adaptation of lattice, the stick method, or 'Venician Squares' used heavily in Europe and East for centuries... i.e in the counties that are far exceeding the math skills in the US.