I am finally getting myself together here for Melanie Bettinelli’s linkup on “Learning Notes.” Melanie is a homeschooling mother of many who writes a very fine blog. Check out the series she’s doing on Shakespeare with kids, for example. There are innumerable ways and styles of homeschooling, and if you are curious about this growing phenomenon and want to understand its appeal to families, I think Melanie’s blog is a great place to start. Conversations, creating, exploring with people who love you? …the best kind of education, for sure.

My first foray into this linkup isn’t going to be a day-by-day account this time because I’ve got math on the mind these days.

For a non-mathematician, I think a lot about math, and this blog post has finally spurred me to put down some thoughts on it.

Background:

I come from an academic, humanties-centered household. There was no mathiness or science or business-type activity to speak of in my parents’ lives or in *their *parents’ lives. My mother joked about her wildly contrasting verbal and math scores on the GRE. I did fine in math in high school, took the minimum I needed to in college, and that was it. I had no opinion of it one way or the other. I certainly had to work hard and think things through in the higher math (the highest I got was what they called “Advanced Math” in the day – maybe there was a bit of Pre-Calculus in it, and a little trig, but I never even attempted calculus. I don’t think the school offered it, come to think of it.), but I often had the weird experience of hitting a wall at night when I was doing my homework, then waking up the next morning, saying “Ah-ha!” – my brain evidently having worked it all out when I was sleeping.

As a parent, I’ve had one older kid who needed help in math, but the other two breezed through on their own, doing very well. My second son never studied in high school and made straight A’s, even in Calculus. Daughter had to study, but still did well, and liked it – “Math is like a puzzle to me, and I love puzzles” is what she’s always said. And now she’s studying for the LSAT which she was emboldened to do, not just because she took a Civil Rights/Liberties class and really enjoyed doing case analyses, but also because she looked into what the LSAT is and joyfully discovered, “It’s LOGIC!” So.

And then, for the others…. it was time to homeschool.

Math is something that some non-mathy homeschooling parents dread, but I never have, mostly because I picked a program that I found easy and even interesting to work with – from The Art of Problem Solving. I’ve written about this program before, so I won’t repeat myself. I’ll just say that Joseph worked through the Pre-Algebra text last year and is making “A’s” in Algebra in 8th grade right now. He never minded it too much, and neither did I – in fact, in many ways, I found it illuminating. Plus I love the videos. There, I admitted it.

Now, I have a theory about teaching. I actually think that people who are a “natural” at a subject don’t necessarily make the best teachers of that subject. Think about it – if you have an intuitive grasp of a topic or skill, it might be a challenge for you to communicate the process to someone who doesn’t have a clue. On the other hand, if you’ve had to work through a process step-by-step and have actually struggled with various aspects of it…you might just be a really effective teacher to the equally clueless.

All that is to not to say that I’m a fabulous math teacher. But it *is *to say that I’m not a bad one – at least to my own children – and I think it’s because I understand their lack of understanding.

*Anyway*, math is not only on my mind these days, it’s on the mind of many because of Common Core-related issues. I’ll say straight up that I’m (not surprisingly) opposed to Common Core simply because I’m opposed to all federal standards in educational content, period, without exception and also because I believe that the push for Common Core is primarily profit-driven. As I’ve said before, no one makes money when teachers are using five-year old textbooks using methods they’re familiar with. People make money when new textbooks must be written and printed, when workshops on new pedagogies must be paid for, when consultants must be consulted and when – above all – children must be tested.

But what has gotten folks riled up above all is the content of the standards, especially in math. I saw a bit of this in the text Joseph was using in his old school, and which we used in the first year of homeschooling (because at that point we weren’t sure if he would be returning to school after our fall in Europe…just in case he was, he needed to be on track.) I rather liked the text because it invited the student to look at problems in a number of different ways and introduced various problem-solving strategies, but I could see how it could be confusing.

(My problem, though, with how this is shaking out in schools is this: I think the various strategies should be introduced. What I don’t think is right is then tying “success” of a child – and by extension, a teacher and a school – to that child’s mastery of *all *of the strategies. It’s terribly confusing and really confounds the purpose of introducing various strategies, doesn’t it?)

So now, to the present. With the *Art of Problem Solving *and the curriculum which my younger son is using from the same group, *Beast Academy, *we are encountering “new” strategies. That is, they are new to us, all of us having been taught more or less “traditional” math, even if it has been 40-45 years apart.

And here’s the thing.

*They’re so much better. *

They make sense. They are, as far as I can tell from my limited perspective, *truer *reflections of what is going on with the numbers with more explanatory power than anything I was taught, which was mostly about learning rules and formulas and plugging in the numbers and doing the computations, period.

I’m going to start with a simple example.

(Caveat – I’m only going to say this once, but it applies to every example. You may have learned this stuff during math. Maybe I was taught it, too. But I don’t think I was, and if I was, it didn’t stick.)

When my older son started PreAlgebra with *AOPS, *he re-learned a lot about basic arithmetic operations. It seemed, at first glance, kind of silly, but it wasn’t because, as we soon discovered, it really helps to understand exactly what these basic operations are. So take division. What is division? Well, division is a few things, I suppose, but one of the things division is is simply multiplying by the reciprocal of a number. So…20 divided by five is also 20 times one-fifth. Right? So there’s your definition of division: Multiplying by the reciprocal.

Now. Flash back to..I don’t know. Fourth, fifth grade math. When you were taught how to multiply and divide fractions. Multiplying: easy. Just multiply straight across. But dividing? Ooooh…tricky. You had to remember that weird thing you had to do – you had to flip the divisor and multiply by the resulting reciprocal. I don’t know about you, but I never understood why you did that. Why do we have to do that? Who knows? It’s a rule!

But hey….isn’t that what division is? Isn’t that t*he definition*?

So when you have to divide fractions, you multiply by the reciprocal…*because that’s what division is.*

My point is – this was taught to me as a rule with no theoretical foundation. I probably would have had an easier time remembering it if I’d been taught the reasoning behind it in this really very simple way.

Properties were another thing. Every year we’d be taught those blasted properties, and never did any of them except the Commutative (because that’s easy) make sense to me. I had to relearn it every year, and barely did so, because the properties were presented as one little section in one chapter and then essentially neglected, probably until Algebra.

In these *AOPS *books, students are taught the properties early on, and they use them..constantly. Multiplication and Division are taught within the framework of the Distributive property – basically, they are taught to break the numbers apart in order to both more easily mentally compute, but also to understand, once again, the operations from the ground up. And really, this is something a lot of us do anyway, right? I know I do, and always have – if I have to compute, say, 78 times 6 in my head, I do so by breaking it up into 70 times 6 plus 8 times 6. It’s just that I never knew what I was doing.

If you want kids who get right answers without thinking, then go ahead and keep focusing on those steps. Griffin gets right answer with the lattice algorithm, and I have every confidence that I can train him to get right answers with the standard algorithm too.

But we should not kid ourselves that we are teaching mathematical thinking along the way. Griffin turned off part of his brain (the part that gets 37 times 2 quickly) in order to follow a set of steps that didn’t make sense to him.

Ding-ding-ding. As a non-mathematician, I am in total agreement.

So now back to my issue. Have you ever tried to explain 2 and 3 (and more) digit multiplication to a kid? And what “carrying the ones” means? And keep any sense of place value? I mean..try it. Right now. Explain why you do those things to an imaginary (or real) nine year old.

It works, sure. You get the right answer. And there’s a reason it works. But now….let me tell you about how Michael is learning multiplication of 2, 3 and more digit numbers.. It may not be new or radical to you…perhaps it’s being incorporated in some of the other new math materials out there. But it’s new to me, and I’ll admit when he first started, I got nervous. I was thinking, “Wait. This isn’t the way I was taught. I mean, I don’t really understand the way I was taught..but this is different! I don’t think it’s what they’re doing in regular school. WILL HE BE AN OUTCAST?”

Well, not really on that last part. So let’s go to the photos:

That’s how I learned it. You, too, probably. Again, imagine explaining to a kid *why *you carry the 1 and then the 3 and *why *you put a zero in the units place on that second line. Try.

Now here how Michael’s learning.

Do you see? It’s the Distributive property, in action.

In case you don’t – it’s (3X5) + (3X40) + (70 X 5) + (70 X 40). It’s an accurate, clearly laid-out expression of what is happening in the act of “multiplying” these numbers.

The beauty of it is that if you can do part of it your head – if you know that 45 X 3 is 135 right off the bat – feel free to just put it down that way. Doesn’t mess anything up.

*This makes so much more sense. * *To me, a non-math person. *Yes, it takes up a bit more space on the paper, but it preserves the sense of what the numbers are and what is going on in the act of multiplication. In other words, it’s not just a “rule” but a clear process.

Has this been the dullest blog post ever on my blog(s)? Probably. But at least I got it out of my system.

The examples of “Common Core” math that I have seen do, indeed seem unnecessarily complicated and frankly convoluted. I think the intention is to encourage a deeper “number sense,” but they end up confusing instead. My point is that what I have encountered in the *AOPS *programs has certainly been new to me, but as not-mathy person I haven’t found them confusing at all,but rather illuminating and quite interesting. There is a way of teaching a way of doing math that is a more accurate expression of what is going on and which doesn’t seem so random, especially to the non-mathy person. The tragedy is that a worthy end is being massively screwed up and, as a consequence, raising suspicions against any attempt to develop better ways to teach our children math, better ways that are out there and that are not crazy or needlessly confusing – in fact, are the opposite.

Below are some of 9-year old Michael’s math pages from last week. You’ll probably have to click on them to get a better view.

This was the first workbook page on which he had to work with this new algorithm. Robots optional.

On this page, he was given just a few numbers of each problem and had to work out the rest. So, for example in #144, he would have to work out what do you multiply 6 by that gives you a number with 8 in the units digit..well, it could be 3 or it could be 8..so you have to go from there and figure it out. We left the last one to do as review later.

He started exponents late last week. On this page he had to work out where to put parentheses so the equation would work. If it worked without parentheses, circle it. (Obviously it was also an exercise in understanding Order of Operations.)

The way that *Beast Academy *is planned (they haven’t finished all the books yet…) the student will be ready for Pre-Algebra after competing level 5 (this is 4C, with one more to go in the 4th level) – I had my doubts when I heard that, but as we go on…I can see it. Michael is going to have a completely different, deeper understanding of math than any of his siblings..and it will be better, I have no doubt.

on October 12, 2014 at 4:04 amKathrynHi Amy,

I totally agree about how nonsensical it is to teach different strategies (to address everyone’s different learning styles), but then to require students to use them ALL.

Right now I am teaching Geometry. Students have to learn to write geometric proofs three ways, 2 – column, paragraph, and flowchart. 95% of my students prefer the 2-column method, and as the teacher, I think that is the most organized way to do it. But it you want to use the other methods good for you. But requiring a student to write out a proof using method X, when a student can more easily (and correctly) do it using method Y doesn’t make any sense to me. Especially since for most of my students, the main skill they will take away from geometry (hopefully) is the ability to formulate sound logical arguments..not how to prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle add up to 180º!!

Hope all is well with you!

Your favorite former co-worker Geometry teacher,

Kathryn

on October 12, 2014 at 9:16 ammarI teach math in a public middle school. I have no issue with the common core standards and math practices. I think these are reasonable and kids should have a deeper understanding of math rather than an ability to memorize rote formulas. To me, that is all the common core is about. They may well be profit-driven and as you know education is full of that stuff. I also agree that placing the success of a teacher or a school on the back of a 12 year old who, in my school, may or may not have eaten or slept much recently, is ridiculous. Success to me is when two girls stayed after class for a minute to thank me for helping them understand how to compute with integers.

on October 12, 2014 at 8:50 pmMaureenIs (70 X 50) suppose to be (70×40)?

on October 12, 2014 at 10:27 pmMelanieAmy, I love this post. I’ve been thinking about math quite a bit lately too. I liked math in school well enough. It wasn’t my favorite but I like solving problems. I’ve never been good at logic, but I fared ok through high school math. I even passed calculus. But even at the time I didn’t really *understand* any of it. I was able to plug things into formulas and get the right answers. And I think the majority of the students in my classes were the same way. But there was a handful of guys who just thought mathematically and didn’t have to study. They played cards during calculus and physics and went on to schools like MIT. I’d hit a wall and I couldn’t understand what it was all about, but I think with a better teacher and more time maybe I could have.

I did want to cheer when I came to “I actually think that people who are a “natural” at a subject don’t necessarily make the best teachers of that subject.” I thought that quite often during my slog through geometry. My teacher was a real math lover and he just didn’t understand *why* those of us who weren’t getting it didn’t get it. He couldn’t explain things to my level because he’d obviously never been there. I wanted to hit something. And I had a friend in a different geometry class with a teacher who was able to explain things in that way. I was so jealous. But in high school you couldn’t just switch sections.

I want to do better with teaching my kids math, but I feel quite at sea when it comes to picking a program and sticking to it. Maybe I should look at Beast Academy when we get there.

I need to come back and read this again and read all the linked things.

Oh and thanks for joining in the link up and for saying all the nice things about my blog. You’ve always been so wonderfully encouraging.

on October 12, 2014 at 11:33 pmDorian SpeedGreat post. In total agreement. Leaving perfunctory comment that is almost a telegram.

on October 13, 2014 at 11:17 amJennifer AmbroseMy problem with a lot of the common core criticism (of the math portion, that is), is that many of the complaints appear to come from a defensive, arms-folded, “what was wrong with the way I learned it” position. Among the big problems in implementing it (I think I think) is that the elementary teachers probably weren’t properly trained in it and possibly many of them haven’t the academic background (in Pennsylvania, at least, elementary school teachers are generalists, and I’m sure that is common in the US) to appreciate where the curriculum’s direction. For instance, recently in the Facebook echo chamber, people were going nuts over a child’s test being marked poorly for describing a number array as its columns by rows. In linear algebra, matrices are referred to by their rows by their columns (as we say in the biz m by n), and teaching this convention early paves the way for higher level math. I’m also a big of the much maligned measurement bars, which allow for solving simultaneous equations without algebra.

I’m not saying common core math (and only math) is fantastic; it’s just not as bad as people enjoy making it out to be. I think it (and I’m talking specifically common core math) would work better in educational systems where even at the elementary school level the subjects are taught by instructors who are more specialized. For instance, would parents be happy with their kids being taught Spanish with someone whose fluency barely reaches past tense? Or reading by a teacher whose own proficiency can be matched by most college-bound 10th graders? And yet math and science remain these area in which we are perfectly satisfied with our elementary (and sometimes middle-school) students taught by people whose own education in these subjects is barely beyond high school. There are great teachers and homeschooling parents doing wondrous things in math and science education with little formation of their own, and that’s great. It’s just funny to me that in the US we’ve appeared to agree to agree that even basic math and science is so hard that it’s okay to pay people who aren’t inclined to study these subjects but get to teach them anyway.

It comes down (again, I think I think) to matching the teacher, the curriculum, and the students in a way that best facilitates learning. The common core math (as it is built) appears to be a bad match in many of the places where it has been used.

We’ve been happy with (coincidentally common-core compliant) Singapore Math since I started using it seven or eight years ago. I hadn’t heard of Beast Academy until you started talking about it recently. I should take a look at it, if for my younger one.

on October 14, 2014 at 12:30 pmDan CIf you want to learn some math yourself, something a little different, try one of the Santa Fe Institute MOOC’s. Quite good, and posits the direction of math and physics in new ways.

on October 18, 2014 at 10:01 pmGetting Organized and Cleaning Up (Week 9)[…] of math… and it seems I spoke about it a lot this week… I read Amy Wellborn’s math learning notes which were all about Beast Math, and I think that Beast Math may have gone over better in my house […]