Yea, this is pretty stupid.

 

So if 10 is the "Anchor" then how do they explain how you show what 3+5 equals?

 

Hmmm, I taught all of my children to add this way when they were very small (thirty years ago). They were all very good math students and can add, subtract, multiply and divide in their heads better than almost anyone I know. I know that it is "cool" these days to make fun of anything that isn't exactly the way we remember it, but what it really does is make you look small minded.

I believe all the 'tricks' of Common Core are founded in Basic or Advanced Mathematics. CC did not rewrite how math actually works mechanically.

 

When I did my short cut I knew I was using standard rules. But was a little rusty on the actual rules used. Where here is a page with the basic rules and properties.

 

Basic Rules of Algebra | WyzAnt Resources

 

 

So almost everything done by everyone here falls under actual, real Algebra properties such as:

 

Properties of Equality

 

Add c to each side

 

and

 

Additive Inverse Property

 

If we adda number by the opposite of itself, we will end up with 0.

 

 

and

 

[h=3]Additive Identity Property[/h] If we add 0 to any number, we will end up with the same number.

 

 

Redo with the properties above identified:

 

325 - 38 = x

 

1. Using Property of Equality add 38 to each side:

325 - 38 + 38 = x + 38

2. Using Additive Inverse the equation simplifies to:

325 = x + 38

3. Back to Property of Equality in repeated steps where we can use 100s, 10s or what ever we are comfortuable working with ...

325 - 25 = x + (38 - 25) (Property of equality)

300 = x + 13

300 - 10 = x + (13 - 10) (Property of equality)

290 = x + 3

290 - 3 = x + (3-3) (Property of equality)

 

this step leverages Additive inverse again.

287 = x + 0 (Additive Inverse property)

 

And finally using the Additive Identity Property we can just drop the zero.

 

287 = x

 

Most what Common core does is 'trickify' the actual laws of algebra. My issue is that if we are showing the tricks shouldn't we show the the algebraic law that allows for the trick so they know there are math laws and principles that guide these activities? Or are we selling young kids short assuming the could not learn the rules in the link above?

Dr. James Milgram (Stanford University emeritus professor who served on the official Common Core validation committee) reported:

 

“I can tell you that my main objection to Core Standards, and the reason I didn’t sign off on them was that they did not match up to international expectations. They were at least 2 years behind the practices in the high achieving countries by 7th grade, and, as a number of people have observed, only require partial understanding of what would be the content of a normal, solid, course in Algebra I or Geometry. Moreover, they cover very little of the content of Algebra II, and none of any higher level course… They will not help our children match up to the students in the top foreign countries when it comes to being hired to top level jobs.“

Dr. Sandra Stotsky (University of Arkansas emeritus professor who served on official Common Core validation committee and also refused to sign off on the academic legitimacy of the Common Core) said:

 

“As empty skill sets, Common Core’s ELA standards do not strengthen the high school curriculum. Nor can they reduce post-secondary remedial coursework in a legitimate way. As empty skill sets, Common Core’s ELA “college readiness” standards weaken the base of literary and cultural knowledge needed for authentic college coursework, decrease the capacity for analytical thinking… and completely muddle the development of writing skills.” Full testimony here.