UPDATED: Thank you readers for your comments, please keep them coming.
The method illustrated in first video I posted may be helpful to learn the concept, but for practical application, I don’t see it as effective. I could see the benefit of teaching one approach and then teaching others methods to allow the child to determine which works best. Have her solve problems with 2 digits, move to 3, then 4 and so on. The child will likely come to the conclusion that the TERC method would be problematic for large numbers. There is no one size fits all approach to learning. The child in the video has a great attitude; she’s patient and determined to solve the problem. She is fortunate to have a willing parent. What happens when you have a tired or frustrated child? Do you think this will work with children with short attention spans, tired children / tired parents? What bothered me in the video, the child says she is not allowed to use stacking in school. How is that critical thinking?
Below is another video, the parent is demonstrating different methods to solve equations. (I don’t know if the books she shows in the video are used in NC. I’ll have to search the NCDPI site for the current list of math books).
Some of you have correctly pointed out TERC (aka “Investigations) is not a requirement for CCSS, however, it can be applied. From the TERC site, Investigations and the Common Core State Standards
Investigations and the Common Core State Standards is designed to support teachers and schools that use Investigations in implementing The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS). These companion materials, available from Pearson in hard copy or as individual page downloads via Successnet, are designed for use in conjunction with the curriculum units (copyright 2008 or later) at each grade level, K-5. Investigations and the Common Core State Standards includes everything needed to support teachers as they implement Investigations and the CCSS in their classrooms.* (Much more at the link for those interested in learning more).
And from the Pearson site
“The Standards for Mathematical Practice are deeply embedded in Investigations. They promote active thinking and learning. Investigations for the Common Core helps you teach all Standards for Mathematical Content.”
Parents of young children, this video is especially for you. I hope this will encourage you to pick up the phone and call or write an email to your state rep and voice your concerns. Please share this with other parents. How much whiteboard space would be needed to add $17 trillion? (sorry, I digress but could not help myself). As I learn more, I will be writing more about TERC.
Here’s a quick overview from Bill Quirk’s post TERC Hand-On Math: A Snapshot View
Developed by TERC, with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Investigations in Number, Data, and Space purports to be “a complete K-5 mathematics curriculum that supports all students as they learn to think mathematically.” The NSF is now spending millions to promote implementation of the TERC program. School Boards find it difficult to say no. They rationalize: “it’s just a different way to teach elementary math, and the NSF backs it, so how bad can it be?”
This program is very bad because it omits standard computational methods, standard formulas, and standard terminology. TERC says this is now obsolete, due to the power of $5 calculators. They claim their program moves “beyond arithmetic” to offer “significant math,” including important ideas from probability, statistics, 3-D geometry, and number theory.
But math is a vertically-structured knowledge domain. Learning more advanced math isn’t possible without first mastering traditional pencil-and-paper arithmetic. This truth is clearly demonstrated by the shallow details of the TERC fifth grade program. Their most advanced “Investigations” offer probability without multiplying fractions, statistics without the arithmetic mean, 3-D geometry without formulas for volume, and number theory without prime numbers.
TERC Omits All Standard Computational Methods
TERC Omits Standard Formulas
TERC Omits Standard Terminology
Bill Quirk has a detailed analysis TERC Hands-On Math: The Truth is in the Details, I haven’t studied it enough but wanted to pass it along to our readers.
And for those who want to dig in on the TERC site