I remember back in 2007 feeling that my TI-89 was almost unfair. Pretty sure I used it for the ACT, and you can solve something like 60% of problems with no effort if you just learn how to graph. And now you can use Desmos on the ACT.
Nowadays, most students in higher level math are equipped with calculators that can just solve things. You don’t need to learn how to convert fractions to decimals, or work with a percentage, or even do algebra (80% of working with calc 1 students can often be “yeah here’s how to put it into solver”).
I’m very torn on this. On one hand, I think that doing it by hand is the only way to develop on understanding of what it all means. There’s patterns to what a base system mean that you start to “get” once you’ve done enough borrows and carries. Small and consistent practice in the small skills adds resonance to the major skills you are building to.
On the other, there are things like dysgraphia that just there’s no reason to not work around. Some people can’t hold onto times tables. There are amazing ways to do multiplication that are slow but work for people (draw a rectangle - 3x4 best for demo purposes - have person count squares, bam, you have now outdone their 2nd grade math teacher.) Why bar someone who can’t memorize things but can understand why things work from further study of math?
I do sorta wish that the SAT kept its no calculator section though. It would be interesting to make a bunch of adults take the modern tests and compare their scores to they got 20+ years ago…
The heuristics are what is valuable - the ability to look at a problem, break it into smaller chunks, and the select the correct algorithm to process that smaller chunk.
Eg, cleaning my apartment: I divide the apartment into sections (bathroom, living room, kitchen, etc), then apply the correct cleaning algorithm to each room.
It’s the higher order thinking skills that really matter, and those are trained and exercised in math classes.