You even do it in this comment, condescendingly,
>I would not expect a kindergarten teacher to be [...] fully educated in other counting methods than base 10
Honestly, it's not that big of a deal to know binary or not.
But anyway, that aside, you completely missed the point of my comment. Whew.
I got your point that 10 in binary is not actually base 10 10, but 2 in base 10. It was just not worth commenting as it was a discussion about a 5 year old conversation not the semantics of math.
I feel like making sure the absolute fundamentals are well ingrained in your kid is way more important than trying to teach them binary.
Important stuff like learning the alphabet. How to read simple books. Things like that.
Replace counting in other bases with “theoretical physics” or “woodworking” and it doesn’t read that way either.
I think this xkcd is relevant here: https://xkcd.com/2501/
As a side note, comparing the complaints in "New Math" (from 1965) to those offered about Common Core is educational :)
Let's be fair, a 5 year is only in kindergarten, so I would not expect a kindergarten teacher to be fully expecting a 5 year old to be talking about binary or even fully educated in other counting methods than base 10. That doesn't make them dumb. I'm sure that teacher could teach you things without calling you dumb.