I don't think anyone on this thread is saying that Fresta.
Two entirely separate issues are at play here.
One is the fact that if one has a dyslexic child, as I do, often messages between school and home get garbled in the transmission. So you get this kind of perfect storm. Child cannot remember the actual maths, because the algorithm involved several steps, which, because of problems with their ability in short-term working memory, they haven't remembered properly - so they give you a garbled account of the maths. Then, just to add to the complication, the child says "the method is called FUBAR", which, again due to their dyslexia, they've garbled. So you end up in the situation - as I was when I started this thread - of thinking "I know they're struggling with something in maths, I know it's something to do with fractions, but I can't work out exactly what it is they're struggling with, and until I do that, I can't help them."
Then there's the second, entirely unconnected issue of whether acronyms are a good idea as a teaching method. To which the answer - for children in general, not dyslexic children in particular - is "they can be a useful aide memoire but they must be used in conjunction with explanations which foster understanding the underlying concepts." And you only need a cursory look at the threads which pop up on here in education, chat, AIBU even, where parents are trying to help with maths homework, and it's clear that the parents don't understand operator scope, to know that the danger is that the parents can remember an acronym called BODMAS, for e.g., but they don't actually understand what it means. They went through 14 years of formal education, and all they remember is a string of letters, not the actual mathematics behind it.
Don't get me wrong - I think maths teaching has improved - in some ways - out of all recognition since I went through school. Back in the seventies and eighties, those of us with a natural aptitude for maths got a superb mathematical education, but the children who weren't stellar at maths got failed utterly. I genuinely think that maths teaching, on average, has improved massively, and there are far, far fewer children being failed. But I still think there's a problem when any bit of maths gets moved from being about understanding to being about rote learning of an algorithm without any understanding of why the algorithm works - and that's what acronyms like BODMAS encourage.