erry day I'm smugglin'

quote:

---

quote:

---

I have 5 kids. They are in 10th, 8th, 6th, 5th, and 1st. Four out of five struggling with ADHD. I can't help them with their homework because I don't understand it myself. They come home, eat a snack, spend hours studying, and still get the answers wrong. They are putting forth the time and effort and still not doing well.

The common core is the same but it might be better for people in honors classes or enrichment programs. I'm not looking forward to my youngest starting school next year because it was hard enough last year. Some teachers care and go the extra mile but most don't care but are quick to blame me for not helping. I tell them I tried and found a way for her to get the right answer but since she can't show how she got it, it's marked incorrect.

THERE!!! Now maybe others can read it.

---

Why does this remind me of "Oh, stewardess! I speak Jive."

---

this!! i'm kinda scared that she understood it all

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Can someone please explain the following to me, preferably in very short sentences?

1. What is the common core? It's an attempt to create an even stupider methodology to teaching the youth of today, when going "back to basics" would be the best way to do things.
2. Are the pro- or anti- common core people the crazies? There are crazies on both sides. Pro CC folks are crazy for thinking the government can fix the problems they created in the first place. Also crazy for thinking there's some fancy, magical way of teaching a kid how to add numbers or subtract them. Some of the anti-CC folks are super-crazy in thinking it's some sort of conspiracy instead of the truth...just the sheer incompetence of lots of wanna-be do-gooders in administrative roles that wouldn't be able to teach their way out of a wet paper bag.

3. Why do people love/hate it? Love: Because it's "new" and "innovative", even if it has sh/ttastic results.

Hate: It's "new" and "innovative" with sh/ttastic results.

---

---

Common core speaks nothing for methodology. All it says is you must know at least A, B, and C. That is all of common core. There is nothing about how A, B, and C should be taught, just that each student must know at least A, B, and C. The teacher/district are welcome to expand on that.

---

I was just speaking to how I've seen it implemented in Iowa and Texas, between friends' kids, my own nieces and nephews, and my "surrogate" daughter, so to speak.

Their "new" math techniques are stupid, and do more to confuse than educate.

Sorry for conflating the CC idiocy with the methodology that TX/IA teachers are using to accommodate its principles.

---

Common Core hasn't been adopted by the state of Texas and it is not allowed to be used for standards in any public school in texas.

---

Talk about fail all around. Let's rant against something and have absolutely no idea what it is.

You say CC idiocy, what has led you to conclude that the concepts that must be taught is idiotic? TEKS and CC share probably 90% of the same concepts.

What led me to believe that Texas had adopted it, especially for math, was helping out my "daughter" with her math, only to notice they were being taught (5th grad math late in the spring) some ridiculously idiotic methodology I saw my boss's daughter here in Iowa struggle with. Literally the same exact methodology that was explained to them as part of the needed class changes for CC accommodation.

When I see something that's supposedly CC approved in Iowa being used in Texas, I automatically assume they're also adhering to CC in Texas.

My mistake if that's not the case, I accept full responsibility for any "FAIL" on my part.

I call it CC idiocy because not every student is the same, and it should be left to the teachers who know the kids as to how they deal with their charges' learning. District-wide, state-wide, nation-wide edicts all take the teachers' ability to cater to their particular classes away from them, then they get blamed when their students fail, or do poorly. Well, if you set up the system for failure, what do you expect?

When I see "idiotic methodology" what I read is "That's not the way I learned it dadgummit"

What is this idiotic math methodology?

quote:

---

I call it CC idiocy because not every student is the same, and it should be left to the teachers who know the kids as to how they deal with their charges' learning.

---

And generally, teachers are left to figure out how to teach their students. Some districts micro-manage but most don't.

quote:

---

District-wide, state-wide, nation-wide edicts all take the teachers' ability to cater to their particular classes away from them, then they get blamed when their students fail, or do poorly. Well, if you set up the system for failure, what do you expect?

---

So we should do away with content requirements altogether? You want to do away with rigor is essentially what your idea is proposing. There are certain things a 5th grader must learn to enter 6th grade. There are certain things a student in algebra 1 should learn to take algebra 2. You want to do away with that apparently.

quote:

---

What is this idiotic math methodology?

---

See what you started? Hope you're happy with yourself.

Some of the most common examples of "stupid methodology" that I've seen do take a more complex route to finding an answer, but they do so for good reason. While students may be able to more quickly calculate an answer using the simpler older method, the newer method better reflects the actual mental processes people use to perform arithmetic. While it appears arcane and stupid to the casual observer, the goal is to help students understand mathematical concepts and be able to perform calculations mentally instead of being limited to a superficial, methodological understanding & pen and paper.

I just need to know what they're using. I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD THAT DOESN'T USE NUMBER MUNCHERS TO TEACH MULTIPLES!

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/

Have fun

Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

I don't have a quarter of the givasheet that I'd need to actually read all that.

Did I do the division right on that?

quote:

---

When I see "idiotic methodology" what I read is "That's not the way I learned it dadgummit"

---

I'm sure that might be a portion of it, for sure.

But, I'm talking about this type of nonsense.

quote:

---

As Carney points out, there are far fewer steps and it's much harder to make mistakes. And just as important, solving the problem this way gives the learner an intuitive sense of what subtraction is: a way for measuring the distance between two numbers. This approach is satisfying because, in Carney's words, math is turned into a road map.
A lot of us ultimately taught ourselves to do math this way in our heads (similar techniques work for multiplication and so on) but it obviously makes so much more sense to just start this way, and learn a simple approach that's also theoretically elegant.
Incidentally, the new way of doing math is part of the controversial "Common Core" approach to math, which aims to establish a set of common approaches to doing math all around the country. Conservatives aren't happy about the one-size-fits-all approach to national education techniques.

---

I learned the normal way, years ago, but was also taught the meaning of subtraction, addition, multiplication and division, all of which I learned in the first grade. (My mother loved me, so she fought for me to go to private school, even though we were broke. Thanks, Mom!) So, their insinuation that "the old way" wasn't a means to that end is based upon lies, to start with.

Now, they're right in that, once mastered, in my head I do the math pretty much how they're trying to change it to. But, I can do that because I've mastered the basics of math, which they're circumventing a lot of by trying this "new" and "innovative" methodology.

But, when they're trying to re-educate my now 6th grade daughter and confusing her, all for the sake of some stupid methodology that evidently IS part of CC, when she already had the normal way down pat, that irks me.

You forgot to find a common denominator before you subtracted. From my calculations, you have no more than 1/8 of the required givea**** to read that poor rant about education standards.

giveasheet/4 = giveacare
giveasheet/2 = giveacrap
giveasheet^2 = givea****

quote:

---

You forgot to find a common denominator before you subtracted. From my calculations, you have no more than 1/8 of the required givea**** to read that poor rant about education standards.

---

Common Denominators. The hoars of the math world.

that don't make no sense.

quote:

---

Common Core hasn't been adopted by the state of Texas and it is not allowed to be used for standards in any public school in texas.

---

May not be the "standard" but there are teachers using it and it's stupid.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I call it CC idiocy because not every student is the same, and it should be left to the teachers who know the kids as to how they deal with their charges' learning.

---

And generally, teachers are left to figure out how to teach their students. Some districts micro-manage but most don't.

quote:

---

District-wide, state-wide, nation-wide edicts all take the teachers' ability to cater to their particular classes away from them, then they get blamed when their students fail, or do poorly. Well, if you set up the system for failure, what do you expect?

---

So we should do away with content requirements altogether? You want to do away with rigor is essentially what your idea is proposing. There are certain things a 5th grader must learn to enter 6th grade. There are certain things a student in algebra 1 should learn to take algebra 2. You want to do away with that apparently.

---

No, requirements as in "You need 9 hrs of math to graduate", etc. are fine. But saying "Teachers must use this new method to teach this subject." aren't. Again, the teacher, left to their own devices, will be exponentially better at figuring out how to teach their students (or, at least, they should be). They don't need some interference from some administrator 7 levels removed from the classroom telling them "the best way" to teach.

quote:

---

I don't have a quarter of the givasheet that I'd need to actually read all that.

Did I do the division right on that?

---

I would recommend a different methodology.

Last time I tried to divide quarters, I ruined my favorite pair of safety scissors.

quote:

---

Some of the most common examples of "stupid methodology" that I've seen do take a more complex route to finding an answer, but they do so for good reason. While students may be able to more quickly calculate an answer using the simpler older method, the newer method better reflects the actual mental processes people use to perform arithmetic. While it appears arcane and stupid to the casual observer, the goal is to help students understand mathematical concepts and be able to perform calculations mentally instead of being limited to a superficial, methodological understanding & pen and paper.

---

I haven't delved too deeply into the subject, but my understanding is that a lot of the methodologies used in Common Core, whether it's whole language spelling or the box method of multiplication, work best when one already has the basic foundations (phonics, rote memorization of the multiplication tables) ingrained. Trying to teach the shortcuts directly is like trying to teach the butterfly stroke to someone just learning to dog paddle. You need the foundation to build on.

quote:

---

I don't know about math but you teach phonics and sight words concurrently.

---

I don't teach anything. [/pedantic]

quote:

---

come on, "one teaches" just sounds so stickupbutty

---

There is that.

Just so everyone knows, a 10.5 grader is what most districts refer to as 10R's. That R stands for Repeater.

BSC momma dun razed her a smrt won.

quote:

---

No, requirements as in "You need 9 hrs of math to graduate", etc. are fine. But saying "Teachers must use this new method to teach this subject." aren't. Again, the teacher, left to their own devices, will be exponentially better at figuring out how to teach their students (or, at least, they should be). They don't need some interference from some administrator 7 levels removed from the classroom telling them "the best way" to teach.

---

Again, I don't know where you are getting common core tells teachers which methods to teach with, that has nothing to do with common core. Common core is a set of topics that must be covered in each class, not a "how-to" teach. That's why I find it so funny because you keep repeating yourself with falsehoods. I mean, go look at it, it was linked on this page!

So GWENZ found another website?

I don't know who's more to blame for the hysteria. The idiot chicken little teachers who couldn't grasp what CC/CIF was and flipped out and adopted the random best practices from GT classes that were used as examples or the idiot 3rd year teachers turned administrators who didn't understand how to implement said practices because they used to be idiot chicken little teachers.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, requirements as in "You need 9 hrs of math to graduate", etc. are fine. But saying "Teachers must use this new method to teach this subject." aren't. Again, the teacher, left to their own devices, will be exponentially better at figuring out how to teach their students (or, at least, they should be). They don't need some interference from some administrator 7 levels removed from the classroom telling them "the best way" to teach.

---

Again, I don't know where you are getting common core tells teachers which methods to teach with, that has nothing to do with common core. Common core is a set of topics that must be covered in each class, not a "how-to" teach. That's why I find it so funny because you keep repeating yourself with falsehoods. I mean, go look at it, it was linked on this page!

---

From the aforementioned linked website, specifically first grade math:

quote:

---

Add and subtract within 20.CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.C.5
Relate counting to addition and subtraction (e.g., by counting on 2 to add 2).
CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.C.6
Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

---

So, it actually does appear to state specific methods to use.

Is it as onerous as I may have believed? Maybe not. But to state that "Common core is a set of topics that must be covered in each class, not a "how-to" teach." isn't completely accurate, as on their own site they list the methods to use to teach the different ideas while listing the ideas they're requiring be taught.

quote:

---

Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

---

I guess it's just been awhile since I learned math but what is bad about this? What is the "old way" we're comparing to? Just basic memorization?

I made the mad minute my bish

quote:

---

quote:

---

Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

---

I guess it's just been awhile since I learned math but what is bad about this? What is the "old way" we're comparing to? Just basic memorization?

---

In first grade, it should be the basics. 13-4 = 9. If, at a later age, you want to try and expound upon that, once you know they've mastered the basics, fine. As I mentioned earlier, in the example I posted from Business Insider, once I had mastered the basics, their method is basically how I do it in my head. But, that's AFTER mastery, not while also trying to get them to understand the basics.