And It Continues...

[banknote]

I won't argue whether it's good for your kids or not, but I kind of see this the same as learning to speak before you learn to spell. It teaches the brain to figure these equations out without the abstraction of symbols. If you see 7 apples scattered on a table, do you know there are 7 because you counted each one, or because your brain saw a group of 3 and a group of 4 (or 2 and 5, etc,) and calculated that total to 7? I hope the latter.

[huntfishnv]

I don't understand the problem is with that assignment. The directions make sense to me.

[huntfishnv]

Also I don't know if anyone said this before me but the common core is intended to make sure that there are no "gaps" in education due to teachers and so that overall kids learn mostly the same material and aren't left behind because of circumstances they have next to no control over. An effective common core allows for schools to pick out bad teachers.

[Eric Haynes]

I don't understand the problem is with that assignment. The directions make sense to me.

Made sense to me too but apparently I'm just an idiot.

[RonE]

Education is evolving and people get together to learn new ways of learning. Once they find something that seems to make sense, they write a text book and sell the text to the system which crams it down our throats. The people that write these books don't really care if people learn from them, only that they sell lots of books.

It is just like any other business, it isn't really new, but it is Bold New Graphics. Once in a while something really new comes along.

Looks like AT's new math is a sophisticated system of counting on your fingers.

[aunt betty]

Education is evolving and people get together to learn new ways of learning. Once they find something that seems to make sense, they write a text book and sell the text to the system which crams it down our throats. The people that write these books don't really care if people learn from them, only that they sell lots of books.

It is just like any other business, it isn't really new, but it is Bold New Graphics. Once in a while something really new comes along.

Looks like AT's new math is a sophisticated system of counting on your fingers.

Well said.

[vincentpa]

The only benefit I got from all the math shit was I learned to multiply big numbers in my head by using the distributive property. For instance
25X23
20x25+3x25
575

For years that was my "thing". I could multiply faster than you could with a calculator. Used to race ppl all the time in grade school.

That works for you, so there must be something to it, right? You can't be the only one that it works for, so shouldn't we be giving that some thought? Not all kids get the basic way on how to do things, and those kids are getting left in the dark. That is the reasoning for doing math the "crazy" way. It does work for more people than you would ever imagine.

And yet our kids either are falling behind or treading water compared to other wealthy societies. The new math has been a bust.

The problem with AT's daughter's homework was that it is too abstract. 7 year olds don't possess the cognitive capacities to think abstractly in a manner required to solve that particular math problem.

[Glimmerjim]

I won't argue whether it's good for your kids or not, but I kind of see this the same as learning to speak before you learn to spell. It teaches the brain to figure these equations out without the abstraction of symbols. If you see 7 apples scattered on a table, do you know there are 7 because you counted each one, or because your brain saw a group of 3 and a group of 4 (or 2 and 5, etc,) and calculated that total to 7? I hope the latter.

I see the kid from the grocery store trying to decide if they will notice one apple missing from the eight he was supposed to deliver. It's all in how you look at it!

[Glimmerjim]

The only benefit I got from all the math **** was I learned to multiply big numbers in my head by using the distributive property. For instance
25X23
20x25+3x25
575

For years that was my "thing". I could multiply faster than you could with a calculator. Used to race ppl all the time in grade school.

That works for you, so there must be something to it, right? You can't be the only one that it works for, so shouldn't we be giving that some thought? Not all kids get the basic way on how to do things, and those kids are getting left in the dark. That is the reasoning for doing math the "crazy" way. It does work for more people than you would ever imagine.

And yet our kids either are falling behind or treading water compared to other wealthy societies. The new math has been a bust.

The problem with AT's daughter's homework was that it is too abstract. 7 year olds don't possess the cognitive capacities to think abstractly in a manner required to solve that particular math problem.

Because they haven't been taught to think abstractly, vp. Or, more accurately, they always though abstractly but it is being conditioned out of them. There was one way to solve a problem and it doesn't matter if it makes no sense to them as long as they do it the right way and get the right answer. Pass this test and move on to the next. It's like teaching someone to build an airplane by giving him the specs. He might build a flyable aircraft, but he won't understand why it flies, and that might prevent him from coming up with a solution if he has to build a plane for a different purpose.

[assateague]

I won't argue whether it's good for your kids or not, but I kind of see this the same as learning to speak before you learn to spell. It teaches the brain to figure these equations out without the abstraction of symbols. If you see 7 apples scattered on a table, do you know there are 7 because you counted each one, or because your brain saw a group of 3 and a group of 4 (or 2 and 5, etc,) and calculated that total to 7? I hope the latter.

Speaking specifically to the last example you made.

Last year, in first grade, they were taught to subitize. When I was told that term by my then 6 year old, I thought it was either a made up word by her, or something she misheard in class. But after hearing it for a week or so, I went to Google.

And lo and behold, they were trying to teach exactly what you said, looking at a group, and trying to instantly recognize the whole number, rather than breaking them into groups, as you suggested. So much for that. Guess that falls into the "randomly guess" and "is it reasonable" approaches to math that they also try to teach, which are equally silly.

As for your first point, by the end of second grade, students should most certainly understand and be able to use addition and subtraction symbols. If anything, it's going backwards.

[assateague]

Also I don't know if anyone said this before me but the common core is intended to make sure that there are no "gaps" in education due to teachers and so that overall kids learn mostly the same material and aren't left behind because of circumstances they have next to no control over. An effective common core allows for schools to pick out bad teachers.

You're high if you think this is what common core is for. At best, it's even more pandering to the lowest common denominator, and at worst it's counterproductive.

[Woody]

The only benefit I got from all the math **** was I learned to multiply big numbers in my head by using the distributive property. For instance
25X23
20x25+3x25
575

For years that was my "thing". I could multiply faster than you could with a calculator. Used to race ppl all the time in grade school.

That works for you, so there must be something to it, right? You can't be the only one that it works for, so shouldn't we be giving that some thought? Not all kids get the basic way on how to do things, and those kids are getting left in the dark. That is the reasoning for doing math the "crazy" way. It does work for more people than you would ever imagine.

And yet our kids either are falling behind or treading water compared to other wealthy societies. The new math has been a bust.

The problem with AT's daughter's homework was that it is too abstract. 7 year olds don't possess the cognitive capacities to think abstractly in a manner required to solve that particular math problem.

Because they haven't been taught to think abstractly, vp. Or, more accurately, they always though abstractly but it is being conditioned out of them. There was one way to solve a problem and it doesn't matter if it makes no sense to them as long as they do it the right way and get the right answer. Pass this test and move on to the next. It's like teaching someone to build an airplane by giving him the specs. He might build a flyable aircraft, but he won't understand why it flies, and that might prevent him from coming up with a solution if he has to build a plane for a different purpose.

Is it just me or should 7 year olds not be building airplanes.

[assateague]

They do in Malaysia, apparently.

[aunt betty]

Also I don't know if anyone said this before me but the common core is intended to make sure that there are no "gaps" in education due to teachers and so that overall kids learn mostly the same material and aren't left behind because of circumstances they have next to no control over. An effective common core allows for schools to pick out bad teachers.

You're high if you think this is what common core is for. At best, it's even more pandering to the lowest common denominator, and at worst it's counterproductive.

No child left behind so forget about advanced classes. Actually holding kids back so their peers don't get left behind is part of the problem and it dumbs the whole system down.

Eric argues it's equality...true, equally dumb at gadiation. (Can't read)

On one hand schools sort students from day one into the ones that can be taught and those that can't or won't.
Yet the system is forcing the brains to crawl along at the pace of an idiot so NO CHILD GETS LEFT BEHIND.

Something is broken and it just don't make sense unless you're a recruiter for the army or a large company.

[QH's Paw]

Also I don't know if anyone said this before me but the common core is intended to make sure that there are no "gaps" in education due to teachers and so that overall kids learn mostly the same material and aren't left behind because of circumstances they have next to no control over. An effective common core allows for schools to pick out bad teachers.

You're high if you think this is what common core is for. At best, it's even more pandering to the lowest common denominator, and at worst it's counterproductive.

No child left behind so forget about advanced classes. Actually holding kids back so their peers don't get left behind is part of the problem and it dumbs the whole system down.

Eric argues it's equality...true, equally dumb at gadiation. (Can't read)

On one hand schools sort students from day one into the ones that can be taught and those that can't or won't.
Yet the system is forcing the brains to crawl along at the pace of an idiot so NO CHILD GETS LEFT BEHIND.

Something is broken and it just don't make sense unless you're a recruiter for the army or a large company.

AB it's like Assa said, least common denominator. Don't worry though because, they're dumming it down all the way to the top. We have a Community organizer for prez and, have you listened to the politicians running the show? "you got to be careful not to remove too much from one side of the island or it might tip into the ocean" or some other such BS.

[aunt betty]

Also I don't know if anyone said this before me but the common core is intended to make sure that there are no "gaps" in education due to teachers and so that overall kids learn mostly the same material and aren't left behind because of circumstances they have next to no control over. An effective common core allows for schools to pick out bad teachers.

You're high if you think this is what common core is for. At best, it's even more pandering to the lowest common denominator, and at worst it's counterproductive.

No child left behind so forget about advanced classes. Actually holding kids back so their peers don't get left behind is part of the problem and it dumbs the whole system down.

Eric argues it's equality...true, equally dumb at gadiation. (Can't read)

On one hand schools sort students from day one into the ones that can be taught and those that can't or won't.
Yet the system is forcing the brains to crawl along at the pace of an idiot so NO CHILD GETS LEFT BEHIND.

Something is broken and it just don't make sense unless you're a recruiter for the army or a large company.

AB it's like Assa said, least common denominator. Don't worry though because, they're dumming it down all the way to the top. We have a Community organizer for prez and, have you listened to the politicians running the show? "you got to be careful not to remove too much from one side of the island or it might tip into the ocean" or some other such BS.

I know...and these geniuses have the news media pumping out stories for us to argue about...distracting us from what you just pointed out. They THINK it's working too.

[huntfishnv]

Also I don't know if anyone said this before me but the common core is intended to make sure that there are no "gaps" in education due to teachers and so that overall kids learn mostly the same material and aren't left behind because of circumstances they have next to no control over. An effective common core allows for schools to pick out bad teachers.

You're high if you think this is what common core is for. At best, it's even more pandering to the lowest common denominator, and at worst it's counterproductive.

So what is it for? And I'm not saying that some aspects of the common core aren't flawed, but I do think the idea makes sense and with improvement it will be effective. Just because they are making all teachers teach the same material doesn't mean that students can't advance themselves within that education. It seems to me that the problem you had trouble with is pushing for a more abstract way of thinking, a way of not just answering a problem, but also thinking about a problem that you or even I (being a lot younger than most on here) didn't get any exposure to in grade school. Is that the easiest way of just getting the problem right? Probably not, but the way I see it it's teaching intelligence and plasticity to think through a problem that doesn't give a clear or defined way to solving it. That in the broader context of education and later in solving real world, complex problems, will give people the ability to think logically through something they don't understand instead of being confined to equations in a book.

[aunt betty]

Also I don't know if anyone said this before me but the common core is intended to make sure that there are no "gaps" in education due to teachers and so that overall kids learn mostly the same material and aren't left behind because of circumstances they have next to no control over. An effective common core allows for schools to pick out bad teachers.

You're high if you think this is what common core is for. At best, it's even more pandering to the lowest common denominator, and at worst it's counterproductive.

So what is it for? And I'm not saying that some aspects of the common core aren't flawed, but I do think the idea makes sense and with improvement it will be effective. Just because they are making all teachers teach the same material doesn't mean that students can't advance themselves within that education. It seems to me that the problem you had trouble with is pushing for a more abstract way of thinking, a way of not just answering a problem, but also thinking about a problem that you or even I (being a lot younger than most on here) didn't get any exposure to in grade school. Is that the easiest way of just getting the problem right? Probably not, but the way I see it it's teaching intelligence and plasticity to think through a problem that doesn't give a clear or defined way to solving it. That in the broader context of education and later in solving real world, complex problems, will give people the ability to think logically through something they don't understand instead of being confined to equations in a book.

What you're carefully not talking about is cost and efficiency.
Try and prove that educators aren't attempting to educate in the quickest and cheapest manner.
Everyone knows that quick and cheap is the best or we'd still be manufacturing high quality goods in the USA instead of buying cheap shit from China. @
Corporatization of the schools isn't working.

[aunt betty]

@Flintriverfowler, ever have to repair a lawn tractor tire? I got one of them 15x6 off a john Deere 160. Front tire...
I gave up quick and took it to a shop. They muttered 'tube' and said I'll have to go get one.
Damn...a little lawnmower sure can give you the runaround.

[FlintRiverFowler]

@Flintriverfowler, ever have to repair a lawn tractor tire? I got one of them 15x6 off a john Deere 160. Front tire...
I gave up quick and took it to a shop. They muttered 'tube' and said I'll have to go get one.
Damn...a little lawnmower sure can give you the runaround.

You're in the wrong thread...
Plug it or put a tube in it.
Ill go down to TSC and put a new one rim and all on the company card if its fucked up bad enough.

[huntfishnv]

Also I don't know if anyone said this before me but the common core is intended to make sure that there are no "gaps" in education due to teachers and so that overall kids learn mostly the same material and aren't left behind because of circumstances they have next to no control over. An effective common core allows for schools to pick out bad teachers.

You're high if you think this is what common core is for. At best, it's even more pandering to the lowest common denominator, and at worst it's counterproductive.

So what is it for? And I'm not saying that some aspects of the common core aren't flawed, but I do think the idea makes sense and with improvement it will be effective. Just because they are making all teachers teach the same material doesn't mean that students can't advance themselves within that education. It seems to me that the problem you had trouble with is pushing for a more abstract way of thinking, a way of not just answering a problem, but also thinking about a problem that you or even I (being a lot younger than most on here) didn't get any exposure to in grade school. Is that the easiest way of just getting the problem right? Probably not, but the way I see it it's teaching intelligence and plasticity to think through a problem that doesn't give a clear or defined way to solving it. That in the broader context of education and later in solving real world, complex problems, will give people the ability to think logically through something they don't understand instead of being confined to equations in a book.

What you're carefully not talking about is cost and efficiency.
Try and prove that educators aren't attempting to educate in the quickest and cheapest manner.
Everyone knows that quick and cheap is the best or we'd still be manufacturing high quality goods in the USA instead of buying cheap **** from China. @
Corporatization of the schools isn't working.

"common core" was first proposed in 2003, 2004? We've been slipping in education since far before that Betty. Reform is needed and I don't see what the problem is with teaching cognitive skills that help you solve any problem. Average cost to send a kid to school for a year in the US for state, local, and Fed gov combined? just over 10,000. To graduate high school on time? 12 years. Doesn't sound cheap or fast to me. To be honest, I think students should be able to graduate at least 2 years before that "on time" if they have the ability. Everything can be improved though, another interesting fact, New York $18000 per student
$56000 per prisoner

[aunt betty]

@Flintriverfowler, ever have to repair a lawn tractor tire? I got one of them 15x6 off a john Deere 160. Front tire...
I gave up quick and took it to a shop. They muttered 'tube' and said I'll have to go get one.
Damn...a little lawnmower sure can give you the runaround.

You're in the wrong thread...
Plug it or put a tube in it.
Ill go down to TSC and put a new one rim and all on the company card if its fucked up bad enough.

oops. It happens.
There's numbers in my post so it's kinda like math.

[Glimmerjim]

They do in Malaysia, apparently.

Ouch!!!

[banknote]

I won't argue whether it's good for your kids or not, but I kind of see this the same as learning to speak before you learn to spell. It teaches the brain to figure these equations out without the abstraction of symbols. If you see 7 apples scattered on a table, do you know there are 7 because you counted each one, or because your brain saw a group of 3 and a group of 4 (or 2 and 5, etc,) and calculated that total to 7? I hope the latter.

Speaking specifically to the last example you made.

Last year, in first grade, they were taught to subitize. When I was told that term by my then 6 year old, I thought it was either a made up word by her, or something she misheard in class. But after hearing it for a week or so, I went to Google.

And lo and behold, they were trying to teach exactly what you said, looking at a group, and trying to instantly recognize the whole number, rather than breaking them into groups, as you suggested. So much for that. Guess that falls into the "randomly guess" and "is it reasonable" approaches to math that they also try to teach, which are equally silly.

As for your first point, by the end of second grade, students should most certainly understand and be able to use addition and subtraction symbols. If anything, it's going backwards.

I had to Google "subitizing," too, and it's a lot to read, but my impression is it's pretty much what I was talking about. The brain only confidently identifies quantities within a certain range (typically 1-4) so being able to identify those clumps within a larger group, and then calculate the whole group based on the sum of those clumps, is better than counting each individual item.

Here's the example of subitizing 1-10 I found. Notice how items are grouped in quantities of 1-4, ie: 10 is shown as two 4s and a 2.


And when I said "symbols" I was referring to numerals, not +, -, =, etc. Numerals are an abstraction of numbers. To us the symbol "5" means *****. To a mind not yet indoctrinated with this symbolism, "5" is just a mark on the page. That 5+1=6 makes no more sense than x+y=z. They just memorize the answer, then learn how it actually applies to real things. This is where some kids have trouble with word problems. They aren't able to un-abstract the numerals because they don't really understand what they represent. Other kids who may not have done so well with numerals, are better at word problems because they can understand the real meaning of the numbers better than the abstraction of numerals.

At the end of the day, I'm just a guy philosophizing about it on a keyboard and you're a dad having to deal with the real world implications and how it affects your kids. So I want you to know I have all the respect in the world for that and admire that you are interested enough and care enough to be involved and work with them on it. That's what really counts and I'm sure your kids will learn far more than just math by going through these exercises with you.

[aunt betty]

If you can't get from "I have this many fingers on my hand" to "I have 5 (five) fingers" and then know that five means 5 and is !!!!! :::::
Or ##### no matter what we're referring to then maybe, MAYBE, you need to go to a special school for dumbasses that has more advanced methods of teaching and testing simple concepts. [attachment=-1]uploadfromtaptalk1400784568061.jpg[/attachment]

[Glimmerjim]

@Flintriverfowler, ever have to repair a lawn tractor tire? I got one of them 15x6 off a john Deere 160. Front tire...
I gave up quick and took it to a shop. They muttered 'tube' and said I'll have to go get one.
Damn...a little lawnmower sure can give you the runaround.

You're in the wrong thread...
Plug it or put a tube in it.
Ill go down to TSC and put a new one rim and all on the company card if its **** up bad enough.

oops. It happens.
There's numbers in my post so it's kinda like math.

ab was just demonstrating a different method of getting the answer, FRF. Kudos, ab, for subtly giving a real-world example of thinking outside the box!

[assateague]

[assateague]

So what is it for? And I'm not saying that some aspects of the common core aren't flawed, but I do think the idea makes sense and with improvement it will be effective.

I don't know what it's for, nor does anyone else, because it was NEVER tested ANYWHERE before it was rolled out. Even if the goal(s) could be clearly articulated, nobody would have a clue if it was a good way to achieve them or not, because it was never tested. And that's a problem. Without any sort of experiential data, it could be effectively argued that teaching kids in a one room school house with a blackboard is equally as effective at meeting those goals as common core. Because simply put, nobody has a freaking clue if it works.

Had there been testing, I would be fine with it. Heck, even if my daughters' school district was one of the test sites, I would have been fine with it, because something like that has to be tested somewhere. But it wasn't. Ever. And yet now we are all supposed to bow down to it, and say "thank you, educators and administrators, for being so wise, and we promise not to argue with you about it", even though they have no idea if it works or not, either. And that's a crock of shit.

Just because they are making all teachers teach the same material doesn't mean that students can't advance themselves within that education.

To the best of my knowledge, math teachers have ALWAYS taught the same thing. 2+2=4. There. Done. But speaking to the approach you're talking about, does it make sense for someone from MD to tell you the best way to fly fish in the Montana mountains? Does it make sense for someone from New York to tell someone in Iowa how best to grow corn? There is no such thing as a magical, "one size fits all" solution, but you seem to be of the generation that accepts that there is, because anything else wouldn't be "fair".

It seems to me that the problem you had trouble with is pushing for a more abstract way of thinking, a way of not just answering a problem, but also thinking about a problem that you or even I (being a lot younger than most on here) didn't get any exposure to in grade school.

Apparently, you don't get it. My problem is NOT with "abstract ways of thinking", it is the use of those things to supplant the actual result that I have a problem with. It has become unimportant to get the correct answer, as long as different methods of getting there are taught. What the hell difference does it make if a kid has been exposed to five different ways to solve 26-12, if they don't know that the one and only correct answer is 14? And that is precisely what has happened. It is putting the cart before the horse, like trying to teach someone different methods to lead a duck or goose, when they don't even understand how to load the fucking shotgun.

Is that the easiest way of just getting the problem right? Probably not, but the way I see it it's teaching intelligence and plasticity to think through a problem that doesn't give a clear or defined way to solving it. That in the broader context of education and later in solving real world, complex problems, will give people the ability to think logically through something they don't understand instead of being confined to equations in a book.

It's math. There is a clear and defined answer to every problem. Teach that first, then worry about different ways to get there. Trying to explain all this different methodology goes in one ear and out the other (at best), and at worst, it clogs up the process. Why? Because they don't have enough practice in simple addition and subtraction to be confident in their work. You don't teach "intelligence", and if you're teaching "plasticity" to think through a problem, but they don't know what the correct answer is, then that's a colossal waste of time.

"common core" was first proposed in 2003, 2004? We've been slipping in education since far before that Betty. Reform is needed and I don't see what the problem is with teaching cognitive skills that help you solve any problem.

I've never bought into this argument, either. We are slipping compared to who? I'll figure you're referring to the other countries who are beating our pants off in math and science, according to studies.

If so, that's a crock of shit. They are almost all homogeneous societies, some with questionable reporting skills. Almost all do not mainstream special needs children, nor do they have decaying inner city schools. If they do (as in the case of China and India), they simply don't report bad numbers. How do we verify what is reported by the education systems in other nations? We don't- we take them at their word.

As an experiment, I would like to take remove from our data all non-native English speakers, and all inner city schools (yes, even the good ones). I would be willing to bet an AWFUL lot that we would be darn near the top, if not leaps and bounds ahead if this were done. It's not what or how it's being taught, it's WHO is being taught that generally makes it appear that our education system is in free-fall. But yet most are comfortable to accept the "OH, NO, WE"RE FALLING BEHIND IN THE WORLD" argument without thinking it through, which then results in crap like common core being trotted out as the savior of American educational prestige, or some such shit.

[Eric Haynes]

Jim, you have continuously said these methods have never been tested, yet I have told you, along with a few others, that this is nothing new. I did a lot of this in school 20 years ago and still have a lot of the old homework showing it. The only difference I can see between this new "idea" and the old is they are introducing it about a year earlier.

You have also stated "least common denominator" which is also false. The new ELA modules are far, far advanced from what was taught 3 years ago for the same grade. As I said before, it may be just because this is NY, but I don't understand where your thoughts are coming from, other than you don't understand it.

[Pintail]

All this talk with no solution.