Common Core Standards

[Webhead]

I figured I'd start a new thread about it because it's an interesting subject and I keep forgetting where the math discussion was. Anyway, coincidentally I stumbled across this earlier today: http://lifehacker.com/the-parents-gu...ore-1655150625

There is a video explaining what it is and the benefits.

[ilovetheusers]

If this is what I think it is, there was a set of example questions that went around the web and had people scratching their heads at how dumb the questions were. Dumb as in, they want the process for getting the answer more than th answer,m or the process is very different from what everyone uses now or used to use when we were young, etc. I don't know enough to comment really, but if I had tom I'd say it sounds like a good idea that isn't ready for prime time??

Google common core sucks for loads of info.

Also, fyi, when I was learning to be a teacher, they were espousing the awesomeness of heterogeneous (dumb with smart) classes vs homogeneous (dumb with dumb, smart with smart) and also outcomes based teaching (I think like no child left behind). Most of us saw it as idiotic, but some loved it.

Moving to new systems should be tried in a few places 1st, then in many and only when you get better scores across the board should you adopt it en masse. IMO. It's important stuff, but needs to be proven effective all over.

common-core-math-2.jpg

[slgrieb]

I figured I'd start a new thread about it because it's an interesting subject and I keep forgetting where the math discussion was. Anyway, coincidentally I stumbled across this earlier today: http://lifehacker.com/the-parents-gu...ore-1655150625

There is a video explaining what it is and the benefits.

The most significant problems with Common Core seem to be that some of the available course materials are substandard (please note I said some) because adoption of the standard was pretty abrupt, and parents just can't understand the math. See this article from the Washington Post.

Common Core math seems to produce produce good results, but the curriculum is so different from how parents learned, that they are clueless as how to help their kids. Heck, this is and issue I've wrestled with a long time. I graduated High School in 1970, and there have been very few times in my life since then that I've needed to solve quadratic equations or use calculus in my daily life. So, helping my kids with traditional math has been a real struggle. After all my kids are 16 and 19, so do the math

[ilovetheusers]

The most significant problems with Common Core seem to be that some of the available course materials are substandard (please note I said some) because adoption of the standard was pretty abrupt, and parents just can't understand the math. See this article from the Washington Post.

Common Core math seems to produce produce good results, but the curriculum is so different from how parents learned, that they are clueless as how to help their kids. Heck, this is and issue I've wrestled with a long time. I graduated High School in 1970, and there have been very few times in my life since then that I've needed to solve quadratic equations or use calculus in my daily life. So, helping my kids with traditional math has been a real struggle. After all my kids are 16 and 19, so do the math

Off topic:

When my step daughter brought homework home it was alien to me, that was like 5 years ago. The science alone so far outstripped anything we were taught, even in college. Maybe it was just because I grew up in steeltownidiotville and we had moved to richierichland for her to get a decent education... Anyway, I can't remember any specifics, but wow did I feel useless if I tried to offer help. Just so different in the studies alone, let alone the way it's taught. Look at atoms and how they work now vs when you were a kid. That model of the atom with different valence shells, out the window. I looked at her book and the models of how atoms work and was like, yeah, here, have fun. She didn't really want help anyway, she was having a tough time with electron levels and such and I was like "Hey, i know that valence shell stuff really well!" I was wrong, everything is 100% different. Hmm, I think I know what I'm going to youtube video I'm going to DL to watch before I hit the sack later...

My wife and I both had science books that actually stated that we would go to the moon one day. Evolution was never discussed beyond, "there was this guy named darwin and he had a theory". Sea floor spreading was the "new" thing despite continental drift being pretty darned old. I dunno, it seems that school was so freaking easy and that I've learned so much more off of the Internet than I ever did at school. Honestly, a year back I was watching videos about string theory and M theory and quantum physics and chemistry that taught me 50 times more than what we learned in HS and even college to some degree the math was so much more important for chem and physics, and I think that's just asinine. I had a tough time wrapping my head around the math in those classes, but simply learning the theories and how they work, or learning how atomic bonds work, etc is more important. IMO. Science learning in HS should be descriptive of how things work and only about math and such for the kids that want those courses.

[slgrieb]

I think kids need courses that stretch their minds and make them work. Regardless of what they do in life, they need to learn how to learn. Frankly, K-12 education has often been more about rote learning than thinking about the process of problem solving. All to often, kids may not be asked to do much in the way of independent thought until they are in college, and the transition can be tough.

[CeeBee]

For the record, I am not against teaching kids a common curriculum. On the contrary.
My issue is with the idiotic way in which they try to achieve some things.
Addition is simple:
FOR EACH digit of the operands {
ADD digits and previous carry
IF result is over 10 keep units and set carry as tens
}
You can use it for adding ANY numbers.

Subtraction is simple too (n1-n2)

FOR each digit i of the operands{
if digit2>digit1 then BORROW(i+1)
subtract digit2 from digit1
}

BORROW(i)
{
if digit =0 then BORROW(i+1)
digit(i-1) +=10
}

Again, easily applicable for ANY size numbers.

I don't even want to know how they would want to extract a square root... probably it would fill a whole notebook to get SQRT(7) with 2 decimal places instead of the simple method...
These ways of calculating have been perfected and optimized for thousands of years, now some idiots want to do it in a totally meaningless way because they can.

US is *SIGNIFICANTLY* behind the level of the rest of the world. I would say that high school grade level in Europe is about college Calculus II in US. I have seen what my wife was studying in college at a CS degree, it was basically going over the same math we took in high school. No, I am not kidding, we did differential equations and integrals in high school. College level was getting into vector differentials and multiple circular integrals.

[slgrieb]

For the record, I am not against teaching kids a common curriculum. On the contrary.
My issue is with the idiotic way in which they try to achieve some things.
Addition is simple:
FOR EACH digit of the operands {
ADD digits and previous carry
IF result is over 10 keep units and set carry as tens
}
You can use it for adding ANY numbers.

Subtraction is simple too (n1-n2)

FOR each digit i of the operands{
if digit2>digit1 then BORROW(i+1)
subtract digit2 from digit1
}

BORROW(i)
{
if digit =0 then BORROW(i+1)
digit(i-1) +=10
}

Again, easily applicable for ANY size numbers.

I don't even want to know how they would want to extract a square root... probably it would fill a whole notebook to get SQRT(7) with 2 decimal places instead of the simple method...
These ways of calculating have been perfected and optimized for thousands of years, now some idiots want to do it in a totally meaningless way because they can.

In general, I agree, but obviously, you really haven't looked at Common Core math. For most of us old farts, and even many young farts, it is difficult to grasp. Still, early results suggest it works.

[Webhead]

Here's something that could help: https://www.khanacademy.org/commoncore/map

I think I'm going to run through some of these starting from Kindergarten level. My OCD is making me do it.

[slgrieb]

Here's something that could help: https://www.khanacademy.org/commoncore/map

I think I'm going to run through some of these starting from Kindergarten level. My OCD is making me do it.

Younger Child is a junior in High School, and Common Core isn't implemented here. Currently, her toughest course is physics. Fortunately, I still have a good grasp of the theory and often the practice, but when it comes to much of the math, it's time for Dad to hit the Internet.

CeeBee does have a good point when he says that conventional math has a long history and seems pretty simple, but I bet the Romans were resistant to Arabic numerals. Newer isn't always better, but it deserves a chance. Frankly, looking at how Common Core approaches math, I'm just really, really happy I don't have to learn it.

[Webhead]

When I took my first math class recently at the college I go to, the first thing I discovered on day one is that we would be learning something called, "Singapore math" (related to common core math). I thought, "WTF?" And the instructor started giving us lessons and drawing these rectangles on the board. So for example, let's say Person 1 has 10 eggs and Person 2 has 30 eggs. You want to find the difference. The instructor would write, "Person 1" and follow that with a rectangle. Then he would do the same for Person 2 but with a longer rectangle. Then finally the last one represents the difference. This way you visualize how there is a difference in size between the two amounts.

Like this:



In the old days of course the teacher would simply write...

30
-10
__
20


The student of course then just simply subtracts and you're done. Very simple, very easy. The problem though is that once the math starts getting more complex, it becomes harder because now the student isn't visualizing the concepts of what is actually happening. Part of common core is to help a student learn how to visualize the concept. The answers can be solved with a calculator very easily so the answer itself really doesn't matter. But how you get the answer is what is the most important part.

The first time I saw these rectangles drawn on the board, I thought, "Ok, I'll see if I can hang with this." Then after a few lessons I couldn't handle it anymore. I raised my hand and said, "I'm sorry but what exactly is the point of these rectangles?" He explained, I hung in there with it and eventually it started to sink in.

Fast forward to now,... I've never had an easy time with math. I was horrible with it as a kid. And no wonder. I had people who understood math teaching me. But that was fine for them. They understood it so it was easy for them. Not so easy for me.

That's why i keep asking CeeBee to define "easy". Because there is no answer to that question. Each person is different. Common Core methods give each person a better chance to learn. This is why other countries are leaping past us. They have already realized the value of this type of learning. We are so stubborn here in 'murica. We never want to try anything new or give new things a chance. We value tradition and routine here.