Common Core - JUST SHOOT ME NOW!

[fljoe0]

Oh, and want to add this. Even though the two younger kids are doing ok with this method, I still see them counting on simple addition and subtraction problems, when it should be that they know the answer as a math fact. So I am not impressed with it. If they have to stop and count they are not learning the fundamentals that should be the basic building blocks of math.

When you memorize the tables, then simple math should be almost instantaneous. You shouldn't have to think, it's more of a reflex. Some kids are quicker and better at learning than others and this method of math has me concerned for the kids that don't pick up stuff as quickly are going to be left behind. I really think you should learn the basics as simply as possible and then go on to more complex problem solving from there. BUT I'm someone with no kids this age or friends that have kids this age - so I don't have any hands on experience with this - so my opinion is kind of one sided to start with.

 

[cat in a bag]

When you memorize the tables, then simple math should be almost instantaneous. You shouldn't have to think, it's more of a reflex. Some kids are quicker and better at learning than others and this method of math has me concerned for the kids that don't pick up stuff as quickly are going to be left behind. I really think you should learn the basics as simply as possible and then go on to more complex problem solving from there. BUT I'm someone with no kids this age or friends that have kids this age - so I don't have any hands on experience with this - so my opinion is kind of one sided to start with.

Yes, I agree with you. At one of the parent meetings last year, a dad ( a CPA)
asked the question about how these kids were supposed to be able to do real-life math, like balancing a checkbook. Can't stop and draw your diagrams and go through 35 steps, it is just not practical. The answer was that they will know, eventually (eventually!) it will be as quick to come up with the answer, but so far I am not seeing that.

 

[hossenpepper]

Yes, I agree with you. At one of the parent meetings last year, a dad ( a CPA)
asked the question about how these kids were supposed to be able to do real-life math, like balancing a checkbook. Can't stop and draw your diagrams and go through 35 steps, it is just not practical. The answer was that they will know, eventually (eventually!) it will be as quick to come up with the answer, but so far I am not seeing that.

This argument makes no sense. If they learn to do it a different way and then memorize the basics that way, the result is the same!

 

[cat in a bag]

This argument makes no sense. If they learn to do it a different way and then memorize the basics that way, the result is the same!

It is long-winded and makes it all so much more difficult than it needs to be. I just don't see my 2 youngest kids learning the basic facts as quickly as my 2 older kids did their first few years of school. It is taking them longer to memorize them this way, I think all the diagramming and long way 'round of this way is actually acting like a kind of crutch.

 

[hossenpepper]

I'd already agreed that the common core theory is important and should be the same level for all kids across the nation and in math, for example, that could be they should be proficient up to Algebra 1. I disagree that this math method should be the way to teach kids logical thinking or that memorizing multiplication tables is not a better way to go. In the real world it is a lot more beneficial to be able to instantly know that x times y equals z without taking 17 steps to get there. It's not LOGICAL!!!! And we learned how to do line and column addition but without it being so convoluted. There are other ways to teach logic. In some school districts, teaching both methods might not be an option for whatever reason and the kids will be stuck with the modern math method which I truly feel is a disservice. Or, as they did in my kids' elementary school (fortunately after they'd made it through), stopped having them memorize multiplication tables altogether. Considering how many stories there are out there about how confused kids are with learning the new math way, I'm skeptical that it really is teaching them as well. So at least for this subject, I'll have to agree to disagree with you that this is the best approach for teaching math or logical thinking.

Remember Geometry? What was the point of that class? Well, if you are planning on being an architect, it is to some degree your core set of skills. But for the vast majority it was a PITA class that everyone dreaded. After all, you had to learn those theorems and then do the proofs, which was the part everyone HATED. Most people have a very difficult time doing proofs and typically the failure to grasp the method of proofing can cause one to fail the class.

Now let me take a side trip very quickly. Ever take an IQ test? Being in all the gifted this and that and being promoted ahead early in grades, I was subjected to several different forms of experimental versions of the IQ test. But one thing that was common to them all was the "If all A's are B's and all B's are D's, are A's D's?" style questions that were asked from several different angles. I was always quite good at these, even as a young tyke. This was partially due to the way my brain is wired, but also because I was a guinea pig in may of the early alternative learning methods that were tested on many of the gifted students in the 70's and 80's. Many of these techniques have since been adopted due to their effectiveness.

Now fast forward to later in my life and I am taking Geometry. Not to brag, but I was the Michael Jordan of proofs. I was and am very good at it and cannot remember ever missing a single one. As I said, I attribute some of this to my wiring, but also to the alternative ways I was taught at a very young age. Proofs are the A=B and B therefore A questions. They are the exact same thing as the most common IQ test question style that is used to gain someone's pure intelligence (ability to reason, solve problems, think 3 dimensionally, creativity, etc.).

Once I asked my Geometry teach why everyone had to go through this hellscape class. Did she really think everyone was going to be an architect, or worse, a MATH TEACHER? She laughed and said "No of course not. You take Geometry because it teaches you logic and logical thinking." That is why you learn proofs! I have always remembered that moment. It was a light bulb moment for me about the things you learn in school and ultimately why. But the main thing to take away is that these proofs, seemingly unrelated to logic, are nothing but PURE logic and by lighting up the part of your brain where logic is governed it ultimately exercises that mental muscle.

And THAT is why educators want to move to it. And I still go back to, I hear your concerns and the logic of them and will say again they were mine as well at first, but if the old way was the best, then we'd be the top in these areas. We just aren't. That isn't 100% attributable to old ways of learning math of course, there are many other factors (Funding, every kid gets a trophy false praise, undeserved criticism and rebuke of the teaching profession, insistence of dogmatic values, etc.), but when our kids are tested on math problems, which just say "solve this" and they are 52nd in the world at it, something is wrong in the way they are learning to solve these problems. Maybe common core isn't the panacea and to think so would be naive, but the more inexcusable approach is to keep banging our heads against the wall and/or do or try nothing new.

And for me this isn't about one is right and one is wrong... it's just different.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

Remember Geometry? What was the point of that class? Well, if you are planning on being an architect, it is to some degree your core set of skills. But for the vast majority it was a PITA class that everyone dreaded. After all, you had to learn those theorems and then do the proofs, which was the part everyone HATED. Most people have a very difficult time doing proofs and typically the failure to grasp the method of proofing can cause one to fail the class.

Now let me take a side trip very quickly. Ever take an IQ test? Being in all the gifted this and that and being promoted ahead early in grades, I was subjected to several different forms of experimental versions of the IQ test. But one thing that was common to them all was the "If all A's are B's and all B's are D's, are A's D's?" style questions that were asked from several different angles. I was always quite good at these, even as a young tyke. This was partially due to the way my brain is wired, but also because I was a guinea pig in may of the early alternative learning methods that were tested on many of the gifted students in the 70's and 80's. Many of these techniques have since been adopted due to their effectiveness.

Now fast forward to later in my life and I am taking Geometry. Not to brag, but I was the Michael Jordan of proofs. I was and am very good at it and cannot remember ever missing a single one. As I said, I attribute some of this to my wiring, but also to the alternative ways I was taught at a very young age. Proofs are the A=B and B therefore A questions. They are the exact same thing as the most common IQ test question style that is used to gain someone's pure intelligence (ability to reason, solve problems, think 3 dimensionally, creativity, etc.).

Once I asked my Geometry teach why everyone had to go through this hellscape class. Did she really think everyone was going to be an architect, or worse, a MATH TEACHER? She laughed and said "No of course not. You take Geometry because it teaches you logic and logical thinking." That is why you learn proofs! I have always remembered that moment. It was a light bulb moment for me about the things you learn in school and ultimately why. But the main thing to take away is that these proofs, seemingly unrelated to logic, are nothing but PURE logic and by lighting up the part of your brain where logic is governed it ultimately exercises that mental muscle.

And THAT is why educators want to move to it. And I still go back to, I hear your concerns and the logic of them and will say again they were mine as well at first, but if the old way was the best, then we'd be the top in these areas. We just aren't. That isn't 100% attributable to old ways of learning math of course, there are many other factors (Funding, every kid gets a trophy false praise, undeserved criticism and rebuke of the teaching profession, insistence of dogmatic values, etc.), but when our kids are tested on math problems, which just say "solve this" and they are 52nd in the world at it, something is wrong in the way they are learning to solve these problems. Maybe common core isn't the panacea and to think so would be naive, but the more inexcusable approach is to keep banging our heads against the wall and/or do or try nothing new.

And for me this isn't about one is right and one is wrong... it's just different.

And the cheese stands alone.

 

[hossenpepper]

It is long-winded and makes it all so much more difficult than it needs to be. I just don't see my 2 youngest kids learning the basic facts as quickly as my 2 older kids did their first few years of school. It is taking them longer to memorize them this way, I think all the diagramming and long way 'round of this way is actually acting like a kind of crutch.

The point of it is to not make it about memorizing things but rather to learn the "language" of numbers. That can't be done with tables alone. If the target is learn to count change and balance a checkbook, that is WHY we are so far behind in STEM fields. Because those fields are far past the basics and require a mathematical fluency that memorization can never give someone. It's the difference between the assistant who can add up the tables for the scientist, but the scientist knows the language and makes the discoveries and innovations. In general terms, the US is an assistant now and the other countries who do this are the scientist and kicking our butts in innovation. For me as a parent to place some political or personal spin on this topic is unfair to the kids and what potential they may gain.

 

[hossenpepper]

And the cheese stands alone.

I guess of all around here, you'd know that when you see it.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

I guess of all around here, you'd know that when you see it.

Yup. Welcome to the club. It’s rather exclusive.

 

[cat in a bag]

Remember Geometry? What was the point of that class? Well, if you are planning on being an architect, it is to some degree your core set of skills. But for the vast majority it was a PITA class that everyone dreaded. After all, you had to learn those theorems and then do the proofs, which was the part everyone HATED. Most people have a very difficult time doing proofs and typically the failure to grasp the method of proofing can cause one to fail the class.

Now let me take a side trip very quickly. Ever take an IQ test? Being in all the gifted this and that and being promoted ahead early in grades, I was subjected to several different forms of experimental versions of the IQ test. But one thing that was common to them all was the "If all A's are B's and all B's are D's, are A's D's?" style questions that were asked from several different angles. I was always quite good at these, even as a young tyke. This was partially due to the way my brain is wired, but also because I was a guinea pig in may of the early alternative learning methods that were tested on many of the gifted students in the 70's and 80's. Many of these techniques have since been adopted due to their effectiveness.

Now fast forward to later in my life and I am taking Geometry. Not to brag, but I was the Michael Jordan of proofs. I was and am very good at it and cannot remember ever missing a single one. As I said, I attribute some of this to my wiring, but also to the alternative ways I was taught at a very young age. Proofs are the A=B and B therefore A questions. They are the exact same thing as the most common IQ test question style that is used to gain someone's pure intelligence (ability to reason, solve problems, think 3 dimensionally, creativity, etc.).

Once I asked my Geometry teach why everyone had to go through this hellscape class. Did she really think everyone was going to be an architect, or worse, a MATH TEACHER? She laughed and said "No of course not. You take Geometry because it teaches you logic and logical thinking." That is why you learn proofs! I have always remembered that moment. It was a light bulb moment for me about the things you learn in school and ultimately why. But the main thing to take away is that these proofs, seemingly unrelated to logic, are nothing but PURE logic and by lighting up the part of your brain where logic is governed it ultimately exercises that mental muscle.

And THAT is why educators want to move to it. And I still go back to, I hear your concerns and the logic of them and will say again they were mine as well at first, but if the old way was the best, then we'd be the top in these areas. We just aren't. That isn't 100% attributable to old ways of learning math of course, there are many other factors (Funding, every kid gets a trophy false praise, undeserved criticism and rebuke of the teaching profession, insistence of dogmatic values, etc.), but when our kids are tested on math problems, which just say "solve this" and they are 52nd in the world at it, something is wrong in the way they are learning to solve these problems. Maybe common core isn't the panacea and to think so would be naive, but the more inexcusable approach is to keep banging our heads against the wall and/or do or try nothing new.

And for me this isn't about one is right and one is wrong... it's just different.

By the time geometry is offered, students pretty much know their aptitude or lack of it where math is concerned. Not everyone takes geometry. For me, I had an easier time in geometry and trig than I did in regular algebra. (Which may have a little bit to do with my reluctance about common core. )

Maybe this will make it so more kids get into the higher math classes in high school. That would be a good thing. But a better balance needs to be struck between the old and the new. Maybe if this method had been taught when I was in school, I would have been better at algebra. Or maybe I would have just sucked at math all the way around, because I have a hard time with thinking that way. Everyone learns differently, so maybe a mix between the 2 methods would be better.

 

[Moderator]

Remember Geometry? What was the point of that class? Well, if you are planning on being an architect, it is to some degree your core set of skills. But for the vast majority it was a PITA class that everyone dreaded. After all, you had to learn those theorems and then do the proofs, which was the part everyone HATED. Most people have a very difficult time doing proofs and typically the failure to grasp the method of proofing can cause one to fail the class.

Now let me take a side trip very quickly. Ever take an IQ test? Being in all the gifted this and that and being promoted ahead early in grades, I was subjected to several different forms of experimental versions of the IQ test. But one thing that was common to them all was the "If all A's are B's and all B's are D's, are A's D's?" style questions that were asked from several different angles. I was always quite good at these, even as a young tyke. This was partially due to the way my brain is wired, but also because I was a guinea pig in may of the early alternative learning methods that were tested on many of the gifted students in the 70's and 80's. Many of these techniques have since been adopted due to their effectiveness.

Now fast forward to later in my life and I am taking Geometry. Not to brag, but I was the Michael Jordan of proofs. I was and am very good at it and cannot remember ever missing a single one. As I said, I attribute some of this to my wiring, but also to the alternative ways I was taught at a very young age. Proofs are the A=B and B therefore A questions. They are the exact same thing as the most common IQ test question style that is used to gain someone's pure intelligence (ability to reason, solve problems, think 3 dimensionally, creativity, etc.).

Once I asked my Geometry teach why everyone had to go through this hellscape class. Did she really think everyone was going to be an architect, or worse, a MATH TEACHER? She laughed and said "No of course not. You take Geometry because it teaches you logic and logical thinking." That is why you learn proofs! I have always remembered that moment. It was a light bulb moment for me about the things you learn in school and ultimately why. But the main thing to take away is that these proofs, seemingly unrelated to logic, are nothing but PURE logic and by lighting up the part of your brain where logic is governed it ultimately exercises that mental muscle.

And THAT is why educators want to move to it. And I still go back to, I hear your concerns and the logic of them and will say again they were mine as well at first, but if the old way was the best, then we'd be the top in these areas. We just aren't. That isn't 100% attributable to old ways of learning math of course, there are many other factors (Funding, every kid gets a trophy false praise, undeserved criticism and rebuke of the teaching profession, insistence of dogmatic values, etc.), but when our kids are tested on math problems, which just say "solve this" and they are 52nd in the world at it, something is wrong in the way they are learning to solve these problems. Maybe common core isn't the panacea and to think so would be naive, but the more inexcusable approach is to keep banging our heads against the wall and/or do or try nothing new.

And for me this isn't about one is right and one is wrong... it's just different.

And I repeat, that's fine to get the logical thinking aspect of it but get the fundamentals FIRST in a way that makes sense and is easily grasped before you teach kids to hate math even more because it's such a PITA to do it the new math way. Math skills are a progression and you can't get to geometry or algebra or any of the other advanced classes if you don't have your fundamentals down. All I'm saying is get those under the kids' belts in the simplest way possible and THEN go on to the more advanced, logical thinking level, not with the convoluted method new math uses to do it.

I haven't done a lot of research into it to dig deeper into what happened before 2009 but the first few articles that popped up from 2013 indicate that the standings for U.S. 15 year-olds have remained stagnant since 2009 as 19 other nations have surpassed our standings.

 

[hossenpepper]

By the time geometry is offered, students pretty much know they're aptitude or lack of it where math is concerned. Not everyone takes geometry. For me, I had an easier time in geometry and trig than I did in regular algebra. (Which may have a little bit to do with my reluctance about common core. )

Maybe this will make it so more kids get into the higher math classes in high school. That would be a good thing. But a better balance needs to be struck between the old and the new. Maybe if this method had been taught when I was in school, I would have been better at algebra. Or maybe I would have just sucked at math all the way around, because I have a hard time with thinking that way. Everyone learns differently, so maybe a mix between the 2 methods would be better.

YES!! That is the key. Multiple ways. Now if the schools teach ONLY the new methods, THAT I definitely have an issue with. So just to clarify, I am all for trying new things, but not as a replacement, but rather enhancing things we know DO work.

 

[cat in a bag]

YES!! That is the key. Multiple ways. Now if the schools teach ONLY the new methods, THAT I definitely have an issue with. So just to clarify, I am all for trying new things, but not as a replacement, but rather enhancing things we know DO work.

You quoted me before I fixed my spelling/grammar error!

Here the new method is the only way it is being taught, in elementary. The school year is young, so we have yet to see if it will be a mix for my kid in jr high. But I do remember a teacher saying last year at that same meeting they didn't currently use it in jr high/high school here. And so far, for my 7th grader, the old method is taking hold much easier.

 

[hossenpepper]

And I repeat, that's fine to get the logical thinking aspect of it but get the fundamentals FIRST in a way that makes sense and is easily grasped before you teach kids to hate math even more because it's such a PITA to do it the new math way. Math skills are a progression and you can't get to geometry or algebra or any of the other advanced classes if you don't have your fundamentals down. All I'm saying is get those under the kids' belts in the simplest way possible and THEN go on to the more advanced, logical thinking level, not with the convoluted method new math uses to do it.

I haven't done a lot of research into it to dig deeper into what happened before 2009 but the first few articles that popped up from 2013 indicate that the standings for U.S. 15 year-olds have remained stagnant since 2009 as 19 other nations have surpassed our standings.

Yeah I am not sure either and don't know that the test scores alone are good gauges. The number of kids graduating with STEM degrees and the then working in those fields and the number of patent filings and other measures of the success and innovation of STEM fields is what is worrisome and we've all been talking about this for a long time.

And as I clarified, I am not advocating abandoning the old methods. They should still be taught. But this stuff should to. The resistance to it seems to be "I don't get this" and "No central standards for the US" in general terms. Neither of those points negate the need for a change to something new IMO.

 

[Moderator]

YES!! That is the key. Multiple ways. Now if the schools teach ONLY the new methods, THAT I definitely have an issue with. So just to clarify, I am all for trying new things, but not as a replacement, but rather enhancing things we know DO work.

I think that's the sticking point. It isn't being taught as an adjunct to traditional math methods but as a replacement in many school districts.

 

[hossenpepper]

I think that's the sticking point. It isn't being taught as an adjunct to traditional math methods but as a replacement in many school districts.

I've also noted that the primary criticism on the new methods are with math. I don't hear much about the English stuff, and have heard a few things about far right or left districts wanting to change the way US history is taught as an overall theme.

But to your point, we as the parents need to make sure our input is heard. I can tell you from my kids' schools that parents participating and giving input isn't common as it used to be. We need to make sure they hear, teach this new stuff WITH the old stuff.

 

[Mr Nobody]

I don't think you can see it all in terms of a league table. 26th in this, 52nd in that... Permit me to posit a question: when were you ever 1st, and that by a long sight?
Because I'll see your US and raise you a UK, a Germany, a Japan. The UK, for example, produced (off the top of my head) television, the jet engine, the world's first jet airliner (the de Havilland Comet, square windows and all). The UK was also the birthplace of the industrial revolution, steam railways, iron and steel-hulled ships, manufacturing machinery, electricity generators...
IIRC Germany produced the first operational jet fighters. Their automobile sector was, and remains, at or near the top. Japan, of course, led the electronic revolution, at least in terms of cheap, minituarized mass-produced consumer goods. (The US led the way in modern computing, of course.)
What America had, which others did not, at least not to the same extent, was capital, a large population, space in which to build, and a range of natural - and more importantly abundant - resources.
It helped all of these nations that competition was also fairly limited, so skilled/brainy immigrants flocked to our shores while the rest of the world just muddled through.
Now, you have BRICS. South-east Asia, especially South Korea, and Africa generally are coming more into the modern era. Their people don't need to come over anymore, at least not is as great a number.
Standards in the US education system may have slipped, or given the appearance of having done so. The same has happened here. But it was never the case that British or American industry was populated entirely by the produce of our education systems. Many of our top designers, engineers, and so on learned their professions and trades elsewhere.
What hasn't helped, in our case, is the implementation of a 'one size fits all' system that insists that all children are equally capable, or should be able to become equally capable, at certain subjects (STEM, particularly). It might be unpalatable to admit, but it isn't true. Insisting otherwise only ever slows down the more capable (as I know from my own experience) while still placing demands on the less capable students that they are, in some cases, still not up to matching (as I know from my sister's, but if they'd gone any slower they'd have stopped), and trying to teach two systems can only result in confusion in students, and imperfect understand of both systems in the majority of cases - though there will, of course, always be the 'superstars' who sail through and 'get' both.
(The other thing is, as a rule of thumb, the kids who were no good at STEM subjects excelled in others. The future world isn't, won't be, and shouldn't be all about technological or manufacturing supremacy. All the world is looking at STEM areas to provide the long-term economic solution; at least half the world will be disappointed. (And I say this as someone who was very good at maths, has used it in a professional capacity, is and has always been creative in various ways, and yet was utterly crap when it came to the production side of things like engineering. I never got my head around computer programming, either. Even BASIC flummoxed me.)
Ultimately, maths is simple and should be presented in a simple way, useful for everyday life, that everyone can grasp at least the basics of. Everything I've seen tells me that Common Core doesn't do that and isn't particularly simple, so it probably shouldn't be used as a basis or taught alongside 'the old way', though it's obvious that it would be useful in other ways or at other times.

 

[Moderator]

I've also noted that the primary criticism on the new methods are with math. I don't hear much about the English stuff, and have heard a few things about far right or left districts wanting to change the way US history is taught as an overall theme.

But to your point, we as the parents need to make sure our input is heard. I can tell you from my kids' schools that parents participating and giving input isn't common as it used to be. We need to make sure they hear, teach this new stuff WITH the old stuff.

That same article I found about the math scores said that the U.S. had its strongest showing in reading although there hadn't been much of a change in the past 3 years and "only" 10 nations surpassed them on that subject. I personally think the whole language method of teaching English has contributed significantly to a decline in spelling and grammar skills. Texting certainly hasn't helped with that either but that's another matter with choosing to use incorrect spelling and not knowing the basics to begin with.

 

[cat in a bag]

I've also noted that the primary criticism on the new methods are with math. I don't hear much about the English stuff, and have heard a few things about far right or left districts wanting to change the way US history is taught as an overall theme.

But to your point, we as the parents need to make sure our input is heard. I can tell you from my kids' schools that parents participating and giving input isn't common as it used to be. We need to make sure they hear, teach this new stuff WITH the old stuff.

The problem with trying to do both though, is the degree of "teaching for the test" that goes on. There just isn't enough time for the teachers to teach both, and the tests are modeled after the new method. So they focus on the new. I think that is counter-productive as well. There has been a loss in creativity and individual thinking with all of the teaching to the test that happens. One of my kids' teachers told me during a conference last year she was actually reprimanded by the principal for not teaching for the test as much as the principal thought the teacher should have been. Not in those exact words, of course, but that was the message. The day to day learning and grades have taken a back seat to each state's, county's, and school district's test scores.

 

[Spideyman]

well stated, Cat.