patrick.net

TwoScoopsPlissken says

"It's right, but teachers implemented it badly."

I see this as the biggest problem with implementing any new method. Teachers 45 or older are going to have zero to little incentive to learn how to appropriately teach the new method. They can mail it in the last decade, still get paid and not have to worry about getting fired without sleeping with the kids or shooting them.

I don't care how good the teacher is, no human with only 5-10 years left in a career with a guaranteed pension is going to learn new tricks. Anyone that says differently is not an elementary school teacher counting the days until retirement. Or they're lying. Humans are easy to predict animals. Especially since we can talk and communicate.

I get some of what Marcus is describing and don't totally dismiss it off hand. But I'm in the weeds on this one. Have a 7 year old. FUCK what they're sending home. Guess what? The teacher is 53 and on the tail end. She doesn't care to teach this well. Shit, she probably doesn't know it either because she doesn't have to. This is the problem with sweeping changes to education.

I'm teaching my kid one thing, the almost retired teachers is half assed teaching him another thing. How is that good for the kid?

He's/She's prepping for a multi-lingual career, which should increase his/her income.
WookieMan says

I'm teaching my kid one thing, the almost retired teachers is half assed teaching him another thing. How is that good for the kid?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Keep in mind, 6 or 7 year olds with little abstract ability by lack of innate biological development due to age.

If the primary complaint from parents was that the concepts were too complex for the children's age, you might have a good point. However, the common complaint that I see about common core is not that teachers are trying to teach complex concepts too early. The complaints seem to be that what they are teaching is stupid, or that it makes simple concepts too hard. Period. Most of the common core problems that I've seen have instructive value from my perspective.
I didn't know who Piaget was so googled and found this article that agrees with your point on timing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/11/09/why-young-kids-are-struggling-with-common-core-math/?utm_term=.ffab783346a2
The complaint in the article is that trying to teach things that kids are not ready for only leads to frustration. My kid is only 3, but I try to work math problems into daily life for her. She's obviously not adept yet at math, but I think it's good to introduce ideas and see what sticks. For example, if you hold up 2 fingers in one hand and take one finger from the other and then physically put them together to see that there are now 3 fingers and connect that concept with addition. Same for fruit or whatever is on the plate. It's easy to frustrate a kid, but also not too difficult to see that and back off. I'm not worried about hurting her feelings by asking something she doesn't know the answer to.
The really sad thing is that kids are going to go home, ask parents for help with some problem. Rather than learning what is going on so that they can help, many parents are going to tell their kids that the whole common core thing is stupid, and that the problem doesn't make sense. This will have two effects. It will justify in the kids mind that they can ignore the curriculum/teacher, and it will set up an adversarial relationship between parties. That can't help.

I see the big problem as assuming that kids 5 or 6 are ready for formalized, text-based education.

Scandinavian countries don't do any of the three R's prior to age 7, except in narrow instances revolving around play with toys. All of them kick our ass scholastically, and unlike Asia, Scandinavia produces many innovations and innovators. Asian countries much less so proportionally.

Another difference is that Asian Countries look at tests on a curve in Secondary Education; you can get a third of the questions wrong but still do very well. We do not, and Common Core testing does not. Korea, China, Japan are trying to identify the high achievers. Whereas we want high performance from all.

It would be far better to try to identify early abstract thinkers quickly and maximize their learning, rather than try to drag all kids to one set of standards. K-3 is really where the most opposition to Common Core comes from. It's not Algebra by the 8th grade standards that are questioned.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Same for fruit or whatever is on the plate. It's easy to frustrate a kid, but also not too difficult to see that and back off. I'm not worried about hurting her feelings by asking something she doesn't know the answer to.

Same here.

Problem is that Common Core is test-driven and heavily formalized. There is no individualized instruction - it's full speed ahead, even if 80% of the kids in the course aren't ready for it. Schools, Teachers, Parents have no leeway - the rules must be followed, and not only must the answer be right, it must be demonstrated that the kids learned it a certain way, with these number groups and all this shit that a century of education did not deem necessary (or appropriate). Organically and by trial and error, vs. Dictates from a Central Authority that doesn't just set the Goals but the exact Methods of achieving them. That's the danger of it.

If we really want to help kids squeeze more from school, reform the spelling of the English language which is a huge time waster.

Fortunately my kid isn't in US Public Schools or subject at all to Common Core. I just brought a Finnish Math Workbook for Kindergarten that isn't Common Core approved.

Trying to get my hands on some Russian textbooks (in English) for Algebra and Calculus, if anybody knows of any I'm all ears.

BlueSardine says

He's/She's prepping for a multi-lingual career, which should increase his/her income.
WookieMan says

I'm teaching my kid one thing, the almost retired teachers is half assed teaching him another thing. How is that good for the kid?

I'm guessing there is sarcasm here, and I probably come across as dense, but what are you getting at? Feel like I'm either the joke or not understand a good one.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Scandinavian countries don't do any of the three R's prior to age 7, except in narrow instances revolving around play with toys.

Yeah, I've heard this too. My takeaway is that they need a lot of engaged play, and that they have their own way of learning regardless of what we try to teach. I've seen small kids that were really good at math, though. So, it doesn't make sense to me to hold back, just because some kids in Finland end up smart with no formal instruction at a young age.
IDK how many Russian texts were written in English. But there are probably a shitload of old (traditional) texts in English available for pennies.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Yeah, I've heard this too. My takeaway is that they need a lot of engaged play, and that they have their own way of learning regardless of what we try to teach. I've seen small kids that were really good at math, though. So, it doesn't make sense to me to hold back, just because some kids in Finland end up smart with no formal instruction at a young age.

Well, one thing we might want to consider is segregating kids by abilities early on, something Americans are loathe to do, although we did do this, at least within the classroom, early on.

"Okay kids, reading groups! The Rockets over there. And the Jets over there. And you dumb Biplanes, to the back". This used to be normal.

The thing is most of the countries that kick our ass don't start with formalized instruction as early as Common Core insists.

Teaching things beyond an age appropriate level might actually waste time and result in stunted growth.

The real problem in K-12 isn't the K-4 or the K-6, it's the goofing off of BS starting around 8th grade IMHO. There are too many schools that just don't do intermediate algebra at all, or do delay algebra until age 16+.

Finally, the biggest problem area in Education is GEOGRAPHY.

First Grade Math Problem folks. 6 year olds:
www.youtube.com/embed/0URnZfwSHjg

Look how much text is there. Do 1st graders read books with that complexity of text? Fuck no. They read "Trucks drive on the road. They carry a heavy load. Some are blue. Some are white. And now it's time to say Good Night!" And yet they're expected to parse shit like this.

Here's how I learned First Grade Math, as did 100% of my classmates. I was in Advanced Math until the 9th Grade and Geometry (after Algebra which I did damned good in).

"Okay kids, let's yell out the answers!

Eight plus Eight is Sixteen
Eight plus Nine is Seventeen
...
Eight plus Twelve is Twenty.

YAY!!! Okay, Clara the Clown is so happy with you kids."

And yes of course we took 8 yellow chotskies and then a pile of 4 blue chotskies put them together and said it was 12.

At least she's honest and says that she's 40 and can hardly get it, and would be crying if she had to do that homework. That seems to be the real issue in my opinion.

In subtraction, when I was little, we would borrow from one number to make subtraction in each column possible. So for example, to do 165-27, you would borrow a 10 from the 6 column and add it to the 5 in the ones column, and then subtract 7 from 15 to get 8. Then subtract 2 from the resulting 5 to get 3, and you would get the answer of 138. In this case, you are splitting the 60 into 50 and 10, and then borrowing the 10 from the 60 to add it to the 5. The common core way of adding is the same darn thing. Borrow a 2 from the 7 to add it to the 8 and get 10. Then add that to the 5. I don't know when it is most appropriate to learn this concept, but it is no harder than the way we learned to subtract in the 70s or 80s.

For addition, when I was little, we 'carried' the remainder. So, for example, when adding 25 to 47, we would add up the ones column and get 12. We would split this into a 10 and a 2. We then added a 1 to the 10s column and added 1 + 2 + 4 to get 7. So, the answer is 72 using this ridgid step by step method.

Another way of doing this addition faster in your head is to just split the 47 into 40 and 7. Then, 40+25 is 65, then add 7 and you have 72. You could also say that you need 5 to get the 25 up to 30, so split the 47 into 42 and 5. Then say 25 + 5 = 30 + 42 = 72. I don't see why it's problematic to teach kids these things at some point in their lives. The problem that this lady is complaining about is just like these, but uses a simpler example.

I was in a self directed learning environment in 2nd grade, but I'm pretty sure I was learning multiplication and division by hand by then using the above methods. Long division was frustrating, but learnable.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Finally, the biggest problem area in Education is GEOGRAPHY.

Going to have to disagree on this one. Personal finance is by FAR the biggest thing lacking in schools. At least high school level. Balance a check book. Understand interest on a credit card, home or auto loan. Credit scores. Be able to file taxes for a simple W-2 employee without H&R Block. There's more of course.

I'm not a tin foil hat guy, but there's a reason this stuff isn't taught in schools even though EVERYONE needs to understand some aspect of everything I listed and more.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

The common core way of adding is the same darn thing. Borrow a 2 from the 7 to add it to the 8 and get 10. Then add that to the 5. I don't know when it is most appropriate to learn this concept, but it is no harder than the way we learned to subtract in the 70s or 80s.

Why add to subtract? Why not just subtract?
www.youtube.com/embed/KxJ4nbqx8CY

Which method is easier? The traditional method.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Also, why is a standard a method?

Usually it's so students learn all, or at least many methods. Not that you even read this or try to comprehend it, but for example:

In the algebra standards, dealing with quadratics, students learn to solve quadratic equations by factoring (one method) by completing the square, another method, and using the quadratic formula, another method.

By the time the student is in calculus, in a situation where the student need to find the "roots" or "zeros" of a quadratic, the teacher could care less which method the student uses. Often it's factorable (easy) becasue the problem isn't about finding roots of a quadratic, that's just a subroutine in the middle of the problem.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Why add to subtract? Why not just subtract?
www.youtube.com/embed/KxJ4nbqx8CY

Which method is easier? The traditional method.

THe traditional method requires writng it down. Is the typical person really that bad at adding two 2 digit numbers without writing it down ?

Newsflash: If you're adding without writing it down, you're going to use a method like that in the video, even if the way it is written for the 7 year old is hard to follow. The point is to get kids trying it.

If you ask me to add 26 + 17 (say it comes up in the middle of some problem), I know that 26 + 14 = 40. So 26 + 17 = 43.

IT's not like they don't teach the traditional method. They do, and the teacher is free to drill them on that as much as they feel is appropriate. Most will do a lot of that.

But shouldn't a person be able to add 26 + 17 without writing anything down ? And very fucking easily for that matter ? Wtf ?

marcus says

By the time the student is in calculus, in a situation where the student need to find the "roots" or "zeros" of a quadratic, the teacher could care less which method the student uses. Often it's favorable (easy) becasue the problem isn't about finding roos of a quadratic, that's just a subroutine in the middle of the problem.

We're not talking about HS or College students with Algebra and Calculus, but 6 year olds trying to learn elementary arithmetic.

Did you bother to see the video above where the 104 DJs are putting up the instructions for 1st Graders?

1st Graders don't look at anything a quarter as difficult for Reading. In the "Wild Things" there's no mention of anchoring and decomposing number sense. Yet they're expected to parse and follow those instructions.

This is about what is appropriate for 1st Graders. Common Core is requiring a level of abstraction not age appropriate, and front-loading "Math thinking" at an age well before that is going to be achievable by most kids.

What will happen is more kids will hate and be turned off by math, which is will further reduce interest and achievement in math.

Most kids get 8 pennies and then 7 more is 15. Most aren't going to get they have to anchor 2 to the 8 to get 10 and then another 5 to get 15 by "Decomposing" 7.

marcus says

But shouldn't a person be able to add 26 + 17 without writing anything down ? And very fucking easily for that matter ? Wtf ?

I'd be more likely to have to write down "round up to the nearest 10, okay, so somehow I got a fucking 6 and a 4 and now take the highest number and... decompose then anchor and then go back to adding even though I was subtracting..."

Rather than "26 less 17... okay 6 minus 7, not enough so borrow to make 16 minus 7 equals 9 and then the 2 is a 1 and then minus 1, so I got 9." in my head.

We'll see. Common Core math is so fucked up they have 1st Graders playing with triple digit arithmetic.

Betcha 90%+ of the students do it the traditional way since the other method is also ancient but almost never used in any time or place in the world history, which tells you about it's teaching efficiency. Unfortunately, a ton of class time that could be spent on other subjects will be wasted, and many kids will hate math out of frustration.

The ironic thing is it will take their parents a few hours to have them learn the old way and even memorize most of it, but Common Core Teachers will still be repeating basic problems with increasing urgency (the 4 hour test is coming up!) to teach them the forever-rejected Common Core way.

Some methods are wildly popular for a reason. Other methods are uncommon for a reason.

I think that part of the reason for teaching "mental math" now more than years ago, was that back then, students would just learn mental math eventually, becasue of doing enough arithmetic, it just happened naturally, and by necessity.

But these days, becasue of calculators, you will see high school kids going to the calculator to add 8 + 5. So how do you help students develop "number sense." Answer: You teach it and practice it. But the truth is you show students methods and practice things. But ultimately it comes down to what do students internalize. Ultimately the students internal understanding is something that they build for themselves. The teacher is a guide, saying, "try this." "Try this." But for a lot of procedural algorithmic math skills, just like anything else, a lot is going to depend on the students internalization which comes from practice, and how they view it.

It gets very different later when it's more about the conceptual, and problem solving. At that point the teacher's task gets more complicated, becasue curiosity, and a strong and persistent desire to "get it" are not easy to impart.It helps if the students are the types of kids that always enjoyed puzzles.

marcus says

But these days, becasue of calculators, you will see high school kids going to the calculator to add 8 + 5. So how do you help students develop "number sense." Answer: You teach it and practice it. But the truth is you show students methods and practice things. But ultimately it comes down to what do they internalize. Ultimately the students internal understanding is something that they build for themselves. The teacher is a guide, saying, "try this." "Try this." But for a lot of procedural algorithmic math skills, just like anything else, a lot is going to depend on the students internalization which comes from practice, and how they view it.

I get the "Why" they want kids to do it this way. If cognitive abilities of 6 year olds weren't limited, it'd be create. But because they are limited, I'm pretty sure it's going to be a wild failure. There's a reason why teachers around the world don't use the "Anchor/Decompose" method to teach elementary arithmetic.

Number sense comes when you add 8 pennies to 7. Base 10 is picked up along the way.

Common Core is the only curriculum in the world that demands kids have "number sense" to 100 by age 5. No other nation or program in the world demands more than 20.

The solution to the calculator is memorization of basic arithmetic. Frankly it was banned from my school entirely, so I have no experience. Just ban the fucking thing until college.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Some methods are wildly popular for a reason. Other methods are uncommon for a reason.

You never let me down. There's a reason you're a Trump supporter.

marcus says

You never let me down. There's a reason you're a Trump supporter.

I can't be arsed to label that personal.

Do you have another explanation why the preferred Common Core method is used nowhere else at no time in history with 1st graders? Is it because of all the great experience teaching it, it was considered too easy to grasp?

If so, I'd love to hear it.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

1st Graders don't look at anything a quarter as difficult for Reading. They're expected to parse and follow those instructions.

This.

Having a first grader right now that is doing fine in all subjects/skills, the math is just overly complicated for the level they're at. Not saying the math itself is difficult, my kid is getting it, it's just I've noticed that the kids are confused by the way the concepts are being taught. Many parents are confused. Many teachers are old and don't care to learn to teach this new way. So there's a break down in the whole structure of math at probably the most important time in kids lives to learn the basics. I'm open to new things, but being in the trenches with this stuff, I'm really not a fan at all.

Marcus does make valid points about the logic behind why the changes are being made from a mathematical prospective. I just really don't think it was implemented very well at this point. Considering most adults, even successful ones are idiots, I'm not sure what the plan was. A teachers job is hard enough without parental support and this just throws the entire early learning math years in the wood chipper in my opinion.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Do you have another explanation why the preferred Common Core method is used nowhere else at no time in history with 1st graders? Is it because of all the great experience teaching it, it was considered too easy to grasp?

Neither you nor I know exactly what a majority of first grade common core teachers are doing for Math with their students.

You really think some anti-common core video is giving you realistic information, and not the worst horror story from the most angry and clueless right wing parent out there ?

Give me a break. I'm over loaded with work, it's my busiest time. But if you want I could find for you a web site, designed for first grade teachers and you could spend an hour or two researching what really goes on. And then lets talk.

WookieMan says

A teachers job is hard enough without parental support and this just throws the entire early learning math years in the wood chipper in my opinion.

Too much propaganda out there and not enough real information.

Here you go. Get a taste of reality.

https://www.engageny.org/resource/grade-1-mathematics-module-1-topic

So much better, and more interesting than what I was doing in first and second grade math. Drills have their place, but it wasn't exercising that part of my brain nearly as well as this. Actually, the nuns did't do that bad of a job. Truth is I don't remember what we did in first grade. Some of it might have been similar but without the social part.

marcus says

So much better, and more interesting than what I was doing in fist and second grade math. Drills have their place, but it wasn't exercising that part of my brain nearly as well as this.

I totally understand that it might be better. The implementation was thought out poorly in my opinion though. You can't just give a 50 year old teacher a new tool and expect them to know how to use it when they're 5 years from hanging up the chalk and eraser. They're very likely to just print out the lessons and pass it out as homework. Of course they'll try to teach it in the classroom, but I'm highly skeptical of anyone over 45 and teaching taking it that seriously.

I guess I would equate it to the US all a sudden saying everyone needs to drive on the other side of the car & road like in Britain (obviously you'd need a new car). The objective is exactly the same. Point A to B. The motions to drive the car are similar. But it's completely different and foreign for those that had learned right side of the road and left side of the car driving.

The problem is, the 50 year old teacher really has no benefit to drive the new way. The 30-35 year old parents drove the old way. And the kids are being taught to drive the new way. Nobody is telling the parents how their kids are learning the new way and quite frankly older teachers don't care to learn the new way. There's a generation of kids that are essentially crash test dummies for flipping the car and sides of the road mathematically speaking.

I personally don't think common core is necessarily bad. I just wish they'd give parents some more tools explaining it. There's logic behind it for sure. But when you get some of the shit in your kids folder and you ask your kid what the fuck this is and they have a hard time explaining it, then something needs to be adjusted. And it's not just my individual school. Most of my peers with kids are outside our district (multiple districts) and it's a common conversation amongst us.

WookieMan says

Of course they'll try to teach it in the classroom, but I'm highly skeptical of anyone over 45 and teaching taking it that seriously.

You'd be surprised. I dissagree for several reasons.

1) Common core not as different as you think, it's just getting a lot of press. They were talking bout "the new math" when I was in school in the 60s, becasue they were trying to bring the ideas of sets into math, and not only doing computation.

2) teachers are always being asked to try new things, for decades now, it's some new breakthrough methodolgy they are supposed to implement, .to get kids working in groups, reflecting on what they're learning, explaining it to eachother and so on. Especially in the lower grades, where classes are still usually 25 or less in size, teachers are very used to trying new things.. There is a risk that older teachers are jaded, and think it's another flavor of the month methodology. But they go to training's and professional development, and then they combine it with the things they believe in. But yes, the texts and or worksheets parents see, might seem somewhat strange. So the parents have to work a little if they want to get involved in learning what their kids are doing. That's not so bad.

3) The idea that becasue a teacher is 50 they are too tired of teaching or too set in their ways to be passionate about teaching or to take their responsibilities seriously is not true. Especially at that young age level, if anything they've learned to take the best things from new models and methods and incorporate them in to what they do. Kids that age are like sponges. Very curious, and open to new things, making it fun to try strategies out with them. I envy teachers of young children sometimes, becasue working with older teens, is tough at times. They have a lot of other things on their minds, and sometimes don't bring that fresh curiosity to their learning the way young children do.

(although sure - some teachers aren't that great. And certainly some elementary teachers don't love math or teaching math. They shine with reading, or art or whatever . But those types of teachers have been messing up students math potential for decades. IF anything those teachers are the best argument FOR a somewhat scripted curriculum that's rigorous and more interesting. But yes, parent involvement then becomes critical.)

IMO, the only thing that guy exposed is that he's an idiot or a fraud. It's really fucking simple, and for anyone who learns that method, it seems pretty intuitive. I've done math in my head using similar methods for years. Maybe it was taught at some point, or maybe it's just intuition or learning tricks out of necessity. In the time it took this guy to make that video, he should have been able to learn that method well enough to help his kid.

Any problem can be converted into other simpler problems to do in your head. If you subtract 231 from 500, you could do it the 'traditional' way, by converting the 500 to 490 + 10, and then subtracting the 1 from the 10 and the 3 from the 9, and the 2 from the 4 to get 269. On the other hand, it's just as easy to first subtract 230 from 500 to get 270 and then subtract the extra 1. Or, you could add and subtract 19. Subtracting 19 lets you add 19 to the 231 gives 250, subtract that from the 500 to get 250, and then add the 19 back to get 269. Whatever you are used to doing is what becomes intuitive and simple. Teaching multiple methods gets people used to trying a variety of methods to figure out a way to solve some problem or other. Most problems can be solved using many many methods. Math is a perfect playground to teach these types of things.

IMO, that last video is a negative nancy making youtube videos about how terrible math is. He is not helping society. He's what creates a culture that looks down on learning and trying new things.

This whole thread is about how thunderlips11 AKA TwoScoopsPlissken was unable to understand that he did not know the meaning of the phrase "make 10", and therefore he had to get into a long discussion with Marcus and others in order to cover up his ignorance. "Make 10" is a standard trick for paperless and computerless calculations. Using the example of the dimwit propagandist youtuber, and doing "make 10" the right way:

26 +17 = 20 + 6 + 10 + 7 = 30 + 6 + 7 = 30 + 6 + (4+3) = 30 + (6+4) + 3 = 30 + 10 + 3 = 40 + 3 = 43

The idea is that you should be able to do this in your head, but of course it is written down so that the children can learn the principle. It is not to be used as a substitute for doing 26 + 17 the standard way. It is for paperless calculations only, to teach kids how to calculate in their head.

Taking a step back and looking at the big picture, this thread was all a politically-motivated effort to denounce "common core curriculum", which is a favorite target of right-wingers that want each state to control their own school curricula so that they can dumb down and divide and conquer the country by pitting the working population of different states against each other. This is standard Republican procedure since at least 1960, and well known in world history. "State's rights" and all that tripe, look it up.

Sarcastic Summary: It's Obama's fault, again!

The Make10 method has been around probably for thousands of years, as has the traditional method.

Why all over the world, at all times, has the traditional subtraction method of "Carrying the 1" dominated?

There's a reason.

"Nobody in thousands of years before our wonderful enlightened selves thought to do such a thing"
or
"It doesn't work as well as the other method for teaching young children."

Knowing humans, which reason do you think is more likely?

If you think it's a mental shortcut to make 10 by "decomposing" a 7 into 2 and 5 and then "anchoring" the 2 to 8 to make 10 and then adding the remaining 5 to get 15, instead of just memorizing that 8++7=15, then to your Good Health.

With 6 year olds, no less.

This will be as successful as getting rid of Phonics, which left the mostly urban kids it was foistered on with no method of figuring out how to spell or pronounce unfamiliar, new words they read. Fortunately the UK (and the US) is reintroducing Phonics after experimenting with letter formation and Whole Language" with astounding results.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/16/phonics-children-education-research
http://www.pbs.org/parents/education/reading-language/reading-tips/is-phonics-taught-in-my-childs-classroom/
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/jar/Reading_Wars.html

Piaget and Behavioralism FTW. Science over Fluff.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

If you think it's a mental shortcut to make 10 by "decomposing" a 7 into 2 and 5 and then "anchoring" the 2 to 8 to make 10 and then adding the remaining 5 to get 15, instead of just memorizing that 8++7=15, then to your Good Health.

Nobody said it was a good way to figure out what 8 + 7 is. They said that it is a shortcut for doing more complicated problems in your head. Using 8 + 7 as an example is a convenient way to learn the method. Obviously, 8 + 7 should be memorized at some point.

If these things are being taught to kids at an unappropriate age, then everybody should be complaining, because all kids would be failing. If it is only Obama haters that are complaining, that's a different type of motivation. Are 6 yr old kids failing math all over the country?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Nobody said it was a good way to figure out what 8 + 7 is. They said that it is a shortcut for doing more complicated problems in your head. Using 8 + 7 as an example is a convenient way to learn the method. Obviously, 8 + 7 should be memorized at some point.

That was the opening of the thread. The video is about a kid instructed to "Make 10" with 8+7 on homework/quiz.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

If these things are being taught to kids at an unappropriate age, then everybody should be complaining, because all kids would be failing. If it is only Obama haters that are complaining, that's a different type of motivation. Are 6 yr old kids failing math all over the country?

Parents are flipping out, and not just right-wing ones, but that Common Core, despite "Right-wing" propaganda, isn't imposed everywhere by fiat. Some states reject, some states only impose partially, and some states have school districts that in or out of it partially or wholly. Elite Private Schools aren't using it, I notice.

Even CK Louis has complained on twitter that his kids loved math, until they started with this shit, and he can't understand their homework.

Common Core is more than just Make 10. Neuroscientists, Child Research Psychologists, and others are complaining it's good that it's trying to improving math outcomes and generate more mathematical thinking , but does so by front-loading on K-3 students, younger kids who don't have the mental capacity to benefit from "Encouraging Math Thinking". Three-digit arithmetic, Counting to 100, etc. are all things that are being introduced at very young ages not seen in any other nation, including Japan and Singapore as well as Finland. The non-science based assumption is we can "just start earlier" when it's not going to be appropriate due to brain development in the average child.

Sure there is the odd 6 year old who can diagram a sentence or do long division. But 95%+ can't, and can't for genetic, developmental reasons. It's not just "Make 10" which might be a great method for 9-10 year olds to do math in their head, but not appropriate for 6 year olds. You can't speed up cognitive development any more than a child's height.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-education-standards-20150601-story.html

Alternative methods, like lengthening the JHS/HS school day (teachers oppose) to 9 to 5 like adults and using that extra time for more math practice/instruction, or going deeper without going broader (more practice, deeper understanding, but less ground covered) are also options.

Recent evaluations of the state's preschoolers have determined that only 47 percent are ready for kindergarten, compared to 83 percent judged ready last year. This drastic drop isn't the result of an abrupt, catastrophic decline in the cognitive abilities of our children.

Instead it results from a re-definition of kindergarten readiness, which now means being able to succeed academically at a level far beyond anything expected in the past. For example, a child entering kindergarten is now expected to know the difference between informative/explanatory writing and opinion writing. The concern is that preschoolers without that knowledge will not succeed at meeting the new higher-level Common-Core standards. However, I think a more pressing concern is: Why do we have educational standards that are not aligned with even the most basic facts of human development? Clearly these test results show that the problem is with the standards, not the children.

Educational attainment is part of human development, and fundamentally this is a biological process that cannot be sped up. We cannot wish away our biological limitations because we find them inconvenient. Children will learn crawling, walking, listening, talking and toilet training, all in succession at developmentally appropriate ages. Once in school, for skills that require performing a physical task, that are in what Bloom's Taxonomy classifies as the "psychomotor domain," it is understood that children will only learn when they are physically and developmentally ready. No one expects four-year olds to type fluently on a computer keyboard, play difficult Chopin Etudes on the piano, prepare elaborate meals in the kitchen or drive a car.

However, for skills in what Bloom calls the "cognitive domain," the school curriculum has become blind not only to the progression of normal child development but also to natural variations in the rate that children develop. It is now expected that pre-school children should be able to grasp sophisticated concepts in mathematics and written language. In addition, it is expected that all children should be at the same cognitive level when they enter kindergarten, and proceed through the entire grade-school curriculum in lock step with one another. People, who think that all children can learn in unison, have obviously never worked with special needs children or the gifted and talented.

Demanding that children be taught to developmentally inappropriate standards for language and math comprehension is not a harmless experiment. This exercise in futility wastes the time of teachers and students and unethically sets all of them up to fail. It exacerbates the very problems that the new curriculum is supposed to fix. It leaves boys, whose verbal development for biological reasons already lags behind girls, even further behind and will accelerate the trend of fewer boys going on to college. Even today boys only make up about 40 percent of college students nationwide and their numbers will continue to dwindle.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-education-standards-20150601-story.html

TwoScoopsPlissken says

That was the opening of the thread.

And I pointed out in post 22:
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

I agree that one has to learn what 8+5 is out of memory. On the other hand, they are not teaching what 8+5 is here. They are teaching a method with a simple example, to make it easy to learn the method. The method can then be applied to more complicated examples later. Using simple examples to teach a concept and then building up to more complicated cases is a very common way of teaching anything. I'm guessing that is the philosophy behind choosing this example, but it's a safe and logical bet.

You acknowledged this in post 25.

You may have a valid point about the age that kids can learn things. I have no doubt that brain development varies from individual to individual, especially when you account for the different ages of kids in a particular class. However, there ought to be loads of evidence that the vast majority of kids are not learning this math, if you are correct. If it's just a matter of development, these kids who fail and are held back should excel the following year when they are ready for the material. Where is that evidence? I'm not talking about a comedian making jokes or some youtuber ranting. The number of kids failing math should have increased drastically on introduction of common core. Grades should have plummeted. Where is that data? I'm open to learning.
Finally, if that is the case, maybe the lessons should just be delayed. It would not be a shock if a new change had to be adjusted on implementation.
Why attack the whole program?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

The number of kids failing math should have increased drastically on introduction of common core. Grades should have plummeted. Where is that data? I'm open to learning.

Results are in:

In Fall 2015 the NAEP tested a representative sample of high school seniors in the 2016 graduating class. After seven years of Common Core curriculum and assessment, the NAEP tests showed:

The average performance of high school seniors dropped in math and failed to improve in reading from 2013 to 2015. Performance was also down on both tests from 1992, the first year that similar tests were used.

There was a decline in the percentage of students in both public and private schools that are rated as prepared for college-level work in reading and math. In 2013, 39% of students were considered ready for college math and 38% were prepared for college-level reading. But in 2015, only 37% were prepared for college.

Worse, while scores improved for students in the highest percentile group in reading, they dropped in reading and math for students in the lower percentiles. The number of students scoring below “basic” in both subjects also increased from 2013. These were the students that Common Core and the high-stakes testing regime were supposedly designed to support the most.

Test scores for students in 4th and 8th grade who have been trapped in Common Core classrooms with Common Core curriculum for pretty much their entire school careers showed a similar decline in math.

Terry Mazany, the chairman of the governing board for the test, called these results “worrisome.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/results-are-in--common-co_b_9819736.html

What's wrong with these answers? Nothing. Why the "-1"?

Notice that in the first one, 5x3 has to be 5 groups of 3, but in the next question, 4x6 has to be 4 groups of 6. Que?!?!

According to Common Core, or at least their teaching of teachers, it's wrong.

Again, we see method pushed over completely correct and valid answers.

Not necessarily common core, but here is a grading fail:



Kid is right, very observant. Should have gotten extra credit for those answers.

While some of the stats in the article are troubling, it falls short of compelling. It cites things like a year over year drop of 1% of students at some specified level. It discusses a drop in performance over time, but does not mention any control. The article does mention that states have adopted common core at different times. How have the early adopters changes over time compare to late adopters or states that never adopted common core. That would be a nice control group. That's a pretty big problem with the article.
The article mentions that the test that is being used as a yardstick was developed in 1992. Is that the right yardstick to be using? I'm not saying the answer is no. I'm just pointing out another potential issue.
Finally, you made the assertion that common core standards are not developmentally appropriate. I made the comment that failure rates would have gone through the roof if that were true. I don't see any evidence of that.
TwoScoopsPlissken says

Worse, while scores improved for students in the highest percentile group in reading, they dropped in reading and math for students in the lower percentiles. The number of students scoring below “basic” in both subjects also increased from 2013. These were the students that Common Core and the high-stakes testing regime were supposedly designed to support the most.

The difference between the highest and median income in our country has gone through the roof over those years. Suicide rates and drug abuse rates have also gone through the roof. It's not surprising that these things would have a deleterious impact on the difference in achievement between groups of students. These just two examples of many other variables that could easily affect student testing rates. That is why you really need a control to figure out what the impact of common core has been.

Making orange juice by processing oranges in some way, and grilling steaks over a fire in some way have both been around for centuries, why has grilling steaks dominated ?

Stupid question, these are two eniterely different things !


TwoScoopsPlissken says

Why all over the world, at all times, has the traditional subtraction method of "Carrying the 1" dominated?

The reason is you are talking about different things. Using the method described to confirm in your mind that 8 + 5 = 13, is simple and it's a pattern that can be expanded to understand that 59 + 43 = 102 (in your head instantly) . So it's a basic pattern for mental arithmetic. It's not being taught as a substitute for the traditional method, but it is being taught first.

Why ? Many reasons, including that some students would rather reason such simple things as 8 + 5 = 13 rather than memorize it (save memorization for the things you need to memorize in Math - there will be enough of those.)

BUT ALSO BECAUSE WHEN YOU USE THE TRADITIONAL METHOD YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO KNOW THAT 8 + 5 = 13 ! Shouldn't the students that would prefer to choose whether to know 8 + 5 = 13 be allowed to choose whether they prefer to know that only from memory versus knowing it another way (that I personally have always used ), be given the choice, before they move on to the traditional method ?

Isn't giving students a choice in the methods they use something you argued in favor of earlier ?

Adding 8 + 5 or 7 + 6, etc. are subroutines in the traditional method. I say show them different ways of doing these subroutines and let them choose.

But I will add, that in my substantial experience teaching Math, I've learned that students that want to always rely on memory, don't do well in Math, because eventually there are just two many things to remember. (somewhere between algebra and pre-calculus thse students usually get overwhelmed). When possible you need to use reasoning and patterns. And reserve memorization for things you must memorize (which there are plenty of in Math).

This starts early.

Durrr (referring to my typos)

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Finally, you made the assertion that common core standards are not developmentally appropriate. I made the comment that failure rates would have gone through the roof if that were true. I don't see any evidence of that.

The numbers are from 2016, Common Core began around 2008, and it's far from fully implemented yet, but the numbers are not encouraging.

In context, the numbers in the 2000s increased across the board in 4th Grade mathematics - before Common Core was implemented.
The "Aughties" had the biggest gains among 4th Graders for Math Proficiency. When "New Math" was dumped, the Old Method returned, but before Common Core started to be introduced.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2017_highlights/

marcus says

Making orange juice by processing oranges in some way, and grilling steaks over a fire in some way have both been around for centuries, why has grilling steaks dominated ?

So squeezing oranges and grilling steaks are both... uh... food preparation? A better example might be grilling vs. frying steaks, or maybe using propane vs. charcoal grills to cook steak.

"Charcoal is better tasting, but in the beginning let's teach kids to use propane because it's easier to get the grilling process started. Rather than getting a chimney, stuffing it with paper, lighting the paper under the chimney, waiting for the coals to get hot, spreading them on the grill, etc. etc. vs. turning a knob on the propane grill."

Simple is better than Complex. Complexity might deepen understanding but if you can't do the basic operation, nor have the capacity for the understanding behind the complexity, it's just a time wasting, frustration inducing garbage.

What may take months to teach in 1st grade might be taught in a few days in the 4th grade due to the average cognitive ability of 9 year olds being vastly better developed. With less frustration and wasted time all around.

marcus says

The reason is you are talking about different things. Using the method described to confirm in your mind that 8 + 5 = 13, is simple and it's a pattern that can be expanded to understand that 59 + 43 = 102 (in your head instantly) . So it's a basic pattern for mental arithmetic. It's not being taught as a substitute for the traditional method, but it is being taught first.

It's more complicated, involving more steps. The goal is to push a math-thinking process, but the problem is 6 year olds don't have the cognitive development to benefit from such a method.

Teaching the old method gives an instant ready tool that can be deployed now, while the "Math Thinking" can come later when the grey matter is actually wired to comprehend it.

Surprise! More complex methods hurt well-of kids less than poor kids, because the former's parents will teach them the time-tested method of memorization and "Borrowing" method after school.

marcus says

Isn't giving students a choice in the methods they use something you argued in favor of earlier ?

The image at: http://patrick.net/post/1315428/?c=1501089

My god Marcus, reading comprehension?!

The examples above, the kid did not get a choice, he got penalized for grouping the numbers in a way the teacher didn't prefer. Although what that method is, is beyond my understanding since either order he grouped the numbers in, he got points off.

This isn't choice, this is my way or the highway, where "my way" seems to be entirely arbitrary.