patrick.net

https://www.toddstarnes.com/show/high-school-textbook-describes-trump-as-mentally-unstable/

This is a Pearson Textbook : "By The People: A History of the United States" for AP History. Pearson claims the book was Peer-reviewed, which makes it even worse.

Pearson Education is defending a new high school textbook that depicts President Trump as mentally ill and his supporters as a bunch of poor, white hillbillies.

The anti-Trump propaganda is included in the upcoming edition of “By The People: A History of the United States.” The textbook is written for Advanced Placement students.

“Clinton’s supporters feared that the election had been determined by people who were afraid of a rapidly developing ethnic diversity of the country … They also worried about the mental instability of the president-elect and the anger that he and his supporters brought the nation,” the book states.

Tarra Snyder, a student at Rosemount High School in Minnesota, discovered the shocking passages and she appeared on the Todd Starnes Radio Show to share her concerns.

“I think that if people are only being educated with skewed facts or half the information, then a good debate can’t happen and they can’t be fully informed to make an appropriate decision on where they stand on the political spectrum,” she said.

The book goes on to describe President Trump as an extremist and his “not-very-hidden racism connected with a significant number of primary voters.”

“Trump’s supporters saw the vote as a victory for people who, like themselves, had been forgotten in a fast-changing America – a mostly older, often rural or suburban, an overwhelmingly white group,” the book reads.

Pearson spokesman Scott Overland told Fox News the textbook underwent rigorous peer review to “ensure academic integrity.”

That’s laughable. Who was on that peer review board — Hillary Clinton and the staff of CNN?

Holy shit, there's outright propaganda on Black Lives Matter and much more about the Election. Parents held off at gunpoint... Police defacing memorials...

The whole thing looks like it was written by a Daily Kos Contributor.

In case you didn’t think there was an effort going on in public schools to indoctrinate kids with an anti-conservative agenda, a friend of mine took pictures and highlighted parts of this AP US History book. pic.twitter.com/rj2AN3MIqI— Alex On-Air (@yoalexrapz) April 13, 2018

“Clinton’s supporters feared that the election had been determined by people who were afraid of a rapidly developing ethnic diversity of the country … They also worried about the mental instability of the president-elect and the anger that he and his supporters brought the nation,” the book states.

If you just add "what they perceived to be" in front of "the metal instability," then this is a fairly accurate and factual representation. I think that's implied, but they should have said it, as they did say "feared" in the earlier sentence, making it obvious they were talking about the perception of Clinton supporters.

“Unsubstantiated and unwarranted perception” seems to be most accurate, but that would have everyone questioning why it’s included at all.

Pearson tried to charge Univ students $300 for textbook (latest edition) in our classes. Well, students now are allowed to use Edition n-1, n-2, or n-5, which cost $3.
Textbook companies are (worse than) pirates.

marcus says

If you just add "what they perceived to be" in front of "the metal instability," then this is a fairly accurate and factual representation. I think that's implied, but they should have said it, as they did say "feared" in the earlier sentence, making it obvious they were talking about the perception of Clinton supporters.

The whole passage, which takes up several pages, deals not at all with Hillary's Loss and contains every Left wing trope about Trump. Objectivity wasn't even attempted.

someone else says

mental instability

That's a misquote. The text in the photo says "mental stability" and Clinton supporters with TDS did worry about that, so the text in the photo was accurate on that point.

BTW, will someone please inform a certain user who Ignores me and claims to be a public school teacher that (s)he failed to spot the misquote? Thanks.

CovfefeButDeadly says

“Unsubstantiated and unwarranted perception” seems to be most accurate

Most liberals I know, not the far lefty types either, a still concerned about Trumps stability and still don't get what the appeal is, beyond what is mostly a bunch of BS about bring jobs back, winning and so on.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Since when does 8+5 = indicate subtraction?

#CommonCore

This is why I gave up teaching my son math - and I know a lot of math. I honestly should have put him in private school. After going to an "orientation" for my daughter's planned public High School, we found that the class loading would be 36-40 per class - in EVERY CLASS. That's just babysitting. So we paid for private high school. She made it to Gonzaga and then Yale for Masters. Both are successful, but not due to public education.

Marcus, no opinion on that ludicrous math question?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Marcus, no opinion on that ludicrous math question?

Not much. It does look pretty stupid, but I think I know what it's trying to do. Not that I've ever taught Math at the 2nd grade level or whatever that is. For those of us that have number sense, you take for granted some skills, many of which wren't really taught. But can some of them be taught ? I don't know. , how would you break it down ?

Tell me, with respect to so called mental math, if I said to you "what's 66 plus 37" can you explain what goes on in your mind ?

There's no one way, but I'm guessing a lot of people would use the fact that 66 is 34 away from 100, and then since 37 = 34 plus 3, ... the answer is 103. I know others would probably break it down (again, if doing without pencil and paper) breaking it down in to two sub problems 30 plus 60 and 6 plus 7. But even with that, and if you aren't writing it down and "carrying the one" and even if you remember very well that 6 plus 7 is 13, aren't you going to use the fact 13 takes you three past 10, to come up with the answer 103?

I don't know. Again I've never been involved in helping 7 year olds with their number sense. I don't have children of my own, and I never worked with that age group.

There is an aspect of Math called number sense, that a lot of older students don't have, especially in the calculator age. If in the case that that quiz comes from, they spent a lot of time hearing and talking about practicing that way of thinking about some things that naturally happen in base ten "mental math" addition, then having some kind of little formative assessment checking to see if kids are getting it is not so unreasonable. But I'll admit that taken out of context, for some adults it's going to look more than a little stupid, especially if the adult are judgmental and incapable of considering that maybe in context this might have been reasonable a made a lot of sense.

Speaking for myself, I think that when I'm adding 7 plus 5, or 8 plus 5, or 8 plus 6, I'm using memory, but I think I'm also confirming (quickly and hardly even consciously) using a method like that implied in the exercise. Certainly when adding 28 + 5, I.m not even stopping a microsecond to think about 8 + 5, I'm just attributing 2 of the five to get to thirty and the other 3 to take me to 33. And so yeah, I'm someone with number sense that uses the methods being taught in that exercise, or quiz or whatever it is.

IT's kind of ironic.. That is the intelligence level of the type of adults that get triggered by those types of examples.

By the way, one other thought. A lot of exercises and quizzes given aren't affecting kids grades. Sometimes it's just practice and also feedback for the teacher I can pretty much guarantee you, that if a student was great at addition and unwilling to engage with that lesson, that it wouldn't affect the students Math grade. I'm guessing some students might have tuned in, and gotten something out of it, regardless of the opinion of the pissed off parent that copied/scanned (that example above) and perhaps feels indignant about their clueless child. Imagine if the parent was smart enough to trust the teacher and work with the teacher.

marcus says

Not much. It does look pretty stupid, but I think I know what it's trying to do. Not that I've ever taught Math at the 2nd grade level or whatever that is. For those of us that have number sense, you take for granted some skills, many of which wren't really taught. But can some of them be taught ? I don't know. , how would you break it down ?

I don't have any particular number skills. I remember sometime between age 5 and 7 using flashcards to memorize 8+5, 8-5, 8x5. I think division was a wee bit later but I remember doing very rudimentary algebra in the 4th or 5th grade (ie x+4=7).

I never remember having to find a way to make 10 out of 8+5, which is without any kind of prompt it seems to me. If this is for a 6 or 7 year old, looks like it's the cart before the horse and setting up 90%+ of kids of failure and frustration.

Tell how to make 10 when given 8+5 is a bizarre question period, but especially for a K-6 kid which based on handwriting and the use of single digit addition this kid probably is.

What are they doing in Singapore, Japan, Finland and Belgium? Just steal their curriculum!!! Math doesn't give a shit who you are, anyway. It works equally well in Bombay, Bialystok or Bakersfield.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Tell how to make 10 when given 8+5 is a bizarre question period

Except obviously it's part of some process they practiced.. We're talking young children here. So "making ten" must have been language they used in class referring to using part of 5 to add to 8 to get to 10. And then the other part would be added to ten to get 13. There probably is even another part, a next question (not shown) on that same sheet that builds on it, getting and answer of 13.

This makes a huge amount of sense, and is at the level of a 6 to 8 year old. But the description gets wordy. So they used language that out of context looks strange to you, instead of using 17 other words that would have been lost on kids this age.


I put a lot of time and thought in to explaining it to you above, in ways you must be able to understand. It's about learning basic patterns. The example I gave with 66 + 37 is using the same pattern. They are laying the foundation for that pattern. I would think that this is far enough from politics that you might open your mind a little. But apparently not.

Say you have to add 28 + 5, how do you do it ? Are you going to tell me that you don't "make 30" first, in you mind ? And then add 3 ?

If this wasn't following practice where the kids knew this language in context, then kids are going to say, "make 10 ?" "What do you mean ?" (as the kid from the paper more or less did). "I thought we were adding 8 + 5"

Who knows, maybe the bizzreness of the question is even intentional. I like it. Why should you need to memorize that 8 and 5 = 13 if you can learn to see it in you mind, the same way that most adults (and kids eventually) can see that 28 + 5 is 33. And it's learning a fundamental pattern, not just something that applies to 8 + 5.

Computer science folks here will tell you that "patterns" are a big deal.

This is one of the main reason both of my children are in private school, at least until they hit high school. Both are light years ahead of the public school system in terms of education and don't have to deal with the nonsense and liberal school policies.

I live in districts rated 9/10/9 fwiw, primarily for home resale, or whenever I decide to turn this place into a rental.

To Marcus's point, I was taught the approach of estimating/rounding(?) to get to an answer I believe in Middle School or High School. If you have a problem like:
106 + 127 + 314 =
You can start by saying the answer is close to 500, then adding the remainders. But this was of course way after Elementary School age. I was home schooled until 5th grade, so I had to memorize addition and times tables. Found it to be kind of foundational. What foundation can you build on when you have 5 + 8 = 10 ...?

Sorry, I just don't get why estimating would even be a thing when dealing with single digit arithmetic.

I'd be one thing if it was 21 +15, where you could say "Add the tens column first, then the ones." but this is 8+5. You have to know that answer (and why not have it memorized?) to estimate to begin with. The whole "Make 10 from 8+5" is damned odd, sorry.

Also, wondering what neuroscience has to say and if these programs were tested on thousands of kids (not a few dozen or so kids in a handful of trials) before being implemented Nationwide.

For example, most kids don't really get the humor of sarcasm much before age of 10. Yes, some can but most don't. It has to do with the development of the brain. It wouldn't help to teach kids instances of sarcasm much before age 10 when you can be sure most can grasp it, it will only frustrate the vast majority that don't get it because the 'wiring' isn't finished yet.
"Thinking like a mathematician" is likely very much a similar situation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523264

Here are some more sample common core problems.

www.youtube.com/embed/r40ZRax6lxg

Looks like it's for 7-year olds.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/03/ten-dumbest-common-core-problems-alec-torres/

Making things more complicated than they ought to be at that age.

Here's another one.
www.youtube.com/embed/Y4DunVIqk_s

Why would 5x3 = 5+5+5 be wrong at all? That actually does show understanding of the underlying concept, not memorization.

Piaget must be spinning in his grave. "Children under ten grasp concrete, but not abstract, subjects." - well demonstrated fact.

Too many digits of the same race...

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Tell how to make 10 when given 8+5 is a bizarre question period

Taken out of context, it seems bizarre, but the teacher surely explained the method to the kids in class, so the kids would have been able to figure out what it meant if they were paying attention.
Like Marcus, I could guess what was meant with no context whatsoever. I could see how less educated parents would be bewildered and indignant, and irritated that they cannot help their kids. But I don't agree with the conclusion that the lesson is bad.
TwoScoopsPlissken says

I'd be one thing if it was 21 +15, where you could say "Add the tens column first, then the ones." but this is 8+5. You have to know that answer (and why not have it memorized?)

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.

No.
I add 8+5 to get 13 then add 20...

marcus says

Say you have to add 28 + 5, how do you do it ? Are you going to tell me that you don't "make 30" first, in you mind ? And then add 3 ?

BlueSardine says

No.
I add 8+5 to get 13 then add 20...

marcus says

Say you have to add 28 + 5, how do you do it ? Are you going to tell me that you don't "make 30" first, in you mind ? And then add 3 ?

What kind of tip would you leave on a $31 bill? See I add up to 30, then figure I missed something and just add something, like a 1. So, to me at least, the answer is 31. I'd generally leave a $7 tip on that bill. So we're talking $39 because I felt like a 1 was missing again.

Math sucks.

ItFNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Taken out of context, it seems bizarre, but the teacher surely explained the method to the kids in class, so the kids would have been able to figure out what it meant if they were paying attention.

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

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

I could see how less educated parents would be bewildered and indignant, and irritated that they cannot help their kids. But I don't agree with the conclusion that the lesson is bad.

I would say "Traditionally Educated Parents" which would be 100% of all parents since Common Core is brand new. And the vast, vast majority of Parents in the world, regardless of where they came from or were educated.

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.

Spiraling is a recognized way of teaching and valid. Saxon Math is known for this sprialing. His death in the late 90s was actually celebrated by the Educational Establishment.

However, this is not the way to approach this age group. We're adding multiple extra steps to addition.

The underlying Philosophy is correct: They are trying to push more "Mathematical" thinking.

BUT the target age they are pushing it with, very young kids, are way too young to employ abstract reasoning due to biological factors of development (and nothing to do with methods or approach or practice). It's much better that they memorize method than "think about it" because they are really too young to benefit from such an approach and it won't do them any good.

This is as close to a scientific fact as we can get with human learning, based on Piaget's research and repeatedly confirmed by neuroscience. Like the sarcasm/irony example I gave earlier.

Common Core Math should be trialed first, preferably at some selected rich suburban schools, for a good decade then imposed nationwide. Elites that think they have a great idea want to impose it first, dismiss detractors, and then 20 years later will claim that "There was no way to know this would have failed so badly." or "It's right, but teachers implemented it badly."

Also, why is a standard a method?

Can't we say stuff like "All kids, by 10th Grade should have passed elementary algebra and understand these specific things."

Why is a standard an approach? "You must not only teach X, but use method A." Why not use method A,B,C, whatever works for that kid/area/school?

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.