Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Education

Education Educational System Forum - For topics and discussions about the educational system


Thanks Tree40Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 5th, 2016, 09:37 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
As an ex-high school teacher and ex-college professor, I am anti-common core advocate. It's absurdity goes beyond all comprehension - and I believe is a high factor in the dwindling rate of achievement of American students. No country with high statistics for academic scores use common core as a teaching method.
TriStanRobin, I suppose the purpose of common core is to agree upon a common standard of minimum goals to be achieved by students of a common subject when they have been studying for the same duration of months or have passed through what we want to assume to be similar milestones within their studies of the subject.
Such common cores better enable us to compare the consequences of different teaching methods and the achievements of different school administrations.

In the case of the link Sabcat provided within this thread’s initial post, I agree with the premise that appreciating and understanding the logical reasoning underlying arithmetic is as important or possibly more important than the ability to arrive at the correct answers. The most elementary calculators can provide the correct arithmetic answers but they’re useless to those that do not understand why and how to employ them to solve real problems.

There’s much to be gained by the exchange and publishing different methods of teaching a subject and comparing the consequences of those methods.

Hopefully schoola' less qualified school administrators and their government overseers will be forced to face and explain their shortcomings to the voters and taxpayers.

It appears to me that you and I share serious doubts as to the value of enforcing standardized instruction methods, but that does not negate what I believe to be the value of a “common core” standard to measure students’ achievement with regard to the study of their subject.

Respectfully, Supposn

Last edited by Supposn; September 5th, 2016 at 09:39 AM.
Supposn is offline  
Old September 5th, 2016, 10:21 AM   #12
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
TriStanRobin, I suppose the purpose of common core is to agree upon a common standard of minimum goals to be achieved by students of a common subject when they have been studying for the same duration of months or have passed through what we want to assume to be similar milestones within their studies of the subject.
Such common cores better enable us to compare the consequences of different teaching methods and the achievements of different school administrations.

In the case of the link Sabcat provided within this thread’s initial post, I agree with the premise that appreciating and understanding the logical reasoning underlying arithmetic is as important or possibly more important than the ability to arrive at the correct answers. The most elementary calculators can provide the correct arithmetic answers but they’re useless to those that do not understand why and how to employ them to solve real problems.

There’s much to be gained by the exchange and publishing different methods of teaching a subject and comparing the consequences of those methods.

Hopefully schoola' less qualified school administrators and their government overseers will be forced to face and explain their shortcomings to the voters and taxpayers.

It appears to me that you and I share serious doubts as to the value of enforcing standardized instruction methods, but that does not negate what I believe to be the value of a “common core” standard to measure students’ achievement with regard to the study of their subject.

Respectfully, Supposn
When you have teachers that do not comprehend the value of abstract thinking this especially in mathematics is a very dangerous and regressive form of teaching. My kids ran into this in a very well respected district in the suburbs. The mechanics of this common core mathematics was the focus of class that it was a means to an end.
Sabcat is offline  
Old September 5th, 2016, 11:28 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
When you have teachers that do not comprehend the value of abstract thinking this especially in mathematics is a very dangerous and regressive form of teaching. My kids ran into this in a very well respected district in the suburbs. The mechanics of this common core mathematics was the focus of class that it was a means to an end.
Sabcat, I fully agree with this, (i.e the gist of your response) which in no manner contradicts what you’re responding to.

I suppose your reference to danger is not physical danger and in this case I prefer the word "poor" rather than "regressive". What precisely did you mean when you wrote "The mechanics of this common core mathematics was the focus of class that it was a means to an end"?

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old September 5th, 2016, 05:46 PM   #14
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Sabcat, I fully agree with this, (i.e the gist of your response) which in no manner contradicts what you’re responding to.

I suppose your reference to danger is not physical danger and in this case I prefer the word "poor" rather than "regressive". What precisely did you mean when you wrote "The mechanics of this common core mathematics was the focus of class that it was a means to an end"?

Respectfully, Supposn
take a minute if you like and read this over

How to Multiply Using the Line Method: 14 Steps

this was what they were teaching my kids not as an alternative or an additional system. they were replacing numbers. they had already learned basic mathematics at home. they understood the concept. this is why i used the word regressive.


Quote:
re·gres·sive (rĭ-grĕs′ĭv)
adj.
1. Tending to return or revert to a previous state.
2. Characterized by regression or a tendency to regress.
3. Relating to or being a tax that amounts to a higher percentage of income as income decreases or that places a proportionately higher burden on lower-income taxpayers.
4. Of or relating to geological regression.
Regressive - definition of regressive by The Free Dictionary

i understand the reasoning to attempt to help children grasp the concept of "numbers" but the goal of this exercise should be for the student to ultimately replace the "dots and lines" w/ numbers not to stunt the entire class by learning a foreign system. i had to learn this shit just to decipher their homework. ridiculous.

Quote:
The mechanics of this common core mathematics was the focus of class that NOT it was a means to an end.
i left out a word there, i hope that it makes more sense now. if not let me know.
Sabcat is offline  
Old September 5th, 2016, 09:53 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,025
Grade school teachers should only use add, subtract. multiply and divide using pencil and paper and the blackboard and chalk using rote to teach math. The young brain that is maturing gets the basics locked in that they never forget. Knowing basic math makes the move to high math an easy move with a tiny bit of tutoring.
Thanks from imaginethat
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old September 6th, 2016, 05:29 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
... i left out a word there, i hope that it makes more sense now. if not let me know.
Sabcat, your original sentence,
”The mechanics of this common core mathematics was the focus of class that it was a means to an end”
and your rewritten correction,
“The mechanics of this common core mathematics was the focus of class that NOT it was a means to an end”
are both unclear to me.

I’m supposing that if those sentences were read by many others, most would also find them to be unclear;(but my supposition could be wrong).

Do you mean the teaching method applied by this common core mathematics was to promote a political rather than a mathematical concept?

Do you consider that the common core is promoting a concept regarding different classifications of people?

Respectfully Supposn

Last edited by Supposn; September 6th, 2016 at 05:36 AM.
Supposn is offline  
Old September 6th, 2016, 07:46 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
we lived in the suburbs for a bit when my kids were little. a supposed "fantastic" school district. i had to relearn basic math to help them w/ their homework. both of my kids hated school then. we moved back to the city and enrolled them in montessori style school. they not only began to enjoy school but excel.
Sabcat, this is in regarding the link you provided,
http://www.wikihow.com/Multiply-Using-the-Line-Method and Some of MY OWN opinions regarding the instruction of children:


(1) After first introducing children to numbers using their fingers, we should continue with simple addition of numbers using their fingers. That’s the conventional method that most children are introduced to arithmetic and it works fine.

(2) I agree as the Wikipedia article explains that that children should be taught the concept of “place” position determining the value of each digit within a written number. But this segment of instruction should not begin until the children can write digits, and add single digit numbers using pencils and paper.
It should begin BEFORE the children begin doing subtraction. Due to an additional step being required subtraction of numbers when we subtract a larger digit subtrahend from a smaller digit minuend, the concept of each of a number’s digits’ incremental values being determined by its placement within the number should begin prior to teaching subtraction or any other arithmetic operation other than addition.

(3) Now we can introduce the concept of a few things or extremely large numbers of things. How many peas on your plate or on your spoon? How many grains of rice in your bowl or in the entire sack? How many grains of sand on the beach?

These three concepts should be THE very first mathematical concepts That should be taught.

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old September 6th, 2016, 08:26 AM   #18
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
As an ex-high school teacher and ex-college professor, I am anti-common core advocate. It's absurdity goes beyond all comprehension - and I believe is a high factor in the dwindling rate of achievement of American students. No country with high statistics for academic scores use common core as a teaching method.
I have been mulling for a few days about this post and addressing it. But at the risk of derailing the thread here goes. Perhaps a new thread would have been better, but Tris' post leads into my thoughts so well.

Tris, you said "No country with high statistics for academic scores use common core as a teaching method."

When I first ran into a controversy about common core I did some investigating. Common core is not a teaching method. Their official website specifically states that the system has no curriculum it advances, it has no mandated or even suggested text books. It is a set of expectations, a set of desired outcomes for children at certain stages of their education. They say that at the end of grade X, kids should know Z.

Other than teachers not wanting to be judged for competence, what's the problem?

Plus the organization makes it plain that they are looking more for relative improvement than for absolute results, so again what is the problem? If you are a decent teacher I think you should relish the chance to show it.
RNG is offline  
Old September 6th, 2016, 08:29 AM   #19
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Sabcat, your original sentence,
”The mechanics of this common core mathematics was the focus of class that it was a means to an end”
and your rewritten correction,
“The mechanics of this common core mathematics was the focus of class that NOT it was a means to an end”
are both unclear to me.

I’m supposing that if those sentences were read by many others, most would also find them to be unclear;(but my supposition could be wrong).

Do you mean the teaching method applied by this common core mathematics was to promote a political rather than a mathematical concept?

Do you consider that the common core is promoting a concept regarding different classifications of people?

Respectfully Supposn

as in learning the method of "dots and lines" was the goal of the classes not using the concept as a way to find the solution. the following year after i removed my kids from that school the "dots and lines" method was also presented along w/ other basic mathematical concepts. the teachers encouraged the children to move at their own pace and explore different methods. problem solving not regurgitation. this also was not limited to mathematics but was the general theme of the school.
Sabcat is offline  
Old September 6th, 2016, 09:14 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I have been mulling for a few days about this post and addressing it. But at the risk of derailing the thread here goes. Perhaps a new thread would have been better, but Tris' post leads into my thoughts so well.

Tris, you said "No country with high statistics for academic scores use common core as a teaching method."

When I first ran into a controversy about common core I did some investigating. Common core is not a teaching method. Their official website specifically states that the system has no curriculum it advances, it has no mandated or even suggested text books. It is a set of expectations, a set of desired outcomes for children at certain stages of their education. They say that at the end of grade X, kids should know Z.

Other than teachers not wanting to be judged for competence, what's the problem?

Plus the organization makes it plain that they are looking more for relative improvement than for absolute results, so again what is the problem? If you are a decent teacher I think you should relish the chance to show it.


Thank you, RNG. I was just about to jump in. Let's make sure we understand WHAT Common Core is. You are correct. Common Core are standards. They are benchmarks which indicate what students are expected to learn at each grade level. Common Core is NOT lesson plans. NOT curriculum. NOT a teaching method. Common Core standards were created for two areas: Math and English.
I can't stress this enough: While the standards set grade-specific goals, they do not define how the standards should be taught or which materials should be used to support students. So when parents blame Common Core for the weird Math or the goofy worksheets, they are not understanding the process. No Child Left Behind (GW Bush) was the precursor to Common Core.
Thanks from RNG
Clara007 is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Education

Tags
common, core, kids, react



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Common Core? roastpork Education 11 August 24th, 2015 11:26 AM
common core webguy4 Education 26 April 3rd, 2015 08:35 AM
Common core idiotic azchurchmouse Education 49 May 21st, 2014 08:49 AM
Common Core Explained (So, Even 'Baggers Understand) Medicine Man Current Events 10 April 23rd, 2014 10:08 AM
Another Shitcago Common Core graduate. pana8 Current Events 1 January 17th, 2014 05:21 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.