Can you guys simply explain what "Common...

Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread images: 7

Can you guys simply explain what "Common Core" is and why a lot of people are against that?

>>

>>6668744

Cause it's the next evolution of deathcore, which is the more awful successor of metalcore. They each become more awful than their predecessors

>>

>>6668752

If we're talking about music, it depends what you are calling deathcore. Bands like Emmure and I Declare War is shit, but bands like All Shall Perish and Whitechapel are really worth listening to. But still, what the fuck "Common Core" is?

>>

of all the things you could ask a science board..

>>

>>6668744

It's basically a new set of standards that are meant to introduce students to abstract thinking in mathematics sooner by teaching them a lot of different ways of doing things instead of just one way for each thing (like the older standards). People hate it because:

1) Parents don't know shit about math and are upset that things are different from how they were when they were children.

2) Teachers don't know shit about math and teach the new standards in their old backwards ways so parents blame the standard instead of the teacher.

3) /pol/esmokers don't understand mathematics and think it's a conspiracy theory.

Picture I was going to post was already posted by another anon in another common core thread here.

>>6663577

So instead here's a semi-related "engineers can't into math" picture.

>>

It's a more complicated and more time-consuming way to teach math. Its purpose is to drag down people who are good at math closer to the people who are bad at it.

>>

>>6668798

>It's a more complicated and more time-consuming way to teach math. Its purpose is to drag down people who are good at math closer to the people who are bad at it.

This is a perfect example of what people who don't know anything about mathematics actually think.

>>

It's yet another attempt to impose national standards on a country that reviles the concept. It might work in France, but not in Freedom.

>>

>>6668821

But why it shouldn't work in USA?

>>

>>6668820

But we need tiered education not common education. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't common core spend like 3 years on addition and subtraction? I remember in 3rd grade we spent 4 months doing multiplication, that was way too much time. Then we reviewed them in 4th and 5th grade for 2 months. Why? I could do multiplication in kindergarten.

Personally I'd like us to go in an integrated math direction, you can teach algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus I/II in 3 years instead of 5 if you combine them at good crossover points, my highschool did it. We had an AP Calc class for bureaucratic reasons, but a lot of people took the AP tests without taking the class and did just fine.

But yeah why is this thread in /sci/ everyday?

>>

>>6668858

Because now states can't make standardized testing easier to pump their numbers.

>>

>>6668864

>But we need tiered education not common education. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't common core spend like 3 years on addition and subtraction?

You are wrong.

I agree that an integrated math program might be better, or even just more abstract classes. However that also presents other problems since those topics would have to be retaught rigorously in a university setting anyways. I mean how many kids who've taken geometry in high school can talk to you about the axiomatic system they used and tell you whether or not it can prove pasch's axiom?, and that's considering that geometry is by far the easiest math course kids take in school.

>>

>american problems

>>

>>6668858

This >>6668873

The US has a lot of problems with the education system. Most of them are there for historical reasons. For example, the school you go to is completely dictated by the area you live in (unless you pay for a private school or get accepted into an alternative school). This naturally means that kids living in ghettos go to different schools than kids living in upper class areas. Sometimes kids will lie about where they live and use other people's addresses but in some schools they actually send out cops to check out the houses of "suspicious" kids (even going as far as checking their rooms to make sure they actually live there). Furthermore, the amount of funding a school gets is based entirely on how well their students do on the state's standardized testing. For this reason every school prioritizes standardized testing over everything else in many cases even having special class sessions dedicated to stuff like tricks and techniques for guessing the right answers on multiple choice tests. Overall the entire system that's meant to ensure schools produce capable students instead ends up perpetuating even more problems than the ones it's supposed to fix (and it doesn't even fix those, it makes them worse). The schools that aren't wealthy hate standardized testing for this reason, they constantly claim that standardized testing doesn't measure a student's actual ability because they don't want to issue the testing. Parent's can opt their kids out of the testing and some schools actively try to get dumb students to opt out in order to bump their average. Naturally whenever better standards start coming out all of these schools start shitting brix because they have no idea how they're going to cope.

(cont.)

>>

>>6668858

Federalism

>>

>>6668885

There are some suggested solutions. One I like involves getting rid of the address restrictions altogether. Letting students go to whichever school they want. Then distributing funding to the schools based on the number of students they have enrolled. The popular schools will get lots of funding and the unpopular schools will close down or have to change their ways. Of course, there are other risks associated with this and there may be ways in which it can be abused, I'm not denying that. Either way, this solution has had very little support in the US. Teacher's hate it, and they have a right to do so.

>>

>>6668744

Common Core doesn't solve the real problem, which is that public schools use a shitty educational philosophy in the first place. There are plenty of other options besides standardized testing, but that's pretty much the only philosophy used by public schools.

>>

>>6668899

Common Core doesn't try to solve that problem nor does it have anything to do with standardized testing. It only changes the pedagogical approach to mathematics. It's basically the "new math" of our generation.

>>

>>6668905

Can you give an example of typical teaching and Common Core teaching?

>>

>>6668905

>/pol/ is the new math

You convinced me. Burn it with fire.

>>

>>6668864

Common core teaches at similar rates as previous teaching methods. The milestones look about the same as when I was taught 20 years ago.

It looks like a good method to me overall. It gives a good foundation, you don't have to do the stupid number line hop shit later on in life, it just shows you visually what is happening at an early age.

Visual methods are useful later on, it's easier to remember something you can see rather than a formula. If you read Newton's, "PhilosophiĆ¦ Naturalis Principia Mathematica," it is almost entirely visual making it easy to understand.

I ended up learning visually on my own, it helped in my physics and engineering classes, especially with vectors.

>>

>>6668893

Couldn't the teachers just migrate to the better schools as well? Teaching shitty schools is why Teach for America exists, it sucks. The bad schools would have to shut down, because there aren't a lot of people who are willing to do good work at ~30 - 40k. Enter real diploma mills Walmart-esque style.

I think the best solution is pay teachers six figure salaries, fire all of them (to give the private sector workers a fair chance and weed out the "I didn't do well in any subject so I'm going to teach" people), pay for it by reducing the number of teachers and put the rest of the information online. Then going to school would actually mean something, as it did 50 - 80 years ago. No degree doesn't weed you out, you just have an "online" degree so everyone knows the tier of your education - which would be inline with the poverty of our educated students today.

>>

>>6668924

The problem is, common core is not about math.

>>

>>6668924

>Common core teaches at similar rates as previous teaching methods. The milestones look about the same as when I was taught 20 years ago.

Can't dispute this.

>It looks like a good method to me overall. It gives a good foundation, you don't have to do the stupid number line hop shit later on in life, it just shows you visually what is happening at an early age.

yes, but couldn't they just show a couple different methods and then let kid pick. Does it take 3 years to do this? I think not

>Visual methods are useful later on, it's easier to remember something you can see rather than a formula. If you read Newton's, "PhilosophiĆ¦ Naturalis Principia Mathematica," it is almost entirely visual making it easy to understand.

>I ended up learning visually on my own, it helped in my physics and engineering classes, especially with vectors.

sounds like you succeeded in spite of the american education system.

I'm not saying the methods are dumb or a waste of time. I'm saying that the curriculum proceeds at a snail's pace.

>>

>>6669090

Choices while learning something like math are not a good idea (at least that early on). A child can't make decisions about what method to use that early. You'll just confuse them if you cram too many different methods down their throats.

I wouldn't say I succeeded in spite of the American education system. I succeeded in part because of our education system.

Our system does NOT emphasize rote memorization. It emphasizes (or attempts to emphasize) independent thought and critical thinking skills. Those are extremely valuable to an engineer (my major). All of my teachers and later professors would get very frustrated if we tried to memorize solutions to various math or science problems. They wanted us to know how to solve problems, not just give answers.

I work with engineers from Asian countries. They're not very good at coming up with new solutions to new problems. They're very quick to solve problems they've experienced in the past, but give them something new, nothing happens...

They're not stupid either, just mentally crippled in a way that is very reminiscent of how elderly people think. I attribute this to mainly how their education system does not value thought, but instead memorization and test taking skills.

>>

>>6669090

I forgot to add; I don't have an issue with our system being slower than others. People are living longer and longer, there is plenty of time for education after high school.

It is not a tragedy if a potential STEM major never takes Calculus in high school, but instead takes it freshman/sophomore years of college.

>>

>>6669196

Let's just put EVERYTHING off until the last fucking year.

>>

>>6668744

A big problem with common core isn't the math section.

In English, when it comes to writing persuasive papers, Common Core teaches that the author should focus on emotional arguments, not facts.

They teach "Legal drinking age should be 21, because think of the children!" instead of "Legal drinking age should be 21, because these studies show doing so would decrease drunk-driving traffic fatalities by 15%"

It's like they're teaching kids to be SJW's.

>>

>>6669220

Let me add that I like the math Common Core, or at least the idea. I'm not so sure you need to or even should teach 5 ways to add two 2-digit numbers, but CC is pretty good once for middle-school and high-school.

>>

>>6668764

>but bands like All Shall Perish and Whitechapel are really worth listening to.

HAHAHAHANO.

Just listen to real death metal, faggot.

>>

>>6668821

France has much better and more varied mathematical education than the USA.

>>

Everything worthwhile in CC will be destroyed the first year by lawsuits against schools by the "muh chillen" parents.

>>

>>6669220

>In English, when it comes to writing persuasive papers, Common Core teaches that the author should focus on emotional arguments, not facts.

In most situations a well formed emotional argument is a lot more persuasive than fact. Seems like the common core is spot on in this case. Remember: the art of rhetoric is not about being right, but in convincing the audience that you are right.

>>

>>6669243

France has much better everything, because France does pretty much everything right. That doesn't change the fact that because of cultural and historical reasons it's a lot easier to impose an educational standard on France than it is on the US.

>>

>>6669248

French can't speak out against their tyrant iirc.

Also can't watch as many great American films

>>

>>6669247

i had a good look at CC and liberal worldview is forced beyond belief, it's much more than teaching kids to be good at rethoric. Also, it's a horrible and cynical thing to teach to children, if they want to become politicians, they will have to learn to lie and manipulate themselves.

How about teaching them factual and logical argumentation so they become immune to the "my feels" type of rethoric, rather than make it out to be the correct way to argue?

>>

>>6669262

It's not just politicians that need to know how to lie. It's a vital skill for anyone in a capitalist, democratic society. Not teaching children that only sets them up for failure. Look at /r9k/.

If you take issue with that, you're better off trying to change society than pretending it's something other than it is.

>>

Common Core is only standards. It's up to states/districts/schools to decide how to teach the standards.

>>

>>6668744

The reason why teachers hate common core is because of the impractical assessment procedures. Standardized testing is some horrible shit that doesn't work and now we have to 'teach to the test' to give the students a fighting chance. It's bullshit.

>>

>>6668933

How getting a teaching job usually works is that the more experienced master teachers get jobs in good districts. Everyone works their way up from small district and/or low funding schools.

>>

>>6668943

This.

Seriously guys, at least google it.

>>

>>6669276

might just as well teach kids how to work a calculator instead of all this "thinking" nonsense. After all, for everybody not doing a STEM degree, this would be far more effficient and useful in "real life".

What else? teach how to outright lie, backstab coworkers to better your position, sell a faulty product?

I like to think that education is more than a "trade school" for life and should teach you purely academic values. The rest is up to the parents.

>>

>>6669247

Teaching kids to embrace and engage in propaganda is a terrible terrible idea. We should be teaching kids to fact check and be able to spot and call out sophistry for what it is.

>>

>>6669361

this

>>

>>6668933

No, eventually the schools start running emergency campaigns where they train parents to start teaching classes immediately by attending nightschool on teaching. This is exactly what happened in Texas where they shit on teachers so much that all the good ones changed careers.

>>

>>6668943

>>6669302

It is about math and other things as well.

>>6668921

Typical mathematics approach:

>memorize the addition table

>memorize the subtraction table

>memorize the multiplication table

>memorize the division table

>memorize this algorithm for computing multiplication that only works with rational numbers, do not memorize any other algorithms or attempt to use any other methods because they are all wrong.

>Multiplication is just repeated addition.

>Memorize this division algorithm and only this division algorithm. All other algorithms are wrong.

>Division is an algorithm where you work multiplication in reverse by using multiplication and subtraction.

>Tons of busy work where the student has to do variations of the same question countless times.

Common Core Mathematics approach:

>Here are five different ways to visualize addition, show that you understand and can apply each. Some are only applicable in some cases.

>Here are five different ways to visualize subtraction, show that you understand and can apply each. Some are only applicable in some cases.

>Here are a bunch of different ways to visualize multiplication and a few more algorithms to compute it.

>Here are a bunch of different ways to visualize division and a few more algorithms to compute it.

>Here are a bunch of techniques and algorithms for computing each of these things alone and mixed together. Some of them are better in some cases. Some of them are more intuitive and easier to use even if they take a little longer.

>A bunch of weird exercises and questions where students are asked to show that they understand how each technique works.

Basically in common core math the idea is to give them a stronger intuition and better foundation for abstract thinking whereas typical math only cared about whether or not a student could spit out the right answers (it didn't matter if they understood what taking the inverse meant or anything as long as they memorized all the right steps).

>>

>>6669220

lol, I've seen the propaganda you're talking about. That's not what it's saying. It actually gives students a bunch of sentences and teaches them to identify emotional arguments. Part of the learning process is giving them normal arguments and asking them how they would turn them into emotional arguments. It's important for kids to be able to smell bullshit a mile away, especially when you've got so many commentary shows disguising themselves as news shows on television.

I'm convinced that the only reason /pol/ is so butthurt about this is because it means the next generation won't be susceptible to asshats like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck who can't fact check themselves out of a paper bag.

>>

>>6669433

"Muh kid still failed at maths."

>School gets sued.

>Probably for racism.

The only thing left in the CC curriculum in two years will be transgender hashtags for genderqueer parents and political propaganda.

You can bet money on it.

>>

>>6669226

>Let me add that I like the math Common Core, or at least the idea. I'm not so sure you need to or even should teach 5 ways to add two 2-digit numbers, but CC is pretty good once for middle-school and high-school.

Having more examples means that people can come up with new and novel ways to solve problems on the fly. I mean how many normal people can compute an 18% tip on a random bill? How many people will figure out on the fly that it's just 20% - 2% which can both be computed very quickly by moving the decimal digit around on the original bill and doubling. Worse still, how many people fail out of calculus because they fuck up with basic algebra? How many people in pure mathematics don't know how to compute simple arithmetic with big numbers? Even basic shit like 83^2 (protip: it's just [80+3]^2).

CC is meant to give kids the tools so that they can understand and come up with their own approaches to problems.

>>

>>6669446

>maths

>Britbong having an opinion on common core.

All of my lol.

Only autismfags and rote-learningfags are weeded out by CC because they can't into novel thinking.

>>

>>6669443

>/pol/ is so butthurt

Not really. /sci/ is actually much more concerned than /pol/.

>>

>>6669472

Actually /sci/ only get's stray /pol/esmokers wandering in and asking what /sci/ thinks because /pol/ says it's bad.

/pol/ threads about common core have been linked in these threads and it's always full of hilarious tinfoil hat shit posted by people who obviously didn't finish highschool.

>>

>>6669463

Sorry, I was being illiterate, not British.

>>

>>6669463

I'm actually American.

I am also a civil law attorney.

I'm actually making income predictions for the next 5 years based on the inherit racism of the "common core" teaching methods, and I am not the only shark in the waters that smells blood.

I guarantee the only thing left in the CC method in 2 years will be for homosexual acceptance propaganda.

>>

>>6669476

>Only link to another common core thread here is to another /sci/ thread

>No links to /pol/ there either

>Been browsing /pol/ pretty heavily for the past few weeks and haven't seen shit

I'm not denying that /pol/ is full of crazy people or that most of them would be against CC, but it's really not a huge issue over there.

Also

>>6669443

>People only disagree with me because they hate logic and don't want anyone else to think

This is autism of the highest degree.

>>

>>6669487

lol, how embarrassing for you.

>>

>>6668798

>It's a more complicated

No, it's more or less the same thing they've being doing 20 years ago.

>more time-consuming way to teach math

Compared to the old way of "Here's a 100 problems, you have 90 seconds starting NOW" drills done every week for several years? It's the same old pathetically slow curriculum but now with some added variety to the problem sets.

>Its purpose is to drag down people who are good at math closer to the people who are bad at it.

They've been doing that since before anyone of us were even born. Schools \bf{will ~ not} spend any extra time or effort on students that are good at math. They are judged solely on the performance of stupid students not how well strong students are able to excel.

>>6668864

>But we need tiered education not common education.

This. But for schools to even care, we need to scale standardized tests of accelerated kids so schools see a benefit for having them. Something like +20% for every grade level above their current one would motivate schools to stop providing only remedial education and aim to have 1/3 of it's students in a fast lane.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't common core spend like 3 years on addition and subtraction? I remember in 3rd grade we spent 4 months doing multiplication, that was way too much time. Then we reviewed them in 4th and 5th grade for 2 months. Why? I could do multiplication in kindergarten.

I had the same experience.

>>

i dont give a fuck about the common core debate but god damn i love that album. good choice OP

>>

>>6669498

I'll be crying and bemoaning my misfortune all the way to my increased secured trust funds and associated financial portfolios.

>>

>>6669497

>I'm not denying that /pol/ is full of crazy people or that most of them would be against CC, but it's really not a huge issue over there.

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/common%20core/

>Searching for posts that contain ācommon coreā. 2318 results found.

http://archive.foolz.us/sci/search/text/common%20core/

>Searching for posts that contain ācommon coreā. 329 results found.

You sir are and idiot.

>>

>>6669531

Get a load of this guy.

>>

>>6668744

Look, education is geared to the bottom not the top. America has abysmal education, so every few years we have to pretend we are going to improve it. A couple number lines later, and everyone has forgotten that the Jews control everything.

Silly goyim, if you want to get gud at math, travel back in time and go to a soviet bloc country

>>

>>6668744

No idea what common core is all about, but OP is a faggot for liking wintersun

/out

>>

>>6669588

>/sci/: recently got to 6 million posts, gentrified board several years old; close to a decade

>/pol/: new rebuilt ass-end of the internet containment board with 33 million posts

>>

>>6668794

>introduce students to abstract thinking in mathematics sooner

Nope. Algebra I is still only in the 8th grade for the best of students and 9th otherwise. Nothing at all is done at all sooner, just reordered at best.

>by teaching them a lot of different ways of doing things instead of just one way for each thing (like the older standards).

Nope. They are just spending more time on picturing the same textbook method instead of doing actual alternative methods like repeated doubling and complements. Picturing is fine and all but don't pretend like this is somehow new.

>different from how they were when they were children.

Actually it's not different but they never really had problem sets on picturing before.

>Teachers don't know shit about math and teach the new standards in their old backwards ways

[citation needed]

>think it's a conspiracy theory

To further prevent the bar from going up, yes.

>>

>>6669190

>You'll just confuse them

Which is why you can only feed your children gruel as choices of various foods will only confuse then on what's editable.

>>

Here's a great article on the problems surrounding both traditional and common core education:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

>>

>>6669458

>83^2 (protip: it's just [80+3]^2).

How is that at all different than textbook multiplication?

>>

>>6670153

It isn't.

Probably was thing something along the lines of 1997^2 = (2000-3)^2=4000009-12000=3988009

>>

>>6669458

>protip: it's just [80+3]^2

I'm not quite certain why that fact would help me find the answer.

>>

>>6670164

Because if you distribute each individual multiplication is quite easy.

>>

>>6670159

>thing

*thinking

>>

>>6670112

I'm sorry but you are an idiot.

Giving a child choices that early on is wrong. You have to have a foundation before you can start making choices.

It is as bad as teaching intelligent design along side evolution in classrooms and letting kids "debate" the theories. How can a child debate a theory when he is just starting to learn the basics of science and biology.

You bring up food, you obviously have never raised or spent time with children. Give them choices in food, they'll never eat healthy...

>>

>>6670164

80*80+2*80*3+9 is doable in most people's heads.

83*83 is harder to do in your head.

>>

>>6670199

>Give them choices in food, they'll never eat healthy

When they're like three. By 7, they should be able to make their own choices in what they want to eat.

>Giving a child choices that early on is wrong. You have to have a foundation before you can start making choices.

Except the choices are methods they come up with/discover on their own and like better. There is no need to ban them from using them.

>>

>>6670203

It's clear you don't remember your childhood, and don't spend any time with kids below age 10.

>>

>>6670153

You use the distributive property.

(a + b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2

>>

>>6669190

>Our system does NOT emphasize rote memorization.

Maybe we've simply had different experiences, my experience has always been the 3 R's, read, recite, regurgitate.

>>

>>6670199

except common core gives students choices on how to add.

>>

>>6670199

>There are people this dumb on /sci/ right now.

>>

not going to grad sc
2014-07-29 10:20:25
Post No.6670558

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

>>6669361

Wow, so based. Down with the Sophists!

>>

>>6669361

Teaching kids to engage in propaganda is the best way to teach them to recognize it and thus be immune to it.

>>

>>6670561

Haha yeah no. You learn to defend yourself from propaganda by doing propaganda? Are you from the 12th fucking century or something? Did you learn fire was hot because you burny boo boo your finger too?

>>

>>6670741

>You learn to recognize propaganda techniques by writing propaganda.

Is analogous to

>You learn to recognize proof techniques by writing proofs.

No matter how I look at it, your analogy makes no sense.

>>

>>6670749

Except that propaganda is in no way similar to proof techniques. Propaganda has pretty obvious connotations towards deception and generally less than honorable intentions. So learning to do propaganda so that you can recognize and defend yourself against it is at best a illogical, self perpetuating and selfish practice, at worst you are the sum of this propaganda. Critical thinking dude... you dont have it. If you need to spew propaganda to know what it is you have missed the train and are now a tagged sheep. Maybe we should teach kids to be racist so they recognize it and are thus immune to it lol. Dumb... ass...

>>

>>6670806

lol get a load of this guy.

>less than honorable intentions abloo bloo bloo

I suppose you think people shouldn't learn to fight either so that they can learn to defend themselves.

>>

>>6670815

Haha way to line up that shot shakeal.

>>

>>6670749

>You learn to recognize propaganda techniques by believing in propaganda.

Is analogous to

>You learn not to do drugs by taking ecstasy, lsd, and meth.

>>

>>6670822

>get's called a pussy.

>calls them a jew.

nice comeback, /pol/esmoker

>>

>>6670855

Creating propaganda isn't the same thing as consuming propaganda.

That's more like.

>You learn to recognize drug users by dealing drugs.

>>

>>6670855

>You learn not to do drugs by

Also, that kind of thinking creates the WORST junkies. S.A.D.D. kids lose their licenses faster than any other statistical grouping.

>>

>>6670131

>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

Thanks for the link

>>

>>6670867

That article has no idea what it's talking about, but since you're all about links here's a video that talks about abstraction and why the old-fashioned ways of teaching things are bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI

>>

>>6670203

What they WANT to eat is not what's GOOD for them to e at. When I was 7 years old I wanted to eat pocket lint.

>>

>>6670910

>When I was 7 years old I wanted to eat pocket lint.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa

7 years old is pretty big, you are a fucking halfwit.

>>

It's just a new set of standards that encompasses the entire us, replacing individual state standards.

Most people are up in arms about it because of those pictures of the weird "number sense" problems, which aren't part of the standard at all, the common core does not say HOW this should all be taught, just what the students are expected to know by the end of it.

>>

>>6670895

It's talking about why reforms fail because teachers don't understand them nor the underlining material they are supposed to teach, textbooks stay the same but now with a shiny new "Common Core Edition" label, and there is no training of teachers with feedback on their method by professionals after you get a teaching degree. It's long but good.

>>

>>6670131

>Here's a great article on the problems

The comments are also pretty telling of why American education is in such disrepair

>Judy Bala Cynwyd, PA 6 days ago

Outside the US, teaching is a highly respected profession. Teachers receive good salaries and high social status. Therefore, admission into teacher training programs is highly competitive and successful candidates are smart, motivated, and have good foundational knowledge. In the US, teachers come from the bottom 10% of college graduating classes. Those incoming teachers are weak in fundamental knowledge, motivation, and inherent capabilities. In one teacher education class I taught at Hunter College, none of the 21 students knew who Abraham Lincoln was, and they were college sophomores and juniors. We must begin by attracting intelligent, motivated, ambitious people to teaching by making it attractive. Competitive salaries and ongoing support and training for teachers, like that described in the article, can transform our schools from their dreary present reality into America's real hope for the future.

>Siobhan is a trusted commenter New York 6 days ago

It seems like math is not the only thing we're failing to teach. How can a kid graduate from high school in the US and not know who Abraham Lincoln is? Even worse, how can 21 of them? And worst yet, why did they all decide to become teachers?

>Andres Florida 6 days ago

I think the reason is simple and it can be found in a societal aspect; Americans like instant gratification. Mathematics is a long process and it takes patience and a lot of work to obtain a result.

If I put this into a social aspect, for example, many Americans don't think about retirement up until they're in their 40s. They instead use that money on houses they can't afford or cars because that's what they want now ( instant gratification) and later start thinking of perhaps putting money aside for when they're old. I think it's all related.

>>

>>6671631

And this comment in particular speaks the absolute truth

>vbering Pullman, wa 6 days ago

My son, not a genius, is going into 7th grade and knows elementary linear algebra and differential calculus fairly well. His last 2 years in the Pullman schools, some of the best in the state of WA, have been a complete waste of time so I tutor him.

When he was younger, he spent hours per week learning the basic algorithms of arithmetic until he know that automatically Now he has to explain the whys of how things work. Sometimes he gets it immediately but most of the time it takes days and I don't help him much. We move on to something easier while he's thinking about sines, cosines, vectors and instantaneous velocity.

The public schools are basically a waste. You have to tutor your kids or hire someone to tutor. Otherwise there is no hope for average kids.

>>

A few months ago, I was flipping through a required book on elementary school math education for future educators (with a shiny large "conforming to the new common core standard" label) out of random curiosity. At the end of it, there was a chapter on 'gifted and doubly gifted students' which spent all of a half a page arguing that gifted students can take care of themselves and can be safely ignored by teachers. In order for them to satisfy their desire for more mathematics, they need to find a tutor or mentor out of school to learn from on their own time. The rest of the 30 pages were dedicated to gifted students with some sort of communication problem that would cause them to fail called "twice exceptional" students.

The only hope for kids to learn is really to find someone to guide them outside of school. Even the best schools of the wealthiest areas have next to no interest in a kid once they meet the requirements of their grade level. Anything else is wasted effort in their eyes. Most kids just don't have someone that can mentor them and they don't learn to their potential.

>>

>>6668744

The college's way of milking the fuck out of your pockets by insuring you take classes that are completely unnecessary.

Art Appreciation is a fucking joke, but I'm taking it for an elective next semester

>>

>>6668744

From what I've seen it's a bunch of bullshit that only makes things more complicated than what they need to be. The 4 simple operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) should be just that, simple. Drawing number lines and arbitrary bullshit is totally unnecessary. The only thing they SHOULD be teaching are visual/geometrical representations of mathematical concepts during lectures (NOT pic related). Then explain WHY the SIMPLE methods we have been using to perform simple calculations for a fucking long ass time just WORK. Have the kids explain the concepts visually/geometrically at the beginning of a test to test their understanding and continue with actual problems involving calculations (but not like the stupid shit in pic related).

>inb4 you just don't understand/you don't know math well enough, bla bla bla etc.

I'm a 3rd year engineering student with a solid background in math, but you don't even have to be to realize that FORCING THE ENTIRE COUNTRY to adopt this fucking retarded ass method of teaching math is a terrible idea. Maybe some fucktard school district in the middle of bumfuck New York would want to adopt such a thing, but keep that cancer contained in YOUR schools and stay the fuck away from ours.

Keep

It

Simple

Stupid

>>

>>6672045

It is simpler once you grasp what it's doing, stupid.

>>

>>6672045

That picture is how I add or multiply when I'm being lazy. It's not as straightforward as the 'normal' way, but it still works.

>>

>>6672060

>simpler

No, THIS is simpler.

>>

>>6672060

nice argument stupid

>>

>>6672066

They teach this in common core too. Even on whiteboards.

Parents get really mad about it because they say it takes too long for kids to add numbers using these blocks. You can find youtube videos where they have the kids "do it like they taught you in school" and laugh at how long it takes.

>>

>>6672064

I ended up figuring out the best way was to add the most significant digits first. It's simpler to keep track of numbers since you're minimizing the number of operations.

>>

>>6672073

link related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EL5zuUvfcs

>>

>>6672064

Me too. It just looks more complicated at first glance when you write it down. The goal in teaching this method is in giving kids more tools in the way they "think" about addition. It's not so that when they grow up they'll sit down and write out their addition problems this way.

>>

>>6672045

>but not like the stupid shit in pic related

But that is just textbook addition spelled out. Order is a little weird (you add the carry immediately) but it's exactly the same algorithm.

>The only thing they SHOULD be teaching are visual/geometrical representations of mathematical concepts during lectures

Seeing and not doing is a poor way of learning. Doing a few practice examples is a good way of testing your own understanding and this applies for all mathematics from grade school to graduate school.

>>

>why are a lot of people against it

Kneejerk anti-federal obstructionism.

>>

>>6672349

>Seeing and not doing is a poor way of learning

He never said to see and not do.

Thread images: 7

Thread DB ID: 6925

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's