4690
4691

Math question (i.imgur.com)

wosh2016 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]black_flag_4ever 438ポイント439ポイント  (384子コメント)

This must be that common core stuff I keep hearing about.

[–]whiskey4breakfast 94ポイント95ポイント  (377子コメント)

Why do people hate common core so much?

[–]Talks_To_Cats 506ポイント507ポイント  (141子コメント)

It's great at a foundation level to ensure students are all learning the same basic content. But there are a few problems:

  1. Many times, a child can get the correct answer using the "old methods" and be told they're wrong. Their process is not common-core approved, and therefore it's no longer about mastering the concept, it's about mastering the teaching method. This is a problem, because it teaches children that independant thinking and different learning styles are wrong. Critical thinking skills needs to be praised, not discouraged.

  2. What happens when you want to help your kid with their homework, or teach them a new concept early (say, Multiplication in first grade)? How do you do it without confusing them? How do you tie it in to what they've already learned?

  3. Common core is meant to learn the concepts. It cannot be used to master the concepts. Old fashioned methods, such as memorizing your multiplication tables, can be used through Calculus. Common Core cannot. So you have to teach them twice anyway. The emphasis on mastering concepts that do not translate to higher-level fields of study is a bit silly to me.

Even further, and related to the three above issues, it's a terrible addition to the problem of "No child left behind." It forces students to slow down and not learn ahead. This is fantastic for your slower or even average students. This seriously cripples advanced students because it holds them back until the slower ones can catch up. It pushes smarter children into private schools, because the public system won't support them properly.

Common core is great on paper, but until the government acknowledges that children are individuals that learn in different ways and at different speeds, instead of little carbon clone children, it will continue to be a problem in practice.

[–]CBarberena 66ポイント67ポイント  (41子コメント)

Just want to point out that public schools can have advanced courses. In my district we offer Algebra at sixth grade, currently the furthest in math we offer is BC Calculus (other than something called further math but I have no idea where that falls also stats but that's like is own branch), and next year they are planning a multivariable course. Most districts are NOT as lucky as mine, but that doesn't mean all students are doomed.

[–]Elaw20 17ポイント18ポイント  (34子コメント)

Just out of curiosity is your school predominately middle-upper class and white? Because thats what a major complaint is. Sure some schools get it right and have higher learning options and tracks. But you have to be white and well off to get those benefits. How is that fixed? Million dollar question.

[–]Dent18 93ポイント94ポイント  (6子コメント)

I don't think you have to be white, just well off.

[–]TheOldDrake 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

And more well-off neighborhoods tend to be more white. So, proportionally, white people get more of the benefits.

[–]TroubadorialTendency 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, it's not that simple...

Look up the history of red lining maps in the U.S.. Basically, after the depression, the U.S. set up a loan program that lent money to first time homebuyers. In order to guarantee returns on those investments, cities institutionalized the practice of characterizing neighborhoods as safe or unsafe explicitly correlated to the amount of colored people living there at the time. These red-lining maps exist in most major cities of the United States and you can look them up for your own. These efforts by insurance companies were so successful at creating patterns of divestment based on racial geographies that most of the historically black neighborhoods in most major cities are correlated to the poorest neighborhoods explicitly as a product of their racial demographics.

[–]SandvichDISH 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

That doesn't go against what he said though, you just need to be well off. Whiteness isn't a requirement for the school, but being white might well make it easier to be well off.

[–]Wheat444 56ポイント57ポイント  (7子コメント)

I think you are rather needlessly bringing race into this. For instance lots of heavily Asian schools have higher learning options and college prep courses.

It's really more of a matter of people of similarly high wealth and social status living together and having better schools, not about nice schools denying people who aren't white and rich.

[–]rehtlaw 23ポイント24ポイント  (6子コメント)

When I was in fourth grade, my parents moved to a town that had one of the highest MCAS scores in Massachusetts. They moved just so that I could enter that school system. It's a small town (less than 25,000 people) and a median family income of over $150,000. Most of the houses there (the good ones) start at around $400,000 and go upwards of a million. We only managed to live there because we lived in an apartment that was still over $1,000 a month. For a lot of people, living someplace like that is simply impossible. The town is mostly white and Asian (East Asian and Indian); people who have the highest income rates in America. There were no Hispanic people in my grade and I can literally count on one hand the number of black people in total that went to my high school the four years I was there.

After going to college, I realized just how much my high school was ahead of other schools and how much it prepared me for college. There was a heavy focus on STEM and the majority of my friends (mostly Asian) chose to major in a STEM-related field in college. My high school also had a very competitive atmosphere. I'm terrible at math and science and it always frustrated me that so many of my friends were good at it. One of my friends legit complained to me about getting a 97 on her math exam.

[–][deleted] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's the same in England, except the house prices are roughly £600K and it saves the £12k/year/child in school fees.

[–]shdarren 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Acton? Or Carlisle?

コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

    [–]nuclearfuture 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

    My high school district (I graduated 3 years ago) is predominantly Latino and lower-class. They offer up to BC Calc and up to Cal 3 in the duel enrollment program, a STEM Early college as well as two other early colleges, and a great fine arts program.

    [–]2k16throwaway 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

    My high school had Algebra in 7th, Geometry 8th, Algebra 2 9th, Precal 10th, Calc AB 11th, and Calc BC 12th.

    It's a poor school with the demographics almost all black or hispanic.

    [–]DateATouhou 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I went to an elementary and intermediate school full of Mexicans and Vietnamese in a not-so-rich area. My elementary offered Algebra to those who were smart enough. We self-learned while the teacher taught the rest of the class.

    I ended up taking the same math classes as my sister, who is a year older, all the way until 10th grade Pre-Calc. After that was AP Statistics for me, but others went to Calc AB and then Calc BC in senior year.

    [–]FF3LockeZ 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Maybe if we can at least get the middle-upper class white kids to be smart, in twenty years they can solve the problem for us?

    [–]pokedrawer 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Isn't it pretty common that the top 1% looks out for themselves?

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]ginsunuva 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Lol the wealthy Whites have nothing on the Chinese and Indian high schools.

      [–]BuyMeAWP 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Stuyvesant is mostly Asian and offers like 3 (maybe more? I can think of 3 at the top of my head) post-calculus courses.

      [–]furfette 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I think race and class does not even factor in to the availability of advanced courses in most cases. My school is predominantly not white (its split relatively evenly between black, hispanic, and white) and is even considered to be one of the most diverse high schools. The highest math course we offer is Differential Equations. I think that course availability is more based on school size or student interest then anything.

      [–]Goblin0116 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Probably a bad comparison gere, but my fancy new england prep school had quite a good diversity and had sophmores in AP BC calc and one in multi, with linear algebra and number theory offered above that.

      [–]jmerc83 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      My local school is predominantly n Hispanic, lower class, and they offer the full gambit I'd AP courses and the classes leading up to them.

      コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

        [–]omejia 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Six grade, algebra? That is more like 4th grade, correct?

        [–]edoohan619 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        We have further maths in the UK for A levels and I'm not sure if it's the same as the US version, but it's basically halfway between A level and first year level maths. The AS isn't more difficult than AS maths, it's just different, but the A2 is a good step up. The M3 mechanics module in it is the worst though. Just a bitch.

        [–]Kenblu24 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Yep. My school has BC, Multivar + Discrete or Matrix Algebra. I don't think all of those classes get filled though.

        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

          [–]victorian_flower 41ポイント42ポイント  (8子コメント)

          I feel like a lot of the flaws you listed are flaws of the 'old method' too.

          The 'old method' causes students that do well in mathematics to slow down just as much. It also encourages 'little carbon clone children' just as much.

          Common core is also specifically designed to help learn the concepts. Most people in their day-to-day lives need to do basic mental arithmetic, and common core is more efficient at that sort of thing. Yes, those people taking calculus will likely want to have their tables memorized, but then, those taking calculus are good at math anyway, and won't have a problem with it.

          Critical thinking skills are certainly not praised under the old system. It's just rote memorization and inefficient algorithms, that's all...in fact, I would say common core encourages critical thinking more than merely making tables, and doing column arithmetic.

          I'm a mathematics professor, and I really like the idea of common core. It's how I do math (although I didn't learn it that way), and how I wish my students would do math. Yes, it'll take a generation or two to really phase it in well, but it's ultimately better than the alternative.

          [–]mike_311 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I agree. I like that my kids are "understanding" math instead of just doing it like me. I learned by doing. Now after college calc. Diff eq, engineering course upon engineering course I finally understood what I was doing and why. I wish I had understood it before. It would have made things easier.

          [–]ifarmpandas 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Yes, those people taking calculus will likely want to have their tables memorized

          Why? All the intro calc classes I've seen allow a calculator, and you can always just leave it in the form x*y.

          コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

            [–]animebop 47ポイント48ポイント  (8子コメント)

            Many times, a child can get the correct answer using the "old methods" and be told they're wrong. Their process is not common-core approved, and therefore it's no longer about mastering the concept, it's about mastering the teaching method. This is a problem, because it teaches children that independant thinking and different learning styles are wrong. Critical thinking skills needs to be praised, not discouraged.

            Even the old method required you to use certain methods on certain problems. #1 isn't about common core at all. This is doubly baffling since in #3, you say common core is about learning concepts and not just brute force methods. Which is it: common core is about methods and ignores concepts, or common core is about concepts and not methods?

            3. How is memorizing 6x4 "mastering" multiplication? This is nonsense. It's also something that just happens as you do multiplication anyways, even without an emphasis. Higher math subjects are incredibly abstract, and learning concepts is much more helpful than just rote memorization.

            [–]abcam 14ポイント15ポイント  (7子コメント)

            You need both. Knowing your times tables is incredibly useful in adult life. The difficulty is not everyone is going to be capable of doing that.

            [–]QuantumField 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

            Common core doesn't mean they won't know their times tables

            this is a method they've used for ages in Europe and Asia and they know their times tables

            [–]Potato_Mc_Whiskey 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

            We don't use common core in Europe. Europe is like 30+ countries with independant governments and 800 million people , not a town down the street.

            [–]jmerc83 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Hate to scare you.. But many adults can't multiply because they've forgotten the tables.

            [–]Wolog2 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Many kids memorize the multiplication table before they ever learn how to multiply, or what multiplication really is.

            The best way to learn is by doing repeatedly, but if kids are just recalling from a table they aren't practicing multiplication they're practicing recalling things from a table.

            Don't teach them to memorize the answers, teach them to do it themselves and have them do it so frequently that the memorization is incidental.

            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

              [–]staticraven 27ポイント28ポイント  (14子コメント)

              I appreciate you laying things out the way you did, but I disagree.

              1. The old method of teaching did this same thing. If you didn't arrive at the conclusions the way you were instructed, you got marked down. I agree that critical thinking skills need to be praised, but what you're describing isn't a problem with Common Core, that problem existed well before Common Core.

              2. I have a son who's 15. He grew up through a lot of this Common Core stuff so I have direct (if anecdotal) experience with this. You explain Common Core concepts, at least the math ones he brought home, by explaining how you would do the problem in your head if you broke that process down step-by-step.

              3. The multiplication tables are memorization. They are not a learned "process" or anything else. Comparing them to Common Core is comparing apples to oranges. The bulk of math done by adults nowadays can be done in their head (that's the process that Common Core is trying to impart - or at least that's what I've seen about Common Core) or done with a calculator. I don't understand what you mean in that common core can't be used for certain things. Common Core is different way of arriving at the same solution. If you have to do long division, you can do it the old fashioned way, or you can do what we really do as adults - We round numbers into easily divisible numbers, calculate based off those, then figure out the smaller numbers (100's, 10's, 1's, etc...) - That's the Common Core way. That's applicable in ANY situation. It also doesn't preclude memorizing the multiplication table. After all, that's not teaching, it's just memorization. But why waste the time? We don't need to memorize the multiplication tables, we just need to know how to multiply the numbers together. Can one not figure out 6x6 near instantly without memorizing a table?

              [–]abcam 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

              The real reason to learn the multiplication tables is to be able to do rough division in your head. While there are easy shortcuts to multiplication in your head (e.g. using the nearest 5 or 10), knowing the times tables lets you see instantly that e.g. 70 divided 12 ways will be just under 6. If there is a shortcut to that not involving knowing times tables I'd like to know it.

              [–]el_padlina 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

              I think the problem is that in both cases the teachers would use a "template" to judge the solution, meaning you had to fit in it exactly.

              When I learned maths I was allowed to arrive to the solution in any way I wanted as long as the method was correct mathematically and I could show the crucial steps of my solution on paper. Meant more work for the teacher when grading it but also it was easier to catch cheaters.

              Unfortunately lately my country tries to go the USA way when it comes to education and it mostly takes the bad part from it instead of the good one.

              [–]jmerc83 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              I agree with you on everything 6x6.

              There is no shortcut to figuring out 6x6 except repeated addition. The best speedup I can come up with is non generic version of grouping:

              6x6=6+6+6+6+6+6 =6+6 + 6+6 + 6+6=12+12+12=24+12=36

              Still, nowhere choose to the speed of memorization.

              コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                [–]bobotheking 34ポイント35ポイント  (7子コメント)

                I downvoted you because you seem to have no idea what Common Core State Standards refer to. This is an endemic problem, so you're not alone, but it's nevertheless insidious to tell people that Common Core pushes particular methods.

                I'm going to link you to the CCSS PDF file and I'd like you to take 15 to 20 minutes out of your day to read through a few sections that you're concerned about and tell me where you see things that refer to "new methods" vs. "old methods", how it interferes with helping your child through homework, and how it impedes efforts to master concepts. Please list the page and/or section numbers where you have your greatest gripes.

                Lest you think I'm some Common Core cheerleader, I have my own gripes with it, particularly with its inclusion of certain topics at the high school level. Complex numbers, polynomial division, and graphical methods for solving problems to name a few examples are useful in math and sciences but 99% of students will never use them again. (I happen to belong to the other camp and as a physicist, I use "weird" math topics all the time.) This is completely out of line with your objections. I also think that Common Core tends to be implemented very bureaucratically. I've worked in high school-level education and my girlfriend was a teacher briefly and we both were required to rigidly state what Common Core standards were tested with every single assigned problem. That's an issue at the school, district, and state level, not with Common Core itself.

                What Common Core does not fix (nor does it attempt to fix) is bad teaching. Shitty teachers have been around since time immemorial. You know those viral images that show that a kid didn't multiply the right way or used the wrong estimation or whatever and the teacher marked them down? That has nothing to do with Common Core, they were just a shitty teacher. And admit it, all you Common Core haters know it's true; we all grew up before Common Core was a thing and we all had that one (or those several) anal teacher who insisted on doing everything their way and marked us down for petty reasons. If you read the PDF I linked to, nowhere in it will you see anything that encourages that kind of behavior, but guess what? Some people are dicks. Always have been and always will be.

                [–]cottonycloud 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

                I haven't read the new or old standards, but I recall that complex arithmetic, polynomial division, and such graphical methods have been present before Common Core.

                [–]bobotheking 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

                That is correct. I should have been more clear that Common Core is a continuation of that "problem" (if you see it as such) rather than having introduced it.

                And to re-emphasize, I actually like most of the side topics in math. I just have a problem with implying to students that if, for example, they can't wrap their heads around the idea that negative numbers can have square roots, they must be dumb and are somehow deficient at math. I'd argue that all math past algebra is "just for fun" (unless you're on a STEM track) and teachers should be given a little bit of freedom to teach what interests them, perhaps even dropping certain topics if they aren't going to particularly enrich students' education.

                But again, that's not a problem with Common Core itself, only its implementation.

                [–]SigmaB 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I have a fear that a lot of students that choose to go into a mathematics degree won't if they aren't exposed to the more exiting parts of mathematics pre-college.

                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                  [–]Randy__Bobandy 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Agreed. I am a part time tutor and for a while I was teaching according to the CC curriculum. The standards only say that you should teach the kid this lesson at this grade, no more.

                  I have positive and negative feelings about CC in general. I have a coworker whose kid sometimes struggles in math because they're trying to foist conceptual understanding into the brains of children when they may not be able to understand it, regardless of how hard you try.

                  But like you said, it's the teaching that is usually the shitty part. I've seen some of my student's worksheets with some of the most confusing wording I've ever seen. I also had to have one of my students explain to me how his teacher taught things like "I have 3 friends, each friend was 4 shirts, how many shirts in total?" because they way she taught it was so confusing. I soon won him over with a much simpler method.

                  [–]LuisN 21ポイント22ポイント  (5子コメント)

                  It is more efficient to relegate common core logic to your head than it is to memorize tables. It also helps teachers understand where students are going wrong.

                  There is no way to implement a comprehensive system that gets everyone to a relatively similar education levels by implementing dynamic, abstract, and creative learning methods. The "local solution" approach has not worked when we let the states decide their own standards.

                  And from what we've seen in Kentucky, common core works

                  The percentage of students who needed remedial courses in math has dropped by 38 percent since 2009 [when common core was implemented]. In language arts, it's an even more dramatic change: half as many students need remedial courses as they did five years ago.

                  [–]YoshimiTheCat 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

                  You just restated what he said, without refuting anything. What are the numbers on performance of advanced students?

                  [–]uitham 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  You should just do it like we do in the netherlands and many other countries, divide the students in different classes depending on how fast they can learn. Give less detailed material to slower learners. I heard that pretty much everyone in the USA goes to university, which causes a lot of people to drop out with a lot of debt. Over here only the fastest learners can Go to university, other classes can Go too but they have to finish another kind of study first

                  [–]ATC87 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  This is honestly a great answer, I was being facetious with my own. I think the intentions of common core are good, but it's an imperfect system with poor execution so people are fighting against it.

                  [–]EndsInATangent 4ポイント5ポイント  (16子コメント)

                  Took calculus. Graduated college. Didn't need to have multiplication tables memorized. (How hard is it to just multiply two numbers under 12?)

                  [–]versusChou 13ポイント14ポイント  (13子コメント)

                  You mean you actually sit there and for like 8x6 you add 6 8's or 8 6's? Because if you just know that that's 48, that's exactly what memorizing your multiplication tables is...

                  [–]True_Stock_Canadian 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

                  The way I did it was 6x8 is like 5x8 + 8, and to multiply by 5 you just take half and multiply by 10. So that's 40 + 8.

                  At least that's what we learnt in the Canadian public school system. Not sure how the "common core" works.

                  [–]versusChou 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

                  That's basically what common core does. The way common core works is understanding easy multiplication and the principles behind how multiplication works.

                  Stuff like 24x18 would be solved by using easier numbers so like 25x20 then subtracting to get down to the correct answer. Of course for low numbers, you tend to do those problems so many times that you memorize them. But the goal of common core is for you to understand that the only difference between 5x8 and 6x8 is adding an 8. They're trying to keep students from straight memorizing the basic multiplication so they can apply what they learned to more difficult math. So a kid who understands the difference between 5x8 and 6x8 will be able to realize the difference between 99x16 and 100x16.

                  [–]skellera 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

                  Fuck. I guess Ive been doing common core in my head all my life.

                  I've never been able to remember my multiplication table but I can do basic math faster in my head than a lot of people I've met. If that's really what common core is, I can't hate.

                  [–]versusChou 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  The problem is teachers don't understand it. I went pretty far on an education track and had to student teach common core for. My mentor teacher said a lot of teachers don't actually understand what they're teaching. They think it's just like what they learned. You memorize how the math works and spit it out. A lot of teachers aren't properly teaching how it's applied to more than one context (I.e. if you know 5x tables then you just need to add or subtract in each direction to get 6x and 4x.). They teach the ideas separately. And the students who don't understand it bring it to parents who have the same problem. The thing is, common core is actually how most people think, it's just being poorly executed.

                  [–]iamasecretthrowaway 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  This exactly. For the most part, common core methods are just ways people did math mentally all along, but which take a while to figure out for yourself. Anyone who ever stopped counting on their fingers to add did it by figuring out ways to group numbers to make the calculations easier - add what's easy, and then tack on the leftover bits.

                  The problem with common core in action is that it doesn't just teach that skill generally - it does it in very specific ways that are even more confusing than traditional methods. Kids still just have to figure out coping methods for themselves. They aren't learning why they're breaking a 5 up into 3 and 2, they're just being told they have to do it. Or they get very vague answers about making 5 a friendlier number (which seems an overly PC, confusing way to tell a little kid you mean easier-to-add). When, really, a good teacher who understands the method's intentions might realize that kid adds in his head by 5s rather than 10s, so breaking up a 5 is very counterintuitive and confusing.

                  Old math used to teach students a concept, like subtraction, and left it up to them to figure out shortcuts or no. New math tries to teach one shortcut. Neither method in the wrong hands (or even just adequate hands) teaches a student reason, or logic, or problem solving skills.

                  [–]skellera 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I can see why people don't understand it but it makes perfect sense to me because that's how I was doing it when I was being taught the other way in school.

                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                    [–]MissNesbitt 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    I use tactics like that all the time especially in higher level math, but never ever learned it like that formally.

                    I leaned it through the 'old fashioned' way and i naturally derived these shortcuts to make it easier.

                    Stuff like (28 x 4) becomes (25 x4) + (3 x 4).

                    That being said memorization actually helps way more. Once you start having to integrate, and derive, in addition to using complex numbers to topics that are generally abstract, memorization of basic math is way more efficient

                    [–]versusChou 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Generally, just because you have to do it so much, you memorize your times tables anyway. It'd be dumb if I had to keep going back to common core style math for low numbers and it'd just be more steps when I actually have to do bigger numbers.

                    [–]glad0s98 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    i would just think like, 8x6 ok thats 8x5 +8 so 48.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                        [–]few_boxes 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        until the government acknowledges that children are individuals that learn in different ways

                        Except its counter intuitive to expect an institution like a school to be able to do that. The whole thing about schools is that they're uniform and standardized. Kids aren't supposed to master mathematics or find their love for english in class. That happens either at home, or at higher levels. The foundation of good learning happens at home. There is almost nothing a teacher can do if the parents aren't involved in the process. School shouldn't be about maths or english, but about being able to socialize, learn organizational skills, do extracurricular activities, etc. It really is just a place for kids to be while the parent are busy working.

                        [–]ChipSchafer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        This is exactly why I hated school. So many review days and so much time to read one goddamn book. That said, the idea behind the "common core" method is much better in my opinion, just not the idea that we can all learn it at the same pace, if at all. The good teachers already knew how to teach with this mindset. My Physics and Calc teachers would always build up a concept and bring us to a formula or new area organically rather than just throw it at us. Formulas are much more effective when you understand how they were derived. The problem was grouping us all together as if we had the same abilities.

                        [–]Keyboard_Key 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        You got number 3 wrong. Common core is a way of teaching kids the best way to do calculations from the start instead of using methods not many people use and are not as efficient. The concept of it is good the implementation is just horrible.

                        [–]nenyim 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        There is only one way to do the basic operations. Common Core is trying to teach the understanding of how this way works as opposed to long divisions/multiplications being taught as algorithm that give you the right answer without any understanding from the children part.

                        The difference, in principle if not always in application, is about whether or not we want children that understand the operation or are simply capable of being slow and error pron calculators without any understanding.

                        [–]Cressio 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Very well put. The concept is good but it needs some more work

                        [–]ifarmpandas 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        Isn't the whole point of common core to teach algorithmic thinking instead of blindly memorizing and regurgitating stuff? The "old way" of memorizing multiplication tables is only useful insofar that it's useful to be able to automatically multiply small numbers without wasting time. In fact, once you get past high school, math becomes far more about analyzing and explaining patterns than simple computation. So no, the "old methods" of memorizing crap is not useful to mastering concepts.

                        [–]nenyim 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Isn't the whole point of common core to teach algorithmic thinking instead of blindly memorizing and regurgitating stuff?

                        That's what algorithmic "thinking" is. But yes the whole point is to have children understand why the algorithm work as opposed to simply using them.

                        [–]gellis12 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        When I was in grade 3, I went to a fine arts school. It was basically normal school, but we also had art, dance, music, and theatre classes mixed in, and they'd be based on whatever we were learning at the time. Over a decade later, and I still have the multiplication songs from music class stuck in my head...

                        I'd say it was an effective method.

                        [–]ValAichi 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        You're misunderstanding what common core is.

                        If you look at the actual stuff, it is actually a great starting basis; matrices, an incredible but under utilized form of maths, should be easy to students starting from common core, for instance.

                        As for memorizing your multiplication tables... that's not learning anything. That's just memorization, and I'm quite happy to say that despite doing every single maths course my school offered and then going on to study in maths related fields in higher education, I never needed to memorize what 7 * 6 was.

                        [–]maeschder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Who actually memorized multiplication tables? Just use your brain to work it out.

                        [–]745631258978963214 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        it's about mastering the teaching method.

                        It's been like that since at least 1994, when I was in school.

                        [–]alialibobali 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        What you're saying simply isn't true. Common Core is NOT a teaching method. It is simply a set of standards that says that by the end of ___ grade each student should know x, y, and z. I think you're confusing Common Core with the fact that, coincidentally, schools are now also trying new approaches to teaching math, which may be unfamiliar to past generations. These teaching methods, such as the increasingly popular Singapore Math, may be new to you but are not inherently bad or squelching kids' creativity or learning. Yes, a pitfall to these methods IS falling into the trap of teaching the strategies as if they were the content (ex: marking a correct answer wrong if their picture of a bar model is wrong) but this is most often NOT the case; most teachers distinguish between strategy and content, and let kids explore their own strategies, and yes, even teach old strategies like memorizing their multiplication tables. Common Core is not an excuse for misled teachers who might make these mistakes.

                        [–]bigtfatty 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Much misinformation:

                        1. Both the "old" and CC methods are taught. It's to help children that may struggle with traditional methods and bolster understanding among those that grasp both concepts.

                        2. Teach them however you want, more learning will never hurt a child.

                        3. I think you share the common misconception that CC is a curriculum - it's not. It's a standard that mimics many states' already existing standards, it just nationalizes it (for the states that adopt CC).

                        CC doesn't inhibit growth any more than previous systems. If you're looking for something to blame for US students falling behind the rest of the world in education, focus on the severe lack of finding most school districts get or this insane commitment to standardized testing.

                        Source: Am math teacher that works with my County to develop curriculum in a CC state (although Florida calls it Florida Standards because CC has been given such a bad rap. Same shit, different name and nobody cares anymore).

                        [–]mike_311 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        My kids are learning the common core way. They still memorize multiplication they just call them facts. It really isn't that hard and its cool to see second graders learning basic algebraic concepts. My experience has proven that those uneducated in STEM, who never valued math to begin with, complain because they don't get it. There is the whole movement against standardized testing which is lumping in common core teaching methods.

                        [–]TrollingPanda-_- 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Apparently now they are teaching kids that a slash is multiplication and a dot is division. Had a really old math teacher, said he was tutoring a grandkid, and then the kid asked if grandpa is dumb or something because he is using the wrong symbols... Most highschools dont give a shit about common core though so atleast you dont have to deal with that shit too much in highschool.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (13 返事)

                          [–]SkyKoli 19ポイント20ポイント  (6子コメント)

                          My understanding, is that the biggest problem with common core, is that the teachers don't know how to do it. For many of them, they were simply given a new curriculum, that they themselves were not taught, and told to teach it.

                          If you want to overhaul the teaching method, then you have to spend the time and resources to teach the teachers first. If they don't know how to do it, how can you expect the people they teach to learn how to do it?

                          [–]kennyloggins_login 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

                          Don't teachers go through hours and hours of professional development each year? Isn't that what those "in-service days" are for?

                          [–]Blackwater_Syn 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

                          Just because that's the intended purpose for those days doesn't mean that's how they are used. And it definitely doesn't mean that they are paying attention or are even incentivized to do so.

                          Think about it, how much attention do YOU pay when your job calls you in for training? If you've been doing the same job for the last 10+ years, odds are you aren't paying too much attention to someone trying to tell you how to do it differently.

                          [–]kennyloggins_login 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

                          Why be so distrustful of teacher's continued training, but not all fields then? Are you so distrustful of doctor's, nurses, pilots, etc? If you're so distrustful of their continued training, then why trust that they were ever trained well to begin with? One could just as easily graduate college doing the bare minimum, or by cheating, but we don't go around assuming everyone does.

                          [–]IslaDeEncanta 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          Because it's a symbol of government control of their school systems. The public school is one of the last ways for communities to instill their values in children, and people subconsciously recognize this.

                          Or they're a bunch of dicks. Either way.

                          [–]ATC87 9ポイント10ポイント  (186子コメント)

                          Because Obama and "that's not how I learned how to do it, dammit!"

                          [–]CScott30 63ポイント64ポイント  (184子コメント)

                          Honest answer, I can't help my son with his math homework anymore, I tried to figure it out but it isn't how I did it and I have limited time in the day and it's not how his math teacher learned it so now he's stuck in the middle of a not knowing sandwich getting crushed by numbers.

                          Edit: A lot of people seem upset that I don't agree with common core or seem to think I'm an idiot because I don't understand basic math. I will assure you I'm quite capable but also a very busy person, he'll live with his first C in school I swear, maybe it will teach him accountability or some other big word that parents like to toss around.

                          [–]somejackarse 57ポイント58ポイント  (156子コメント)

                          As a non-American ignorant of the specifics of common core, I'm having a hard time figuring out what could possibly have changed in math that would prevent you and the teacher from understanding...

                          [–]participationNTroll 19ポイント20ポイント  (46子コメント)

                          It's the using the process taught, and proving the process was used (by writing down the steps). 25 + 5 involves breaking 25 into 2 tens. Yadda yadda yadda, instead of just counting five up.

                          I don't have a kid and I wasn't taught with common core, but that's what I think is happening based on the posts I've seen.

                          [–]goldrogers 17ポイント18ポイント  (32子コメント)

                          I looked up some Youtube videos since I have no clue what common core is. One really simple example I found was, say 9 + 7 = ?

                          Instead of just doing it rote and or counting up and saying 16, you look at the two numbers, recognize you're going to go above 10 (?), and then figure out how much you need to subtract from 7 so you can make the 9 a 10. So you take 1 from 7, leaving 6, get a ten, and then bam you have 16.

                          It's not how I learned math, but I've used this sort of process to estimate stuff and figure out if I'm on the right track. So it is a helpful way of looking at the problem. I'm not sure how important it is that a young grade schooler get into this kind of conceptualization instead of just learning arithmetic the old school way, but I wouldn't say it's useless.

                          The thing I would be concerned about with forcing kids to learn it this way is that to some kids this may seem intuitive, while to others not, and a lot of times it is just more efficient to brute force simple arithmetic. I don't know how much concept/theory a 3rd grader can handle, and if they can handle it, I don't know that there is necessarily one way to go about it either.

                          [–]zacksporn 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

                          I definitely do math this way when I'm really stoned and adding a lot of numbers. Didn't know it was common core though!

                          [–]lifesbetterbackwards 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

                          I literally do this everytime I go to add numbers similar to this.

                          [–]Keyboard_Key 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          That's exactly the point of common core. Sure it's easy and it looks dumb to do all that for 6+9 but if you try to do it for a number like 388493+ 223409 common core is by far better and what many people already do as "normal" without realizing.

                          [–]Swissgiant 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Yeah weird I've been doing simple math like that for a super long time, the rest I use a calculator.

                          [–]jabbadarth 12ポイント13ポイント  (6子コメント)

                          My wife teachers common core in first grade and you are dead on how she explained it to me. Basically it is using the concepts that most adults pick up later on in life at an earlier age.

                          If you are to add numbers in your head as an average adult you would break them down and group them to add them, usually intuitively, which is what this system is teaching as a method to make sure every kid knows it instead of just the kids or young adults who figure it out.

                          [–]goldrogers 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

                          which is what this system is teaching as a method to make sure every kid knows it instead of just the kids or young adults who figure it out

                          I can get on board with this.

                          On a somewhat related note, when I was little the "Hooked on Phonics" method of learning to read was stirring up controversy. I learned to read the "old school" way. It's funny how people seemingly get worked up about how to learn stuff in what appears to be every new "era"... I guess people get uncomfortable with the idea (misconception?) of their kids being used as guinea pigs for new educational methods that they think might not work.

                          [–]jabbadarth 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          My wife's biggest complaint is that it was rolled out to every grade at once. It is fine for kids in kindergarten through about second grade but if you had to start this in 5th grade I imagine it would be pretty difficult having to relearn things you already know just in a different way while also learning new content.

                          she thinks it would have been better picking a year and starting with that class. Like the graduating class of 2022 would have been the first year to get it so they would get it from start to finish and not have to be put in halfway through.

                          [–]FuzzySAM 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          The biggest difference is that most people have never thought about what it would look like on paper. When they do things like the comment above, they do it the old borrow and carry method, because that's what "showing your work" looks like to them.

                          I'm a mathematics teacher at the high school level, and this exactly what I do in my head.

                          On a semi related note, the problem is not in "common core", its in crappy teachers that are afraid to learn real mathematics, and so just teach out of the book blindly, and it it's not exactly what the book teaches, then it must be wrong. Common core itself is just the standards that each grade is held to, and they look very similar to what the standards were when millenials were in primary school.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                            [–]yakusokuN8 24ポイント25ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            For really small numbers, it looks dumb. But, consider this kind of problem with bigger numbers:

                            The current year is 2016. How many years ago was 1776?

                            Using the "old" math, you would set up a subtraction problem like this:

                            2016
                            -
                            1776

                            -----

                            6-6 is 0, so you write a 0 in the 1's digit. 1 is smaller than 7, so we "borrow" 10 from the hundred's place and change it to a 9, then change the 2 to a 1. 11-7 is 4, so you write that in the ten's digit. Then, 9-7 = 2, so you write 2 in the hundred's digit, and finally 1-1 = 0, so there's nothing in the thousand's place.

                            Our answer is 240.

                            But, our "worksheet" looks like this:

                            21 09 11 6
                            -
                            1 7 7 6 

                             2 4 0

                            That's a bit messy and for a little kid, isn't terribly intuitive. They can memorize the steps, but they may not really understand WHY you borrow and cross out and work from right to left when we normally read left to right.

                            And with an everyday problem like giving out change for a bill that comes out to $17.76 when given a $20 bill, you probably don't do the math in your head like the "old" math.

                            You're more likely to say: 4 cents more makes $17.80, then 20 cents more makes $18.00 even, then add $2 more and you get twenty dollars.

                            4 cents + 20 cents + 2 dollars = $2.24

                            It's less likely that you "borrow" and "carry" and subtract 6 from 10, then 7 from 9, then 7 from 9, then 1 from 1, and get 4, 2, 2, and 0 respectively and then get the answer "224", and then add in the decimal point two places in and get the real answer of $2.24

                            Counting up to a "round" number and adding up numbers is more intuitive and understandable. You can make a number line and see the gap closing as you go from 1776 to 1780 to 1800 to 2000. We close the gap by 4, then 20, then 200. Add them up and you get 224.

                            But, math teachers didn't teach the "new" math back when we were in school, so this new math seems weird and confusing to us, forcing us to relearn math all over again.

                            [–]Fordrus 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            Oh jeeze, today I learned that the 'clever' way I usually think of numbers when performing arithmetic in my head is the common core method. Thanks for the information, goldrogers! :)

                            [–]Klosu 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Same here.

                            Now imagine you want to calculate distance / weight this way using imperials.

                            [–]participationNTroll 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

                            I think- and I do want to emphasize I am not an authority figure on this at all- the push for common core is that Japan and other countries overseas are blowing American students out of the water. . . And it's because they start with concepts really early. I think.

                            [–]_Gastroenterologist_ 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                            That wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but first the government needs to spend a little more money on education so the schools can actually have the resources to teach it. The property tax model of education spending is so broken that it makes me angry just thinking about it. And providing less money to schools that are underperforming is an absolute joke.

                            [–]ArchNemesisNoir 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            A fair amount of the reason funding gets cut is sort of a message to administrators. Idea being that the funds trickle downhill. Starts with administrative salaries and expenses, and runs down to the actual students. In some places, you've got administrators driving 5 series Beemers to 4 bedroom houses while 2 students are sharing a book in class.

                            Of course, that's not the case everywhere, or even most places. And really, cutting funding isn't the answer anyway. They should be auditing expenses instead. Cutting the staff that's abusing funding, and making sure the money goes where it's needed. The schools that perform well get a pass, those that don't answer questions.

                            [–]participationNTroll 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Hahaha. Yeah. I completely agree. I'll be honest, it wasn't something I thought about until I started dating an Education major. But the more I learned, the more I feel like everything's ducked.

                            [–]vincidahk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            no... we start with memorisation really early.

                            [–]juicebox_ 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            Kids are still being taught the "brute force" way. It's just in addition to the other, more conceptual way.

                            [–]goldrogers 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            That's good. I'm sure this applies to most things, but math is definitely a subject where approaching problems from multiple angles can be very useful. Everybody learns differently, and when stuff starts to get abstract having learned only one way can hamper you. I learned math all the way up to Calculus pretty much through brute force and rote memorization, so when I got up to higher level math I just lost it. I'm re-learning Calculus (for fun?) and even though I got an A back when I learned it, I didn't understand fully what I was learning. I now feel like I'm actually learning more.

                            [–]IzttzI 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                            That's... The only way I ever did it. Interesting that what comes instinctively to me is what others are upset about. And probably why my QA can't follow my verbal math when I explain things.

                            [–]Areumdaun 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            Interesting that what comes instinctively to me is what others are upset about.

                            Good job missing the point. People aren't "upset about what comes so instinctively to you". It's about the requirement to actually write things down in a specific way, not about how one should do it mentally.

                            [–]IzttzI 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            I didn't miss the point. I made an observation that people can't help their children because they don't understand the process and it just happens to be the way I did it internally myself. That's it.

                            [–]The_Galactic_Leyline 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            That's interesting. I've been using this method since freshmen year in high school at latest, and I'm not sure if I was taught to do it like that by my Dad (who would teach me some "new math" methods he learned in school, that he thought was better) or if I figured out how to do this on my own out of necessity (I usually forgot my calculator at home).

                            Edit about New Math.

                            Apparently criticism about a change in the way math is taught isn't new.

                            [–]Pezlia 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            Mildly on/off topic, that is the exact way that I add 9 and 7 as an advanced student. It wasn't taught to me that way in school. I just found that way more intuitive for me.

                            [–]glad0s98 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            TIL ive been using common core for years

                            [–]realharshtruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            Wait.. I do additions this way.. Why is this a bad thing? Am I doing it wrong?

                            [–]goldrogers 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            No. I guess it's something many people ended up figuring out and used on their own (even w/o the new math curriculum), especially for larger numbers (or for counting change probably). I guess it's just become "official" in curriculum.

                            [–]aSc4rYGh0sT 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

                            Yadda yadda yadda, instead of just counting five up.

                            Because counting 5 up works fine for extremely easy problems like 25+5 but doesn't work so well for more complex problems. Breaking things down to their component parts works better with those more complex problems.

                            I.E. 10285 + 5893 = ?

                            Obviously you can't just count up 5893 times because that would a huge waste of time.

                            If you break it down to it's parts, however, you can do 10000 + 5000 + 200 + 800 + 80 + 90 + 5 + 3 and get 16178.

                            [–]participationNTroll 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

                            Lol. Yes. I have been kinda playing devils advocate, I guess? Parents/opponents see kids getting Xes because the student didn't follow the prescribed method.

                            This harms the student's record/grade.

                            [–]aSc4rYGh0sT 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                            It's good practice for when they get into algebra or calculus where nobody cares about the answer, they just care about the process to get to the answer.

                            [–]Caderrific 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            Recently(?) took algebra, currently in calculus, can confirm they actually do place a large emphasis on the answer in both classes.

                            [–]SpiritMountain 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

                            It's the using the process taught, and proving the process was used (by writing down the steps). 25 + 5 involves breaking 25 into 2 tens. Yadda yadda yadda, instead of just counting five up.

                            Does anyone know if this is what they are doing? Because counting five up from 25 makes sense for addition. It is the (a) definition of addition.

                            I would think multiplication would be the fun one. Like, 5 x 5 is actually the addition of 5 five times:

                            5 x 5 = 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 25

                            Where the second operand is how many "additions" there are. Am I thinking right on how they are teaching kids nowadays?

                            [–]jabbadarth 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            the 25 plus 5 is a good example. The new method uses grouping to add things so they don't want the kids to just count up 5 more from 25. They want them to group them into 2 tens and 2 fives and then add them together.

                            My wife is a first grade teacher and she explained it to me like this.

                            If you ask an adult to add 46 and 37 in their head they will most likely add 40 plus 30 to get 70 and then add 6 plus 7 to get 13 then add 70 and 13 to get 83, or at least some version of that. It is just the way that at some point in your mental development you figured out that made sense to you. This is what common core is trying to teach kids from a young age instead of having them figure it out later on.

                            Basically the issues people seem to have are because the simpler addition becomes more difficult when you have to break down 25 into groups of tens and fives and often times kids are just adding 5 more to it to get the right answer but get no credit since they didn't use the new system. The point is to start them with easy addition in the new system so when they get to larger numbers and harder math they have a good base in the methods.

                            [–]participationNTroll 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

                            To my understanding, they are trying to add more concepts to addition. Why is 25 + 5 30? Because 25 is actually 2 tens. And the extra 5 + the 5 left over is another 10 .

                            Edit: woods.

                            Edit 2: whoops

                            [–]shegavemearainbow 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            Another 10

                            [–]participationNTroll 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Yeah I edited it, lol. Thx for the catch

                            [–]jawonline 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            I think you meant "another 10" at the end of your comment.

                            [–]participationNTroll 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Yeah I edited it, lol. Thx for the catch

                            [–]2k16throwaway 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Why is 25 + 5 30?

                            why does this question needs to be asked? Are you expecting children to be so dumb that they don't understand the nature of numbers themselves?

                            [–]CScott30 24ポイント25ポイント  (29子コメント)

                            The process of getting the answer the way they want is the problem. My son looks at it and knows the answer but then he has to figure out how to write down the 9 steps they want leading to the answer.

                            [–]um00actually 15ポイント16ポイント  (27子コメント)

                            Yes, that's what teaching a thought process is.

                            [–]Fresh_C 8ポイント9ポイント  (7子コメント)

                            I guess the question is whether the particular thought process they're trying to teach is worth learning.

                            If there are multiple ways to approach something and one way works easier for a child than another, is it worth it to force them to learn the other way?

                            I can think of a few situations where the answer to that question is yes (such as when the process they're learning is essential towards teaching another process later). But sometimes it seems as if kids are being forced to learn one way to do things when there's no obvious benefit over the way they intuitively do things.

                            Note: it's worth noting that I have no experience teaching, and am more or less just giving an uneducated opinion here. So grab your grains of salts and take them with this.

                            [–]victorian_flower 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            I'm an instructor, and I definitely think students should be 'forced' to use a particular method. Maybe a child knows how to do 30 - 25 easily without common core, but then what about 87 - 69...since they didn't learn the proper method with the 'easy' problem of 30 - 25, they don't know how to do it with the 'harder' problem.

                            [–]um00actually 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

                            If there are multiple ways to approach something and one way works easier for a child than another, is it worth it to force them to learn the other way?

                            How would they know what works easier before they learned?

                            [–]Fresh_C 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                            They won't necessarily. But if a child can already effectively do addition using a method they already know and they're doing it as fast or faster than their peers, then it's logical to assume the way they're doing it at least works for them.

                            It may not be the best possible way they could do addition, but without trying literally every method, there's no way to determine what that would be.

                            So I'd say there's less value in re-teaching the child to do something they already do adequately, than there would be in teaching them something completely different. Unless, as I made mention of above, the way you're teaching them to do addition is somehow necessary for them to learn some other function.

                            Basically I'm just saying if it ain't broke (for that particular child) don't fix it. Unless you're making changes that will affect future learning.

                            [–]realharshtruth 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            I guess the question is whether the particular thought process they're trying to teach is worth learning.

                            Yes. They'll eventually learn it by themselves when they grow older, so why not teach them at a young age?

                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                              [–]IzttzI 10ポイント11ポイント  (7子コメント)

                              I'm finding most of my friends who hate common core also never used math above basic algebra in their life. They don't see the purpose of a building thought process because working into calculus and beyond was not an issue they had.

                              [–]theswerto 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              And nearly every career that isn't in the STEM field will never use math above algebra and geometry.

                              EDIT: Once again, not saying common core is bad. It's actually really nice they're teaching kids number theory early so if they decide to go into a STEM field they don't have to jump over that hurdle if they don't quickly re-learn math.

                              [–]CScott30 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              So the majority of them?

                              [–]lifesbetterbackwards 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Wait, so do you think the actual, physical process behind common core is more familiar to you now because you utilize math beyond basic algebra?

                              コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                  [–]Lost_my_other_pswrd 21ポイント22ポイント  (57子コメント)

                                  Instead of 17+22 being

                                  17
                                  +22

                                  =39

                                  Now you do 17 =20 - 3

                                  22 = 20 + 2

                                  20 + 20 = 40

                                  2 - 3 = -1

                                  40 + -1 = 39

                                  It's supposedly closer to the way we do it in our heads, so they want you to show work that way as well. This freaks a lot of parents out. Parents can't understand why the teacher would mark them wrong for getting the right answer. It's not about the answer anymore, its about the process. It DOES make sense after a while, but people don't like change.

                                  SOURCE: Middle School Math Teacher.

                                  EDIT: Wrote 23 instead of 22, whoops.

                                  [–]PorkyPickle 30ポイント31ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                  That seems really awkward. Ibwouldn't use negative numbers to do it in my head. It would be more like:

                                  17 = 10 + 7

                                  22 = 20 + 2

                                  10 + 20 = 30

                                  7 + 2 = 9

                                  30 + 9 = 39

                                  [–]humanysta 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                  But why make it so complicated?

                                  17+20=37

                                  37+2=39

                                  This is my thought process. Why do it differently?

                                  [–]suckstoyourassmaiar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  I agree with you. I almost always think in addition, unless the number ends with a 9. Then again, that could be because of the way I was taught Math rather than an intuitive thing, but adding negative numbers doesn't seem particularly intuitive to me.

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                    [–]Talks_To_Cats 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                    Thank you for the example!

                                    Now you do 17 =20 - 3

                                    This is the part that I would struggle with. To me, I would say...

                                    17 = 10 + 7

                                    To me converting an addition problem into an addition and subtraction problem is making it more convoluted, not less.

                                    [–]humanysta 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    As someone who's not from the US, this doesn't make any sense.

                                    Why make it so complicated?

                                    17+20=37

                                    37+2=39

                                    This is my thought process. Why do it differently?

                                    [–]ijohno 8ポイント9ポイント  (21子コメント)

                                    is this... common core? jesus my head...

                                    [–]georgie411 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Can you do

                                    10 +20= 30

                                    7+2=9

                                    30+9=39

                                    Is that accepted? That's how i would do it my head if I didn't just immediately recognize the answer.

                                    [–]kobello 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                    How would you do 17 + 17?

                                    [–]Lost_my_other_pswrd 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                    If you are serious...

                                    17 = 20 - 3

                                    20 + 20 = 40

                                    (-3) + (-3) = -6

                                    40 + (-6) = 34

                                    [–]gilezy 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    I really not following this at all. How does this make sense. If anything i would have thought you go

                                    10+10= 20

                                    7+7=14

                                    20+14=34

                                    [–]kobello 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Why not 20 = 17 + -3? How do they learn that rounding up means adding a negative number? Am I retarded?

                                    [–]kobello 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Why wasn't it 3 - 2 since you solved 17 = 20 - 3 first? Why is the number you rounded first used second in the step 2 - 3 = -1? Why not -3 + 2 if they are taught subtraction means negative? If I'm retarded you can tell me I won't be upset

                                    [–]realharshtruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Ok mines slightly different.

                                    17+10=27

                                    27+7=34

                                    Same with the 17+22

                                    17+20=37

                                    37+2=39

                                    I just need to add up all the tens first because that's the quickest way to do additions for me and after that it's just the sum of two single numbers which I guess I've learn all the possible combinations via memory and add it to the original number

                                    [–]the_noodle 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    Never have I ever subtracted during an addition problem. 17 + 22 = 10+20 + 7+2 = 30 + 9 = 39

                                    [–]Violent_Jiggler 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    I'm assuming that this "common core" has more to it than just addition, or maybe it's even the example being super simple for communicating the idea here, but this seems unnecessarily clumsy.

                                    When I looked at that problem it was:

                                    (1+2) and (7+2)

                                    3 and 9

                                    TADA~

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

                                      [–]EternalErudite 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                      I'm a preservice maths teacher in Australia, so I'm not entirely sure, but...

                                      From what I've seen online, the main problem that people have with common core maths (and what I would guess /u/CScott30 is describing) is that students are often taught and expected approach questions using specific methods. If the 'correct' method isn't used, the answer is considered wrong.

                                      From what I can see, this causes three main problems: (1) students are taught to approach problems in a very formulaic way and don't know what to do if the formula doesn't work. (2) They don't always know why the approach they've been taught actually works, so... (3) Students can't always explain why they're doing what they're doing to others, so someone who wants to help, but is not familiar with the specific (and sometimes weird) ways of approaching problems can't help, because other ways are 'wrong'.

                                      [–]animebop 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Even in the old method, you were expected to use specific methods. It's not a new thing, it's just that parents don't know the new methods and are unwilling to learn.

                                      [–]PM_your_cats_n_racks 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      Er, this seems like the opposite of what's going on. The old way was teaching formulas, Common Core is about teaching how to think about numbers.

                                      Someone above mentioned adding by tens. This is a term that I've heard my niece use, and when she described what she was doing it made perfect sense - this is how I do it in my head. That was not how I was taught though, and someone who didn't want to learn the new jargon wouldn't know what their children were talking about.

                                      [–]ABearWithABeer 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      I have no IRL experience with common core. I just googled and found www.excelined.org/common-core-toolkit/old-standards-v-common-core-a-side-by-side-comparison-of-math-expectations/ this. It feels like the common core questions are more "complicated" in the sense that you can't just literally count them out to find the answers efficiently. I don't see how it's a bad thing.

                                      [–]Impact009 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Nearly every way of teaching is going to have those 3 problems you outlined, common core or not. For example, with the old method...

                                      You're given a formula like the quadratic formula to solve for roots. If you're lucky, then the proof explaining how it was derived will be glossed over. This was my experience for everything up to Cal 3. "Here's chain rule. Here's the proof. Now, you'll never see delta x again in your life."

                                      For the longest time in stats, I didn't know why the area under a normal curve was 1. It just was. Everything in stats was built upon the assumed foundation that the area under a normal curve was 1, and I didn't have a means to prove it until Riemann Sums in a different class.

                                      That's just how math is. That's why P vs. NP is a concept. We assume that most things are true until there's a case where they're not true, because the the "why's" and "how's" are things that the world's best mathematicians struggled for millennia to prove.

                                      For simplification, take 1 + 1 = 2. Any proof of that will go well over a gradeschooler's head. We take 1 + 1 = 2 at face value and build upon that arithmetic foundation with more complex math. Sure, it'd be easy to show a kid 1 + 1 = 2 with tangible objects, but what about more complicated things like point-slope form?

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                        [–]HAPPY-TECHNOLOGY 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        He's a very busy man, damnit

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                          [–]badmuther 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                          You might find Kahn Academy (it's free) to be very helpful.

                                          I obviously don't know your exact situation.

                                          [–]pokemasterx4556 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                          What is common core?

                                          [–]CScott30 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                          New math shit to expand the "understanding" of the answer rather than just solving it. I'm sure if taught right it's great but my son's math teacher is a fucking chuckle head.

                                          [–]goldrogers 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                          Learning to think through and understand why the answer is what it is becomes really helpful once you get into higher level math, but given what I've seen/read about common core (which honestly isn't much yet), I can see it being a problem more based on whether the teacher is comfortable and good with it or not.

                                          [–]CScott30 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          That's one of the main problems I have with it, however this over simplification process isn't something I ever needed or he's ever needed.

                                          [–]notavalid 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          You gotta understand the old system to understand why common core is what it is.

                                          The problem with our old system is we spent six years getting a student up to algebra from first grade. Then the majority do another six years of various math class only to have trouble balancing their check book and can't do the quadratic formula-both are sixth grade level math, but trouble for adults. Our old system was/is really inefficient for bringing up the low and middle performances. The high performers do just fine with some teaching and then additional self study.

                                          Common core is trying to address that by instead of just jumping straight to column addition and column subtraction, it teaches them critical thinking of skills to really understand what is happening in the background. Teaching kids multiplication tables works for a lot of them, but most will only retain that after graduating. Math past that is beyond them, and that's a lot of tools they are losing to navigate life.

                                          There are some arguments against common core that are valid. Most people will never need much math past sixth grade, so wasting six more years of math and having terrible outcomes is acceptable-why change it? The problem is our society is becoming increasingly complex, and if you want options that are above a sixth grade math level, you're at a disadvantage going in.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (19 返事)

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                              [–]Howzieky 3ポイント4ポイント  (14子コメント)

                                              (Asking liberals about why conservatives feel a certain way about something is going to get you very biased answers)

                                              [–]DiveOnIn 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                              What exactly does partisanship have to do with this education issue?

                                              [–]ijustlovepolitics 17ポイント18ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                              Both sides should feel the same about it. It teaches particular abstract ways of getting answers but punishes students when they try to use abstract methods that aren't "the approved way of thought"....it's very frustrating to deal with.

                                              [–]keyboard_user 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                              Yeah. Teaching helpful ways of thinking about math problems is good. Testing on them is not. Teach methods, test results. If you want to teach students about abstract thinking, add more logic and critical thinking to the curriculum.

                                              [–]IzttzI 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              The issue is when you get to calculus or higher and you learned your own way to factor or something... You can no longer be shown how to transition your math with the rest of the class. Pushing everyone to at least know the same method even if they don't use it regularly ensures that they can learn with the rest when they reach the point that their own way doesn't keep progressing.

                                              [–]ijustlovepolitics 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              And this will always be the fundamental issue with any education system, particularly ours. The American education system is exceptional at teaching creative outside the box thinking, whereas other countries such as Japan, Great Britain, China etc. have structured education to the degree where they do extraordinary well at hierarchical, structured thinking and work environments, but can lack creativity.

                                              That was a little side-bar but this was my original point, how do you quantify educating kids on logical thought and creativity with unique problem solving, but still test it and show that it is being effective? As I said before, this is the problem with education.

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                  [–]pigeon768 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  When I was a kid, we were taught that getting the right answer was the important thing. The teacher might have given you any of many random methods for solving any given problem, many of which are in use by common core today. I remember my fifth grade teacher, in particular, was extremely uncomfortable with how my fourth grade teacher taught me to do division, but she had to deal with it as long as I got the wrong answer. (I always got the right answer) Getting the wrong answer was rewarded with full credit, and doing the method your teacher wanted was rewarded with partial credit. The central concept of common core is that the method for getting the answer is the important part, and whether or not you get the right answer is not important.

                                                  I'm pretty good at math. When I was a kid, we were taught a fairly plodding way to do arithmetic, which would eventually lead you to the correct answer. I figured out a bunch of short cuts in my head through the years, because fuck this plodding bullshit. As it turns out, many of my "self invented" shortcuts are actually fairly standard common core methods. They're fairly intuitive even for a schoolgrader, they work, it's a lot simpler that way, etc, I mean it's really a better way to do simple arithmetic.

                                                  Here's the problem though. Common Core is about teaching methods. They don't care about the students' ability to get the correct answer, what matters is that the student shows the work in exactly the same way the book teaches them to do it. So when your kid comes home, does their math homework, and gets confused because fuck you it's math homework and they're a kid, and they ask their parent to help... The parent looks at the book and says, "...fuck this doesn't look familiar" and they shove the book to the side. Then they teach their kid to add 41+72 the way they remember it when they were in school. Then come test time, their kid gets an F on their math test. Parent looks at the test, and discovers that all of the kid's answers were "right" in terms of 41+72=113 etc, but were marked wrong because the method was not the common core method.

                                                  Parent proceeds to lose their shit.

                                                  [–]Emerald_Triangle 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  Found the idiot school administrator

                                                  [–]conditionalcognition 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  It would have been nice to see this discussion here: r/education or r/teachers.

                                                  [–]LOBM 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  Most commenters seem to focus to much on the (imo) smallest issue.

                                                  Common Core was designed by a private group. Only two academics (Dr. Milgram and Dr. Stotsky) were on the commitee and both disapproved of the final design and are now campaigning against it. Those two say it's supposed to be a high school education that prepares you for college, but neither high school teachers nor professors really participated in the design and that it ended up with some experimental stuff that nobody knows if it works.

                                                  There have also been concerns about what it teaches beyond the actual material. Like glorifying the state and other things, that are as if they were taken straight from the White Privilege Conference.

                                                  [–]the_one_tony_stark 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  Because all the exam answers for the entire nation are uploaded to a private corporation's database. And I don't own that database. I want to know how smart your kids are. Not have another company know and not me.

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (18 返事)

                                                    [–]XenoZodiac 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                    What is common core?

                                                    [–]-Caesar 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)