Common Core Indoctrination?

[werepossum]

This seems to have no bearing on reality. Not only is US math achievement higher than average, achievement has been on a steady upward trajectory over the last 20 years. US math achievement is unevenly distributed, which is a problem, but the idea that the US has 'completely given up on math' is basically the opposite of what is true.

http://timss.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/T11_IR_Mathematics_FullBook.pdf



Similarly divorced from reality. US reading achievement is above average and improving.

http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2011/downloads/P11_IR_Chapter1.pdf



This is just ranting and raving. In light of the new evidence about the state of US education do you want to revise anything you wrote?

Interesting. Those are certainly better scores than I thought we were getting, even one top ten. Is this because of No Child Left behind or something else?

Judging from the charts, in 2003 we stole all New Zealand's smart kids.

 

[berzerker60]

I've often wondered the following:

Is there any way to measure the quality of education before the establishment of the DOE?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_England_Primer

https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp
"For the later part of this century the illiteracy rates have been relatively low, registering only about 4 percent as early as 1930. However, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, illiteracy was very common. In 1870, 20 percent of the entire adult population was illiterate, and 80 percent of the black population was illiterate."

 

[nehalem256]

“The wants of an individual are less important than the well-being of the nation”

The funny thing is I am not sure which side even believes this. So whose ideology are they trying to indoctrinate kids with?

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting. Those are certainly better scores than I thought we were getting, even one top ten. Is this because of No Child Left behind or something else?

Judging from the charts, in 2003 we stole all New Zealand's smart kids.

I agree that US kids do better than we think they do, as for what is driving it I don't have a clue. Especially over the last ten years we've kind of taken an everything but the kitchen sink approach to education.

The real issue in the US to me is that we have a MASSIVE achievement gap. In NYC for example we graduate some of the best and brightest kids in the world at the same time that a non-trivial percentage of public school children are functionally illiterate. I think some of that may be what drives the perception that US kids are stupid/uneducated/whatever.

 

[Spungo]

You're trying to compare adult levels of literacy and mathematical prowess with what is happening in our schools and that's often not a good idea because adult measures include a lot of people who haven't been near a school in decades.

That's true of other countries as well. People in Japan don't stay in high school until they are 40. They get jobs just like everyone else.

Anyway, .

The latest math results from 2012 will be released on Dec. 3, 2013. Hopefully, American students will have improved since 2009.

On the PISA math test in 2009, the U.S. average score of 487 fell below the OECD average of 496. This was also lower than the scores of 17 other OECD nations. The highest-scoring nation, South Korea, had an average score of 546, followed closely by Finland with an average score of 541.

That's relative scale. How do they do on an absolute scale? [url=http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704698004576103940087329966]Terrible.

Results from a national exam revealed that fewer than one-third of elementary- and high-school students have a solid grasp of science, triggering anxiety about U.S. competitiveness in science and technology.

The real issue in the US to me is that we have a MASSIVE achievement gap. In NYC for example we graduate some of the best and brightest kids in the world at the same time that a non-trivial percentage of public school children are functionally illiterate. I think some of that may be what drives the perception that US kids are stupid/uneducated/whatever.

Not to sound cliche, but this is 100% caused by unions. Unions have consistently stood against anyone who tried to introduce chartered schools even though we know for a fact that they are wildly successful in countries like Sweden. They're successful in the US as well, but they are a minority. Demand for chartered schools is so high that people have lotteries to get admitted.

I feel guilty my daughter won the charter school lottery

I’d been hearing about the charter school since before I was even pregnant. From the day we moved to the neighborhood, friends told us we should try to get in. In a district that had long been failing, this school was a beacon, an inner-city star, the kind of school people write books about. Innovative and progressive, the school avoided grades for an emphasis on gardening, yet achieved higher test scores than any neighboring school. Everyone I knew who had a child there loved it.

There was just one problem: to get in, you had to win the school enrollment lottery. And according to everyone I talked to, it was really, really hard to win.

When my daughter was a toddler, I’d join in playground conversations about numbers and percentages. People said that hundreds of families applied for 20 or 30 spots. We joked about trying to get jobs as teachers or join the board, both of which sounded easier than getting lucky in the lottery.

 

[Ken g6]

Can you post an example of new math?

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

Well, OK, that's the "new math" from the 60s. But it seems rather similar to the current "new math" IMHO.

 

[Paul98]

What much of the new math is teaching kids is not just how to do a problem a simple way it's showing them that it can be done many ways and how you can go about solving problems. I am guessing it's going to be much harder to start off with, but it will make them far more educated about this stuff than most are. It will make the more advanced math classes much much easier. Rather than just going over what was memorized it should allow them to actually understand what they are doing.

 

[fskimospy]

That's true of other countries as well. People in Japan don't stay in high school until they are 40. They get jobs just like everyone else.

So? We're talking about our education system. Surely you can understand how many confounding variables you introduce once you add in 20 years of life after high school. That's just not a very good measure.

Anyway, http://www.businessinsider.com/how-us-science-and-math-scores-compare-to-other-countries-2013-11.

Your link shows that the US results are not statistically different than the OECD average. How does this support your argument?

That's relative scale. How do they do on an absolute scale? Terrible.

I actually agree that science education in the US has been neglected in the last decade. That being said, US science education doesn't have much to do with your original point.

 

[werepossum]

What much of the new math is teaching kids is not just how to do a problem a simple way it's showing them that it can be done many ways and how you can go about solving problems. I am guessing it's going to be much harder to start off with, but it will make them far more educated about this stuff than most are. It will make the more advanced math classes much much easier. Rather than just going over what was memorized it should allow them to actually understand what they are doing.

It had BETTER make the more advanced math classes much much easier since kids will be taking them much later.

 

[fskimospy]

Not to sound cliche, but this is 100% caused by unions. Unions have consistently stood against anyone who tried to introduce chartered schools even though we know for a fact that they are wildly successful in countries like Sweden. They're successful in the US as well, but they are a minority. Demand for chartered schools is so high that people have lotteries to get admitted.

I feel guilty my daughter won the charter school lottery

Actually, statistical analysis of charter schools shows that their results are effectively identical to public schools:
http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-credo-2013

I think you've gotten a lot of bad information about US education.

I for one am a proponent of charter schools (if not their current implementation), but as of this moment data does not support them being better than public schools.

 

[Spungo]

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

Well, OK, that's the "new math" from the 60s. But it seems rather similar to the current "new math" IMHO.

That's how I learned math, and it has yet to steer me wrong. Doing base 8 is a nice touch as well because it gets people to really understand how math works. It's useful too. Base 10 is normal math, base 16 is hexadecimal (used for RGB colors), base 8 is octal (used for Linux permissions), base 2 is binary (used for anything that is digital - on/off).

What's really wild is seeing how old kingdom Egyptians did binary math.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih1ZWE3pe9o‎

Study comes to the most obvious conclusion: charter schools cost significantly less than normal schools.

Charter schools are mostly the same as public schools, but they have much higher rates of advanced placement.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-study-says/ZssXZZRZ174wy39OmwVDnN/story.html

 

[Paul98]

That's how I learned math, and it has yet to steer me wrong. Doing base 8 is a nice touch as well because it gets people to really understand how math works. It's useful too. Base 10 is normal math, base 16 is hexadecimal (used for RGB colors), base 8 is octal (used for Linux permissions), base 2 is binary (used for anything that is digital - on/off).

What's really wild is seeing how old kingdom Egyptians did binary math.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih1ZWE3pe9o‎

Study comes to the most obvious conclusion: charter schools cost significantly less than normal schools.

Charter schools are mostly the same as public schools, but they have much higher rates of advanced placement.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-study-says/ZssXZZRZ174wy39OmwVDnN/story.html

Which way did you learn it and when did you go to school?

 

[KB]

The funny thing is I am not sure which side even believes this. So whose ideology are they trying to indoctrinate kids with?

The test was written by a company in New Jersey, which tends to be blue but has a red governor. It could be indoctrination of either side. Although the fact that the article was on Faux, it makes you think its the democrats and Obama are the indoctrinators, but they and the republicans are really on the same side.
The republicans want you to give up your wants to fight their wars, while the democrats want you to give up your wants for the sake of paying more taxes.

 

[berzerker60]

Study comes to the most obvious conclusion: charter schools cost significantly less than normal schools.

"The big difference? Pensions and health costs for teachers and other staff are substantially higher for the traditional, unionized public schools compared to charters, which offer their employees 401ks rather than more generous defined benefit plans."

So these charter schools are basically public schools where teachers don't get paid shit or have any of the protections of a union. I know conservatives have a hate-on for teachers and paying for education, but let's be open that that's what the charter school movement is at least partly about. I, for one, am happy to pay the already-internationally-low wages that teachers earn without busting their balls over the 'tax savings' of undercutting them and union-busting. Schools should be well funded, teachers should be paid well, and yes, that will cost tax money to do. Making teaching an even shittier job than it already is is a terrible way to make this a better nation. Even in purely rational terms, you're never going to get a better long-term investment for your tax dollar than paying a teacher to educate a new generation of citizens (and workers), while then turning around and spending that salary, generating demand.

Charter schools are mostly the same as public schools, but they have much higher rates of advanced placement.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-study-says/ZssXZZRZ174wy39OmwVDnN/story.html

That's for Boston area charters. That's an okay achievement, I guess, but it's hardly universal. We could point to other places like New Orleans where they've been much, much more questionable: http://www.theinvestigativefund.org...vernment/1848/the_great_charter_tryout?page=1

 

[Spungo]

Which way did you learn it and when did you go to school?

I learned the "new math" and I'm in my late 20's

 

[Paul98]

I learned the "new math" and I'm in my late 20's

That is not the new math they are talking about in common core, as that sort of method and how it was taught were part of the problem.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's not an obummer thing, this kind of indoctrination has been happening for a long time. It's even more disgusting now because of the zealous followers of the dear leader that are frequently found in the public school system (like the children forced to chant obummer praises and so forth).

Not surprising at all though, that's the mentality of many in the public school system -- government above all, obey your masters, individualism is to be discouraged ...

I agree with this. I've been at a couple meetings for my son already (he's in second grade) where some of the people were like this, but the ones who actually can help him had their heads screwed on straight. It's not all lost yet!!

 

[Spungo]

I found this interesting video showing some of the newer math.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI

It's really bad. It looks like they're trying to skip over grade 5 math and jump straight into grade 8 or grade 9 math. One of the examples she gives in the video is 26x31. When trying to get the answer, it should be kept as simple as possible, so you'll probably write it like this:
26
31 x
029
780 +
806

One of the "new" ways to solve this is by factoring. If you don't know what factoring is, you're in trouble, and that would include every kid younger than 12.
26x31 = (20x31) + (5x31) + (1x31)
This isn't wrong, but it's needlessly complicated. This is going to frustrate kids and make them hate math. Another problem is that these numbers seem totally random. Why (20+5+1)(31)? Would it work with (20+6)(31)? How about (2)(13)(31)? These are great questions to examine in grade 8 or 9, but this shouldn't be the first step in learning multiplication. Sometimes memorization is the best stepping stone. Would it be better to examine the history of English letters, or would it be better to simply memorize the alphabet using a song? A lot of introductory math is simple memorization. If I said 7x7, would you calculate it or would you remember that it's 49?

Another interesting yet complicated example of 26x31 is to expand each of the components.
1 x 6 = 6
1 x 20 = 20
30 x 6 = 180 (I think a lot of young kids would get screwed up on this step)
30 x 20 = 600
total = 806
It's correct, but it feels like it's skipping some of the fundamental steps. Adults know that 30 x 20 = 600, but do kids know that? Since they're first learning multiplication, I would guess the answer is no. That starts a side problem of doing 30 x 20 = (0)(0) + (0)(30) + (20)(0) + (20)(30) = 20 x 30....

 

[Paul98]

I found this interesting video showing some of the newer math.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI

It's really bad. It looks like they're trying to skip over grade 5 math and jump straight into grade 8 or grade 9 math. One of the examples she gives in the video is 26x31. When trying to get the answer, it should be kept as simple as possible, so you'll probably write it like this:
26
31 x
029
780 +
806

One of the "new" ways to solve this is by factoring. If you don't know what factoring is, you're in trouble, and that would include every kid younger than 12.
26x31 = (20x31) + (5x31) + (1x31)
This isn't wrong, but it's needlessly complicated. This is going to frustrate kids and make them hate math. Another problem is that these numbers seem totally random. Why (20+5+1)(31)? Would it work with (20+6)(31)? How about (2)(13)(31)? These are great questions to examine in grade 8 or 9, but this shouldn't be the first step in learning multiplication. Sometimes memorization is the best stepping stone. Would it be better to examine the history of English letters, or would it be better to simply memorize the alphabet using a song? A lot of introductory math is simple memorization. If I said 7x7, would you calculate it or would you remember that it's 49?

Another interesting yet complicated example of 26x31 is to expand each of the components.
1 x 6 = 6
1 x 20 = 20
30 x 6 = 180 (I think a lot of young kids would get screwed up on this step)
30 x 20 = 600
total = 806
It's correct, but it feels like it's skipping some of the fundamental steps. Adults know that 30 x 20 = 600, but do kids know that? Since they're first learning multiplication, I would guess the answer is no. That starts a side problem of doing 30 x 20 = (0)(0) + (0)(30) + (20)(0) + (20)(30) = 20 x 30....

You are coming from someone who only learned it the first way, thus the other ways look extra complicated. What they are teaching is not just a simple memorized way to multiply two numbers. But many ways and are actually teaching math. They learn how do to these things from a young age and in all the math classes. It teaches them how the numbers work and how you can actually do problems and what it means. This is many times better than what we are doing now which is teaching memorization till you get to more advanced math classes then try to teach a whole new way of thinking.

You give them many ways to solve something with how many ways you can manipulate the problems and you end up with people who have a much better understanding about what they are doing. Doing this at a young age as kids, if teachers and parents are willing to allow it and help their kids with this. I expect they will be much better at math than our recent crop of people.

I have helped many people out in math at different levels, and the lack of understanding of basics for most of them is astounding. They can do math a single way and anything outside of that anything slightly different they have no clue. So you end up having to teach them this stuff but it's much harder since they are older and never learned to think that way.

Edit: they still need to memorize, but they get a much deeper understanding.

 

[Paul98]

If you wait to teach that stuff it gets harder if it's done all along it becomes normal. The classes that people have problems with now will be much simpler as what they will be asked to do they have been doing all along.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Of course right wingers think education is a left-wing indoctrination conspiracy.

Of course they do.

 

[Spungo]

You give them many ways to solve something

This tends to confuse people. I can even give a recent example. Back in one of my engineering classes, we were learning how to do circuit analysis. There are many ways to do it; some are fast but only work on some circuits, and others are complicated but work on any circuit. What ended up happening was most of the class would fall back to mesh analysis for every kind of circuit. Instead of learning all of the options, people would focus on one and ignore the rest. That's more of a best case scenario. A worst case scenario would be when the student completely gives up and stops caring about math, which is very common.

Understanding math seems to happen on its own. After doing a lot of problems and screwing around on your graphing calculator to kill time, you'll begin to notice things like cosine starts at 1 while sine starts at 0. The calculator gives errors when trying to divide by 0 or find the log of a negative number when the calculator is in "real" mode, but it gives an answer when it's in "complex" mode.

 

[Paul98]

This tends to confuse people. I can even give a recent example. Back in one of my engineering classes, we were learning how to do circuit analysis. There are many ways to do it; some are fast but only work on some circuits, and others are complicated but work on any circuit. What ended up happening was most of the class would fall back to mesh analysis for every kind of circuit. Instead of learning all of the options, people would focus on one and ignore the rest. That's more of a best case scenario. A worst case scenario would be when the student completely gives up and stops caring about math, which is very common.

Understanding math seems to happen on its own. After doing a lot of problems and screwing around on your graphing calculator to kill time, you'll begin to notice things like cosine starts at 1 while sine starts at 0. The calculator gives errors when trying to divide by 0 or find the log of a negative number when the calculator is in "real" mode, but it gives an answer when it's in "complex" mode.

Why teach math at all, why not just teach them to use a calculator and what to use it for...

This isn't about teaching how to multiply two numbers together and get the right answer. It's about teaching mathematics, how it works and what you can do with it. The way it's taught now you end up with a large group of people who can't do basic math. Who don't now that you even can break up numbers the way they have. Who can't calculate a tip, who don't understand percentages. Don't understand fractions, can't do basic algebra,...

Sure you can always do a multiplication problem one way and get the correct answer. The problem comes when you ask them to do anything else, they have no clue what they can and can't do.

Edit: just look at what they are learning in the examples you gave, it's much more than your simple how to multiply two numbers.