Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a reasonable 3rd grade lesson. My dd was in 3rd grade last year and had to know her multiplication tables cold by Feb. They were tested everyday - 100 problems, and had to do it in 5 minutes to pass. That kind of stuff just has to be memorized.
There are teachers who can and do think and teach outside the box - my DD's teacher last year had her own methods and the 4th grade teachers were clamoring for her students.
Agreed - knowing that 6x4 is the same as 2x3 + 9x2 is nice, but on a test, it helps to show kids that they can just know what 6x4 is rather than say (oh yeah, it's also this, and this, and this).
I'd don't see anything wrong with learning the basics of math with a few visual problems like the example to reinforce the lesson. I don't think they need to delve into 12+2 is the same as 10+4 or a myriad of other such break downs on larger numbers. You can teach them to get the direct answer first but if they need to they can break the problem down into manageable numbers.
It's funny the way some infer that learning multiplication tables is just remembering numbers and not "the why" the numbers are in a particular table. I seem to remember that I was taught was that counting in groups (like 3's or 5's) in addition to memorizing the tables so you could see why the table of 5's is way that it is.
We just started getting into Singapore Math as my 5th grade son started getting word problems. While I see that they are showing that you can think in numbers in relation to each other, they seem to be teaching some basic algebra without calling it that. Example - Sam has 5 less apples than John and Bill has 12 more than Sam and John combined, how many apples does John have? I solved for "X" where X was John, but their way was Sam was a box, John is a box - 5 and Bill was box (Sam) + box (John) - 5 +12. It seems a bit more confusing than to teach them to solve for X.
It appears to be a review text for an AP exam. It's not a list of the actual amendments. For review it could say "right to bear arms" and that would be enough.
OBH, you're really starting to reach beyond credibility. We give reasonable responses and you say we "may think it's wonderful" and then list a cliff note style review as "a deliberate misrepresentation." Starting to sound a bit hysterical.
Again, I hear the histrionics all day and yet when I check the work it's just good old homework. My little lab rat will do just fine.
The assessments are another story and I am not happy about my 3rd grader taking 70 minute exams and I'm sure with a 3rd grade attention span he'll do horribly on them. However, I'm pretty certain with a little fatherly love he'll survive without seeing the school psychologist or Dr. Phil. The teacher? Well, they can have their union duke it out with whoever, exactly what they are doing now, using the kids as a wedge. I was at the open teacher night. She more or less equated CC with Mein Kampf and warned the children's psyches would be devastated beyond repair. The parents went "okee dokee, good luck with that!" Concerned, but not buying the drama. Like I said, with all the political and financial agendas, who knows WHAT to believe?!
I find it pretty two faced of the teachers to have such sudden dire concern for poor Johnny's future as a lab rat when they are quite content with killing off arts, sports and AP programs to pad that pension and secure that step raise. It sucks that the CC and assessments ended up linked but that's part of the political gamesmanship, not part of core standards.
While it may only be a a review of the amendments, they did not do a good job of summarizing today's most polarizing right in the Bill of Rights. Dropping "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," removes a lot of the debate.
My younger daughter's teacher had a solid explanation of the common core on open school night and spoke positively of its goals and content. The parents with me did not seem convinced...I guess they - like me - have seen the edu-fads come and go. This time around we have the unholy mix of multiple tests, teacher and principal evaluations, tax cap contortions, budget shortfalls, and the common core. Wonderfully, the folks up at the State Education Department, led by "Dr." John B. King, Jr, are so publicly incompetent this whole mess is almost funny.
Yes, and the ones being shortchanged here are the bright kids who have the potential to pursue advanced studies in math and science. Such is what happens when "great innovations" are now social networks and "apps" instead of moon buggies.
Very true and I wasn't one of them. I sucked at math not because it was hard, but because I was lazy and undisciplined. After HS I started to regain in interest in computers and low and behold guess what I had to start learning almost from scratch (makes me wish I listened to Mr. Sherble while I was at Robert Moses JHS). Long story short I managed with some struggle, made it through Calculus (with lots of struggle) and into my career, tech. And a lot of success to as a nice bonus.
What I learned: Math isn't hard as long as you get the basics down, are neat and disciplined, and you practice the hell at it for each level. Repeat. Repeat again. And again. And you will be functional at more math than you ever thought.
So, that brings me to tonight. My son (bright kid, all AP and honors classes) asked me to review his algebra work, some absolute functions, simple. I look at his graphs and they look OK, so I ask to see his work. There isn't any. So I quickly plugged in some x's and solved the functions and his graphs were correct. He asked me what I was doing and I explained to him the actual math for what he was graphing. He asked, why? Now I'm getting concerned, it turns out he's being taught the tricks to solve math problems before he's being taught math as a discipline so he'd understand why the tricks work.
Needless to say I'll be talking with his teacher tomorrow to discuss this method of teaching. Maybe it's the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm not seeing where it leads.
Math is a very elegant language (if a bit foggy at first). I have to wonder if having the kids think about boxes and such is just slower mentally.
I have a friend who is very good with numbers & math- far better than anyone I have ever met. I asked his opinion on common core math- we were both expecting him to be appalled by it. But quite the contrary he said that a lot of what they're teaching (boxes & such) are basically how he visualizes and solves complex math problems in his head. That's never how he was taught- he was taught using the traditional US method- but it's how his brain naturally sees numbers. I thought that was interesting.
I personally have never been very strong at math and I have forgotten a lot of the algebra I learned. I looked at some YouTube videos solving equations using the Singapore method- and it actually made a lot more sense to me than anything I learned back in the day. Bottom line- if someone is naturally good at numbers and math, they will probably do well regardless of what method they are taught with (and in fact will probably innately grasp that there are different ways you can solve a math problem). But for someone not as strong (me lol) I can totally see how the Singapore method would be far easier to understand. It seems like it's slower at first but maybe it builds a more solid foundation?
I have a friend who is very good with numbers & math- far better than anyone I have ever met. I asked his opinion on common core math- we were both expecting him to be appalled by it. But quite the contrary he said that a lot of what they're teaching (boxes & such) are basically how he visualizes and solves complex math problems in his head. That's never how he was taught- he was taught using the traditional US method- but it's how his brain naturally sees numbers. I thought that was interesting.
I personally have never been very strong at math and I have forgotten a lot of the algebra I learned. I looked at some YouTube videos solving equations using the Singapore method- and it actually made a lot more sense to me than anything I learned back in the day. Bottom line- if someone is naturally good at numbers and math, they will probably do well regardless of what method they are taught with (and in fact will probably innately grasp that there are different ways you can solve a math problem). But for someone not as strong (me lol) I can totally see how the Singapore method would be far easier to understand. It seems like it's slower at first but maybe it builds a more solid foundation?
It's possible.
I'm not 100% either way. What's more alarming than common core is the lack of civil discussion on ANYTHING...everything turns into a black and white hyper partisan crap fest..in this case from those who think that common core is something evil and insidious. It's the whole "politics as team sports" mentality. If you disagree with someone, you have to DESTROY THEM, DEMONIZE THEM!!!
Because the government is evil, this new curriculum HAS to have some VICIOUS MALEVOLENT motivation...what else could come from THOSE PEOPLE that I HATE!!!!
Do people realize how developmentally stunted they sound?
I'm not 100% either way. What's more alarming than common core is the lack of civil discussion on ANYTHING...everything turns into a black and white hyper partisan crap fest..in this case from those who think that common core is something evil and insidious. It's the whole "politics as team sports" mentality. If you disagree with someone, you have to DESTROY THEM, DEMONIZE THEM!!!
Because the government is evil, this new curriculum HAS to have some VICIOUS MALEVOLENT motivation...what else could come from THOSE PEOPLE that I HATE!!!!
Do people realize how developmentally stunted they sound?
Very true and I wasn't one of them. I sucked at math not because it was hard, but because I was lazy and undisciplined. After HS I started to regain in interest in computers and low and behold guess what I had to start learning almost from scratch (makes me wish I listened to Mr. Sherble while I was at Robert Moses JHS). Long story short I managed with some struggle, made it through Calculus (with lots of struggle) and into my career, tech. And a lot of success to as a nice bonus.
What I learned: Math isn't hard as long as you get the basics down, are neat and disciplined, and you practice the hell at it for each level. Repeat. Repeat again. And again. And you will be functional at more math than you ever thought.
So, that brings me to tonight. My son (bright kid, all AP and honors classes) asked me to review his algebra work, some absolute functions, simple. I look at his graphs and they look OK, so I ask to see his work. There isn't any. So I quickly plugged in some x's and solved the functions and his graphs were correct. He asked me what I was doing and I explained to him the actual math for what he was graphing. He asked, why? Now I'm getting concerned, it turns out he's being taught the tricks to solve math problems before he's being taught math as a discipline so he'd understand why the tricks work.
Needless to say I'll be talking with his teacher tomorrow to discuss this method of teaching. Maybe it's the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm not seeing where it leads.
This was along the same line I was thinking;
Are they learning alternate methods of doing math problems that shows them a different logic in solving a problem or
Are they learning alternate methods of doing math problems that is showing the short cuts on how to get the answer without fully understanding the logic and basic theory they need to know?
I'll need to do more research. The method of solving for a variable by using boxes instead of letter and the semantics of the word problems are throwing me off a bit.
Here's what one school is doing to counter poor grades brought about by CC curriculum:
Mom! I gots a 46 on mine English test! Me no gots to go to summer school!
This is interesting since as I remember in NY:
90 or above was an A
80 or above was a B
70 or above was a C
65 to 70 was a D
64 or below was an F
In our current school district in NC we follow the bit more stringent grading in the diagram of 93 to 100 is an A, etc... I can see the broader scale used in schools that are concerned about how their grades look to the outside world. Be wary of schools that had their grades magically "shoot up" at the end of the 2014 school year over the previous one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I quickly plugged in some x's and solved the functions and his graphs were correct.
He asked me what I was doing and I explained to him the actual math for what he was graphing. He asked, why? Now I'm getting concerned, it turns out he's being taught the tricks to solve math problems before he's being taught math as a discipline so he'd understand why the tricks work. 
