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.
"I transferred from school to school when I was half way through the fourth grade. I wondered if I would be behind. When I got to the new school I was delighted to find them doing short division because I already knew long division. I didn't let on that I knew long division. Contrast that with the new Common Core model where the mantra in the classroom is "three before me". A student is supposed to ask three fellow students how to do something before he "bothers" the teacher. I suppose some teachers would like that, but my teacher from 1950 would not have liked that.
.
Show me where in the standards Common Core mandates 'three before me'. It is not there. This is simply one teacher's practice and has absolutely nothing to do with what the curriculum reads.
So much of the Common Core debate is individual problems with specific implementation by their child's teacher. The curriculum specifies the 'What' to be taught. The teacher, school and district decide 'How'.
It is incredibly tiring though to make up, as a working parent, for everything the school fails to do during the day. Sometimes I think the choices are to either drive yourself into an early grave or simply leave the children to the mercy of public schooling which is designed to make them dumb.
I don't think think the curriculum is designed to make kids dumb (though it is designed to make them think a certain way) insomuch as it is designed for the lowest common denominator. The LCD seems to get lower by the year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Three before me is not about not bothering the teacher. It's about learning how to think. Students talking about the problem at hand gets them thinking.
I was taught Algebra I using a "have the kids teach themselves and each other" method. I believe it was called College Preparatory Math program. The way it worked was that the students were supposed to figure out the day's algebra lesson amongst themselves. The next day the teacher would formally teach the concept. The idea was to "get kids thinking" but the reality was that it was an unmitigated disaster. We would go home, teach ourselves the wrong way to do the math, and then the teacher would have to unteach us the wrong way and then reteach us the correct way. It was completely idiotic. The proof of the idiocy was when I scored dramatically better on the Algebra II questions on the GRE than I did on the Algebra I problems (luckily I received traditional instruction in Algebra II).
I don't think think the curriculum is designed to make kids dumb (though it is designed to make them think a certain way) insomuch as it is designed for the lowest common denominator. The LCD seems to get lower by the year.
I was taught Algebra I using a "have the kids teach themselves and each other" method. I believe it was called College Preparatory Math program. The way it worked was that the students were supposed to figure out the day's algebra lesson amongst themselves. The next day the teacher would formally teach the concept. The idea was to "get kids thinking" but the reality was that it was an unmitigated disaster. We would go home, teach ourselves the wrong way to do the math, and then the teacher would have to unteach us the wrong way and then reteach us the correct way. It was completely idiotic. The proof of the idiocy was when I scored dramatically better on the Algebra II questions on the GRE than I did on the Algebra I problems (luckily I received traditional instruction in Algebra II).
This describes what I do in my geometry classes. I introduce the topic and explain it but I don't do example after example. I let the kids figure out how to apply it. The next day we go over the problems that were assigned and I explain them one by one. Then we start the next topic.
I find kids and parents resist this. I'm about 3/4 of the way through the year before kids get into just try it mode and then they don't want to hear me talk first. They want to try it and ask their questions. Unfortunately, I get accused of not teaching using this method yet my students learn more with this method.
I agree on the LCD. I've been told repeatedly to teach to the bottom of the class because those are the kids who can make the most gains. People who say that cannot do math. If getting one student at the bottom of the class to score 5 points higher on a state test comes at the expense of 10 kids at the top of the class scoring lower you will not increase your score BUT you will close the gap between top and bottom which is one of our measurable. Unfortunately, it's easier to pull down the top than pull up the bottom so the goal is reached faster if you focus on the bottom but it's all smoke and mirrors because you didn't really raise test scores. You lowered them for one group and raised them for another.
Show me where in the standards Common Core mandates 'three before me'. It is not there. This is simply one teacher's practice and has absolutely nothing to do with what the curriculum reads.
So much of the Common Core debate is individual problems with specific implementation by their child's teacher. The curriculum specifies the 'What' to be taught. The teacher, school and district decide 'How'.
In many districts, the administration decides the "How", the teachers must do it the district's way, and then when the kids fail, it is the teacher's fault. If the evaluation system holds the teacher accountable, then the teacher should get to decide how they will teach the curriculum.
It seems to me that there is a lot of experimenting going on with kids education based on whatever is current educational theory. I am also not a fan of political mindbending as I have my own values. Other than that I have found most teachers actually do wish to do a good job and I appreciate them for their dedication.
I have a couple of suggestions for parents- If possible arrange to spend a day helping out in your kids classroom so you can see first hand how things play out with both the teacher and the curriculum. Ask to give a presentation in class on something you may be expert on. At the least look over your kids assignments when they bring them home to see what they're studying, talk about it, and add your positive input. If you find yourself between careers sign up to sub in the schools for a more in depth look see. Supplement, supplement what they're learning in school.
I considered whatever they learned in school to only be the tip of the iceberg so to speak. The school was going to teach whatever they were going to teach and in whatever way they were going to do it. It was my responsibility to instill values, method, and interpretation to things my kids were experiencing and learning and to pre-prepare them for anything they may encounter in daily life. From an educational prospective there are a lot of things busy parents can do. Have a variety of interesting books at home, encourage use of the library, take kids on field trips, visit museums, art galleries, travel, play intelligent games at home. Cast your net broad and deep when supplementing their learning. Talk to them, point things out, every opportunity can be a learning experience, spark their curiosity, encourage their independence and their own ability to come up with ideas. Introduce them to others who may be an expert in a certain field. It's a mindset to keep them intellectually curious. You don't need to be an expert in any particular discipline.
Ivorytickler,
Your method is the Socratic method. It can work well with advanced students. One of the next posters pointed out that putting a lot of effort into bringing the bottom student ahead will actually reduce the total average grade of the whole class. You are both correct. What neither of you may see is that becoming average is the goal of Common Core and the closer to average or the more unified the class is the better the graduates will fit into the proletariat. Common Core discourages excellence.
I was taught Algebra I using a "have the kids teach themselves and each other" method. I believe it was called College Preparatory Math program. The way it worked was that the students were supposed to figure out the day's algebra lesson amongst themselves. The next day the teacher would formally teach the concept. The idea was to "get kids thinking" but the reality was that it was an unmitigated disaster. We would go home, teach ourselves the wrong way to do the math, and then the teacher would have to unteach us the wrong way and then reteach us the correct way. It was completely idiotic.
You just gave me another headache, now that I was uninspired enough to checked back on this thread.
For the love of God, I still cannot believe such "guinea pig" experiments are yet to result in any serious lawsuits. Maybe I should start the trend .
I cannot believe parents in this country tolerate so much educational junk and intellectual abuse of their own children - all on their own tax money.
In fact, something of this ilk is happening in my own son's class right now - with children grading each other's work in class or calling each other out at the board, with some ending up being called all the time and others not at all, depending on popularity, etc.
I would very much like to go in and demand for such methods to simply be changed because they SUCK and nobody needs to spend any time demonstrating/proving that they suck. At the same time I am aware that an educational system where parents are granted the right to get in and ask for things to be changed however they please, is not exactly a great idea.
Educational specialists should know that such methods are dishonest junk without INFORMED parents having to come in and twist their arm.
If you think that book is about pedophilia it's a very good thing you didn't get that job teaching in Detroit.
The excerpts I read from the book deal with pedophilia. The author claimed to have written the book so that the reader would feel like a co conspirator with the rapist and was careful not to present the rapes are wrong.
This is garbage.
So what does reading graphic accounts of pedophiles raping children have to do with teaching in Detroit?
The excerpts I read from the book deal with pedophilia.
You're condemning a book you've not read?
You're going to lecture everyone on this book. You're going to tell people it shouldn't be read in schools. You're going to state it's about pedophilia. But you haven't actually read it.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 04-11-2014 at 08:15 PM..
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.
. 
.
