Common Core

[resident_evil]

Yes and no. In 1992, MA outscored MN and WI on reading, but was outscored by them on math.

They were basically the same (if you accept that those scores are derived from comparable data; which I do for the most part). The question now is how much was spent per student for those results. I know Wisconsin spends a lot.

 

[Charcat]

And, therein lies the problem. Here is the thing.. when your school system is made up with kids from middle and upper middle class families. Who have time and money to invest int heir kids's education. Whose kids come to school ready to learn - not worry about where their next meal will come from or with a growling belly, they are going to on a day to day basis out perform most other systems.

So, what those kids can accomplish in any one academic year - exceeds what other systems can do. So, if we set the standard that X is what you have to accomplish every year - and we don't set it at the max of what hte best most well funded system can accomplish, we are lowering standards for that system. Period. Maybe at first they will surpass the expectations but over time they will drop down to doing what they have to do. And, if they literally can't teach the next level because that will interfere with the portabality of the education, they almost have no choice otherwise.

This year as part of common core... my son has come how with a few diagnostics... the things they MUST be able to do by the end of first grade - the minimum of what they have to know to start second grade on course. My son.. knew more than 90% of the required year of math by October. He knew 90% of the required spelling words by Christmas. Now.. do you think they were moving along to the next level of math with him - or do you think they were giving him a bunch of busy work so that they could keep the class on par together.. I can tell you.. they gave him a bunch of busy work. Thankfully at home, we have an enrichment book. At home, he is winding up his second grade enrichment book as he is closing out his first grade school year.

There is no choice in a system that ultimately seeks to evne out results... but to bring the high achievers down. Sure, it brings the bottom up. But, I don't think any system which restricts in any way the advancement of the top - is an equal trade just to help out the bottom.

connie

I agree. Saw all of this happen with my grandson until he got into high school and was able to get into advanced classes. But how much did he miss on the way there? And how "advanced" are advanced classes today? He certainly can run circles around me in math, but otherwise not so much. Soooo much he didn't learn in history and English.

 

[Charcat]

2 cents is all I have. I think older people should open their minds a bit, if they see that math is being taught differently when we were kids. When I was in high school the "affordable" calculators (like Texas Instruments) were just coming into the market and cost maybe $500-$600 in today's dollars. But, even it I did have that outrageous amount of money at my disposal, they weren't allowed in the classroom. Of course I'd learned to add, subtract, multiply and divide long before high school. But to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry and all that, I still had to solve all those long, boring, arithmetic equations on paper, at the same time. I'm absolutely certain that the drudgery of solving those equations that I already knew how to solve, detracted from my ability to focus on the higher order principles I was being taught.

Flash forward to today though.......electronic calculators are so ubiquitous that I wouldn't be surprised to find one in a box of "Cracker Jack". Shit....if one of my grandsons asked me for a calculator, I could pull open my desk drawer and let him choose from at least a dozen! (Oh...I forgot. There's a calculator on my phone, too!)

So....much as we might like to, I really don't think we can make an honest case that a kid HAS to learn to solve big-number and fractional equations, on paper. Therefore, I can see how some in the know, might choose to skip that step at the outset and maybe come back to it later, as time and interest allows.

Here's how I see it....it absolutely IS essential for a learner of math, to understand the fundamental concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and addition. For instance...take 15,634 + 7,256. It's essential for a kid to know that the sum will be a number greater than either of these two and it might help for them to quickly guess that it's around 20,000-something+.

But, assuming this equation is one part of a more advanced equation really.....is it necessary for the child to know how to arrive at the exact sum without a calculator?

Of course we used to say...."Yeah but, what if you need to solve an equation and you don't have a calculator?" But...c'mon...how often do YOU find yourself in a time and place today, where you needed a calculator and had no access to one? I still solve arithmetic questions with a pencil now and again. But to be honest, I only do so because I can, and I'm too lazy or it doesn't occur to me to pull my phone out of my pocket.


For me, this is similar to the questions we've been considering around "cursive". I think I can make a pretty good case for why it would be good, and useful, and illuminating for a child to learn cursive. But, is it absolutely necessary that a child learn cursive? I can't make that case.

Calculators are extremely handy when you don't have the skills to do math any other way. It's good brain exercise, for one thing, to be able to do math without a calculator. By the way, when my kids were in school they learned more calculator skills than actual math skills. Is that good? I don't think so.

 

[resident_evil]

And, therein lies the problem. Here is the thing.. when your school system is made up with kids from middle and upper middle class families. Who have time and money to invest int heir kids's education. Whose kids come to school ready to learn - not worry about where their next meal will come from or with a growling belly, they are going to on a day to day basis out perform most other systems.

So, what those kids can accomplish in any one academic year - exceeds what other systems can do. So, if we set the standard that X is what you have to accomplish every year - and we don't set it at the max of what hte best most well funded system can accomplish, we are lowering standards for that system. Period. Maybe at first they will surpass the expectations but over time they will drop down to doing what they have to do. And, if they literally can't teach the next level because that will interfere with the portabality of the education, they almost have no choice otherwise.

This year as part of common core... my son has come how with a few diagnostics... the things they MUST be able to do by the end of first grade - the minimum of what they have to know to start second grade on course. My son.. knew more than 90% of the required year of math by October. He knew 90% of the required spelling words by Christmas. Now.. do you think they were moving along to the next level of math with him - or do you think they were giving him a bunch of busy work so that they could keep the class on par together.. I can tell you.. they gave him a bunch of busy work. Thankfully at home, we have an enrichment book. At home, he is winding up his second grade enrichment book as he is closing out his first grade school year.

There is no choice in a system that ultimately seeks to evne out results... but to bring the high achievers down. Sure, it brings the bottom up. But, I don't think any system which restricts in any way the advancement of the top - is an equal trade just to help out the bottom.

connie

When I was in 8th grade in California I tested out to 12 grade and 9 months on a standardized test. It was an easy test. Standards are easy and have been for decades. It upsets me that they have been dumbing them down for years.

Its true hunger and lack of sleep are the worst things for a student's achievement potential.

 

[Rabid RW Extremist]

Where in the HELL did you get that information? My straight-A, graduated with highest honors while taking advanced courses in high school, and now a college student, grandson still comes to me with questions about grammar. He never learned phonics in school and very little grammar, although he is exceptional in writing skills and has written a couple of unpublished books.

Of COURSE other schools moved ahead after we dumbed down our educational systems. What would you expect?

If you notice Arkady ALWAYS goes by polls, stats and charts. Which depending on who did them all read differently. "The National Assessment of Educational Progress " will only tell you what "they" want you to know.

 

[resident_evil]

2 cents is all I have. I think older people should open their minds a bit, if they see that math is being taught differently when we were kids. When I was in high school the "affordable" calculators (like Texas Instruments) were just coming into the market and cost maybe $500-$600 in today's dollars. But, even it I did have that outrageous amount of money at my disposal, they weren't allowed in the classroom. Of course I'd learned to add, subtract, multiply and divide long before high school. But to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry and all that, I still had to solve all those long, boring, arithmetic equations on paper, at the same time. I'm absolutely certain that the drudgery of solving those equations that I already knew how to solve, detracted from my ability to focus on the higher order principles I was being taught.

Flash forward to today though.......electronic calculators are so ubiquitous that I wouldn't be surprised to find one in a box of "Cracker Jack". Shit....if one of my grandsons asked me for a calculator, I could pull open my desk drawer and let him choose from at least a dozen! (Oh...I forgot. There's a calculator on my phone, too!)

So....much as we might like to, I really don't think we can make an honest case that a kid HAS to learn to solve big-number and fractional equations, on paper. Therefore, I can see how some in the know, might choose to skip that step at the outset and maybe come back to it later, as time and interest allows.

Here's how I see it....it absolutely IS essential for a learner of math, to understand the fundamental concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and addition. For instance...take 15,634 + 7,256. It's essential for a kid to know that the sum will be a number greater than either of these two and it might help for them to quickly guess that it's around 20,000-something+.

But, assuming this equation is one part of a more advanced equation really.....is it necessary for the child to know how to arrive at the exact sum without a calculator?

Of course we used to say...."Yeah but, what if you need to solve an equation and you don't have a calculator?" But...c'mon...how often do YOU find yourself in a time and place today, where you needed a calculator and had no access to one? I still solve arithmetic questions with a pencil now and again. But to be honest, I only do so because I can, and I'm too lazy or it doesn't occur to me to pull my phone out of my pocket.


For me, this is similar to the questions we've been considering around "cursive". I think I can make a pretty good case for why it would be good, and useful, and illuminating for a child to learn cursive. But, is it absolutely necessary that a child learn cursive? I can't make that case.

There is no substitute for a well trained mind. Going through calculations on a given problem are key to deep understanding. I don't agree with this logic at all.

 

[Rabid RW Extremist]

If you notice Arkady ALWAYS goes by polls, stats and charts. Which depending on who did them all read differently. "The National Assessment of Educational Progress " will only tell you what "they" want you to know.

Im sure they are promoting common core......

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

When I was in 8th grade in California I tested out to 12 grade and 9 months on a standardized test. It was an easy test. Standards are easy and have been for decades. It upsets me that they have been dumbing them down for years.

Its true hunger and lack of sleep are the worst things for a student's achievement potential.

Oh yeah!! When I was in 8th grade we spent 3 or 4 weeks learning how to use a slide rule so there

 

[Dawg]

As I've mentioned before, serious school violence is actually down dramatically in recent decades, not up. So, now that you know that, do you attribute the dramatic improvement to kids being on meds?

NO, absolutely not............if stats are down as you claim, why in hell is it libs post so often here of MORE gun laws, especially since kids are shooting up schools.

 

[Dawg]

Exactly. Musta been some redneck who never knew soap and water is cheap.

or it was someone that actually does manual labor.........I'm aware you libs have no idea what that means...........what do you call the crack-heads in the hood that never knew soap and water is cheap__________

 

[Dawg]

Yes and no. In 1992, MA outscored MN and WI on reading, but was outscored by them on math.

Keeping the difficulty level the same is not a good argument. After dumbing down, what was once easy becomes difficult.

Check out the blow-up down here at UNC........college football players that read at grade school levels and special classes (African-American) studies that were NOT taught and football players didn't attend yet got passing grades..............if not for sports, they couldn't pass a SAT to enter college..........when I started college I was 23 and I had to tutor recent HS grads in basic math..........yeah, dumbing them down keeps them under liberal control.

 

[Arkady]

Keeping the difficulty level the same is not a good argument. After dumbing down, what was once easy becomes difficult.

My point is, the test itself is equally difficult now as it was in 1971 – it's just that the students now are scoring higher on it than they were in 1971, because education has improved. If you could go back in time and grab a bunch of students from 1971 and bring them to the present, and you gave them today's test, they would score worse than today's kids. And, if dropout rates, military aptitude test scores, IQ tests, and other such measures from the era before NAEP tests are any indication, the advancement of kids these days relative to those from the 1930s-1960s is even greater. The kids today would almost certainly run academic rings around their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents' generations at the same age.

 

[fairsheet]

There is no substitute for a well trained mind. Going through calculations on a given problem are key to deep understanding. I don't agree with this logic at all.

I'm not surprised that you would think that way and in this case, I don't mean YOU specifically. I mean "people" in general. But, the point I intended - however ham-handedly expressed, was not specifically what SHOULD be done. It was that people of our generation must keep our minds open. What we think we know for certain, may be off the mark.

 

[Arkady]

2 cents is all I have. I think older people should open their minds a bit, if they see that math is being taught differently when we were kids. When I was in high school the "affordable" calculators (like Texas Instruments) were just coming into the market and cost maybe $500-$600 in today's dollars. But, even it I did have that outrageous amount of money at my disposal, they weren't allowed in the classroom. Of course I'd learned to add, subtract, multiply and divide long before high school. But to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry and all that, I still had to solve all those long, boring, arithmetic equations on paper, at the same time. I'm absolutely certain that the drudgery of solving those equations that I already knew how to solve, detracted from my ability to focus on the higher order principles I was being taught.

Flash forward to today though.......electronic calculators are so ubiquitous that I wouldn't be surprised to find one in a box of "Cracker Jack". Shit....if one of my grandsons asked me for a calculator, I could pull open my desk drawer and let him choose from at least a dozen! (Oh...I forgot. There's a calculator on my phone, too!)

So....much as we might like to, I really don't think we can make an honest case that a kid HAS to learn to solve big-number and fractional equations, on paper. Therefore, I can see how some in the know, might choose to skip that step at the outset and maybe come back to it later, as time and interest allows.

Here's how I see it....it absolutely IS essential for a learner of math, to understand the fundamental concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and addition. For instance...take 15,634 + 7,256. It's essential for a kid to know that the sum will be a number greater than either of these two and it might help for them to quickly guess that it's around 20,000-something+.

But, assuming this equation is one part of a more advanced equation really.....is it necessary for the child to know how to arrive at the exact sum without a calculator?

Of course we used to say...."Yeah but, what if you need to solve an equation and you don't have a calculator?" But...c'mon...how often do YOU find yourself in a time and place today, where you needed a calculator and had no access to one? I still solve arithmetic questions with a pencil now and again. But to be honest, I only do so because I can, and I'm too lazy or it doesn't occur to me to pull my phone out of my pocket.


For me, this is similar to the questions we've been considering around "cursive". I think I can make a pretty good case for why it would be good, and useful, and illuminating for a child to learn cursive. But, is it absolutely necessary that a child learn cursive? I can't make that case.

I'd love it if kids could learn absolutely everything, including how to do math without a calculator, to write in cursive, and speak ancient Greek and Latin, and all the other things that used to be common. But, the reality is that there's a limited amount of time for instruction, and all the time spent teaching things that have grown obsolete, is time not available for things that are more valuable to the children. So, tough choices have to be made. These days, kids need to know about computers, and all types of science that have come up long in recent years, and many extra decades of history, and so much more. As new things come in, something has to go out, because there's only so much time the kids have school, to learn what they need to learn.

 

[Charcat]

My point is, the test itself is equally difficult now as it was in 1971 – it's just that the students now are scoring higher than on it than they were in 1971, because education has improved. If you could go back in time and grab a bunch of students from 1971 and bring them to the present, and you gave them today's test, they would score worse than today's kids. And, if dropout rates, military aptitude test scores, IQ tests, and other such measures from the era before NAEP tests are any indication, the advancement of kids these days relative to those from the 1930s-1960s is even greater. The kids today would almost certainly run academic rings around their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents' generations at the same age.

You've got it backwards and don't even know it. Sad.....

 

[Arkady]

My little city's public high school routinely produces more national merit scholars than any other in the state. My two stepchildren on the other hand, were average as can be. I saw the work they were doing. It was average.....and they accomplished it averagely!

But....the fact of all those national merit scholars suggests to me that the opportunities are definitely there, for those who seek them. The same was true in my high school. A lot of kids took the minimum amount of math to graduate. My mother made me take a "college prep". level of math. And...note that I say "college"prep, not "math degree prep". Those kids that took the minimum, didn't hold me back. And then...there were students who DID take something a akin to a math degree prep. level. And....they weren't held back by me!

My public high school had a class of the hundred 180 kids, of whom six were national merit scholars. That was really good, I think, for a public high school. And the were 12 semi finalists.

 

[fairsheet]

I'd love it if kids could learn absolutely everything, including how to do math without a calculator, to write in cursive, and speak ancient Greek and Latin, and all the other things that used to be common. But, the reality is that there's a limited amount of time for instruction, and all the time spent teaching things that have grown obsolete, is time not available for things that are more valuable to the children. So, tough choices have to be made. These days, kids need to know about computers, and all types of science that have come up long in recent years, and many extra decades of history, and so much more. As new things come in, something has to go out, because there's only so much time the kids have school, to learn what they need to learn.

When I started high school, I expressed at least some interest in a scientific path. Now I don't know exactly how current my mother's information was, but she suggested that German was the language of science. So.....I took 3-years of German. I don't mean to insult any German speakers but........in retrospect, I probably could've spent that time better!

 

[Charcat]

I'd love it if kids could learn absolutely everything, including how to do math without a calculator, to write in cursive, and speak ancient Greek and Latin, and all the other things that used to be common. But, the reality is that there's a limited amount of time for instruction, and all the time spent teaching things that have grown obsolete, is time not available for things that are more valuable to the children. So, tough choices have to be made. These days, kids need to know about computers, and all types of science that have come up long in recent years, and many extra decades of history, and so much more. As new things come in, something has to go out, because there's only so much time the kids have school, to learn what they need to learn.

What are they going to do if they need to solve a problem and the power goes out? Learning computers would be one class....are you saying they couldn't learn the basics in another?

 

[Arkady]

You've got it backwards and don't even know it. Sad.....

How so? I provided the links. NAEP test scores, IQs, and military aptitude test scores are all up. Dropout rates and illiteracy rates are down.

 

[Arkady]

When I started high school, I expressed at least some interest in a scientific path. Now I don't know exactly how current my mother's information was, but she suggested that German was the language of science. So.....I took 3-years of German. I don't mean to insult any German speakers but........in retrospect, I probably could've spent that time better!

I have to agree with you about German. I learned German. It's the one foreign-language I can actually speak fairly well. Yet, I'd have been much better with French, Spanish, or Mandarin. Germans are so absurdly well educated and cosmopolitan that nearly all of them speak English anyway, at least among those who have a higher education. So there's very little chance for me to speak it.