Originally posted by EconSean:
Originally posted by given2fly:
Originally posted by EconSean:
Originally posted by given2fly:
Originally posted by EconSean:
Originally posted by seminole4life1:
And these people getting the wrong answers and insulting people are probably also the parents "fighting" common core. They aren't really sure why and by golly there education was amazing so why change it! The world will always be the same so we should always receive the same education in the same format as our parents!!
Two things: the people getting it wrong don't know basic math skills, period, and common core sucks, it's a scam, IMO. It hasn't been in place long enough to generate enough data to suggest it "works" (though in fairness there are no data to truly demonstrate that it doesn't work either). However, if it doesn't work, we're digging ourselves an even deeper hole WRT STEM education in this country.
Posted from
Rivals Mobile
What exactly do you find wrong with common core math? I can't seem to find anyone to give any semblance of an answer when I ask that question.
I'm an engineer, who tutored for 5 years and I really like what I read on the common core website. I also can't stand politics so I'm really not trying to fall on either side of the issue.
I think that it's something new for the sake of something new. The intent should be the bettering of our students, and I do not feel that this is a step forward in terms of educating.
What about them isn't a step forward?
I would really like for someone, anyone, to go to the common core website and look at the math standards and tell me what the big problem is. Again, I've read through them (I'm sure I didn't read through every standard) and I can't find a single thing wrong. Has anyone actually read them?
Here are a few excerpts:
Understand that integers can be divided, provided that the divisor is
not zero, and every quotient of integers (with non-zero divisor) is a
rational number. If p and q are integers, then -(p/q) = (-p)/q = p/(-q). Interpret quotients of rational numbers by describing real-world contexts.
Nothing extreme about that.
Here is the common core standards on functions:
Understand that a function from one set (called
the domain) to another set (called the range) assigns to each element of
the domain exactly one element of the range. If f is a function and x is an element of its domain, then f(x) denotes the output of f corresponding to the input x. The graph of f is the graph of the equation y = f(x).
Use
function notation, evaluate functions for inputs in their domains, and
interpret statements that use function notation in terms of a context.
Recognize that sequences are functions, sometimes defined recursively, whose domain is a subset of the integers. For example, the Fibonacci sequence is defined recursively by f(0) = f(1) = 1, f(n+1) = f(n) + f(n-1) for n ≥ 1
Again, those are not extreme. In fact, I'm guessing I could put that definition on some silly graphic and claim that's what should be taught in school instead of common core and people would eat it up.
What exactly was wrong with the "old way"? There is nothing wrong with the technical description that you posted, it's completely correct, there's no disputing that. What, though, is the motivation for fundamentally changing how math has been taught? You can't yet convince me that common core leads to better outcomes, and there won't be data for a long time to indicate, in either direction, what the effect of the new standards is.
Our students are lagging, thus no child left behind, thus something new was needed, and thus common core and new standards. I don't think that this will improve things...but I don't know what will.
Posted from
Rivals Mobile
