Priceless: Student Sums Up Common Core Idiocy in a SINGLE Word

[Gingersnap]

Priceless: Student Sums Up Common Core Idiocy in a SINGLE Word

by Top Right News on July 8, 2014 in Common Core

inShare
10
by Gina Cassini | Top Right News


One student got tired of being dumbed-down by Common Core’s convoluted “standards” to do basic arithmetic.

“Standards” like how to add two numbers, which the student was told to do like THIS:



WHAT? It’s enough to make you pull your hair out.

So when he was given his next basic arithmetic assignment, to find the difference between 180 and 158 (180-158), this 5th grade student just did it his own way — the right way – and dissed Common Core with single, awesome word:



“MATH“…Brilliant!

But this really makes us feel for these kids, who are being corrupted by this incompetent program. How are we ever supposed to compete with China if we have upending even basic arithmetic and confusing young minds in the public schools?

Top Right News

[Adam]

Perfect!

[phillygirl]

Common core does make sense in the higher numbers....373 + 422. 400 + 400 = 800. Subtract 22 from 27 = 5. Subtract 5 from 800 = 795.

However, this is when I am without pen or paper and have to do it in my head. First, you have to know how to do it mathematically. I just have a hard time remembering numbers in my head to do it the way I would on paper. A fifth grader should be doing the math correctly. I would say the other method would come in only after one is very proficient with basic math. 5th grade doesn't make one very proficient.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Common core does make sense in the higher numbers....373 + 422. 400 + 400 = 800. Subtract 22 from 27 = 5. Subtract 5 from 800 = 795.

However, this is when I am without pen or paper and have to do it in my head. First, you have to know how to do it mathematically. I just have a hard time remembering numbers in my head to do it the way I would on paper. A fifth grader should be doing the math correctly. I would say the other method would come in only after one is very proficient with basic math. 5th grade doesn't make one very proficient.

+1.

I use the method described above to keep track as I go along of how much my groceries are going to cost. But you need to know math before you can do the other. And some people's brains apparently don't function that way at all. It drives HRH nuts when she's asked to do it; she'd rather do the math (or use a calculator, but that's a different fight).

[Adam]

+1.

Hey! Look! Math! ^^^^

I use the method described above to keep track as I go along of how much my groceries are going to cost. But you need to know math before you can do the other. And some people's brains apparently don't function that way at all. It drives HRH nuts when she's asked to do it; she'd rather do the math (or use a calculator, but that's a different fight).

Indeed.

I guess the idea here is to try to teach "abacus-style" math, but I don't think that's fundamentally work for your average kid in school.

[phillygirl]

+1.

I use the method described above to keep track as I go along of how much my groceries are going to cost. But you need to know math before you can do the other. And some people's brains apparently don't function that way at all. It drives HRH nuts when she's asked to do it; she'd rather do the math (or use a calculator, but that's a different fight).

Some people are intuitively good at math. They naturally go to the rounding method in order to "estimate" the right answer, and then work from there, once they're in the ballpark. I am not that intuitive. I am good at math...but with pencil and paper. I don't have an intuitive feel for it automatically. I get teaching "rounding" to students. It makes sense for imprecise calculations (such as grocery shopping, etc.). However, I view that as very basic math and a hindrance when it gets to the higher maths, rather than a help. We weren't permitted calculators until probably 9th or 10th grade. Until that time, longhand math should be used always in order to get the brain constantly working on the fundamentals. Addition, subtraction and multiplication should be absolutely nailed before any of these "cheating" systems are utilized.

In writing the above example, it actually took me longer to do "the match" than if I sat with pencil and paper and did it the right way...and I got the wrong answer! (another important piece that seems to be missing today...how to check your work by doing the math multiple ways to ensure you have the right answer). It gets far more important in the higher maths to make certain you haven't made a stupid arithmetic mistake and therefore got the wrong answer on a calculus problem, not because you don't know calculus but because you don't know 8+6=14 (one of the additions that always makes me hesitate for some reason).

[Gramps]

if you had said, Gramps, whats 373 + 422, I would have instantly seen both numbers and then the answer in my head.

that was fairly simple because there are no carry or borrow factors

every once in a while, I buy a powerball ticket.
the store is 3 minutes from my house
by the time I'm in the door, I have figured that pay out per month for thirty years, after taxes

I was negotiating to purchase a new car once, the salesman gave me a price, I looked at it, said, that's gonna be about 385/month.. more than I want to pay....

he starts figuring and I was damn close

[Gingersnap]

Some people are intuitively good at math. They naturally go to the rounding method in order to "estimate" the right answer, and then work from there, once they're in the ballpark.

Hardly anyone is talented at math (which is what an "intuitive" student really is). Just like hardly anyone is good at transposing music or good at deriving accurate grammar from non-native languages. Hardly anyone is good at that stuff because it's unnecessary in a survival sense.

This is why it's critical to teach very basic, very accurate methods of using arithmetic, music, and language to children - there will be no "intuitive" leaps for most kids. It's basically a slog for a lot of kids until they develop self-motivation for other reasons. Kids who want to be vets will learn enough math to do that. Kids who want to write will learn enough composition, grammar, and related skills to do that. Kids who want to play music that isn't made up by their friends will learn that.

But most kids will not pursue any higher interest in these areas so the basics that they do get had better be really good.

[phillygirl]

Hardly anyone is talented at math (which is what an "intuitive" student really is). Just like hardly anyone is good at transposing music or good at deriving accurate grammar from non-native languages. Hardly anyone is good at that stuff because it's unnecessary in a survival sense.

This is why it's critical to teach very basic, very accurate methods of using arithmetic, music, and language to children - there will be no "intuitive" leaps for most kids. It's basically a slog for a lot of kids until they develop self-motivation for other reasons. Kids who want to be vets will learn enough math to do that. Kids who want to write will learn enough composition, grammar, and related skills to do that. Kids who want to play music that isn't made up by their friends will learn that.

But most kids will not pursue any higher interest in these areas so the basics that they do get had better be really good.

Actually, there are more people "intuitively" good at math than you might think. I love to watch those people. My brother is like that. My grandfather was as well. The difference between my brother and my grandfather was that my brother did study higher math, my grandfather did not. However, if there was a problem to be solved, I would use algebraic formulas, or geometry...and yet he would just guess, work backwards and get the answer far quicker than I could. I could simply see that their brains worked a bit differently from mine. I was good up until calculus..that was my waterloo.

I disagree that it's not necessary in a survival sense. At some point one's physical abilities are simply not enough, and survival depends on the ability to increase your chances using math or science to better your own abilities to either hunt or self-defend. Hence, the wheel and the gun were invented.

But I agree about needing to know the basics really well.

[Gingersnap]

Actually, there are more people "intuitively" good at math than you might think. I love to watch those people. My brother is like that. My grandfather was as well. The difference between my brother and my grandfather was that my brother did study higher math, my grandfather did not. However, if there was a problem to be solved, I would use algebraic formulas, or geometry...and yet he would just guess, work backwards and get the answer far quicker than I could. I could simply see that their brains worked a bit differently from mine. I was good up until calculus..that was my waterloo.

I disagree that it's not necessary in a survival sense. At some point one's physical abilities are simply not enough, and survival depends on the ability to increase your chances using math or science to better your own abilities to either hunt or self-defend. Hence, the wheel and the gun were invented.

But I agree about needing to know the basics really well.

I've taught a lot of math to a lot of kids and I stand by my observations. Personally, I am good at math but not at all "talented". I simply liked it and the careers that used it so I had daily exposure for years and years. I have no intuitive sense of math. What looks like an intuition for it is nothing more than experience. I've worked people who had that intuition, that genuine talent, and I don't have it.

I don't think math is necessary for any survival scenario our ancestors would have encountered in the previous 50,000 years which are the ones that count in terms of ancestry. Human beings have an innate ability to figure trajectory, angles, and lines of attack which is learned through play and honed by experience. No symbolic language is needed to teach accuracy with a sling or a bow. None is needed to manage animals or plants. It's an irrelevant skill in social maneuvering and leadership.

But symbolic applications of math do come in handy for building monuments and the simple machines you need for that which got applied (and magnified) to mass warfare and is still going strong today in research.

I think the first need for symbolic math, though, was to chart the heavens and time celestial events. Important stuff in human history but not at all important to the residents of Name-The-Village for thousands of years. It's mostly Village descendants populating the world today - not the offspring of long ago astronomers or monument architects. That's what I mean by "not a survival skill".

[Norm dePlume]

Actually, there are more people "intuitively" good at math than you might think. I love to watch those people. My brother is like that. My grandfather was as well. The difference between my brother and my grandfather was that my brother did study higher math, my grandfather did not. However, if there was a problem to be solved, I would use algebraic formulas, or geometry...and yet he would just guess, work backwards and get the answer far quicker than I could. I could simply see that their brains worked a bit differently from mine. I was good up until calculus..that was my waterloo.

I disagree that it's not necessary in a survival sense. At some point one's physical abilities are simply not enough, and survival depends on the ability to increase your chances using math or science to better your own abilities to either hunt or self-defend. Hence, the wheel and the gun were invented.

But I agree about needing to know the basics really well.

When it comes to performing at the 90th percentile, it's only maybe 1 out of 20 can do that, right?

[Norm dePlume]

I think the first need for symbolic math, though, was to chart the heavens and time celestial events. Important stuff in human history but not at all important to the residents of Name-The-Village for thousands of years. It's mostly Village descendants populating the world today - not the offspring of long ago astronomers or monument architects. That's what I mean by "not a survival skill".

Agriculture in a temperate zone involves a lot of timing – when to plant and so on – and astronomers were the keepers of the calendar.

[Adam]

Agriculture in a temperate zone involves a lot of timing – when to plant and so on – and astronomers were the keepers of the calendar.

While true, it didn't really take the Albert Einstein of the time to figure out that the moon was full on a particular night, setting for the harvest, plant, or whatever.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Actually, there are more people "intuitively" good at math than you might think. I love to watch those people. My brother is like that. My grandfather was as well. The difference between my brother and my grandfather was that my brother did study higher math, my grandfather did not. However, if there was a problem to be solved, I would use algebraic formulas, or geometry...and yet he would just guess, work backwards and get the answer far quicker than I could. I could simply see that their brains worked a bit differently from mine. I was good up until calculus..that was my waterloo.

I disagree that it's not necessary in a survival sense. At some point one's physical abilities are simply not enough, and survival depends on the ability to increase your chances using math or science to better your own abilities to either hunt or self-defend. Hence, the wheel and the gun were invented.

But I agree about needing to know the basics really well.

My dad and Nova were like that. Nova's old now, so I don't know if he still has it.

I was good at math, but like you, I bailed at calculus. I might have been able to do it, but I just didn't care enough to try.

[gary m]

When it comes to performing at the 90th percentile, it's only maybe 1 out of 20 can do that, right?

2 at the most.