4 ms·

wtf -- you're 100% wrong. Common Core exactly shows you how to solve problems. It precisely does not focus on rote memorization. Yes, you need to memorize "m

wtf -- you're 100% wrong. Common Core exactly shows you how to solve problems. It precisely does not focus on rote memorization. Yes, you need to memorize "math facts", but this is limited to simple multiplication tables (and similar). The entire point of Common Core is to teach multiple algorithms by which students can solve problems for which they recognize the pattern. Back in the 90s, when I was in school, I don't recall this kind of rigor in math at all until I got to Calc 2 and needed to actually focus on memorizing patterns & rules for solving integrals. Everything, at that time, was rote memorization.

icelancer 7y ago
>> recognize the pattern >> solve problems These are incompatible, which is what I am saying and the parent above my comment is also saying. >> simple multiplication tables (and similar) If you fail to memorize these, you can derive the answer using your fallback to addition, which you've been shown how to do. In Common Core textbooks and in the class my oldest is in, these are assumed facts. Breaking down how to derive multiplication and division is at least a failure of the teacher in the class, if not the methodology, though I suspect the teacher is pretty good. Common Core relies on a lot of memorization and pattern matching. This is fine, and good for everyday use. It is not learning it from first principles, which makes it hard when your pattern matching engine isn't working properly. Both methods should be taught in an integrated fashion. I support Common Core - and have for a long time - as an adjunct. Not as the primary method of teaching math. Most kids will find Common Core easier, I'll readily admit that. It also has better carryover to everyday use, as I've already admitted. But it lacks rigor. >> Back in the 90s, when I was in school, I don't recall this kind of rigor in math at all until I got to Calc 2 We're likely the same age. My arithmetic classes were far more rigorous than most of my mathematics classes beyond that up until Linear Algebra.
linuxftw 7y ago
> It precisely does not focus on rote memorization. This is where the disconnect is. It may have very well been designed with that goal in mind, but common core is is memorization in another form. The form of memorization is worse than the traditional form because it involves more steps, and the steps are very unintuitive. I don't think kids will be able to explain why it works. They might be able to recite definitions and phrases that they were forced to memorize, but they won't be able to put it into their own words. I know, because I've seen it first hand from a kid I consider to be bright. We can blame parents, we can blame teachers, but it doesn't matter. Common core is not optimized or appropriate for childhood education in the US.
- dorchadas 6y ago
  > Common core is not optimized or appropriate for childhood education in the US. Then maybe the problem is with the teachers/parents and not the Common Core? Of course the kids won't understand it if their teachers don't understand it. Just like kids won't enjoy/understand reading if their teachers don't read and talk about reading, etc.

icelancer 7y ago

>> recognize the pattern >> solve problems These are incompatible, which is what I am saying and the parent above my comment is also saying. >> simple multiplication tables (and similar) If you fail to memorize these, you can derive the answer using your fallback to addition, which you've been shown how to do. In Common Core textbooks and in the class my oldest is in, these are assumed facts. Breaking down how to derive multiplication and division is at least a failure of the teacher in the class, if not the methodology, though I suspect the teacher is pretty good. Common Core relies on a lot of memorization and pattern matching. This is fine, and good for everyday use. It is not learning it from first principles, which makes it hard when your pattern matching engine isn't working properly. Both methods should be taught in an integrated fashion. I support Common Core - and have for a long time - as an adjunct. Not as the primary method of teaching math. Most kids will find Common Core easier, I'll readily admit that. It also has better carryover to everyday use, as I've already admitted. But it lacks rigor. >> Back in the 90s, when I was in school, I don't recall this kind of rigor in math at all until I got to Calc 2 We're likely the same age. My arithmetic classes were far more rigorous than most of my mathematics classes beyond that up until Linear Algebra.

linuxftw 7y ago

> It precisely does not focus on rote memorization. This is where the disconnect is. It may have very well been designed with that goal in mind, but common core is is memorization in another form. The form of memorization is worse than the traditional form because it involves more steps, and the steps are very unintuitive. I don't think kids will be able to explain why it works. They might be able to recite definitions and phrases that they were forced to memorize, but they won't be able to put it into their own words. I know, because I've seen it first hand from a kid I consider to be bright. We can blame parents, we can blame teachers, but it doesn't matter. Common core is not optimized or appropriate for childhood education in the US.

dorchadas 6y ago
> Common core is not optimized or appropriate for childhood education in the US. Then maybe the problem is with the teachers/parents and not the Common Core? Of course the kids won't understand it if their teachers don't understand it. Just like kids won't enjoy/understand reading if their teachers don't read and talk about reading, etc.