4 ms·

Nowhere did I imply education was a zero sum game. What I did mention was that students who were able to comprehend mathematics using the traditional arithmeti

by desine 6y ago

Nowhere did I imply education was a zero sum game. What I did mention was that students who were able to comprehend mathematics using the traditional arithmetic techniques were not getting credit for their work, because the education system was forcing a new thought model for learning elementary math. The fact that this new model, Common Core, was specifically designed to reduce privelege (and not "help those struggling with math"), and the fact that many students, parents, and educators find it less logical, should raise concern for all of us. How does "everyone win" when students who understand math are failing tests because they're not using an absurd roundabout method of multiplying numbers?

monocasa 6y ago
> Nowhere did I imply education was a zero sum game. You did, by implying that an emphasis on less privileged students harms more privileged students, and that this was in fact the goal of common core. You continue down this assumption further in your post. > What I did mention was that students who were able to comprehend mathematics using the traditional arithmetic techniques were not getting credit for their work, because the education system was forcing a new thought model for learning elementary math. The whole point is to demphasize lucking into or remembering the right answer, but demonstrating true mathematical understanding via different forms of symbol manipulation. Memorizing times tables doesn't help students when they have a computer measured in 10s to 100s of GLOPS in their pocket, but a deeper understanding of numerical relationships does. They don't get credit for their assignment, because they didn't do the assignment, or fulfill the assignment's goals. > The fact that this new model, Common Core, was specifically designed to reduce privelege[sic] Giving less privileged children more tools to understand higher math takes nothing away from more privileged children. > How does "everyone win" when students who understand math are failing tests because they're not using an absurd roundabout method of multiplying numbers? Because the point of the assignment isn't teaching them multiplication, it's to teach them numeracy. Just because parents (and a lot of K-5 teachers) were failed in that regard doesn't mean we should lower the bar or continue teaching in ways that don't prepare students for the modern world.
- desine 6y ago
  No, again. It's not the helping less priveleged students that's the issue. The issue is forcing successful students to use a new system, regardless of their comprehension. I'm not sure how familiar you are with common core, but it starts actually at addition and subtraction, before students even get to memorizing multiplication tables. The traditional method of "borrowing a 1" from the next digit is no longer a valid method of showing work for multi-digit subtraction. This is the method most of us learned on just fine. It works, it doesn't abstract away any numerical concepts. Again, if students struggle, I'm all for alternative methods. But forcing students with solid comprehension into "finding a zero" can do more damage than good. >Giving less privileged children more tools to understand higher math takes nothing away from more privileged children. I just explained how students who grasp the math are forced to learn a new method, one that often adds unnecessary confusion. You would be correct if students were allowed to use the methods they understood (assuming the methods are mathmatically sound) You're clearly arguing in bad faith, I wish you all the best with your trolling career
  - monocasa 6y ago
    > No, again. It's not the helping less priveleged[sic] students that's the issue. The issue is forcing successful students to use a new system, regardless of their comprehension. These students aren't successful by definition. They're students that are failing the assignments. The goal isn't arithmetic, it's numeracy. Greater numeracy helps "successful" students as well. > I'm not sure how familiar you are with common core, but it starts actually at addition and subtraction.. The whole point of common core is that there's next to no emphasis on teaching arithmetic but instead numerical relationships. Yes, the borrow a one method is still taught _in addition_ to other numerical relationships. The point of these assignments isn't to get to 3 + 9 = 12 (because everyone is surrounded by equipment that'll make that determination before your brain has processed what your retina sees). If you have children who can't demonstrate these different forms of numerical relationships, but only have a memorized algorithm, then sort of by definition they don't have solid comprehension of the concepts being taught, and unsurprisingly fail the assignment. > I just explained how students who grasp the math... And I explained how your view of the goal is wrong. We're not teaching arithmetic, we're teaching numeracy. It's like how in higher math if you just state an answer without your proof chain, you fail. The point isn't seeing if you can crank away at the calculations, it's if you understand the different, specific logical relationships between numbers. These students failing aren't "grasping the math", they're not demonstrating the mathematical concepts being taught and falling back to another (most likely rote) method. Math isn't arithmetic. > You're clearly arguing in bad faith, I wish you all the best with your trolling career I'd prefer if you kept HN conversations civil even if you disagree with the person you're communicating with.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
threatofrain 6y ago
> The traditional method of "borrowing a 1" from the next digit is no longer a valid method of showing work for multi-digit subtraction. The Common Core specifications for any grade are very sparse, and simply lists learning goals for the year. It takes 5-10 minutes to read over an entire grade. > Find whole-number quotients and remainders with up to four-digit dividends and one-digit divisors, using strategies based on place value, the properties of operations, and/or the relationship between multiplication and division. Illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models. This is the level of specification that the Common Core will offer. Where do you find the story that borrowing is not to receive credit, or is not to be taught? To anyone who has been paying attention, the Common Core advances the CA math curriculum by about 0.5 years, and that's really about it. Students are absolutely learning the same math. Khan Academy is an example of a curriculum which conforms Perfectly to the Common Core. There's nothing racial about it, and it's quite a reasonable curriculum for math in the sum of all things. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/2/NBT/ http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/2/NBT/ https://www.khanacademy.org/commoncore/grade-2-NBT https://www.khanacademy.org/commoncore/grade-2-NBT

by desine 6y ago

monocasa 6y ago

> Nowhere did I imply education was a zero sum game. You did, by implying that an emphasis on less privileged students harms more privileged students, and that this was in fact the goal of common core. You continue down this assumption further in your post. > What I did mention was that students who were able to comprehend mathematics using the traditional arithmetic techniques were not getting credit for their work, because the education system was forcing a new thought model for learning elementary math. The whole point is to demphasize lucking into or remembering the right answer, but demonstrating true mathematical understanding via different forms of symbol manipulation. Memorizing times tables doesn't help students when they have a computer measured in 10s to 100s of GLOPS in their pocket, but a deeper understanding of numerical relationships does. They don't get credit for their assignment, because they didn't do the assignment, or fulfill the assignment's goals. > The fact that this new model, Common Core, was specifically designed to reduce privelege[sic] Giving less privileged children more tools to understand higher math takes nothing away from more privileged children. > How does "everyone win" when students who understand math are failing tests because they're not using an absurd roundabout method of multiplying numbers? Because the point of the assignment isn't teaching them multiplication, it's to teach them numeracy. Just because parents (and a lot of K-5 teachers) were failed in that regard doesn't mean we should lower the bar or continue teaching in ways that don't prepare students for the modern world.

desine 6y ago
No, again. It's not the helping less priveleged students that's the issue. The issue is forcing successful students to use a new system, regardless of their comprehension. I'm not sure how familiar you are with common core, but it starts actually at addition and subtraction, before students even get to memorizing multiplication tables. The traditional method of "borrowing a 1" from the next digit is no longer a valid method of showing work for multi-digit subtraction. This is the method most of us learned on just fine. It works, it doesn't abstract away any numerical concepts. Again, if students struggle, I'm all for alternative methods. But forcing students with solid comprehension into "finding a zero" can do more damage than good. >Giving less privileged children more tools to understand higher math takes nothing away from more privileged children. I just explained how students who grasp the math are forced to learn a new method, one that often adds unnecessary confusion. You would be correct if students were allowed to use the methods they understood (assuming the methods are mathmatically sound) You're clearly arguing in bad faith, I wish you all the best with your trolling career
- monocasa 6y ago
  > No, again. It's not the helping less priveleged[sic] students that's the issue. The issue is forcing successful students to use a new system, regardless of their comprehension. These students aren't successful by definition. They're students that are failing the assignments. The goal isn't arithmetic, it's numeracy. Greater numeracy helps "successful" students as well. > I'm not sure how familiar you are with common core, but it starts actually at addition and subtraction.. The whole point of common core is that there's next to no emphasis on teaching arithmetic but instead numerical relationships. Yes, the borrow a one method is still taught _in addition_ to other numerical relationships. The point of these assignments isn't to get to 3 + 9 = 12 (because everyone is surrounded by equipment that'll make that determination before your brain has processed what your retina sees). If you have children who can't demonstrate these different forms of numerical relationships, but only have a memorized algorithm, then sort of by definition they don't have solid comprehension of the concepts being taught, and unsurprisingly fail the assignment. > I just explained how students who grasp the math... And I explained how your view of the goal is wrong. We're not teaching arithmetic, we're teaching numeracy. It's like how in higher math if you just state an answer without your proof chain, you fail. The point isn't seeing if you can crank away at the calculations, it's if you understand the different, specific logical relationships between numbers. These students failing aren't "grasping the math", they're not demonstrating the mathematical concepts being taught and falling back to another (most likely rote) method. Math isn't arithmetic. > You're clearly arguing in bad faith, I wish you all the best with your trolling career I'd prefer if you kept HN conversations civil even if you disagree with the person you're communicating with.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

threatofrain 6y ago

> The traditional method of "borrowing a 1" from the next digit is no longer a valid method of showing work for multi-digit subtraction. The Common Core specifications for any grade are very sparse, and simply lists learning goals for the year. It takes 5-10 minutes to read over an entire grade. > Find whole-number quotients and remainders with up to four-digit dividends and one-digit divisors, using strategies based on place value, the properties of operations, and/or the relationship between multiplication and division. Illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models. This is the level of specification that the Common Core will offer. Where do you find the story that borrowing is not to receive credit, or is not to be taught? To anyone who has been paying attention, the Common Core advances the CA math curriculum by about 0.5 years, and that's really about it. Students are absolutely learning the same math. Khan Academy is an example of a curriculum which conforms Perfectly to the Common Core. There's nothing racial about it, and it's quite a reasonable curriculum for math in the sum of all things. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/2/NBT/ http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/2/NBT/ https://www.khanacademy.org/commoncore/grade-2-NBT https://www.khanacademy.org/commoncore/grade-2-NBT