4 ms·

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 c

by 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.
- desine 6y ago
  >I'd prefer if you kept HN conversations civil even if you disagree with the person you're communicating with. Same, which is why I will continue to walk away from straw man arguments.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    How else am I supposed to interpret your citation from a teacher that common core was intended to combat privilege, followed by your statement > Often the war on white privilege manifests itself as preventing white success rather than helping PoC. other than you intrinsically view common core as a zero sum strategy, that's taking from privileged students to as a strategy to relatively help less privileged students? Addressing your point head on isn't making a strawman argument, and doesn't make me a troll. Would you care to address my point, that your understanding of student success is wrong here, and that's the core of your misunderstanding, and they are in fact helping students across the privilege spectrum? Or will you just continue to call people who disagree with you trolls?
    - desine 6y ago
      * It wasn't a teacher that said that, it was the creator of Common Core. Please, take the time to see the link in my first post. * I didn't say education was a zero sum game, I said that forcing this pedagogical style was harming successful students. * I don't even know how to address your arguments because you're inserting claims I did not make. Again you're saying I intrinsically view common core as a zero sum strategy? When I just want students to be able to learn in the method they understand, whether that is Common Core, or not. These are straw man arguments, you are the one who is not addressing my points. So yes, you are trolling, currently. And I call it out when I see it.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        > It wasn't a teacher that said that, it was the creator of Common Core. Please, take the time to see the link in my first post. That person _is_ a teacher in addition to creating common core. Common core was designed by teachers overall. The title of the video is literally "Teacher admits he helped write Common Core to end white privilege" > I didn't say education was a zero sum game, I said that forcing this pedagogical style was harming successful students ..to help non "successful" students. When someone says "we did this to help this subset" and you use that as proof that they're intending to harm another subset, that's the definition of a zero sum argument. You're also continuing to not address the root of my argument, falling back on name calling.
option_greek 6y ago
Wow. As a non American, that's insane. If this keeps up for next 20 years or so, it could have catastrophical consequences for maths in USA where blending in matters more than raw talent.

by desine 6y ago

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.

desine 6y ago
>I'd prefer if you kept HN conversations civil even if you disagree with the person you're communicating with. Same, which is why I will continue to walk away from straw man arguments.
- monocasa 6y ago
  How else am I supposed to interpret your citation from a teacher that common core was intended to combat privilege, followed by your statement > Often the war on white privilege manifests itself as preventing white success rather than helping PoC. other than you intrinsically view common core as a zero sum strategy, that's taking from privileged students to as a strategy to relatively help less privileged students? Addressing your point head on isn't making a strawman argument, and doesn't make me a troll. Would you care to address my point, that your understanding of student success is wrong here, and that's the core of your misunderstanding, and they are in fact helping students across the privilege spectrum? Or will you just continue to call people who disagree with you trolls?
  - desine 6y ago
    * It wasn't a teacher that said that, it was the creator of Common Core. Please, take the time to see the link in my first post. * I didn't say education was a zero sum game, I said that forcing this pedagogical style was harming successful students. * I don't even know how to address your arguments because you're inserting claims I did not make. Again you're saying I intrinsically view common core as a zero sum strategy? When I just want students to be able to learn in the method they understand, whether that is Common Core, or not. These are straw man arguments, you are the one who is not addressing my points. So yes, you are trolling, currently. And I call it out when I see it.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      > It wasn't a teacher that said that, it was the creator of Common Core. Please, take the time to see the link in my first post. That person _is_ a teacher in addition to creating common core. Common core was designed by teachers overall. The title of the video is literally "Teacher admits he helped write Common Core to end white privilege" > I didn't say education was a zero sum game, I said that forcing this pedagogical style was harming successful students ..to help non "successful" students. When someone says "we did this to help this subset" and you use that as proof that they're intending to harm another subset, that's the definition of a zero sum argument. You're also continuing to not address the root of my argument, falling back on name calling.

option_greek 6y ago

Wow. As a non American, that's insane. If this keeps up for next 20 years or so, it could have catastrophical consequences for maths in USA where blending in matters more than raw talent.