Common Core - New Math - One Photo

[RiverDad]

Here's what happens when we place trust in education "professionals" - one fad after another.

 

[Gathomas88]

Here's what happens when we place trust in education "professionals" - one fad after another.

Are they trying to "prove" their work?

I'm not really sure if I understand their method if that is the case. I'm also not really sure why something that complicated would even be necessary for a simple subtraction problem in the first place.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Here's what happens when we place trust in education "professionals" - one fad after another.

Please show where this is being taught as a replacement of "the old fashion way".
I don't buy your premise.

 

[RiverDad]

Are they trying to "prove" their work?

I'm not really sure if I understand their method if that is the case. I'm also not really sure why something that complicated would even be necessary for a simple subtraction problem in the first place.

That's not a proof.

Think of it like a "ladder" of small steps. Start at 12 and then incrementally choose waypoints until you get to 32. This is subtraction via the use of addition. Add up all of the steps and you get your answer.

The theory is that the old way is not simpler, you just think it's simpler because that's the way that you've been taught. If you're taught this new way then you'll eventually think it's simpler too.

Of course, the validation studies on this are crap, but hey, who cares, education "professionals" say this is better. The fact that education "professionals" are the laughingstock of academia has no bearing on the issue.

 

[Grand Mal]

Here's what happens when we place trust in education "professionals" - one fad after another.

What in h3ll are you on about now?

 

[Gathomas88]

That's not a proof.

Think of it like a "ladder" of small steps. Start at 12 and then incrementally choose waypoints until you get to 32. This is subtraction via the use of addition. Add up all of the steps and you get your answer.

The theory is that the old way is not simpler, you just think it's simpler because that's the way that you've been taught. If you're taught this new way then you'll eventually think it's simpler too.

Of course, the validation studies on this are crap, but hey, who cares, education "professionals" say this is better. The fact that education "professionals" are the laughingstock of academia has no bearing on the issue.

How are they choosing their waypoints? Why couldn't you just plop down 12 + 20 = 32 and be done with the whole thing right then and there?

The method shown in the OP just seems kind of arbitrary and convoluted from the word "go" on forward.

 

[RiverDad]

How are they choosing their waypoints? Why couldn't you just plop down 12 + 20 = 32 and be done with the whole thing right then and there?

The whole thing just seems kind of arbitrary and convoluted from the word "go" on forward.

Choose whatever waypoint you want.

 

[Grand Mal]

That's not a proof.

Think of it like a "ladder" of small steps. Start at 12 and then incrementally choose waypoints until you get to 32. This is subtraction via the use of addition. Add up all of the steps and you get your answer.

The theory is that the old way is not simpler, you just think it's simpler because that's the way that you've been taught. If you're taught this new way then you'll eventually think it's simpler too.

Of course, the validation studies on this are crap, but hey, who cares, education "professionals" say this is better. The fact that education "professionals" are the laughingstock of academia has no bearing on the issue.

Where did you get this? Are you trying to say that a school teacher taught you to do subtraction like this?

 

[Grand Mal]

How are they choosing their waypoints? Why couldn't you just plop down 12 + 20 = 32 and be done with the whole thing right then and there?

The method shown in the OP just seems kind of arbitrary and convoluted from the word "go" on forward.

Seems a little like a load of crapola, don't it?

 

[Gathomas88]

Choose whatever waypoint you want.

Like I said, that just seems idiotically convoluted. It also seems like there's a lot more room for someone to become confused while learning the process.

I could easily see a kid just arbitrarily picking some random number that makes absolutely no sense for the "ladder" and throwing the whole thing off.

i.e.

"I want 100!"

It'd also be an incredibly obnoxious and tedious method to use once you start getting up to numbers larger than double or triple digits.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Here's what happens when we place trust in education "professionals" - one fad after another.

There are several new 'methods' to learning math - it's to a point where I, a mother with a 3.8 GPA in college, struggle to help my 9 year old with her math studies because I can't quite follow their pretentious ****.

They complain that parents aren't involved enough: but they they tinker and alter things to the point where parents cannot help.

 

[Gathomas88]

Here's what happens when we place trust in education "professionals" - one fad after another.

Has it been officially suggested that our schools switch over to this method, or is it still theoretical at this point?

Edit:

Nevermind. Looks like AS already answered me here.

Seems pretty damn absurd to me. lol

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This is a new approach to multiplication. It's called 'the lattice method' - It's taking the concept of just learning your math facts and it turns into a crazy pile of crap:

lattice math

Isn't that just dandy?

Remember 'carry the ones' and such? Nope - not doing that anymore because it was too hard (I guess).

 

[RiverDad]

Where did you get this? Are you trying to say that a school teacher taught you to do subtraction like this?

This cancer is spreading all over the US and Canada. Here's where I got the photo and here's one article from a (so far) 21 part series in the Edmonton Journal about Alberta's headache with Education "Professionals" blundering their way forward with another untested fad.

 

[RiverDad]

Seems a little like a load of crapola, don't it?

At least they've given up on pushing the anti-racist math crapola.

 

[Grand Mal]

This cancer is spreading all over the US and Canada. Here's where I got the photo and here's one article from a (so far) 21 part series in the Edmonton Journal about Alberta's headache with Education "Professionals" blundering their way forward with another untested fad.

You got the photo from a facebook page with no explanation of what it's supposed to represent?
Are you saying that subtraction is taught this way in Alabama schools?

 

[ecofarm]

At least they've given up on pushing the anti-racist math crapola.

The benchmarks, which could not be found on the district's Web site, were faxed to FOXNews.com by Tom Mountain, a columnist for The Newton Tab who has followed the district's education system and, specifically, the rise of the "antiracist" education agenda there. His Jan. 12 column on the topic received so much attention, he said, his e-mail inbox was flooded with over 200 responses.

hahaha



How does one, 9 years later, even find such a ridiculous article? Got a follow-up?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Common Core is destroying our school's and teacher's ability to teach our children.

 

[RiverDad]

How does one, 9 years later, even find such a ridiculous article? Got a follow-up?

Ridiculous, why? Because it mocks malignant liberalism? Cuts too close to the bone? This crap has been festering in the fevered swamps of Education Faculties for a long time.

Woodrow, D. (1989). Multicultural and anti-racist mathematics teaching. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 229–235). London: Falmer.

Cotton, A. (1990). Anti-racist mathematics teaching and the national curriculum. Mathematics Teaching, 132, 22-26.

The Politics of Anti-Racist Mathematics in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Political Dimensions of Mathematics Education, (Ed. R. Noss), Institute of Education Publications, University of London, 1990.

 

[ecofarm]

Ridiculous, why? Because it mocks malignant liberalism? Cuts too close to the bone?

The article cites a fax from a tabloid columnist, and admits no verification.

Your references are probably crap, or invented, and you know no one will bother to check. Ironically, just like the article you cited.

 

[RiverDad]

The article cites a fax from a tabloid columnist, and admits no verification.

Your references are probably crap, or invented, and you know no one will bother to check. Ironically, just like the article you cited.

Here you go:

The politics of anti-racist mathematics

Focuses on the multicultural approach used for teaching mathematics in Great Britain. British society's concern about the undue emphasis on multicultural mathematics; Existence of racism in British society; Checkpoint of how insensitivity or bias to racial minority may emerge into a mathematics lesson; Purpose of antiracist mathematics to combat racism through mathematics.​

 

[ecofarm]

Here you go:

The politics of anti-racist mathematics

Focuses on the multicultural approach used for teaching mathematics in Great Britain. British society's concern about the undue emphasis on multicultural mathematics; Existence of racism in British society; Checkpoint of how insensitivity or bias to racial minority may emerge into a mathematics lesson; Purpose of antiracist mathematics to combat racism through mathematics.​

Your proof of the vastness of this is a 20 year old article?

 

[RiverDad]

Your proof of the vastness of this is a 20 year old article?

I see that your short term memory problem is flaring up again. Sucks I suppose. Let me help you out by refreshing your memory from 26 minutes ago:

"At least they've given up on pushing the anti-racist math crapola."​

 

[ecofarm]

I see that your short term memory problem is flaring up again. Sucks I suppose. Let me help you out by refreshing your memory from 26 minutes ago:

"At least they've given up on pushing the anti-racist math crapola."​

So the festering is the reverse-subtraction? Got any evidence that this is more than an example of number manipulation in a class?

 

[Buck Ewer]

This is a new approach to multiplication. It's called 'the lattice method' - It's taking the concept of just learning your math facts and it turns into a crazy pile of crap:

lattice math

Isn't that just dandy?

Remember 'carry the ones' and such? Nope - not doing that anymore because it was too hard (I guess).

That works fine. I have no problem with that method.It's just a different approach.
In the real world anyone would be using a two dollar calculator and spending more time thinking about results.
So whats the problem?