Common Core math teaching standards: What is wrong with them?

[BaalChatzaf]

Here are the Common Core math standards:

The Standards mandate that eight principles of mathematical practice be taught:

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
4. Model with mathematics.
5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
6. Attend to precision.
7. Look for and make use of structure.
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Floating abstractions that become hell when implemented by technocrats?

That's for starters.

Reagan used to say that the most terrifying words a citizen could hear was, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Dressing it up in pretty words does not change the nature of it.

Michael

[jts]

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Here are the Common Core math standards:

The Standards mandate that eight principles of mathematical practice be taught:

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
4. Model with mathematics.
5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
6. Attend to precision.
7. Look for and make use of structure.
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning

What's wrong with them is that they're just an advertisement. If an education program doesn't say these things, it simply doesn't go anywhere. We may never know the real reasons why this program was selected out of all the others that have been proposed, but we can make educated guesses.

[merjet]

It seems Ma and Pa Kettle were taught the "new math."

[Frediano]

The bigger issue is SinglePointOfFailure. Getting it all wrong at once. Monolithic system design,

Building 'the economy' instead of 'the economies.'

Look at the Sears Tower. It is not 'a' tower; it is nine towers in parallel. That is what makes the aggregate strong, resilient.

Same thing with a suspension bridge cable.

We are not smart enough to constructively design 'the' curriculum. This is lousy system design on its face, no matter the content.

The phrase is 'United We Stand.' Not 'United It Stands.'

The balance of the tribe is allowing a significant fraction of the tribe to fully cave in to its atavistic herd mentality genes; this is a massive step towards stupid.

[dldelancey]

Here's a good article on the subject.

Those 8 principles may seem innocuous on their own, but have you read the other 100 pages? Have you experienced The New Math which is how the standards are being implemented? Well, I have. I have been struggling over The New Math homework assignments with my third grader since last August trying to figure out how (or why) he's supposed to fill up the front and back of a page on 2+2=4.

Explain in 1-2 sentences that 2+2=4. And then draw a picture representing 2+2=4. And then explain what information you needed to have before you decided 2+2=4. And then write a math fact about 2+2=4. On and on and on.

[BaalChatzaf]

Floating abstractions that become hell when implemented by technocrats?

That's for starters.

Reagan used to say that the most terrifying words a citizen could hear was, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Dressing it up in pretty words does not change the nature of it.

Michael

I was a professional mathematician for 30 years. floating abstractions fed my children

Ba'al Chatzafg

[BaalChatzaf]

12 + 20 = 32. what is the problem here?

One method uses carrying the other method does not.

The both produce the the correct answer.

I fail to see anything wrong.

I use carrying myself because it is faster, but both methods are correct

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Well folks, now come on!

The prior Federalization has been extremely successful.

On what grounds would you oppose this further Federalization.

Now sit down and explain in 1-2 sentences that the Federalization of curriculum is a good thing.

And then draw a picture representing why it is good, which shall include how safe the school is and how diverse it is.

And then explain what information you needed to have before you decided that the Federalization of the curriculum is good.

And then write an educational fact about the goodness of the Federalization of curriculum.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once you have answered these first questions, you will be evaluated by the uniformed Curriculum Cadet Officer in one of the evaluation chambers to your left.

A perfect system...

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

How do you infer Federalization from those 8 pedagogical points?

Is the pedagogy flawed? Then show that is the case in pedagogical terms.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... floating abstractions fed my children

Bob,

Not the kind I was talking about.

For someone who thinks the Constitution is essentially nothing but a floating abstraction anymore, you sure are quick to trust the government.

For example, the government says it wants math students to "make sense of problems and persevere in solving them," (by adopting that standard).

Well then.

The government said it so the government will obviously do it, right?

Heh.

It must be true because the government said so. Got it.

btw - Are you in the market for a bridge? I have several on offer...

Michael

[Selene]

How do you infer Federalization from those 8 pedagogical points?

I don't infer Federalization based on one (1) isolated math fact example.

A...

[Selene]

The article below should be one we both "trust" since it is from The Freeman and provides why I can infer that a mandated Federally imposed curriculum is precisely the Federalization of education and the curriculum that underpins it:

The development of the Common Core, the model school curriculum standards that have been adopted by 45 states, offers us a glimpse into the dark underbelly of the democratic drift toward soft despotism. Proponents tout Common Core as “state-led” and say states “voluntarily adopt” the standards. Philanthropic and corporate America have gotten involved voluntarily. Parents and students—those most intimately affected by the initiative—won’t get to be a part of the voluntarism. But Common Core is so good, the argument goes, they’ll want it anyway.

Bringing greater uniformity to the K–12 curricula across the country is supposed to rescue kids stuck in lousy schools and improve standards for everyone. But policy analysts across the spectrum from Brookings to Heritage are expressing skepticism about the promises accompanying the new standards. And it is quite likely that extending such bureaucratic uniformity from Washington to the state capitols and then to every public school district in the land will pose new risks to America’s federalist experiment in self-government. What’s more, the Common Core movement is pushing increased college matriculation just as students and parents are beginning to reassess the costs and benefits of college tuition.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/common-core-a-tocquevillean-education-or-cartel-federalism

A...

Post Script:

I am completely in favor of eliminating compulsory education and replacing it with a decentralized and voluntary private free market.

[BaalChatzaf]

Your objection then is NOT what is proposed but WHO proposed it?

We call that kind of "argument" ad hominem. It is a bogus method of argument.

If the 8 pedagogical principles bothers you then challenge them on pedagogical grounds.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Nobody is arguing against platitudes.

Anybody can write platitudes. Who the hell even cares about them?

People are arguing against state mind control and/or indoctrination of kids and technocratic bungling. You are indirectly trying to justify that crap by ignoring it while praising the propaganda.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Nobody is arguing against platitudes.

Anybody can write platitudes. Who the hell even cares about them?

People are arguing against state mind control and/or indoctrination of kids and technocratic bungling. You are indirectly trying to justify that crap by ignoring it while praising the propaganda.

Michael

I am doing no such thing. I am asking is there is a pedagogic argument against these items for teaching mathematics.

All the objections I have seen is based on who is using these principles to push an education agenda in mathematics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Maybe because the platitudes are not the only "standards" in Common Core and you are referring to "the Common Core math standards" while ignoring that mess that goes along with the platitudes? This is a trick propagandists use all the time. They leave out the bad stuff and pretend that the good-sounding platitudes are the sole foundation.

Shit, it's like asking Jews what was wrong with Hitler's oven technology then getting all miffed and stuff because all hell breaks loose.

(I know, I know... Hitler is a cheap shot, but I'm trying to give you a similar frame so you can understand the objections.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me be clearer.

There is nothing wrong with the eight bromides you listed. What could possibly be wrong with "make sense of problems and persevere in solving them"? And so on...

But there is everything wrong with presenting them as if they were the sole math standards in Common Core.

And that's without considering the true nature of them--that they are merely a good-sounding wrapper to hide the garbage inside.

Anyway, a mission statement (which is what those so-called "principles" are) is not a standard except in the most platitudinous sense. How do you quantify "make sense and persevere," for instance? Go to the self-help aisle of a bookstore and see what you can find?

Some math standard. Real rigorous, it is...

Like I said, are you in the market to buy a bridge?

Michael

[dldelancey]

Bob,

Nobody is arguing against platitudes.

Anybody can write platitudes. Who the hell even cares about them?

People are arguing against state mind control and/or indoctrination of kids and technocratic bungling. You are indirectly trying to justify that crap by ignoring it while praising the propaganda.

Michael

I am doing no such thing. I am asking is there is a pedagogic argument against these items for teaching mathematics.

All the objections I have seen is based on who is using these principles to push an education agenda in mathematics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Apparently you missed my post. I am not arguing against who. I am arguing against how. I have no problem with the 8 principles. I have a problem with how they are being implemented. I have a problem with trying to teach skills to children before they are capable of grasping them while at the same time skipping over skills that they are capable of grasping. You noted that both methods of solving 32-12 will allow the student to arrive at the correct answer. But which way is most efficient and sets the strongest foundation for future growth for a child of 7 years old?

Edited to add: I'll ask again, since you missed my earlier post, have you read the rest of the Common Core standards? The other hundred or so pages that go along with these 8 principles?

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Nobody is arguing against platitudes.

Anybody can write platitudes. Who the hell even cares about them?

People are arguing against state mind control and/or indoctrination of kids and technocratic bungling. You are indirectly trying to justify that crap by ignoring it while praising the propaganda.

Michael

I am doing no such thing. I am asking is there is a pedagogic argument against these items for teaching mathematics.

All the objections I have seen is based on who is using these principles to push an education agenda in mathematics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Apparently you missed my post. I am not arguing against who. I am arguing against how. I have no problem with the 8 principles. I have a problem with how they are being implemented. I have a problem with trying to teach skills to children before they are capable of grasping them while at the same time skipping over skills that they are capable of grasping. You noted that both methods of solving 32-12 will allow the student to arrive at the correct answer. But which way is most efficient and sets the strongest foundation for future growth for a child of 7 years old?

Edited to add: I'll ask again, since you missed my earlier post, have you read the rest of the Common Core standards? The other hundred or so pages that go along with these 8 principles?

The mechanics of -carrying- take one away from the numbers. Yes carrying is quicker, but doing the piece wise addition puts the actual quantities in the center of attention. So in the "long" method, the numbers are actual quantities added and in the carry approach they are symbols manipulated.

I agree, carrying is faster, but it is removed from numbers as quantity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You know something is really wrong when a famous Obama-loving comedian won't even make a joke about Common Core, for or against.

He just bitches.

When the Famous Comedian Who Once Said ‘I Really Love Barack Obama’ Says This About Common Core, It Makes News

Basically, Louis C.K. tweeted the following: “My kids used to love math. Now it makes them cry. Thanks standardized testing and common core!”

Michael

[dldelancey]

The mechanics of -carrying- take one away from the numbers. Yes carrying is quicker, but doing the piece wise addition puts the actual quantities in the center of attention. So in the "long" method, the numbers are actual quantities added and in the carry approach they are symbols manipulated.

I agree, carrying is faster, but it is removed from numbers as quantity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

On principle, I have to agree with the root arguments against Common Core, those put forth here at OL as well as in many other venues. In practice, however, I have a little boy I'm desperate to see grow up to be a successful and productive adult. Living my principles are one thing. Homework time at my dining table is something else. I need to navigate them both.

That said, this post of yours was quite helpful to me. I stewed in it for a bit, and then took a different approach with my son's homework assignments. Really, having someone with your expertise simply point out to me the distinction between numbers as symbols and numbers as quantities was a game-changer. That brings me back to my primary concern with Common Core, which is the implementation. Not one of the administrators or teachers at my son's school in any of the many discussions we've had was ever able to give me the lightbulb moment that you were able to provide in just a couple of simple sentences. They're teaching in a very different way, but they don't know why.

I didn't set out to make a point here. This is my heartfelt thank you.

Deanna

[Mikee]

And this is a big surprise...not.