10
10
0
Politics
Education
Responses: 16
5
5
0
SSgt Dustin Coy Are you certain that was not POTUS's idea? Share all you get with someone else?
(5)
(0)
SSgt Dustin Coy
CSM Charles Hayden Thanks for responding. Not sure, but I would say that it does appear to be a left leaning idea in its approach to "solving" problems, and ironically, the posed mathematical "solution," like the approach (IMO), has an error in accounting for reality.
(3)
(0)
4
4
0
SSgt Dustin Coy
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL Thanks for the response. I got a chuckle as well. I sincerely hope the original author wasn't serious about this.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
I think we have a bigger issue here than Common Core math. It was pointed out by SSG (Join to see) , which is there's no such thing as Common Core math.
The most common myth I've heard surrounding Common Core is that it includes a curriculum. It doesn't include a curriculum, it's a set of standards.
The second most common myth I've heard is that Common Core was developed by the federal government. That also isn't true. Common Core was developed by a group of states, and then voluntarily adopted by the majority of states. The Department of Education then stepped in to push the remaining states to adopt it.
Today, Common Core isn't controlled by the federal government. The only role the federal government has is to encourage (force) states to continue its adoption.
Now, is Common Core a good thing? I honestly don't know the answer to that. The concept is amazing, and necessary. Capt Craig Gilman pointed out the difficulty that children have in switching schools, because the schools have different standards. This is the core problem we need to worry about. We have several states that are failing us, and like it or not, the problem won't just affect those states in the future, it will affect our entire country. It's time to bring failing states into compliance with the rest of the country, take care of the children, and ensure we have a secure place in the global economy of the future.
The most common myth I've heard surrounding Common Core is that it includes a curriculum. It doesn't include a curriculum, it's a set of standards.
The second most common myth I've heard is that Common Core was developed by the federal government. That also isn't true. Common Core was developed by a group of states, and then voluntarily adopted by the majority of states. The Department of Education then stepped in to push the remaining states to adopt it.
Today, Common Core isn't controlled by the federal government. The only role the federal government has is to encourage (force) states to continue its adoption.
Now, is Common Core a good thing? I honestly don't know the answer to that. The concept is amazing, and necessary. Capt Craig Gilman pointed out the difficulty that children have in switching schools, because the schools have different standards. This is the core problem we need to worry about. We have several states that are failing us, and like it or not, the problem won't just affect those states in the future, it will affect our entire country. It's time to bring failing states into compliance with the rest of the country, take care of the children, and ensure we have a secure place in the global economy of the future.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Dustin Coy
2d Lt (Join to see) Thanks for the comment and for the most part, I concur with you.
You're absolutely right. It is a set of standards and it wasn't developed by the federal government. What causes that second myth was that the federal government set up a grant, and from that awarded the education department of states who complied with common core.
I don't disagree that it is a specific curriculum. It is a set of standards. Here is an example of one of the standards set forth for first graders:
1.OA.6.
Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 − 4 = 13 − 3 − 1 = 10 − 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 − 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).
Curriculums and textbooks are supposed to be developed from those standards. Interpretations between publishing houses vary, and we end up with things like the picture above as a result to compare to the standard above.
Personally, I don't have an issue with the technique as valid, and I really don't have any qualms with higher uniform standards. My gripe has been the way it has been implemented to preclude any different approaches, and kids who think differently to solve problems.
In algebra, one of the first things we're taught is to simplify the equation before solving it. In many cases here, interpretations of the standards has caused us to first complicate things that are simple and then solve it, while stating that solving it with a simpler methods is not allowed. That, in my opinion is what needs to be addressed.
Just like any standard, ISO, ARINC etc, at first there are different interpretations and then things crop up that have to be ironed out to resolve. Once that is done, things tend to become more smooth. This is one that, IMO, should have gotten a little further through the development and bake in cycle before being pushed mainstream.
You're absolutely right. It is a set of standards and it wasn't developed by the federal government. What causes that second myth was that the federal government set up a grant, and from that awarded the education department of states who complied with common core.
I don't disagree that it is a specific curriculum. It is a set of standards. Here is an example of one of the standards set forth for first graders:
1.OA.6.
Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 − 4 = 13 − 3 − 1 = 10 − 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 − 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).
Curriculums and textbooks are supposed to be developed from those standards. Interpretations between publishing houses vary, and we end up with things like the picture above as a result to compare to the standard above.
Personally, I don't have an issue with the technique as valid, and I really don't have any qualms with higher uniform standards. My gripe has been the way it has been implemented to preclude any different approaches, and kids who think differently to solve problems.
In algebra, one of the first things we're taught is to simplify the equation before solving it. In many cases here, interpretations of the standards has caused us to first complicate things that are simple and then solve it, while stating that solving it with a simpler methods is not allowed. That, in my opinion is what needs to be addressed.
Just like any standard, ISO, ARINC etc, at first there are different interpretations and then things crop up that have to be ironed out to resolve. Once that is done, things tend to become more smooth. This is one that, IMO, should have gotten a little further through the development and bake in cycle before being pushed mainstream.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google