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 Passed 7/29/2025 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)
3
3
0
Right, 'cause everybody buying a $2 lottery ticket suddenly morphs into millions per person.
Even Common Core would have figured that one out.
Even Common Core would have figured that one out.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Absolutely not. I do not want an engineer that got it close to design a weapons system or bridge or any structure that I will be using. I don't want the architect that is building my house to have the right process but the wrong figures for stress loads and I dang sure don't want a doctor or nurse that says the conversion rate for medicine for my body weight from Lbs to Kgs is close enough!!! I want critical thinkers that can work through a tough solution, not just recite something.
If that isn't enough for you, I don't want my daughter being common. I don't care that she is on par with everyone else...I want and expect her to be above average...that is where the scholarships and advantages in life are. I don't want teachers having to teach my daughter to a test and that is what is happening in our public schools...because if the students don't make a certain average score the teacher is held liable, so they are going to teach what is required versus TEACHING the subject matter four levels deep for critical thinking.
I am absolutely against common core and everything it stands for
If that isn't enough for you, I don't want my daughter being common. I don't care that she is on par with everyone else...I want and expect her to be above average...that is where the scholarships and advantages in life are. I don't want teachers having to teach my daughter to a test and that is what is happening in our public schools...because if the students don't make a certain average score the teacher is held liable, so they are going to teach what is required versus TEACHING the subject matter four levels deep for critical thinking.
I am absolutely against common core and everything it stands for
(2)
(0)
SSgt Dustin Coy
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth Thanks for the response. And I absolutely agree, critical thinking skills are exactly that, critical...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Same guy said he hopes he wins the lottery so he can buy a house closer to work.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Dustin Coy
SPC David S. Thanks for the response. You know, I've always viewed the lottery as simply a tax on those who struggled with math, but, I didn't expect it to be quite that bad...LOL
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Tom Lehrer - New Math (Animated)
The full 'New Math' song by Tom Lehrer animated by myself for a school project. I created it in Flash CS4 and ran it through After Effects to convert it. I'm...
Here we go again... Remember "New Math"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA
Actually, New Math had a purpose. Rather than teach math by rote, it taught it conceptually. Now that's fine for those who are going to pursue careers that require great skill in the higher forms of math. But there's noting wrong for the rest of us learning basic arithmetic by rote. Memorizing addition and subtraction values as well as multiplication tables will serve the needs of everyone who isn't going to launch rockets to the moon. Think about it: Accounting is nothing but adding and subtracting debits and credits, and occasionally multiplying or dividing to find percentages and ratios. Economics requires higher forms of math.
New math set children on the path to studies in calculus. Learning arithmetic by rote was of little value in that process.
Common Core math, from what I've seen, serves neither purpose. You can't keep the books for a business if you can't do simple arithmetic and achieve correct results. And, Common Core approaches to math do nothing for understanding the higher concepts of mathematics.
So what is the purpose of Common Core? Simply this: Control. It vests control over education in America, all of America, in Washington. Yes, you may avoid using its teaching methods by home schooling your children, but they will fail college entrance tests based on standards dictated in Washington that use concepts learned by students who study in Common Core classrooms.
Thus, there is only one real solution to this math problem: Shut down the US Department of Education and return control to the states and local school boards. The sooner the better...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA
Actually, New Math had a purpose. Rather than teach math by rote, it taught it conceptually. Now that's fine for those who are going to pursue careers that require great skill in the higher forms of math. But there's noting wrong for the rest of us learning basic arithmetic by rote. Memorizing addition and subtraction values as well as multiplication tables will serve the needs of everyone who isn't going to launch rockets to the moon. Think about it: Accounting is nothing but adding and subtracting debits and credits, and occasionally multiplying or dividing to find percentages and ratios. Economics requires higher forms of math.
New math set children on the path to studies in calculus. Learning arithmetic by rote was of little value in that process.
Common Core math, from what I've seen, serves neither purpose. You can't keep the books for a business if you can't do simple arithmetic and achieve correct results. And, Common Core approaches to math do nothing for understanding the higher concepts of mathematics.
So what is the purpose of Common Core? Simply this: Control. It vests control over education in America, all of America, in Washington. Yes, you may avoid using its teaching methods by home schooling your children, but they will fail college entrance tests based on standards dictated in Washington that use concepts learned by students who study in Common Core classrooms.
Thus, there is only one real solution to this math problem: Shut down the US Department of Education and return control to the states and local school boards. The sooner the better...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
If you support both the military child and the plight of American prosperity, you should support Common Core on the basis of its merit and not oppose it simply because of a political agenda, which seems to be the greatest motivation for doing so. In regards to the military child, one of the biggest issues military families with children face is finding an appropriate school match for their children during PCS. Often families find their children moving from a high performing school to a lower performing school, or vice versa. It is pretty fortunate on those occasions when a child can seemingly transfer from one school district to another. The emotional turmoil military children face during PCS can be severe. It does them no service when they find themselves in their new school hopelessly behind in their subjects (especially Math) and struggling embarrassingly among their peers. The same is true for a student, suddenly bored and no longer enjoying school, finding himself in a class he mastered two years before at his old school. The greater debate is the political one, should states and school districts be allowed to slide by with substandard expectations for learning. As a (former) teacher in a state with solid standards I suffered having to adapt my curriculum during No Child Left Behind, not to mention all the moaning of so many teachers who suffered from the anxiety of having to do so, but I believed in supporting the greater good and, along with moaning with my colleagues, made the adjustment. I became a better teacher because of it and believe that the students I served benefited, as well. However, it is not the states that were doing well that had the most work to do. It seems to me that the lower on the ladder a state stood in regards to national education rankings, the more they voiced opposition. If you want to do a small part in making American more competitive in the global market, not to mention the local, support the acceptance of Common Core.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Dustin Coy
Capt Craig Gilman
Having a unified set of standards is a good thing. I don't have a problem with that. The application of it is where it breaks down. And a broken system isn't good just because it's standard.
Having a unified set of standards is a good thing. I don't have a problem with that. The application of it is where it breaks down. And a broken system isn't good just because it's standard.
(0)
(0)
Capt Craig Gilman
SFC Justin Scott - I think there can be no better role model standing in front of a classroom than one who has served, so good luck with that. You certainly have the passion. I do not doubt that your current university has identified examples of horrible text. I certainly hope that they identified it as such and did not mislead you into thinking that they represent the norm. In fact, I hope they were preparing you to be on the lookout for such nonsense, as one of your roles as a classroom teacher will be to bring such issues to your administration. I do want to warn that teaching is immensely political, at least the debate about what constitutes factual history, what books a school system purchases, how others you teach with lean (left, center, right) and how individual teachers decide to teach. You will only have partial control over the last of these. A good teacher is apolitical, provides valid resources and encourages students to come to their own understanding. Teaching, despite the politics and pressures is very rewarding. Good luck!
(1)
(0)
SFC Justin Scott
I appreciate that. Honestly, I HOPE that I'm able to stick to my core belief which is that my job is to teach a student how to think for themselves - including validating good sources from bad sources and using facts / evidence to support their opinions - rather than what to think.
(0)
(0)
Capt Craig Gilman
Honestly, that is all you can do - lead the horses to water, pure water, hopefully. Have realistic expectations going into the classroom. I go by the 10-80-10 rule. 10% will be stellar students absolutely a joy to teach and you know they will go on to make a difference in the world (I was one and now I have two Masters, so do not be discouraged by them - help them along their way), 10% will take up most of your time due to a whole host of reasons, the other 80% are those average students who are making their grades and climbing the education ladder. You can help each category in different ways, but there will be those who will not be ready to allow you to reach them.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Crrtainly this is troubling. But, more troubling is the number who re-posted it as fact.
Sad.
Sad.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Disclaimer: I don't support common core
Actually .... the common core math is a very advance math ... make it too advance to most youth. It over relay on visualization of math to achieve in such math. Therefore it eliminate the weak at their early age, and it will be super majority of our youth will not achieve in such math. Now for those that gifted in visualization in such math will achieve and take their place as elite in the society. The mass majority will not be looking forward to learn calculus, statistic, Differential Equation or even Algebra, so the mass will not even have the ability to challenge the elitist in their "formula". Even if they can do it with the OLD way, they will just brush us aside and claim that we are wrong and we know nothing.
That is the purpose of common core, to create work bees and to pick out the elite at their early age.
Actually .... the common core math is a very advance math ... make it too advance to most youth. It over relay on visualization of math to achieve in such math. Therefore it eliminate the weak at their early age, and it will be super majority of our youth will not achieve in such math. Now for those that gifted in visualization in such math will achieve and take their place as elite in the society. The mass majority will not be looking forward to learn calculus, statistic, Differential Equation or even Algebra, so the mass will not even have the ability to challenge the elitist in their "formula". Even if they can do it with the OLD way, they will just brush us aside and claim that we are wrong and we know nothing.
That is the purpose of common core, to create work bees and to pick out the elite at their early age.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Dustin Coy
Thanks for the response, having set standards, and higher set standards is something I don't disagree with. If we have any hope of competing in the future as a country, math skills have to improve. My issue lies in the application and the way their going about it as well.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SSgt Dustin Coy - There is fine line to set standards and to pre-determine some child's future. I am gifted in visualization ... my wife is not. I was just a 2.5CGPA student, but my wife is 3.87CGPA student. She score better on math than me, and most of it is 4.0 score on math classes, but I only score 2.0 or 3.0 on most math classes, still I can solve problems that she have no idea to even start. I am an Mechanical engineer, she is an accountant/ IT(double B.S. degree). My wife has problem to even add and minus under common core .... Do you think a youth like my wife will become an accountant and a IT under common core?? the answer is NO, she would become a business Admin or liberal art student.
The real problem with common core is it pre-eliminated a good portion of youth for even have the chances to grab the concept of Math. We are like throwing babies into a 4 ft swimming pool, those that cant swimming are drowned, those that can swim will be the elite swimmer.
The real problem with common core is it pre-eliminated a good portion of youth for even have the chances to grab the concept of Math. We are like throwing babies into a 4 ft swimming pool, those that cant swimming are drowned, those that can swim will be the elite swimmer.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google