Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Common Core

Amen to that!

You are clueless. Wake the hell up. What about learning to count, to read and orate, and to correctly place ones' self in time and space requires fed-gov involvment? Watch the video at the link of Michele Malkin's speech in FL. She hands Jeb Bush his azz:

http://www.shark-tank.com/2014/04/2...b-bush-and-fed-ed-common-core-standards/

It's actually quite the opposite. The attempt is to bring all of the lower performing students to a higher level. I believe that this is unrealistic and probably the most fundamentally wrong aspect of CC. The concept was illustrated to me in the context of teaching your child to tie his shoes. You continue to teach that child until he does it correctly every time. Some learn more quickly than others, but all learn it eventually. Not realistic when we are talking about the entire spectrum of learners and more complex concepts.

Obviously you did not watch the video. I'm beginning to understand why white MT can't get a conservative elected.

No, that may be the attempt but the result is that it lowers the performance of the already high level students to a level that appears to narrow the gap between them and the low performing students. It is just another form of socialism where they are engineering our society so everyone is equal.

Good God this stuff isn't that hard to figure out, just think a little.

Did you ever think that maybe there are useful idiots on both sides of the isle? The federal involvement created by CC is most prominent in the form of sanctions for low performance. Ever heard of NCLB? CC simply ensures that a student that transfers to a school in Little Falls, MN from a school in Columbus, GA is at roughly the same place in his/her education and has learned similar things. NCLB created sanctions for not knowing things that may not have been taught at the same time from school to school. It also assumed that ALL students would meet AYP by this year or the schools would be sanctioned. Not at all realistic. Federal involvement in education is a reality that isn't going to go away until schools are funded 100% on the state and local level. That isn't likely to be a reality either.

How does CC lower the performance of higher level learners? These students still excel in upper level classes that aren't subject to the drag of the lowest common denominator, academically. It has always been a tenant of education that all students can learn. Should the kids that aren't good at math just be left by the wayside? Not sure where you're coming from here.

because all the advanced effort I put into educating my brilliant little girl is not accepted for grading under the guidelines.

Any methods, derivations, or other common sense applications I have learned in the decades of doing algebra and trig, and geometry are USELESS to her, as the work has to be done according to the guidelines - of which she does not grasp because I had apparently over educated her.

She had to readjust to routines she had already learned, and it cost her plenty on the grades, because she spent to much time trying to reconcile Dad versus school.

I wonder about other kids that put advance effort into studies, if they too have to slow down to the level of the lowest common denominator.

So what you're saying is that an individual teacher, dept. head, or possibly the administration/board, in your district has decided that they will only allow students to do math in a certain way? I remember my dad teaching me a certain way to do math problems 30 years ago and having to learn another way in school because that wasn't how the teacher wanted it done. CC does not dictate that students will do a math problem in only one way or that other ways are wrong. It encourages students to look at multiple angles of approach to solving problems. It's far from a perfect system, and I'm not here to say that it doesn't have it's share of problems, but the rabid opposition to it seems more partisan than reality driven.

It encourages multiple angles, sure. Under their terms.

It discourages the kids from utilizing methods they feel comfortable with in lieu of having them learn the angle they are teaching and testing and subsequently evaluated on. In that respect, it does dictate the methods.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Sure the kids should know more than one, but when it comes down to getting it right, let the kid skin it the way they are most comfortable.

I pointed this out before on another thread. Given an algebraic problem with variables, students were instructed to solve the problem. Emphasis was on substitute the values and do the math.

My daughter reduced the equation to simplest form, then substituted. She was not told she was ultimately correct and that that process will be taught later. She was marked wrong, and garnered her first "C".

I wish you could have been there to tell her that Dad was made because �bama was in office.

I wouldn't have handled it that way, and neither would any good teacher. You're problem isn't with CC, it's with a poor teacher/math dept. at your local school.

*He11, I'm mad that Obama is in office too! Doesn't mean that I refuse to acknowledge reality. CC isn't perfect, but it isn't the catastrophe that so many seem to feel that it is. It's an improvement over NCLB and allows the states a great deal more control than they had previously in the form of the curricular consortiums that have been formed.

Some of the CC math I've heard discussed is monkey motion intended to teach by an attempt to systematize "tricks of the trade" which I believe are best learned after a student has solid experience with proven, straightforward methods of obtaining correct answers.

The problem I see with doing it the other way around is proving correctness of the tricks of the trade brings in more overhead than is necessary.

For example, by "number sense" I know 2.99567 times 3.0004012 is going to be quite close to 9. Question: How do you show this "number sense" answer to be correct without actually calculating the answer? It's easy for me, but I don't think I'll show my proof to my third grader nephew.

Can't argue with that.

The problem I saw with their series on approximating and estimating, like your 3x3=9 example, is that the numbers given were so blatantly simple - even from my daughter's view, that she kept assuming there should be more to it, and over thought the process.

Those things should become 2nd nature with experience. You can't instruct common sense.

No, you are FOS. CC IS NCLB, just like it was OBE before that. Same old silly [bleep] trotted out by the same azzwipes chasing YOUR tax dollars, and you too stupid to realize it. WTF up.

Common Core is teaching to test, so the test results look good. Schools get more money with better test results.

cc is nothing more than a page out of the saul alinsky communist playbook, enter more affirmative action.

Gunner

To some extent you're correct. However, I like to deal in reality, and the reality is that the federal government isn't going to leave education to local control as long as they are paying a big part of the freight. CC is an improvement, in the sense that while not a perfect scenario, it does allow more control to be in the hands of the states than was previously present under NCLB. It also provides a curricular outline for tests that dictate funding for schools. Hardly an intelligent scenario when testing is separate from curricula and you are funded based on performance.

Like I said, there are many areas that are in need of work. It is far from perfect, like anything that comes from the government. However, in the current educational paradigm, it is an improvement over what was previously in use. In all reality, it really is a revised iteration of NCLB which was a reaction to conservative pleas for more accountability in education, thus the tying of funding to performance.

I always get a laugh out of this one. Are you saying that you shouldn't test on curricular content? Isn't performance based funding about as conservative a concept as you can get?

I'd be happy to agree with you if you would convince me with some facts.

There may be hope for you yet. "Conservatives" keep getting conned by the educrats. Don't be one of them.

There is an ideological component at work here for sure, the Alinsky-ites are all in for this schidt, but the axle grease that keeps the wheel turning on all of this is MONEY. That's why the Gates Foundation (MILLIONS of software packages) and the textbook publishers and their hired lackeys, IE Jeb Bush, are pushing this schidt.