Common core dumbing down the US?

[54tjsioU]

I get your point. Still though.

Is she buying bags or is she buying stickers?

Which is the relevant number? It's switching between both. It says she wants to give bags of stickers, then says she wants to give the same number of stickers to each friend, then says she's not sure how many bags she needs, then asks how many stickers she needs to buy.

A bag could have any amount of stickers in it. If she has three friends, she could have six bags, two for each. We could assume that they're evenly divided but this does not tell how many stickers she needs to buy.

Is it bags or is it stickers? Sure, another earlier problem could give hidden information. That doesn't make this problem not ambiguously written.

She could buy a lot of stickers. Is she buying bags of stickers? Is she putting them in the bags? The amount of stickers one can buy and have none left over is undefined because the problem is not specific enough. If she only wants six evenly filled bags of stickers she could buy 60 stickers or 60,000 and it'd be the same.

She's buying the bags of stickers, a set amount if stickers in a bag, and she wants to distribute them evenly between her friends. She can buy four bags or six bags in order for her friends to have an even amount of stickers, the only information missing is how many friends she has. You're right, it's worded poorly though at the same time I'm sure that's the point. Word problems, in my experience, we're never worded very well. The last sentence should read "How many *bags of stickers* could she buy so that there are no stickers left over?"

 

[sprinkles]

She's buying the bags of stickers, a set amount if stickers in a bag, and she wants to distribute them evenly between her friends. She can buy four bags or six bags in order for her friends to have an even amount of stickers, the only information missing is how many friends she has. You're right, it's worded poorly though at the same time I'm sure that's the point. Word problems, in my experience, we're never worded very well. The last sentence should read "How many *bags of stickers* could she buy so that there are no stickers left over?"

Yes, that's a point.

We could maybe assume that it is bags of stickers, and the number is predetermined by how many are in a bag when you buy it. Is that assumption something that we really want to teach?

Dividing up stickers into your own bags is a real probability and it doesn't say that she can't do it. That is a creative out of the box solution. Why not recognize that?

IMO being able to recognize ambiguity and out of the box solutions should be something that is supported and not repressed. It's something that we don't have enough of.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]
Also your thing about dots is interesting. That is called the unary numeral system. It is the most ancient fundamental kind of math - if you understand this, you understand numbers.

Simply teaching children to count ingrains the unary numeral system. I didn't have that much problem with math because I really learned to count - I mean really really ingrained it. So by the time I got into kindergarten I already understood basic arithmetic.

I did not need to convert a 7 to ....... because by then knowing that 7 is ....... was a given, and because of that the relationship of numbers was too. I knew that 7 was ....... and 5 was ..... and the difference between them was 2 or ..

I don't need the dots. I automatically know that a number IS that many dots. Making it convoluted would have only held me back because I already had a basis in strong fundamentals.

 

[Barnabas]

soo....lets see...

72-58

7-5 = 2 ...20

2-8 = -6

20 - 6 = 14

70-58=12
70-50=20
20-8=12

ummmm..... is this how everybody else does it cause at this point I'm confuse

 

[sprinkles]

70-58=12
70-50=20
20-8=12

ummmm..... is this how everybody else does it cause at this point I'm confuse

That's not how I do it.
70-58:

70-8=62
62-50=12

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION]

Also let's do it another way:

70-58=12
70-1=69
69-58=11
11+1=12

That works doesn't it? Does that mean we should teach it?

 

[sprinkles]

Or another way:

70-12=58
58-58=0
0+12=12

 

[say what]

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]
Also your thing about dots is interesting. That is called the unary numeral system. It is the most ancient fundamental kind of math - if you understand this, you understand numbers.

Simply teaching children to count ingrains the unary numeral system. I didn't have that much problem with math because I really learned to count - I mean really really ingrained it. So by the time I got into kindergarten I already understood basic arithmetic.

I did not need to convert a 7 to ....... because by then knowing that 7 is ....... was a given, and because of that the relationship of numbers was too. I knew that 7 was ....... and 5 was ..... and the difference between them was 2 or ..

I don't need the dots. I automatically know that a number IS that many dots. Making it convoluted would have only held me back because I already had a basis in strong fundamentals.

I checked out the unary numeral system and it's a lot what I do! I liked how you said "I did not need to convert a 7 to.." because this is exactly what I do- I break down numbers into smaller things. I was trying to figure out another example to explain what I do - I may be that most people do it this way, but whenever I've done math outloud, people have always been like "WTF are you talking about?"


15+ 37 =

37 + 10 = 47

47 + 3 = 50

2 is left over = 52

I head I see a block of 10 dots added onto to it, with 5 dots left over. I never really realized I saw dots until talking it out like this!

 

[sprinkles]

I checked out the unary numeral system and it's a lot what I do! I liked how you said "I did not need to convert a 7 to.." because this is exactly what I do- I break down numbers into smaller things. I was trying to figure out another example to explain what I do - I may be that most people do it this way, but whenever I've done math outloud, people have always been like "WTF are you talking about?"


15+ 37 =

37 + 10 = 47

47 + 3 = 50

2 is left over = 52

I head I see a block of 10 dots added onto to it, with 5 dots left over. I never really realized I saw dots until talking it out like this!

Yes, that works because of a property called the distributive property. It's also related to commutation.

Another way you can do this is:

15+37=
37-2=35
15+35=50
50+2=52

Because of the way the sums work, you can subtract a number from one side of the equation, then reverse that and add it back later.

Like so:
15-5=10
10+37=47
47+5=52

There's a bajillion ways to do this and some times it is actually a handy trick. But I think that is something that one needs to develop, not be taught because it gets confusing. But if you have a fundamental understanding of numbers, no matter how, even if it is dots, you can bend them to your will.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]
Also if you're wondering why I said distributive property when there appears to be no multiplication and find that strange, here is why:

All those numbers are secretly a multiple of 1.

 

[say what]

[MENTION=5131]Spin[/MENTION]kles

Interesting! I think the fact that there's so many unique ways to do math highlights the complexities of our brains and how we learn!

I know many people (like myself) say they're not "math" people - I wonder if we were taught ways that allowed us to 'see' math, if we would have excelled in it as kids...

 

[muir]

An interesting look at the variety of ways to go about crunching numbers but what conclusions are we drawing from this?

Do we feel the government is teaching our kids to the best of their ability and if not why not?

My generation was not really taught grammer properly in the UK (can you tell?)

 

[54tjsioU]

Yes, that's a point.

We could maybe assume that it is bags of stickers, and the number is predetermined by how many are in a bag when you buy it. Is that assumption something that we really want to teach?

Dividing up stickers into your own bags is a real probability and it doesn't say that she can't do it. That is a creative out of the box solution. Why not recognize that?

IMO being able to recognize ambiguity and out of the box solutions should be something that is supported and not repressed. It's something that we don't have enough of.

I agree however not so much with math. Math is very logical, 2+2=4, not 'fill in the following equation with whatever numbers suit your creativity.' It is solved how it is written. The creativity is in writing the question, not answering it.

Aside from that I've seen these kinds of word problems before, and have had more than a few of them in math class. The way that question is worded is nothing new. From what I can tell the only thing that is new with common core is how a person goes about answering a question.

And as far as this not helping kids in the work force, @ whoever had said that, this is exactly the way you count change -you add up to a dollar: customer gave me $5.35 for an item that cost $4.99. You don't sit there and try to call to memory what the answer is hoping that its going to be right, you go to the change and you count up from $4.99 to get $5.35. 'I can add one quarter but two quarters would be too much, .99 plus .25 equals .24 -still need to get to .35. Add another dime and a penny. You don't sit there and hope your 'common sense' will be fast enough, you sit there and count and add up coins as you go. And even if you can quickly say 'the customer needs .36 cents in change,' do you know what that change looks like when you're staring down into the register? More than a few kids fresh out of high school blank out at a cash register.

 

[54tjsioU]

An interesting look at the variety of ways to go about crunching numbers but what conclusions are we drawing from this?

Do we feel the government is teaching our kids to the best of their ability and if not why not?

My generation was not really taught grammer properly in the UK (can you tell?)

Can't tell, I thought you were an American.

I think somebody needs to do something to make the next generation better and I have no doubt that this way of learning will give the next generation a broader understanding of math, if taught correctly and with some enthusiasm, which math teachers rarely have and now they are being combated by the parents. And because of that this set of kids may have more trouble in math because the adults around them think that what they are doing is stupid. If anything, we are the ones doing the disservice to the kids. They are information sponges, they will survive. It is the adults that need to make the change.

 

[sprinkles]

I agree however not so much with math. Math is very logical, 2+2=4, not 'fill in the following equation with whatever numbers suit your creativity.' It is solved how it is written. The creativity is in writing the question, not answering it.

Aside from that I've seen these kinds of word problems before, and have had more than a few of them in math class. The way that question is worded is nothing new. From what I can tell the only thing that is new with common core is how a person goes about answering a question.

And as far as this not helping kids in the work force, @ whoever had said that, this is exactly the way you count change -you add up to a dollar: customer gave me $5.35 for an item that cost $4.99. You don't sit there and try to call to memory what the answer is hoping that its going to be right, you go to the change and you count up from $4.99 to get $5.35. 'I can add one quarter but two quarters would be too much, .99 plus .25 equals .24 -still need to get to .35. Add another dime and a penny. You don't sit there and hope your 'common sense' will be fast enough, you sit there and count and add up coins as you go. And even if you can quickly say 'the customer needs .36 cents in change,' do you know what that change looks like when you're staring down into the register? More than a few kids fresh out of high school blank out at a cash register.

But math is only logical isn't it? So how could anyone fail at giving change?

What you're saying IS what we'd call 'common sense'.

What's worse is when something costs $11.25 and you give them a $20 and two $1s expecting back $10.75

 

[say what]

An interesting look at the variety of ways to go about crunching numbers but what conclusions are we drawing from this?

Do we feel the government is teaching our kids to the best of their ability and if not why not?

My generation was not really taught grammer properly in the UK (can you tell?)

Ken Robinson!! KEN ROBINSON! I encourage too look him up! Here's a video (I think I've posted it here before!)

[video=youtube;zDZFcDGpL4U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U[/video]

I HIGHLY recommend reading more of his work if you're interested in changing the education system! It's extremely interesting

 

[say what]

I agree however not so much with math. Math is very logical, 2+2=4, not 'fill in the following equation with whatever numbers suit your creativity.' It is solved how it is written. The creativity is in writing the question, not answering it.

Aside from that I've seen these kinds of word problems before, and have had more than a few of them in math class. The way that question is worded is nothing new. From what I can tell the only thing that is new with common core is how a person goes about answering a question.

And as far as this not helping kids in the work force, @ whoever had said that, this is exactly the way you count change -you add up to a dollar: customer gave me $5.35 for an item that cost $4.99. You don't sit there and try to call to memory what the answer is hoping that its going to be right, you go to the change and you count up from $4.99 to get $5.35. 'I can add one quarter but two quarters would be too much, .99 plus .25 equals .24 -still need to get to .35. Add another dime and a penny. You don't sit there and hope your 'common sense' will be fast enough, you sit there and count and add up coins as you go. And even if you can quickly say 'the customer needs .36 cents in change,' do you know what that change looks like when you're staring down into the register? More than a few kids fresh out of high school blank out at a cash register.

I'm not sure it is logical for everyone!

I think there are really interesting ways to bridge the arts/science divide and make math less science, and more accessible to students who are conceptual learners. This is difficult, but I think if we stop creating 'science' and 'arts' divides, and see that there's so much similarity and overlap in how we learn these disciplines, students could foster creativity, individuality, and applied skills while they learn these concepts.

 

[muir]

Can't tell, I thought you were an American.

I think somebody needs to do something to make the next generation better and I have no doubt that this way of learning will give the next generation a broader understanding of math, if taught correctly and with some enthusiasm, which math teachers rarely have and now they are being combated by the parents. And because of that this set of kids may have more trouble in math because the adults around them think that what they are doing is stupid. If anything, we are the ones doing the disservice to the kids. They are information sponges, they will survive. It is the adults that need to make the change.

Children have to do what the teachers tell them. the teachers have to do what the guidelines tell them and parents for the most part have to just suck it up

The question here is: 'are the guidelines correct?' and also 'is there an agenda behind the guidelines?'

Did you learn about nazi germany at school? We did....i'm from scotland by the way...we were hammered about the nazis to the point where i was actually put off history (because i like looking at the overall picture not zooming in on one thing the whole time to the loss of the wider picture.....to me history is not about looking at dusty books telling us about past deeds...it is a study of human behaviour)

So anyway...if you were taught about the nazis at school you would no doubt have been told how the nazis changed the school curriculem in order to affect how children perceived the world and their place in it. Also children were encouraged to be spies for the state against their own parents

So if that could happen in modern industrialised germany then it can happen in other modern industrialised countries

So the question i'm asking is: 'is there a political agenda behind common core?'

 

[Stu]

So the question i'm asking is: 'is there a political agenda behind common core?' '

as usual you have twisted this thread into answering this question.

It can't be that in a country where each state has multiple school districts with differing standards that there is a need to align them (kinda like the railroads......but i am sure there is a hidden agenda behind unifying rail road tracks gauges as well.)

 

[muir]

as usual you have twisted this thread into answering this question.

It can't be that in a country where each state has multiple school districts with differing standards that there is a need to align them (kinda like the railroads......but i am sure there is a hidden agenda behind unifying rail road tracks gauges as well.)

Ok so you are saying that they are systematising the education system

I'm asking if you think there is an agenda behind that system