Federal study even shows Common Core sucks
- Thread starter hoamskilet
- Start date
CC is part of the social justice crapola...
Dont feel bad, I was pretty damn good at math all through school and I struggle helping my 3rd grader
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Anytime the government gets involved with a program the quality of the connected service will drastically decrease.
Welfare, healthcare and common core are all examples of this.
More bureaucracy is never the answer.
Welfare, healthcare and common core are all examples of this.
More bureaucracy is never the answer.
absolutely. Outside of Defense, the Gov literally sucks at everything
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
I'll address this as professionally as I can. I've been an elementary public school teacher for 27 years and remember when Common Core hit the schools. Frankly speaking, there's nothing wrong with Common Core. It's merely a set of standards that establish what students need to learn by the end of the year. To wit: read through this link and tell me what is so offensive to you. Grade 3 » Operations & Algebraic Thinking | Common Core State Standards Initiative
I understand that many parents don't like the modeling method or the lattice method. Here's an example that a poster put up earlier:
When I teach math I avoid the lattice method and the distributive method. They are not horrid but I only have so many minutes in a day to teach and they are unnecessarily complicated. I instruct the kids on the traditional algorithm, the box method, the partial products method and the area model. Why? Because it expands their thinking and makes them understand that there are more ways to skin a cat than just one. It helps them realize that math can be thought of in different ways. But know this: Come test time I tell them that I don't care which method you use as long as you get the correct answer. Also, I firmly tell them that the traditional algorithmic way of solving problems is the fastest. And I tell them to use that method when we do timed arithmetic tests.
One of the problems I've noticed with many of today's teachers is that they DO NOT supplement their district's adopted series to help the kids meet the Common Core Standards. Common Core is NOT a curriculum. It's just some standards that we want our kids to reach. My district has an adopted math series that is okay for some areas but not for others. So I supplement to ensure that my kids are learning what is required by Common Core. It frustrates me to no end when I notice that teachers I work with blame the adopted curriculum for not helping the kids know what they need to by year's end. That's their fault because they did not seek out supplementation.
I understand that many parents don't like the modeling method or the lattice method. Here's an example that a poster put up earlier:
When I teach math I avoid the lattice method and the distributive method. They are not horrid but I only have so many minutes in a day to teach and they are unnecessarily complicated. I instruct the kids on the traditional algorithm, the box method, the partial products method and the area model. Why? Because it expands their thinking and makes them understand that there are more ways to skin a cat than just one. It helps them realize that math can be thought of in different ways. But know this: Come test time I tell them that I don't care which method you use as long as you get the correct answer. Also, I firmly tell them that the traditional algorithmic way of solving problems is the fastest. And I tell them to use that method when we do timed arithmetic tests.
One of the problems I've noticed with many of today's teachers is that they DO NOT supplement their district's adopted series to help the kids meet the Common Core Standards. Common Core is NOT a curriculum. It's just some standards that we want our kids to reach. My district has an adopted math series that is okay for some areas but not for others. So I supplement to ensure that my kids are learning what is required by Common Core. It frustrates me to no end when I notice that teachers I work with blame the adopted curriculum for not helping the kids know what they need to by year's end. That's their fault because they did not seek out supplementation.
I'll address this as professionally as I can. I've been an elementary public school teacher for 27 years and remember when Common Core hit the schools. Frankly speaking, there's nothing wrong with Common Core. It's merely a set of standards that establish what students need to learn by the end of the year. To wit: read through this link and tell me what is so offensive to you. Grade 3 » Operations & Algebraic Thinking | Common Core State Standards Initiative
I understand that many parents don't like the modeling method or the lattice method. Here's an example that a poster put up earlier:
When I teach math I avoid the lattice method and the distributive method. They are not horrid but I only have so many minutes in a day to teach and they are unnecessarily complicated. I instruct the kids on the traditional algorithm, the box method, the partial products method and the area model. Why? Because it expands their thinking and makes them understand that there are more ways to skin a cat than just one. It helps them realize that math can be thought of in different ways. But know this: Come test time I tell them that I don't care which method you use as long as you get the correct answer. Also, I firmly tell them that the traditional algorithmic way of solving problems is the fastest. And I tell them to use that method when we do timed arithmetic tests.
One of the problems I've noticed with many of today's teachers is that they DO NOT supplement their district's adopted series to help the kids meet the Common Core Standards. Common Core is NOT a curriculum. It's just some standards that we want our kids to reach. My district has an adopted math series that is okay for some areas but not for others. So I supplement to ensure that my kids are learning what is required by Common Core. It frustrates me to no end when I notice that teachers I work with blame the adopted curriculum for not helping the kids know what they need to by year's end. That's their fault because they did not seek out supplementation.
I understand that many parents don't like the modeling method or the lattice method. Here's an example that a poster put up earlier:
When I teach math I avoid the lattice method and the distributive method. They are not horrid but I only have so many minutes in a day to teach and they are unnecessarily complicated. I instruct the kids on the traditional algorithm, the box method, the partial products method and the area model. Why? Because it expands their thinking and makes them understand that there are more ways to skin a cat than just one. It helps them realize that math can be thought of in different ways. But know this: Come test time I tell them that I don't care which method you use as long as you get the correct answer. Also, I firmly tell them that the traditional algorithmic way of solving problems is the fastest. And I tell them to use that method when we do timed arithmetic tests.
One of the problems I've noticed with many of today's teachers is that they DO NOT supplement their district's adopted series to help the kids meet the Common Core Standards. Common Core is NOT a curriculum. It's just some standards that we want our kids to reach. My district has an adopted math series that is okay for some areas but not for others. So I supplement to ensure that my kids are learning what is required by Common Core. It frustrates me to no end when I notice that teachers I work with blame the adopted curriculum for not helping the kids know what they need to by year's end. That's their fault because they did not seek out supplementation.
I'll address this as professionally as I can. I've been an elementary public school teacher for 27 years and remember when Common Core hit the schools. Frankly speaking, there's nothing wrong with Common Core. It's merely a set of standards that establish what students need to learn by the end of the year. To wit: read through this link and tell me what is so offensive to you. Grade 3 » Operations & Algebraic Thinking | Common Core State Standards Initiative
I understand that many parents don't like the modeling method or the lattice method. Here's an example that a poster put up earlier:
When I teach math I avoid the lattice method and the distributive method. They are not horrid but I only have so many minutes in a day to teach and they are unnecessarily complicated. I instruct the kids on the traditional algorithm, the box method, the partial products method and the area model. Why? Because it expands their thinking and makes them understand that there are more ways to skin a cat than just one. It helps them realize that math can be thought of in different ways. But know this: Come test time I tell them that I don't care which method you use as long as you get the correct answer. Also, I firmly tell them that the traditional algorithmic way of solving problems is the fastest. And I tell them to use that method when we do timed arithmetic tests.
One of the problems I've noticed with many of today's teachers is that they DO NOT supplement their district's adopted series to help the kids meet the Common Core Standards. Common Core is NOT a curriculum. It's just some standards that we want our kids to reach. My district has an adopted math series that is okay for some areas but not for others. So I supplement to ensure that my kids are learning what is required by Common Core. It frustrates me to no end when I notice that teachers I work with blame the adopted curriculum for not helping the kids know what they need to by year's end. That's their fault because they did not seek out supplementation.
I understand that many parents don't like the modeling method or the lattice method. Here's an example that a poster put up earlier:
When I teach math I avoid the lattice method and the distributive method. They are not horrid but I only have so many minutes in a day to teach and they are unnecessarily complicated. I instruct the kids on the traditional algorithm, the box method, the partial products method and the area model. Why? Because it expands their thinking and makes them understand that there are more ways to skin a cat than just one. It helps them realize that math can be thought of in different ways. But know this: Come test time I tell them that I don't care which method you use as long as you get the correct answer. Also, I firmly tell them that the traditional algorithmic way of solving problems is the fastest. And I tell them to use that method when we do timed arithmetic tests.
One of the problems I've noticed with many of today's teachers is that they DO NOT supplement their district's adopted series to help the kids meet the Common Core Standards. Common Core is NOT a curriculum. It's just some standards that we want our kids to reach. My district has an adopted math series that is okay for some areas but not for others. So I supplement to ensure that my kids are learning what is required by Common Core. It frustrates me to no end when I notice that teachers I work with blame the adopted curriculum for not helping the kids know what they need to by year's end. That's their fault because they did not seek out supplementation.
I'll address this as professionally as I can. I've been an elementary public school teacher for 27 years and remember when Common Core hit the schools. Frankly speaking, there's nothing wrong with Common Core. It's merely a set of standards that establish what students need to learn by the end of the year. To wit: read through this link and tell me what is so offensive to you. Grade 3 » Operations & Algebraic Thinking | Common Core State Standards Initiative
I understand that many parents don't like the modeling method or the lattice method. Here's an example that a poster put up earlier:
When I teach math I avoid the lattice method and the distributive method. They are not horrid but I only have so many minutes in a day to teach and they are unnecessarily complicated. I instruct the kids on the traditional algorithm, the box method, the partial products method and the area model. Why? Because it expands their thinking and makes them understand that there are more ways to skin a cat than just one. It helps them realize that math can be thought of in different ways. But know this: Come test time I tell them that I don't care which method you use as long as you get the correct answer. Also, I firmly tell them that the traditional algorithmic way of solving problems is the fastest. And I tell them to use that method when we do timed arithmetic tests.
One of the problems I've noticed with many of today's teachers is that they DO NOT supplement their district's adopted series to help the kids meet the Common Core Standards. Common Core is NOT a curriculum. It's just some standards that we want our kids to reach. My district has an adopted math series that is okay for some areas but not for others. So I supplement to ensure that my kids are learning what is required by Common Core. It frustrates me to no end when I notice that teachers I work with blame the adopted curriculum for not helping the kids know what they need to by year's end. That's their fault because they did not seek out supplementation.
I understand that many parents don't like the modeling method or the lattice method. Here's an example that a poster put up earlier:
When I teach math I avoid the lattice method and the distributive method. They are not horrid but I only have so many minutes in a day to teach and they are unnecessarily complicated. I instruct the kids on the traditional algorithm, the box method, the partial products method and the area model. Why? Because it expands their thinking and makes them understand that there are more ways to skin a cat than just one. It helps them realize that math can be thought of in different ways. But know this: Come test time I tell them that I don't care which method you use as long as you get the correct answer. Also, I firmly tell them that the traditional algorithmic way of solving problems is the fastest. And I tell them to use that method when we do timed arithmetic tests.
One of the problems I've noticed with many of today's teachers is that they DO NOT supplement their district's adopted series to help the kids meet the Common Core Standards. Common Core is NOT a curriculum. It's just some standards that we want our kids to reach. My district has an adopted math series that is okay for some areas but not for others. So I supplement to ensure that my kids are learning what is required by Common Core. It frustrates me to no end when I notice that teachers I work with blame the adopted curriculum for not helping the kids know what they need to by year's end. That's their fault because they did not seek out supplementation.
You can say that 4 times , quit hitting submit, just close the tab and open a new one @VegasMichael
v
It kept telling me I was getting a server error and to try again later. Sorry for the multiple posts. I'll likely get banned for that. Maybe a mod can delete some of the excess posts.
Lol, don’t sweat it...every time I get that error I close that tab and navigate back to svtperformance on a new tab and usually find my post did get submitted.
its because he taught common core and used the box method to post.
i wish more teachers taught like you.
I'll address this as professionally as I can. I've been an elementary public school teacher for 27 years and remember when Common Core hit the schools. Frankly speaking, there's nothing wrong with Common Core. It's merely a set of standards that establish what students need to learn by the end of the year. To wit: read through this link and tell me what is so offensive to you. Grade 3 » Operations & Algebraic Thinking | Common Core State Standards Initiative
I understand that many parents don't like the modeling method or the lattice method. Here's an example that a poster put up earlier:
When I teach math I avoid the lattice method and the distributive method. They are not horrid but I only have so many minutes in a day to teach and they are unnecessarily complicated. I instruct the kids on the traditional algorithm, the box method, the partial products method and the area model. Why? Because it expands their thinking and makes them understand that there are more ways to skin a cat than just one. It helps them realize that math can be thought of in different ways. But know this: Come test time I tell them that I don't care which method you use as long as you get the correct answer. Also, I firmly tell them that the traditional algorithmic way of solving problems is the fastest. And I tell them to use that method when we do timed arithmetic tests.
One of the problems I've noticed with many of today's teachers is that they DO NOT supplement their district's adopted series to help the kids meet the Common Core Standards. Common Core is NOT a curriculum. It's just some standards that we want our kids to reach. My district has an adopted math series that is okay for some areas but not for others. So I supplement to ensure that my kids are learning what is required by Common Core. It frustrates me to no end when I notice that teachers I work with blame the adopted curriculum for not helping the kids know what they need to by year's end. That's their fault because they did not seek out supplementation.
Whatever commie.
Explain.
I'll address this as professionally as I can. I've been an elementary public school teacher for 27 years and remember when Common Core hit the schools. Frankly speaking, there's nothing wrong with Common Core. It's merely a set of standards that establish what students need to learn by the end of the year. To wit: read through this link and tell me what is so offensive to you. Grade 3 » Operations & Algebraic Thinking | Common Core State Standards Initiative
I understand that many parents don't like the modeling method or the lattice method. Here's an example that a poster put up earlier:
When I teach math I avoid the lattice method and the distributive method. They are not horrid but I only have so many minutes in a day to teach and they are unnecessarily complicated. I instruct the kids on the traditional algorithm, the box method, the partial products method and the area model. Why? Because it expands their thinking and makes them understand that there are more ways to skin a cat than just one. It helps them realize that math can be thought of in different ways. But know this: Come test time I tell them that I don't care which method you use as long as you get the correct answer. Also, I firmly tell them that the traditional algorithmic way of solving problems is the fastest. And I tell them to use that method when we do timed arithmetic tests.
One of the problems I've noticed with many of today's teachers is that they DO NOT supplement their district's adopted series to help the kids meet the Common Core Standards. Common Core is NOT a curriculum. It's just some standards that we want our kids to reach. My district has an adopted math series that is okay for some areas but not for others. So I supplement to ensure that my kids are learning what is required by Common Core. It frustrates me to no end when I notice that teachers I work with blame the adopted curriculum for not helping the kids know what they need to by year's end. That's their fault because they did not seek out supplementation.
I'm not going to respond to everything in this post. I'll just say this: There was zero....ZERO....need to introduce additional methods of solving basic math problems except to give teachers something to do. And the only thing that has been accomplished is parents and kids have become frustrated. Parents can't help their kids, and kids can't get help from the people they trust the most. It's almost like the curriculum was designed to drive a wedge between parents and kids.
If you disagree, explain to me why the traditional methods were good enough to do arithmetic, and even calculus since the time of Sir Isaac Newton, and now, we need new ones. You want to talk about expanding their minds? They're in second and third grade for hell's sake! They'll probably expand their minds more at recess than they will with this garbage.
The only proof I need that it's messed up is when I see correct answers being marked wrong because an overly complicated method wasn't used to derive it. I know you said you don't do that. But, I've found that to be the exception rather than the rule.
This. So much this.
I have a degree in engineering, which is basically a math degree.
If the traditional method is faster and more straightforward, why teach other insano methods?
I can visualize it now: "Hi kids, this method is the best, and what you'll use for the rest of your life but im going to teach you 5 other, convoluted, time-consuming methods to find the same answer because of a government "standard."" Yes, please tell me how many kids are excited about that!
What am I looking at? The only thing that makes sense on the pic is on the left.
My wife completed finite math courses to obtain her MBA, and this garbage doesn't fly with her.
Sent from my [mind] using the svtperformance.com mobile app
That teacher and myself would have had a lesson in education.
Sent from my [mind] using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Users who are viewing this thread
