• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Understanding Common Core

AlaskaBushPilot

Illuminator
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
4,341
Bill Gates spent hundreds of millions, by one account vastly more than that, bribing an amazing array of institutions, including the two largest teacher unions into accepting a "common core/national test" before it was even written.

The point was to require national computerized tests, forcing all schools nationwide to both buy computers and update to the latest operating systems. The curriculum would follow that because you have to align the curriculum with the test.

It's a hoax. In interviews he insists all he's doing is research and development - finding the most cutting edge teaching pedagogy, without reviewing literature, without studying other countries, without any research at all in fact but instead just imposing things like their new common core math.

Los Angeles for example has apparently spent $1 billion in order to be compatible with these computer-based tests. Nationally it has to be staggering. That's what common core is: Gates is merely expanding the technology market by force of law. He's not going to get all of it for himself, but it means incalculable billions for him in the long run.

The damage he's done to education is that since the hoax required this pretense about new innovative teaching methods - he had to come up with them. That job was given to a stooge named David Coleman. He organized a committee of mostly vested interests that came up with, among other things, their new math.

Nobody knew this was happening. When I first heard about common core, I went to their website and all I found was propaganda gibberish about how this was a grass-roots movement, about how we needed to have high school graduates that were college and employment ready. But no standards. Their website didn't state honestly that there were no standards and that they were being made by this committee funded by Bill Gates. Despite Bill Gates being the force behind common core not a word was said about it on the "informational" website.

Follow the money. Well, you can't do that when they are concealing where the money is coming from and deceiving you with this pretense it was all our idea, a grass roots movement, not Bill Gates' idea. You can't keep it a secret though, especially with his Foundation's tax filings being public information. So when he spoke about it, he pretended it all had to do with research and development into best teaching practices.

They have lied in saying a child cannot understand why 9 + 2 = 11 unless he first understands that 9+1 is ten, which is one unit of tens and the left-over 1 is one additional unit of ones. That is a lie. You can understand it perfectly well without needing to know about base 10 vs. other base number systems as a first grader. That is why the only mathematician on the committee resigned in protest and does speeches against common core now.

But Gates had plenty of staffers from the Gates Foundation in the White House, which helped co-ordinate Obama's direction of over six billion dollars in federal funding to bribe states into accepting common core before it was even written.

States also got waivers from the completely unrealistic No Child Left Behind law if they agreed to accept the as-yet unwritten common core. Nobody knew about the new math and a lot of other hokey stuff because it hadn't even been written. But for a mere $1 million in Gates Foundation money per think tank, they all wrote papers on how the Emperor's clothes were beautiful.

Federal control over education is expressly forbidden by both federal statutes and court cases involving it's unconstitutionality. So we have this spectacle of Gates and his stooges saying we need national standards because having 50 state standards is the source of the problem. But when critics say national standards are illegal, Gates & Co. respond that these are not national standards! Every state will make their own choice about standards. :boggled:

So what's the point? That proves the fundamental deceit with Gates and all the other profiteers like the text publishing industry. Their shake-down in all this is throwing out all the old books and selling brand new ones.

Gates' new math was not field-tested. It wasn't based on science. But everyone has to buy all this technology, just to take the test. Since the curriculum is aligned with the test, the same is true there: school districts are cash cows for profiteers, not centers of learning. That's what is important to Gates and these other plunderers.

Endless cycles of federal initiatives in education are chaos in a field that needs stability. It's an indictment of our entire system that a sea-change of this magnitude in education could happen - accepting an unwritten set of standards for Christ's sake and not even doing so much as a literature review of international teaching methods.

There are reasons it happened - sure. States educational budgets were down because of the recession. The No Child Left Behind law was impossible for states to fulfill. Gates saw his opportunity and even a billion or two thrown at this could reap tens of billions in profit in the long run. Politicians, being the loathsome lot they are, handed the president money with no strings - this was spent out of federal economic bailout money - and that is how Gates got states to be required to adopt the unwritten common core.

Ten states have backed out of the common core so far, and one of the teacher unions already turned against it now that it is actually in print. Hopefully the tide has turned.

If the plumbers had run this show we'd all be required to fix our sinks and toilets. If the dentists had run it, we'd all be wearing braces. But it was the tech industry, Gates in particular - the richest living person in the world - so we all have to upgrade our technology. In Viet Nam they are kicking our ass in math using chalk in open-air schools after we bombed them into the stone age a generation ago. It doesn't require lining Bill Gate's pocket.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it (and coming at it from an outsider's point of view), Common Core isn't about mathematics, it's about pedagogy. It's about teaching the subject in a way that is easier for a child to learn.

To take your example about learning 9 + 2. I learned mathematics (actually, arithmetic) using Cuisenaire rods. Using these, it's not only essential that you learn that 9 + 1 = 10, it's impossible to learn anything without learning that too, because in order to get 9, you first have to divide your 10 up into ten ones (or a five, two twos and a one) so that you could take one away.

Is this mathematically rigorous? Probably not, but that's not the point. The point is that it made it easy to learn, by relating abstract mathematical concepts to solid, real-world objects that a five year old can pick up and handle.

From what I've seen about the Common Core exercises that have done the rounds of social media (accompanied by the choruses of "wtf is this?"), the techniques seem to be broadly similar to those I learned using the rods.

It should be said that the rods were no longer used after about the second grade, and even before then I personally spent most of my time making towers out of them.
 
Last edited:
Textbook publishing is a racket, IMO, and the same cartel will be writing computer-based courses and assessments. Also IMO it's generally beneficial to have computers and the Internet available at schools. I'm sure proprietary software will also be a racket but there are other ways to use the hardware.
 
For a different perspective on the issue than Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post, read this piece from Howard Husock of Forbes.
Bill Gates And The Common Core: Did He Really Do Anything Wrong?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardh...-common-core-did-he-really-do-anything-wrong/

My take is that standardized curriculum & testing definitely seems to have worked out well for us here in Massachusetts. We mandated them 20 years ago (MCAS) and our public schools have improved the educational outcomes to the point where we appear in the top rankings consistently now (#4 this year).

As my nieces went through public schools I witnessed some of the different teaching methods. They started in Rhode Island up through elementary school and there the methods seemed to be basically much the same as when I was in school 40+ years ago. Then they went to MA public schools and the methods were very different and to me, like arthwollipot, they seemed very useful and the girls did very well, in fact a little better than they did in RI. (BTW, RI ranks #29 this year). I can't prove the better outcomes are caused completely by instituting MCAS 20 years ago, but many experts say it was the main driver. I suspect the standardized testing of teachers we instituted about 10 years ago that resulted in firing some also helped.
 
As I understand it (and coming at it from an outsider's point of view), Common Core isn't about mathematics, it's about pedagogy. It's about teaching the subject in a way that is easier for a child to learn.

To take your example about learning 9 + 2. I learned mathematics (actually, arithmetic) using Cuisenaire rods. Using these, it's not only essential that you learn that 9 + 1 = 10, it's impossible to learn anything without learning that too, because in order to get 9, you first have to divide your 10 up into ten ones (or a five, two twos and a one) so that you could take one away.

Is this mathematically rigorous? Probably not, but that's not the point. The point is that it made it easy to learn, by relating abstract mathematical concepts to solid, real-world objects that a five year old can pick up and handle.

From what I've seen about the Common Core exercises that have done the rounds of social media (accompanied by the choruses of "wtf is this?"), the techniques seem to be broadly similar to those I learned using the rods.

It should be said that the rods were no longer used after about the second grade, and even before then I personally spent most of my time making towers out of them.

Warning: The following is second hand information that I learned from conversation at parties. Give it all the credibility it deserves.


In discussions and articles about Common Core that I have seen in the media, the methods of teaching arithmetic and other mathematical concepts have gotten a lot of press. Some thoroughly ridiculous obsessions with number lines in particular have been talked about a lot, and are the basis of most of the criticism.

It turns out that those have nothing to do with Common Core. Common Core is, indeed, about mathematics, and it has nothing at all to do with pedagogy. It says that teachers should teach these skills, and should do it by this age. e.g. single digit multiplication should be taught by second grade. Single variable algebra should be taught by eighth grade. (I don't know if the grade numbers are correct, but you should get the idea.)

So why the confusion? Why is all the attention on the methods, when that isn't even part of Common Core?

From what I was told, Common Core mandated certain subjects be taught in certain orders, and no existing series of textbooks followed that exact order. School administrators had no easy, off the shelf, set of textbooks that they could hand to their teachers and say, "Teach this." Naturally, that's a market opportunity, so textbook publishers rushed to make a textbook series that was compatible with Common Core. The first such series is the one that had all the methods that Arthwollipot is referring to, and the pedagogy of that specific series of textbooks was confused with the contents of Common Core.



Or so I'm told.
 
(much snipped)

If the plumbers had run this show we'd all be required to fix our sinks and toilets. If the dentists had run it, we'd all be wearing braces. But it was the tech industry, Gates in particular - the richest living person in the world - so we all have to upgrade our technology. In Viet Nam they are kicking our ass in math using chalk in open-air schools after we bombed them into the stone age a generation ago. It doesn't require lining Bill Gate's pocket.

I am suspicious of this type of analysis. It assumes that the beneficiary of a policy change is the causing agent, and that profit motives overwhelm altruistic motives. I think these assumptions need to be independently demonstrated.

Why? Because I know that "follow the money" is too simplistic. Two quick rebuttals - any policy change of note will produce both winners and losers, no matter what the genesis is. And secondly, quite often I advocate for positions and policies for which I will receive no direct benefit at all. I support the legalization of marijuana, but do not use marijuana (one of many, many examples).

Finally, the policy which emerges needs to be evaluated on its own merits, above and beyond any detectable agenda. We already know that the best intentions can go wrong. The converse should be true as well - nefarious motives might lead to beneficial outcomes. There is such a thing as "win/win" to be had.
 
I graduated in 1969 and was taught what was called "the Three Rs"; "Reading, 'Riting, "Rithmetic" and we took S.A.T tests every year. America was high in global rankings and then came along the 'Hooked on Phonics' generation(s) and the death knell rang for our country's global rankings and the rest is history...wait a minute, what's history? Did you mispel his story?
 
It's a good idea at the Bill Gates/TED talk level of thinking, but the devil is always in the details.

I also can only offer anecdotes, but they aren't great ones:

My niece reportedly came home with homework giving her a math problem and asking for four "ways." That was how it was worded: list four ways, full stop. I think they meant "ways" as in "list four different ways to solve this problem," but she'd only been taught the one, so who knows. Apparently the standard is chock full of this kind of stupid jargon.

Another relative, a teacher, complained about the speed with which kids were supposed to be taught. It's more advanced, and that's generally a good thing, but for her it was applied unilaterally at all grade levels. Maybe it shouldn't have been, but it been. So she was given a textbook on quantum philosophy for children who'd just about mastered nose picking, and was assured that everything would come up roses.

Who knows? Maybe it will.
 
I graduated in 1969 and was taught what was called "the Three Rs"; "Reading, 'Riting, "Rithmetic

We already had a common core in grade schools across the country before this hoax. As you say: reading, writing, and arithmetic.


jakesteele, about your comment: "My take is that standardized curriculum & testing definitely seems to have worked out well for us here in Massachusetts".

This is one of the marketing insights of the hoax: convincing people that we've never had standardized tests before.

Massachusetts has had the highest proportion of college graduates of any state in the nation for a very long time. It is at the high end for income and the low end for minorities. It has the oldest tradition and first one to pass educational laws, going back to the 1600's. It is a culture that highly prizes education. It doesn't have anything to do with standardized curriculum and testing.

Take your pick of poorly performing states: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, etc. Should I use them as examples of how badly standardized tests and curriculum have performed? Common Core advocates assure us states will continue to have whatever standards they choose.

So what's the point?

The article is about the most vapid I have ever seen on common core. It alleges to be questioning whether Bill Gates did a "bad thing" without actually discussing what he did.

It is classic bait-and-switch: pretend that what you are doing is instituting high standards when in fact what you are doing is requiring every child to have the most recent copyrighted, licensed software just to take the test.

The chalkboard has worked out quite well for Viet Nam, currently kicking our ass in guess what - standardized international tests.


********************

It is quite telling that everyone has a different idea about what common core is. That's because their marketing genius is all ******** lofty platitudes about being college and career-ready - as if nobody had ever thought of that before - but when trying to find out what is really going on people are quickly lost in a fog.

What is going on is requiring every child in America to have computers with the most recent licensed software.

Observe how almost nobody gets it! Everyone falls for the platitudes without being able to see that what is really going on is a requirement to buy technology products with the most recent licenses.

If you said that, nobody would be for it. So you conceal that behind all the stupid platitudes.
 
Last edited:
********************

It is quite telling that everyone has a different idea about what common core is. That's because their marketing genius is all ******** lofty platitudes about being college and career-ready - as if nobody had ever thought of that before - but when trying to find out what is really going on people are quickly lost in a fog.

What is going on is requiring every child in America to have computers with the most recent licensed software.

Observe how almost nobody gets it! Everyone falls for the platitudes without being able to see that what is really going on is a requirement to buy technology products with the most recent licenses.

If you said that, nobody would be for it. So you conceal that behind all the stupid platitudes.

And I thought I was a cynic. I am humbled.

It's like saying college exists as a scheme to sell the latest editions of textbooks. Kinda feels like there might be something to the notion, doesn't it?

I suppose you've already posted the evidence for your claim. Did anyone believe it?
 
It's a good idea at the Bill Gates/TED talk level of thinking, but the devil is always in the details.

I also can only offer anecdotes, but they aren't great ones:

My niece reportedly came home with homework giving her a math problem and asking for four "ways." That was how it was worded: list four ways, full stop. I think they meant "ways" as in "list four different ways to solve this problem," but she'd only been taught the one, so who knows. Apparently the standard is chock full of this kind of stupid jargon.

Another relative, a teacher, complained about the speed with which kids were supposed to be taught. It's more advanced, and that's generally a good thing, but for her it was applied unilaterally at all grade levels. Maybe it shouldn't have been, but it been. So she was given a textbook on quantum philosophy for children who'd just about mastered nose picking, and was assured that everything would come up roses.

Who knows? Maybe it will.
The funny thing is that CC has required that we dumb-down the 7th & 8th grade math curriculum at our middle school. Our advanced math students, usually about 20% of our middle school kids, are expected to just tread water and wait for the rest of their class to catch up. Since our local high school has gone to the Math 1, Math 2, Math 3 standard and requires all entering freshmen to take Math 1 there is no accommodation at all for advanced students. The earliest kids are allowed to take Calculus is grade 12. It is sad, really...
 
I really don't see what possible justification there is in teaching 8-year olds in one state something different from the 8-year olds in another state.
 
I don't see why we should hobble kids in order to prevent them from learning at their own rate.
 
I really don't see what possible justification there is in teaching 8-year olds in one state something different from the 8-year olds in another state.

Wouldn't that depend on the quality of the instruction in the state being copied? Standardization always comes with the risk of spreading a bad program even further and disallowing the better one.
 
Straw man analogies marplots. Impressive. It's like changing your oil with a toothbrush. Or something, lol.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove a breach of rule 12


Schools have been using standardized tests as long as I have been alive. But this is the first time computerized online tests have been required. That's what is so remarkable to me - how the hoax has so successfully hidden it's major feature. If it is mentioned at all, it is more a tangential way like this:

Tests or no tests, the Common Core does make technology a priority for many schools.

As Teng muses, “at a school where they had to purchase laptops or Chromebooks just to take this test, where they had to up the bandwidth just in order to do this test properly, that’s going to have a positive impact, either directly or indirectly. If it means that kids have to learn how to type and be more fluent with computers, then maybe [computerized testing] does have a positive effect.”

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2014-07-09-computerized-common-core-testing-poses-challenge-for-schools

It is treated as an "oh, by the way..." ancillary detail. Standardized testing required no more than a #2 pencil before this.

I know that as a professional educator you don't follow your field the way people like me do that are merely amateurs. So let me help you.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2013/12/09/school-districts-face-common-core-test-tech-requirements

That article talked about the bandwidth necessary and most importantly that meeting the minimum standard was not enough.

I read one report from 2013 that claimed 96% of school districts were still using windows XP, a conversion requirement that is staggering if true. I don't know, but nowhere in discussions of Common Core in those early years, especially from Gates, was it promoted as a requirement for computerized, online testing.

I have to hand it to him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really don't see what possible justification there is in teaching 8-year olds in one state something different from the 8-year olds in another state.

Excellent. Then Common Core should be rejected because it allows states to choose their own standards.
 
Gee wiz. And here I was reading that Apple has the largest presence in the classrooms. I wonder if you might use them to go online?

As I said, it takes a better cynic than me to see how Bill Gates is going to make money by spending upwards of $600 million trying to drive education policy in a direction he believes is better. But who knows? Maybe he'll somehow capture the market for testing, instead of, you know, how competition and bidding for government contracts is the usual method.

If he does manage it, maybe he'll run those parasites administering the SAT and ACT out of business. Talk about a monopoly on test taking!

It seems like there are two prongs here. The first is whether or not standardized testing is a good idea. The second is whether using newer technology is a good idea. They aren't necessarily intimately linked.

I do kinda like having online instruction and testing as an option. It would be a boon for homeschoolers.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't that depend on the quality of the instruction in the state being copied? Standardization always comes with the risk of spreading a bad program even further and disallowing the better one.
If implemented badly, yes. I see it as very telling that you don't trust a government organisation to be able to develop the best educational standards.

Excellent. Then Common Core should be rejected because it allows states to choose their own standards.
Yes, exactly. If that's what it does, that's a fantastic reason for it to be rejected.
 
The funny thing is that CC has required that we dumb-down the 7th & 8th grade math curriculum at our middle school. Our advanced math students, usually about 20% of our middle school kids, are expected to just tread water and wait for the rest of their class to catch up. Since our local high school has gone to the Math 1, Math 2, Math 3 standard and requires all entering freshmen to take Math 1 there is no accommodation at all for advanced students. The earliest kids are allowed to take Calculus is grade 12. It is sad, really...

That is true for many districts.

The important thing is that all your kids are taking online computerized tests now.

That is, the important thing to technology giants.
 
Yes, exactly. If that's what it does, that's a fantastic reason for it to be rejected.

There is a long history of constitutional and statutory based court decisions that disallows the federal government from establishing national standards.

That's another thing Gates and the tech companies already knew.
 
It's a hoax.


With two children in grade school being taught with the common core, I believe pretty much everything you've written is nonsense. I have my problems with the common core and especially with the emphasis on testing, but the expansion of Microsoft isn't among them.


(My older son was given a table by the school district: an iPad.)
 
If he does manage it, maybe he'll run those parasites administering the SAT and ACT out of business..

Bill Gates' stooge that was the architect of common core is now president of the College Board. They administer the SAT and AP tests.

I would not expect a professional educator such as yourself to be aware of much of anything going on in educational testing, especially when participating in a discussion board on that very thing though.
 
With two children in grade school being taught with the common core, I believe pretty much everything you've written is nonsense. I have my problems with the common core and especially with the emphasis on testing, but the expansion of Microsoft isn't among them.


(My older son was given a table by the school district: an iPad.)

The main thrust you just verified, thank you. They can't take the test without the capability for online computerized technology.
 
There is a long history of constitutional and statutory based court decisions that disallows the federal government from establishing national standards.

That's another thing Gates and the tech companies already knew.
That's merely pushing the question to another domain.

Why should this be so? Why should this not be overturned? What is the benefit of teaching two otherwise similar children different things?
 
The main thrust you just verified, thank you. They can't take the test without the capability for online computerized technology.


None of my childrens' common core tests have ever been given on a computer or online. In fact, none of their tests of any sort have been given on computer. My older son has a tablet for school but that has nothing to do with common core. It's an accommodation made for his learning disability.

It's not even new. I knew a student who had an old-school PDA given to him by the district some fifteen years ago.

And while use of computers for homework is allowed, neither child has ever had an assignment which required a computer or the internet.
 
Last edited:
If implemented badly, yes. I see it as very telling that you don't trust a government organisation to be able to develop the best educational standards.

Where did I say that? So long as public education remains a benefit of living in our society, government is the proper level of organization. But standardization comes with a cost. It's an artifact of standardization. It also comes with benefits. It's no sin to recognize this.
 
Bill Gates' stooge that was the architect of common core is now president of the College Board. They administer the SAT and AP tests.

I would not expect a professional educator such as yourself to be aware of much of anything going on in educational testing, especially when participating in a discussion board on that very thing though.

I take it then that you would reject the SAT and AP for the same reasons you reject common core? It would seem to follow if it's all part of the same conspiracy.
 
The main thrust you just verified, thank you. They can't take the test without the capability for online computerized technology.

None of my childrens' common core tests have ever been given on a computer or online...

...And while use of computers for homework is allowed, neither child has ever had an assignment which required a computer or the internet.

These two posts seem at odds. :blush:
 
None of my childrens' common core tests have ever been given on a computer or online. In fact, none of their tests of any sort have been given on computer. My older son has a tablet for school but that has nothing to do with common core. It's an accommodation made for his learning disability.

It's not even new. I knew a student who had an old-school PDA given to him by the district some fifteen years ago.

And while use of computers for homework is allowed, neither child has ever had an assignment which required a computer or the internet.
Our students don't generally use computers for homework or tests, but California has adopted the Smarter Balance Assessment which is an annual test for 3 - 11 grades which must be done on computers connected to the internet (arranging the required hardware has been a real challenge for us - we are a small cash-strapped rural K-8). The Smarter Balance Assessment is the official standardized test of the CC curriculum. I am guessing that this might be what ABP is complaining about.
 
Last edited:
None of my childrens' common core tests have ever been given on a computer or online. In fact, none of their tests of any sort have been given on computer. My older son has a tablet for school but that has nothing to do with common core. It's an accommodation made for his learning disability.

It's not even new. I knew a student who had an old-school PDA given to him by the district some fifteen years ago.

And while use of computers for homework is allowed, neither child has ever had an assignment which required a computer or the internet.

I didn't catch how old your kids were. My son, currently sixteen, started getting assignments that would have been impossible to complete without a computer by the fifth grade at least. Possibly sooner.
 
I didn't catch how old your kids were. My son, currently sixteen, started getting assignments that would have been impossible to complete without a computer by the fifth grade at least. Possibly sooner.


5th and 3rd. We've used a computer to type and print pictures for posters. There's a summer math program that children can sign up for. I also printed some Just-So stories for my older son to read. And, of course, their entire knowledge of human sexuality comes from Taylor Swift videos.
 
5th and 3rd. We've used a computer to type and print pictures for posters. There's a summer math program that children can sign up for. I also printed some Just-So stories for my older son to read. And, of course, their entire knowledge of human sexuality comes from Taylor Swift videos.

I think you mean Miley Cyrus on that last!!!
 
5th and 3rd. We've used a computer to type and print pictures for posters. There's a summer math program that children can sign up for. I also printed some Just-So stories for my older son to read. And, of course, their entire knowledge of human sexuality comes from Taylor Swift videos.

I'm pretty sure it was in fifth grade that he started getting assignments that involved "look up on the internet". The annoying thing was that they also emphasized the importance of internet safety, so they made sure to say you should do this with your parents. Great. I had actually already completed the fifth grade some time back. I wasn't keen on getting homework assignments.

I know that by sixth grade he got those sorts of assignments.

And in seventh grade, I found the first evidence of searching for porn on the computer.
 
They have lied in saying a child cannot understand why 9 + 2 = 11 unless he first understands that 9+1 is ten, which is one unit of tens and the left-over 1 is one additional unit of ones. That is a lie. You can understand it perfectly well without needing to know about base 10 vs. other base number systems as a first grader. That is why the only mathematician on the committee resigned in protest and does speeches against common core now.


I kind of like this idea -- but I agree it needs testing to prove it is a good way for the general student, as opposed to more advanced kids. I figured this kind of junk out on my own and wish someone could have taught me. In 2nd grade they taught us base 8 and other bases and the ones, tens, hundreds columns, and I never saw it again in formal education until computer science in college.
 
Last edited:
To take your example about learning 9 + 2. I learned mathematics (actually, arithmetic) using Cuisenaire rods. Using these, it's not only essential that you learn that 9 + 1 = 10, it's impossible to learn anything without learning that too, because in order to get 9, you first have to divide your 10 up into ten ones (or a five, two twos and a one) so that you could take one away.

I have no idea what you are talking about sound fascinating.

The way I distinctly (*) remember learning about addition and subtraction was much more mundane.

We learned to count 1,2,3,4,5 etc.... And then we were told that adding is only going to skip number , e.g. 9+2 is actually 9+1+1 etc... And subtracting is actually counting in reverse e.g. 9-2 is actually 9.->8->7. Multiplication was only multiple addition and division was only to find out "how many" of a number you would need to have a multiplication of two numbers using the division/rest method.

I have no idea what those rods and cuisenard things are but will try to look up on youtube.

(*) I knew how to count before going to school and even multiply so other kids asked me to help which is why it still stays so vivid
 
Last edited:
I learned mathematics (actually, arithmetic) using Cuisenaire rods.
Anecdotally, I heard that for a time during the 1960s, many schools believed that cuisenaire rods could replace rote learning in arithmetic. Although these rods continued to be used for many years, it didn't take long for schools to reintroduce rote learning again as well.

In the mean time, a number of school kids ended up leaving school with the maths skills of a modern child.
 
Anecdotally, I heard that for a time during the 1960s, many schools believed that cuisenaire rods could replace rote learning in arithmetic. Although these rods continued to be used for many years, it didn't take long for schools to reintroduce rote learning again as well.

In the mean time, a number of school kids ended up leaving school with the maths skills of a modern child.
Well, to be fair, I also learned the times tables by rote. So I guess it was a blended approach.
 
I like the 3 x 4 = 11 video that made the rounds recently. But Common Core is part of a larger problem known as public education. It is yet another area that requires great reform but is nowhere to be seen.
 
.......That proves the fundamental deceit with Gates and all the other profiteers.......

......cash cows for profiteers........ That's what is important to Gates and these other plunderers.......

.........t doesn't require lining Bill Gate's pocket.

Perhaps you missed the news. Bill Gates has retired from the software industry.

Before you accuse him of profiteering, you should perhaps show how any money from this exercise ends up in Gates' pocket.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom