I have seen no sufficient data saying math scores have -soared- or that gaps have been sufficiently closed as they've stated. What I have seen are trends where testing to standards have raised proficiencies in the subject that the tests are standard to.
Unless something is being fucked up, if I test towards X way of testing, I should be getting proficient in being tested that way.
In this case, being taught how to learn something and then being tested on how you learned something is different than the practice and implementation of it. Yes, people learn to do things in different ways and thus it helps them to approach problems in a way that they can actually perform it. In fact, some people can learn and perform without any of the concepts in the common core modules.
Most people -probably- wouldn't find the examples seen around as ludicrous if the people in charge of implementation such as the workbooks didn't make things ridiculous.
Yes, maybe you do want to find 10 out of the numbers 5 and 8. But when I want to add 5 to 8 I'm not going to finish at 10. 8 + (5-3) is still equal to 13. (5-3) + 8 = 10 +3 is still 13. It is, for some, easier to learn that it is easier to make it to a simple number such as 10s 100s 1000s and then use the remainder in whatever form but I do think it is ridiculous to believe that it is and should be a/the standard form of learning that will be tested towards and performed.
In my opinion, in its current implementation, it's trying to test how people think in the way they teach you to perform it than asking you quite simply to perform it.
I memorized the table of 12x12. And by table it wasn't the grid type it was actually just columns and rows of what times what equaled what.
1x1=1
1x2=2
etc.
I spent a whole summer memorizing it. 2 years later and I was bored in class and not understanding fuck all any of the methods being used to teach multiplication. I think it took me a couple of years before I understood the method at all. (Don't get me into fractions either).
Because hell, I -think- solving the following problem would be the same for common core and for some of us mentally. A box of food is $8.50. I give the cashier $10. How much should I expect to give back without the cashier using the register or my use of a calculator.
Would I really do
$10.00
- $8.50
No... I'd probably use this: 50 cents brings me to the nearest dollar ($9) and $10-$9 is $1 so the answer is $1.50.
Unfortunately, I certainly would not know I am doing the same thing when I look at so many of these workbooks. I think it's ludicrous to believe that's not a big flaw.
Unless something is being fucked up, if I test towards X way of testing, I should be getting proficient in being tested that way.
In this case, being taught how to learn something and then being tested on how you learned something is different than the practice and implementation of it. Yes, people learn to do things in different ways and thus it helps them to approach problems in a way that they can actually perform it. In fact, some people can learn and perform without any of the concepts in the common core modules.
Most people -probably- wouldn't find the examples seen around as ludicrous if the people in charge of implementation such as the workbooks didn't make things ridiculous.
Yes, maybe you do want to find 10 out of the numbers 5 and 8. But when I want to add 5 to 8 I'm not going to finish at 10. 8 + (5-3) is still equal to 13. (5-3) + 8 = 10 +3 is still 13. It is, for some, easier to learn that it is easier to make it to a simple number such as 10s 100s 1000s and then use the remainder in whatever form but I do think it is ridiculous to believe that it is and should be a/the standard form of learning that will be tested towards and performed.
In my opinion, in its current implementation, it's trying to test how people think in the way they teach you to perform it than asking you quite simply to perform it.
I memorized the table of 12x12. And by table it wasn't the grid type it was actually just columns and rows of what times what equaled what.
1x1=1
1x2=2
etc.
I spent a whole summer memorizing it. 2 years later and I was bored in class and not understanding fuck all any of the methods being used to teach multiplication. I think it took me a couple of years before I understood the method at all. (Don't get me into fractions either).
Because hell, I -think- solving the following problem would be the same for common core and for some of us mentally. A box of food is $8.50. I give the cashier $10. How much should I expect to give back without the cashier using the register or my use of a calculator.
Would I really do
$10.00
- $8.50
No... I'd probably use this: 50 cents brings me to the nearest dollar ($9) and $10-$9 is $1 so the answer is $1.50.
Unfortunately, I certainly would not know I am doing the same thing when I look at so many of these workbooks. I think it's ludicrous to believe that's not a big flaw.
