Common core hate thread

>It is hard to take words seriously from anyone who posts a bad pic like yours and has the habit of telling people to kill themselves, which is illegal here, besides being inherently immoral.
>Veeky Forums.org
Are you for real? My picture isn't even anime you fucking knob.

>unskilled college dropouts.
I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I implied you never even attended college.

Other common core techniques include a binomial theorem approach to multiplication where one rewrites their numbers as polynomials with the base as the indeterminate. This technique also gets meets a disproportionate amount of critique by parents and "educators" who only learned the more shit-tier multiplication technique involving carrying and repeated addition.

I'm getting a little tired of all of this common core hate; I've yet to see a valid argument for why it sucks (apart fro "wah now i can't cheat my kid through 3rd grade").
All it does is teach children a little bit of intuition and tricks that they would take longer to find on their own. Many of what
they're teaching is stuff that I learned to do in my head, in fact.

The problem is that Common Core aims to Enforce a replacement of a faster traditional, technique, without even explaining such technique, with a slower, convoluted, mystified one. Common Core is an insult to any child with a current IQ over 90 points. It just throws a fast, functional method into the trash and punishes people for even thinking about it.

We like to see teachers simply explaining why the old multiplication or division techniques work, which they always did, or should have done in some schools, but not abandon them. Common Core is NOT doing this, but I see that it is inducing uninformed people to think it IS doing this.

Methods of calculating need to be based around the machine that will be executing the task, and building a framework to do so is much the same.

Education's ideal is the avoidance of rote memorization and compartmentalization, both of which common core fails miserably enough at that I can only question if it was engineered to potentiate the end result of "functional enough" cripples, or pander to the lowest common denominator.

As another poster said, it's an insult to any human being with more than half a brain in their head, and will likely yield poor outcomes for a number of people "types". This is education at its worst.

>We like to see teachers simply explaining why the old multiplication or division techniques work, which they always did, or should have done in some schools, but not abandon them. Common Core is NOT doing this, but I see that it is inducing uninformed people to think it IS doing this.
The traditional techniques are actually terrible from a formal perspective. The common core techniques are more in line with the techniques a student uses in a university abstract algebra course and they are also more practical in that one can perform them mentally with more ease and precision.

>Education's ideal is the avoidance of rote memorization and compartmentalization, both of which common core fails miserably enough at that I can only question if it was engineered to potentiate the end result of "functional enough" cripples, or pander to the lowest common denominator.
Actually, common core is doing the opposite. It is in fact the older traditional methods that just relied on rote memorization. The new methods are only slower and more convoluted because the goal isn't to teach the student computations but rather to teach the student concepts.

The goal of education is to prepare students for the future and in a time when students are walking around with computers in their pockets it doesn't make sense to prepare them for a future where they will have be able to mindlessly churn through calculations. Rather it makes more sense to prepare them for a world where they will have to be able to reason through abstractions.

>The goal of education is to prepare students for the future
Yes, but this is only a part. The real value in education is in affording a student the means to effectively do, and become, whatever they might want, along with widening their awareness of the spectrum of things to pursue. Teaching faith and reliance on technology because "it's the future!" is a terrible attitude that may only fall apart.

For them to meaningfully derive the high level "concepts", they must have the underpinnings, else they do not understand the whole. Efficient, hard, mechanical computation methods are a part of that (even if a student doesn;t recognize them as such, and views them as unrelated cognitive tools).

I can eg walk around a store and easily keep a total in my head while shopping, because I got very good at manipulating numbers and intuitively understanding the relationships between them in a base 10, 2, and 16 system. the checking systems are more or less just "feelings" at this point, and it's always accurate because I engineered it to be that way. Calculating percentages is also easy, and there are tricks to do arbitrary division mentally as well. Either properly, or as an approximation.

You must have students implicitly picking up on and developing this low level understanding and metacognitive skill. There is no replacement for it.

>For them to meaningfully derive the high level "concepts", they must have the underpinnings, else they do not understand the whole. Efficient, hard, mechanical computation methods are a part of that (even if a student doesn;t recognize them as such, and views them as unrelated cognitive tools).
There are lots of different computational algorithms user and they don't actually mirror the traditional methods either.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_algorithm

Common core students are being taught to think in a way that prepares them for being able to come up with new algorithms as opposed to just using an "old and trusted" algorithm. Moreover the techniques they're being taught are also more easily translatable to higher level abstractions than the traditional methods (which are arguably the main thing holding back undergraduate mathematics education ridiculous amount of time is spent reteaching fundamental concepts correctly).

Common core actually spends a lot of time teaching tricks especially with regard to mental arithmetic. They are also introduced to different number bases from the get go (as opposed to only seeing them through nerdy self study or university).

The multiplication technique they use is as follows
(12)(34)
= (10 + 2)(34)
= 340 + 68
= 408
I've purposely dumbed down this example so that you can tell that it is actually just a generalization of the traditional method except this one actually has a closer connection to real math (pic related).

They have tricks for computing percentages as well.
>Compute 9% of some bullshit, 152.16.
>lol 10% = 15.216 and 1% = 1.5216
>so 9% = 10% - 1% which is approximately 13.5

Intuition comes from experience and clever insights come from being given convoluted problems. Unfortunately these simple ideas are lost on computational retards such as parents which is why they're constantly spazzing out yelling "why don't they just mindlessly do it the way I learned when I was a kid".

> A3
> M3
This is a troll right?

The 0 and 1 are just symbols, occasionally texts will label them differently. There are other sorts of algebraic structures that are entirely different from sets of numbers. The important thing is that when defining a field you have an additive identity and a multiplicative identity (specific elements in your set that behave this way).

The most common type of field is the real numbers. However the integers or even worse the naturals are not examples of fields (no inverses).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_element

I've already made decisions while you faggots finish calculating the almost certainly insignificant digits

Checking your results is a bad idea now?

Not that guy, but I think that A3 and M3 are poorly worded in your image, it seems like it states "for all a in the field there is a number 0 such that..." while it should be "there is a number 0 such that for all a in the field..."

there's a mistake though, should be [math]a+0=a[/math]

...

>because the goal isn't to teach the student computations but rather to teach the student concepts.
they're doing a piss poor job of it. what cc does is forces kids to think a certain way with all this this is how to think about it bullshit rather than allowing them to figure out their way of seeing it. all they are doing is memorizing this one way of thinking about it.

>i-i=1
wait what

>Common core students are being taught to think in a way that prepares them for being able to come up with new algorithms
nope they are being forced to work with pointless algos instead of having the freedom to realize for themselves why the math works out the way it does. it's not much different from the older generation except with extra pointless work. .

if cc was getting kids to think about it then it wouldn't be regurgitation but would require them to demonstrate some insight, explain why or show their own algorithms.

We're using our imagination to come up with a new number with special proprieties.

Who needed that additive and multiplicative inverses anyway. Seriously though, I'm glad I don't live in the US.

Im not a Veeky Forums regular, I can barely count to 10 but I was taught to round correctly. Thats just america using freedums

cute

>a+0=a

proofs?

>faster traditional, technique,
The traditional technique here is digit by digit computation, that's slow and inefficient. A much quicker way is to round 291 up to 300, then it's just 354+300-9=654-9=645. You won't get much quicker than that.

Lets assume a is a real number.
We know that each real number has an inverse for operation + such that
a + (-a) = 0 (proof is trivial)
Which means
a + a + (-a) = a
Now you can do whatever you like to finish the proof.

>proofs?
>proving axioms
If you want your own definition of a field then no one is stopping you, but it would be customary to invent a new name for it.

It's a little different, given that they're "flooring" to the hundredth's place.

I'm sure it wouldn't seem so ridiculous if they also told the kids to use "back end estimation" and then compare the two results and use the numbers in question to decide which result the real answer was closest to.

>insult to any child
Propagate cultural amnesia.
When the iphone goes dark for good,
this was it - for the 99%.

>"besides being inherently immoral"
>still thinking any action has intrinsic value to it

>Common core students are being taught to think in a way that prepares them for being able to come up with new algorithms as opposed to just using an "old and trusted" algorithm. Moreover the techniques they're being taught are also more easily translatable to higher level abstractions than the traditional methods (which are arguably the main thing holding back undergraduate mathematics education ridiculous amount of time is spent reteaching fundamental concepts correctly).

It's not.

onenewsnow.com/education/2016/06/16/common-core-has-common-problem-for-black-students
>One of the big selling points for the Common Core was that it was supposed to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. But recent test results show just the opposite is happening.
>[...]
>"The NAEP scores are going down and the college readiness scores are going down, and you've even got Bill Gates out there admitting that things have not gone particularly well,” she says. “But that doesn't seem to be deterring anyone. I guess they've sunk so much money into it, so they're going to double down on it."

Feel free to double down

You mean (((mathematics))) right ?

>I'm not in class to see the terminology kids are using
>I'm not in class when the teacher works the exact homework problems given to my child with different numbers
>I don't realize my retarded kid is picking his nose instead of listening
>my kid comes home and doesn't know what any of the words mean
>they weren't the words I was taught, so I don't know
>I'd better throw a fit that common core is ruining America

Both of you are correct. Incidentally I don't know where this image came from I just happened to have it saved.

>They are memorizing a concept.
>The right thing to do is not to teach them and hope they figure it out.
lolwat?

Their assignments involve explaining why a step was performed unlike the assignments of previous generations where you were simply handed a sheet of 30 identical problems (with slightly different values) and asked to turn them in by the next day. That shit was literally busy work.

Hey everyone, get a load of this guy. He actually things that decades of schools investing all their time and energy to optimize for specific standardized tests that control their funding and wages is a good thing. He's actually surprised that switching the goals of the education system from "make them pass standardized testing so we can get more money" to something else has caused them to not only perform less well in standardized testing but not care about performing less well.
kys

This. The real problem is that parents don't know math as a result of their shitty education.

Studying to be math teacher in Europe. We don't do shit like this, this math is literally invented by capitalists.

>299$+499$
>estimated cost 600
They're indoctrinating people as we speak.

That would be 300$ - 1$ + 500$ - 1$
which is 800$ - 2$ = 798$

I am not for Common Core.

The main issue is that teaching those techniques can be clunky busywork, but that's an implementation problem. No curriculum change is gonna fix dumb teachers.

I heard someone say that the math reforms were good and the literature/English reforms were just as shit as the old way, I know it's Veeky Forums territory but what's the CC way of teaching English?

Ok, but 2+4=6

>They
Care to tell us who "They" are, socialist scum?

you're strawmanning, what i was trying to get at is teach the idea but allow kids to develop their own ways of thinking about it. this is the only way to get someone to think about something. instead with cc they're not learning the concept as much as regurgitating a really dumb procedure.

Common Core is special needs education for everybody, it's deeming to kids that aren't mathematically inept.

>it's deeming
wat

my guess is "damning"

>deeming
Whoops demeaning. I guess I could've used Common Core for writing. ;p

>telling people to kill themselves, which is illegal here, besides being inherently immoral.

"Kys" is an alternate spelling of "Kiss"

more proof that all math is just made up shit that really doesn't matter in anything

k i l l
y o u r s e l f
f a g g o t

A E S T H I C

das tru tho mah nigga. when we gunna ackshully use dis numbahs n shet in da reel world?

You're the one who is "strawmanning" but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that you may not be doing it intentionally. As such, allow me to dumb this down for you:
>Kids are given an explanation about what the point is behind a procedure and they're given examples about it.
>Some kids don't pay attention and then go home and ask their parents for help on their homework where they're told to reproduce the procedure and give justifications/explanations for why certain steps were taken.
>Parents don't understand shit and just see it as being told to do a really slow counterintuitive procedure where the justifications look like counterproductive shit.

If you had ever studied mathematics at the university level then you would know that most of (non-proof based) mathematics education involves giving some expository explanation and a description of a method followed by some examples a student works through as a sanity check.

Normal education is special needs education too user. It's based on the idea that a student should have a certain number of hours of time for different subjects (10 hours on this topic, 5 hours on this topic, etc...). So as a result you get shit like:
>lol here is an example of how to solve this type of problem.
>Now work through two worksheets with the exact same problem but different values.

For what it is worth. I have taught or tutored math for 5+ years at every level including college.

By far students understand and learn the concepts significantly quicker through common core methods. And subsequently it only takes showing them the "fast" method once and they get it instantly.

Where as only teaching the fast method consistently confuses them.

Good examples are carrying during addition, borrowing in subtraction, and remainders. The "fast" method for each of these do absolutely nothing to help the student understand the process. Where as common core helps the students understand more readily.

They're already teaching imaginary numbers to these little children?

That's the power of Common Core :^)

This, we've switched from targeting the middle (which is frustrating enough for smarter kids) to targeting the bottom 20% because every-fucking-one needs to go to college now. It's bullshit

More imaginary than the garden variety [math]i[math] in fact, as this version breaks either additive identity, distributivity of multiplication over addition, or that 1 ≠ 0.

its cliche but getting kids to fucking read. Reading teaches spelling, sentence structure, phrasing, and obviously is going to improve reading speed and comprehension. I've talked to a principal who follows students careers through elementary school and he said that whatever their backgrounds, the avid readers always turn to be the best at english come graduation.

>[math]i[math]

wtf is this? The 'old way' is flat wrong...

it multiplies to -xy, not +xy

I have no excuse for that.

I saw this exact thread on /pol/ and plenty of people said you supported common core.

>I saw this exact thread on /pol/

That response would have made much more sense if the circumstances were opposite of what they were.

...said the guy using anectodes as evidence on a science board.

How was I using anecdotes? I could find the thread and show people saying that they thought Veeky Forums approved of common core. All I'm saying is that this is what /pol/ thought, but based on the responses here, that's clearly not the case.

I support common core. I'm a senior math undergrad.

>this board said it
boards aren't people user. they don't have mouths.

Really makes you think.................

Okay, I'm just saying it was a popular sentiment.

Okay

K

lmgtfy.com/?q=how do I spell aesthetic?

>They have tricks for computing percentages as well.
>>Compute 9% of some bullshit, 152.16.
>>lol 10% = 15.216 and 1% = 1.5216
>>so 9% = 10% - 1% which is approximately 13.5

>Not 9% of 152.16 = 152.16% of 9 ~= 1.5 * 9 = 13.5
user...

Hi teacher!

Frustrated with "your students' low performance" from being taught math the "tried and true method" of visualization-free memorization as a human calculator?

I'm sure it will catch on one day! Thanks for inspiring lifelong loves of learning!

If only they were to explain that procedure in 20 seconds or less to the 'learnee' instead of a "write out the process of doing this shortcut repeatedly" "lesson", but think of those poor teachers! their hours would be SLASHED, it would be a tragedy.

It's a shoop.

/pol/ probably made this thread . Those retards get BTFO out of Veeky Forums daily.

I'm a pure math student. I also support common core. In fact in most threads I've seen on common core in Veeky Forums, the consensus seems to be that retards who can't into math are against it while anyone who has actually worked in abstract math is for it.

Pic related, (the text underneath the picture originates from a Veeky Forums post that BTFO a bunch of retards).

>>Not 9% of 152.16 = 152.16% of 9 ~= 1.5 * 9 = 13.5
That isn't a technique user. All you're doing is multiplying one value by [math]10^n[/math] and the other one by [math]10^{-n}[/math].

The point of the other technique is that by rewriting a percentage in clever ways one could turn a difficult mental computation into a trivial one involving just addition and moving decimal points (halving may also be useful). Adding estimation into the fold can really trivialize computations and such techniques can be ridiculously useful when you're really only interested in ballpark values.

>needing estimations for adding 3 figure numbers

Honestly, I cant think of a worse waste of time besides estimating the addition of 2 figure numbers.

Memes speak for a community.

>It's a conspiracy!!!
Please user, you're embarrassing yourself. Hours weren't slashed when teachers taught in the traditional way. Instead what happened is that the school curriculum required to spend so many hours covering the same topic so they ended up having to creatively find ways to waste time. This typically involved spending day after day of class periods just having kids work on different versions of the same problem over and over again (and again with the homework). It is this sort of teaching that created countless generations of people who think mathematics is just rote memorization and mindlessly applying processes. Entire generations that can't solve basic word problems unless they're given another pre-worked example of an almost identical word problem with some values altered. Entire generations of people who literally cannot problem solve.

With common core teachers actually are allowed to spend time efficiently. They spend more time teaching different perspectives of the same concepts and giving students sanity tests (eg. giving the student an example of a problem worked incorrectly and asking the student to explain where the mistake was, like in ) and actual problem solving tasks. The only conspiracy here is that retarded teachers who have never understood math don't want to take the time to actually understand the shit they're supposed to be teaching.

Just for completeness.

>The example given is too simple!
kek

By the way, these two pictures aren't common core but they are another perspective of multiplication that is closer to the abstract math notion and that generalizes further. Incidentally, the technique is similar to another less visual technique used in common core.

I'm not starwmanning you literally said:
>The right thing to do is not to teach them and hope they figure it out.
which isn't what i'm getting at at all.
>allow me to dumb this down for you
i love how the point i'm getting at is so above you, i know what they're attempting to do but they don't do it because that's not how psychology works.

>Kids are given an explanation about what the point is behind a procedure and they're given examples about it.
but that isn't quite true, they're given the procedure and forced to regurgitate it without really thinking for themselves. it's just added regurgitation. the procedure is hand holding.

>If you had ever studied mathematics at the university level then you would know that most of (non-proof based) mathematics education involves giving some expository explanation and a description of a method followed by some examples a student works through as a sanity check.
yeah but they don't hold your hand through it like with cc. cc is literally the shit you'll find in sped classes.

>not knowing the meme

youtube.com/watch?v=yfD50a_8NCM

>closer to the abstract math notion and that generalizes further.
I'm genuinely interested in what you mean by this. Can you explain further?

not to mention how retarded the procedures often are. so many extra unnecessary steps for fucking arithmetic. this is why american education is in the toilet, while kids in america regurgitate all these idiotic procedures for addition kids in china are already onto calculus.

>Entire generations that can't solve basic word problems unless they're given another pre-worked example of an almost identical word problem with some values altered. Entire generations of people who literally cannot problem solve.
and that will continue with the cc generation, except now they will require even more handholding as that's what they're used to. until we get kids to approach things in their own way this will continue, cc is even more restricted since you need to repeat the idiotic procedure while the traditional method allows for ingenuity.

>it's inherently immoral for a person who is suffering to end their life on their own terms
>it's not inherently immoral for me to demand that a person who is suffering remain alive solely for my occasional amusement
Kill yourself.

In "modern algebra" (called that in contrast to pre-1700s "classical algebra" and also commonly referred to as "abstract algebra") you describe your numbers and arithmetic based on their "structure" (a set of rules that they follow).

For instance you may say that your numbers have an addition and that addition follows the following rules:
>associativity: (a+b)+c = a+(b+c)
>commutativity: a+b = b+a
>there exists a special element, 0, called an identity such that: 0+a = a and a+0 = a for any a.
Note: the for addition the identity is traditionally denoted by the symbol 0 but in other systems it may be represented by other symbols.
>for each number, a, there exists an additive inverse, -a, such that: a+(-a) = 0 and (-a)+a = 0

You may then also have a multiplication and a set of similar rules for the multiplication (Note: the identity for multiplicaiton is traditionally denoted by the symbol 1).

Then you may have an extra rule describing how these two operations interact (distributive property).

Depending on the number of operations and the set of rules you choose then the sort of structure you get will vary (you may also have several different collections of "numbers" interacting together). Also, I use the term "number" above very loosely, in fact these objects and their operations don't necessarily have to have anything to do with numbers or traditional notions of arithmetic, the only thing that matters is that they BEHAVE in a way analogous to that.

Magmas, monoids, and groups, are examples of structures with one operation.
Rings, integral domains, and fields, are examples of structures with two operations.
Vector spaces, modules, and so on are examples of more complicated structures.

Here are some example links.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics)#Definition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics)#Definition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)#Definition_and_illustration

(cont.)

(cont.)

The structure of the set "numbers" you're dealing with give you a number of rules you may invoke in ways that may be useful. Both the traditional and the common core methods of computation actually follow from these rules but the common core method actually requires you to choose when and where to apply them.

Consider if you want to multiply two three-digit numbers.
(123)(456)
The traditional method has you do this
(100 + 20 + 3)(456)
=(100)(456) + (20)(456) + (3)(456)
Except that you would compute each simpler multiplication one at a time, line them up on the page (hiding trailing zeroes), and finally add them vertically.
The common core method is more or less the same idea except that instead of just being limited to that the student is encouraged to use more tricks as well including stuff like subtraction.

This sort of thinking is actually fundamental to any student working in formal mathematics. Many difficult problems can be trivialized by cleverly adding 0 or multiplying by 1 but the techniques require out of the box formal reasoning that you won't get from "traditional" methods.

You are literally retarded. The body of mathematical knowledge out there far exceeds what one man alone could learn in a lifetime and that is with handholding. No one is expected to reinvent the wheel though people are expected to carry their own weight.

That said the CC method is by far a better procedure that actually does allow ingenuity while the traditional method is meant to churn out people who have no abstract understanding of the concepts they're supposedly trained in.