Common Core

Awful in theory, even worse in practice.

An ideal education system would have each student enjoy his own curriculum perfectly tailored to their talents and level of ability.

The above is logistically impossible, but a highly selective system with schools free to create their own curricula is a good approximation of such an ideal solution.

On the other hand a nationwide curriculum is the polar opposite of such an ideal system.

Non-bullshit answer: it is a means to privatize K12 education. By making ALL school curriculum the EXACT same, there is now no difference between a public school and a private school using the same curricular materials and the same state exams. Expect private schools and homeschool-like setups to drop in price as well as become more commonly acceptable (homeschooling nowadays is a very nebulous grey area, even though the CC made great strides towards making it less so).

It'll work. The NCLB cut down the power of the teachers' unions, and parents know private education will give better results meaning greater possibility of college admittance. In a decade or two, it'll be commonly acceptable. Many schools already allow all-online examination.

Wrong, nothing the CC does differs much from existing school materials. But most of /pol/ doesn't remember elementary school so they think it's alien.

It's not awful in theory at all. It will cause the cost of education to drop as long as the market for Common Core compliant lectures/exams is perfectly competitive. It puts a set price on education which bean counters want. More importantly, it cuts external variables like teachers or school districts out of the picture entirely. It's great if you want privatize education while still retaining a (moderately) high standard.

Highly centralized curriculum and examination systems (remember that the CC includes a nationwide database of all exams students take, which the federal Department of Education uses to cut up federal money to individual school districts) work in China and work in Europe. The only issue is cheating, but this can be fixed by mandating weekly exams (a thing the Common Core presently requires) which make audits much easier. The bonus is that the US is the first to commercialize it, to slap a price on it and allow people to buy CC compliant educations from any vendor they want.

>Common Core was invented to confuse whites and asians so the test score gaps between races would be smaller.

Wouldn't Whites and Asians be smart enough to withstand the Negro's Evil Voodoo Powers?

Basically just another jewish trick to make white kids dumb.
inb4 "go back to /pol/ , proof is in the video on this page: conservative-headlines.com/2014/05/common-core-author-admits-that-curriculum-is-designed-to-be-anti-white/

But why wouldnt niggers be confused too?

>It's not awful in theory

It is too bad the hypothesis of the theory, that grades and education can increase if we universalize curriculum and spending. This is like lemarkian genetics, something may seem correct under the assumption of memory inheritance, but if the assumptions are wrong, the theory will be incorrect as well.

Want to increase scores in math and writing universally? You cannot do that by changing the schools curriculum. You can't do it by throwing money at the problem either.

The solution that has never been discussed is parental involvement. Students of educated parents do better. Students of parents who care, and push them to do better, in general, do better.

Common core is shit because it takes away the advantage some students had of their parents being involved in their math studies by changing what and how things are studied. Where as what we actually want to achieve is a level playing field because all of the students parents are involved.

Brother is a high school history teacher who got his hands on an early edition of Common Core US History.

Here's some fun parts
>Rewrote most of the Bill of Rights to be bootlicking AF or did exercises that would steer you to that line of thinking
>Half of the key figures in US History removed
>Half the major events and details of major events removed
>Like 4 solid chapters on slavery alone
>If it dealt with war it was offhandedly mentioned like they were afraid to remind people the US has been in war for 9/10 our history
>Meant for 11th grade students but written at an early middle school reading level
>Clearly written for the people who would normally get D's and F's

His ex-roommate who taught English wanted to fucking kill himself when he got managed to look at what was on his early edition for senior level English
>No Shakespeare
>No Twain
>No BNW, Lord of the Flies, or 1984
>If it was meant for above an 8th or 9th grade reading level it didn't make it in
>If it was controversial in ANY way it didn't get in
>Barely any lessons of grammar

They are already confused by proper math, so it makes no difference to them.

>Common core is shit because it takes away the advantage some students had of their parents being involved in their math studies by changing what and how things are studied. Where as what we actually want to achieve is a level playing field because all of the students parents are involved.

Nothing is stopping a parent from educating their children. In fact, as the Common Core is a much slower curriculum (at least until middle school) parents have more time to teach their kids what they want.

It's been like that for decades, seriously go back and buy the history book you used in school. History books from the nineteenth century are even worse, as they're written by hardcore Puritans who didn't believe in (then) newly-discovered Darwinism and loathed the South for the slave trade and Civil War. This only changed briefly during the Progressive Era and Wilson, but it remained until after ww2 when all of the Civil War vets had finally died.

>>No Shakespeare, no Twain, no BNW, Lord of the Flies, or 1984

All of which were done away with decades ago, seriously go read your old literature textbooks. Ray Bradbury whined about it in Fahrenheit 451 (published 1953).

In basically every HS in my state BNW, Lord of the Flies, and Twain are common as was my old state.

and when did you graduate highschool?

So? I grew up in New York but now live in CA. No mention of any of that in school. For reference, I'm the class of '95 and my kids are about to graduate highschool themselves.

What is this meme?

You all should be proud that senior year you werent forced to read "The Hunger Games"
I bitched about it the whole time, every faggot in my class was like "omg but its so good" and I was just waiting for us to read a real goddamn book. Then came the great gatsby, which is just as shit as the hunger games.
>B-but muh death of the murican dream
Yea anyone who wasn't a mind slave in HS already knew the American Dream was bullshit.

3-4 years ago. Graduated in NC and brother attended school in Florida but graduated in NC. Both schools he had similar reading lists

Well shit

common core producing genius 6 year olds already capable of factoring in the first grade

*clap clap clap*

How am I supposed to feel about this?

...

Any proof this is real, that "Jaiden" reeks of an adult trying to write like a child

It did the rounds on Twitter generally accepted. I guess you could eventually call BS if you needed to.

>privatize
Why the fuck would I pay for private school is public school was teaching the exact same material

What about this? Its obviously 12 or am I missing anything?

...

>It did the rounds on Twitter generally accepted
Oh well then I guess its authenticity is without question

dude do you know you can read a real book by yourself ?

twitter is like an echo chamber for the most gullible and retarded people on earth

You have no idea what the CC is. It's just a list of topics that students should have learned by the end of each grade.

Mathematics tutor and teacher here for 6+ years. In theory it is a fantastic, albeit not perfect, move towards conceptual understanding in students. With that said there are many companies that repackaged and never changed their curriculum under the false guise of being common core. Those true common core curriculum are unbelievably better for students. In my experience comparing roughly 500 students who have tried one or both methods, those who use common core have a more immediate and developed understanding of the material. And those who understand it first conceptually have no problem also understanding it as we classically think of problems via algorithmic methods.

TL;DR It is not a perfect method, but it is infinitely better than what we previously had.

Also most math teachers are absolute shit. And it is more obvious when they cant teach when they dont comprehend CC methods. Teachers understand the concepts subconsciously, but can not express them consciously. Common Core in general forces them to do that. And as a result those crap teachers are even more crappy under a more advanced method of teaching, leaving students confused.

>Want to increase scores in math and writing universally? You cannot do that by changing the schools curriculum.

You're right it requires parental involvement/training and teacher training, all of which is readily included within the new common core standard. What do you know, CC solves the exact problems you speak of..

>You have no idea what the CC is.
> It's just a list of topics that students should have learned by the end of each grade.

How sad if that is all you think CC is. Educate yourself before making an ass of yourself. No matter what method is used by any teacher in any subject there is a standard of what a student should have learned by certain time-based milestones. This is a non-unique argument as it applies to all of education everywhere CC or not.

To clarify, regardless if we go back to the previous system or not there are standards for what a student should have learned over a given period of time. The change of CC exists in HOW and WHY those goals are achieved, not purely WHAT standards are desired to be reached as you suggest.

this is false. read the standards. it's a list of what students should know by the end of each grade.

corestandards.org/Math/
corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/

Sure, each teacher has had his own standard in the past, the idea here is that there is now a common standard.

What i am saying, is that yes the WHAT has changed.

But what is helping students improve is the WHY and HOW that has also changed dramatically. I agree with you, i just dont think there is any argument to be made since these standards exist with and without CC, whether it be state, county or country wide.

see:

>the idea here is that there is now a common standard.

Why is that negative or bad? This idea and argument you make is entirely independent of HOW and WHY these expectations are implemented, so dont change the subject.

ie how is changing what we expect of students bad and why?

or rather what specifically about the change in what we expect out of students per given year is negative to their learning experience?

Good improvement

Any chance an example of how true CC differs from the horror stories/pictures I've seen of it online?

The individuals who post on facebook are not complete examples of what a child learns or understands. Every single one of them is a frustrated parent who does not have the capability to properly understand or teach the method. As a tutor/teacher of many years i can attest then when appropriate conveyed to a student that the CC methods are far superior to understanding in both terms of speed and depth of understanding. This is first hand evidence while all you have is 4th hand information which was incorrect every step of the way.

CC includes a standardized testing regime, in order to be NCLB compliant.

Because private schools generally have a better atmosphere, more tutoring, and no darkies. The latter is particularly relevant in places with high concentrations of them.

And, more importantly, you wouldn't get a choice. It'd be up to states to destroy public schools and replace them with a voucher system.

I'm a different guy, but I graduated from high school in 2012 (suburb of Boston, private school but not a good one) and we read 1984, Lord of the Flies, Huck Finn, and at least 3 Shakespeare plays. I know the local high school read 1984 and I think they read Romeo & Juliet, but I have no idea what the rest of their curriculem was like.

So you really think kids having to learn this shit is fine:
youtube.com/watch?v=wZEGijN_8R0&ab_channel=PatRichardson
or
or
theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/po-pimp.jpg
or the other examples of pointless deconstruction in additon?

I'm not going to deny that CC is overblown when it comes to how scary it is, but are you actually going to try and say that making shit overly complicated is "whats best for a kid" and that parents are dumb?

Just got off of a HS two years ago that made the freshmen read Shakespear and 1984

Also
media.salon.com/2015/11/ccmath3.jpg
media.salon.com/2015/11/ccmath1.jpg

>(suburb of Boston, private school but not a good one)

aka a catholic school

bingo

>As a tutor/teacher of many years i can attest then when appropriate conveyed to a student
You still aren't answering my question about what "appropriately conveyed" CC is

Isn't it just asking for a number divisible by 4 & 6, such as twelve?

It might be trying to ask that, but it definitely isn't. Although I think there might be more to the problem that wasn't included, like a diagram or something.

>media.salon.com/2015/11/ccmath3.jpg
I explained this already. They are not educators and just because they dont understand it doesn't mean it is worse for the students. I already argued this away before you even made the point. In my personal experience actively apply these lesson plans to students the concepts are more readily understood. I trust my own experience with 500+ students above a parent's uneducated and inflammatory response to necessary change.

All i ever hear about CC is that they dont understand it. No one, absolutely no one, compares the conceptual, abstract and developmental benefits of each method side by side. They only complain that they dont understand it, which is a logical fallacy in itself.

pfff, I haven't even finished my bachelors in electrical engineering yet and that problem wasn't hard.

I have seen both of these examples.

The first is a parent who is absolute shit at abstract math and doesn't understand how, conceptually, this method is more beneficial to their child. So they force an arithmetic approach rather than an abstract one which will instill more understanding. Specifically is the idea of place values which students struggle to fully realize with past math up until 7th grade under the previous system whereas it is understood at a 4-5th grade level with the current CC. That is my own personal experience with that topic and how quickly students learn it of roughly.

The second link is an example of a shit teacher. Just like bad parents, there will be bad teachers who don't know how to implement it. Doesn't make the process bad, just those who can't apply it in the first place. Under the actual CC method 5+5+5 would be equally acceptable as would 3+3+3+3+3. This is an example of a teacher not being trained properly, which is a separate issue.

Or would you rather America stick in the 25+ math ranking rut it has been in for decades?
To make your side worthy you have to provide an alternative or explain why the previous status quo was better, neither of which anyone has ever done on this board. You are simply throwing weak evidence at my argument hoping something will stick, but none of it applies to specifically what i describe.

>guy has a degree which required studying equations
>"he just doesn't understand it"
And even then are you trying to explain that making a number line is LESS complicated then simply subtracting one from three numbers? And these the lessons you're getting, or is there different CC lessons like people ITT are saying?

>In my personal experience actively apply these lesson plans to students the concepts are more readily understood. I trust my own experience with 500+ students
So what lessons did you teach, how did you compare the results, ect ect? Hell, what grade level did you even teach?

>response to necessary change.
What benefit is making a timeline to solve simple 2nd grade math over any normal system? How is this going to effect the kid later in life when they have to solve fuckhuge math problems and scientific equations? Are they going to have to draw a number line every problem they get?

>No one, absolutely no one, compares the conceptual, abstract and developmental benefits of each method side by side
Wouldn't making things MORE complex and drawn out fracture development more, especially if its at a young age?

>They only complain that they dont understand it
The arguement isn't they don't understand it, its that its to complicated
complicated doesn't always mean hard to understand.

You're not answering anything at all

>Veeky Forums tries to justify teaching beginner math by using their knowledge as college students.

Please stop.

>>guy has a degree which required studying equations
>>"he just doesn't understand it"
>And even then are you trying to explain that making a number line is LESS complicated then simply subtracting one from three numbers? And these the lessons you're getting, or is there different CC lessons like people ITT are saying?
I'd assume Veeky Forums of all boards would appreciate trying to teach math concepts rather than the fastest way to get an answer.

>Specifically is the idea of place values which students struggle to fully realize with past math up until 7th grade under the previous system whereas it is understood at a 4-5th grade level with the current CC. That is my own personal experience with that topic and how quickly students learn it of roughly.
Isn't simplying learning how to remove a value from a number better than drawing out a graph?
I mean, I've seen examples of CC where they do this while making it easy to understand, see top right
realmathstandards.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PROBLEM.jpg

>Specifically is the idea of place values which students struggle to fully realize with past math up until 7th grade under the previous system whereas it is understood at a 4-5th grade level with the current CC.
Uh, what?
I'm pretty sure that at a young age, basic addition/subtract is understood at 4th grade tops. Hell, when I was in 3rd we went straight into multiplication so I assume that the general audience would have understood 2+2 by then.

This system is also CC but still has the basic understand of values. This is a lot more easy to understand than having to work with number lines and place values.

>The second link is an example of a shit teacher.
Thats my main problem with CC, is that despite being a nation defined system for math somehow seperate teachers/districts manage to fuck it up. But that can most likely be fixed.

>Or would you rather America stick in the 25+ math ranking rut it has been in for decades?
Do the other schools practice similar stuff to this? Not even an argement actually curious.

less complexity =/= being fast

>And even then are you trying to explain that making a number line is LESS complicated then simply subtracting one from three numbers? And these the lessons you're getting, or is there different CC lessons like people ITT are saying?
Conceptually, yes it is infinitely easier for the student to understand what is happening.

So what lessons did you teach, how did you compare the results, ect ect? Hell, what grade level did you even teach?
Teach: Full courses in pre-algebra, algebra, geomtry, and precalc

Tutor:5th- calculus 1

>What benefit is making a timeline to solve simple 2nd grade math over any normal system? How is this going to effect the kid later in life when they have to solve fuckhuge math problems and scientific equations? Are they going to have to draw a number line every problem they get?
This is the initial step to develop understanding within the student. The previous arithmetic methods are still used but as a tool rather than the focus of conceptual understanding.

>Wouldn't making things MORE complex and drawn out fracture development more, especially if its at a young age?
Not when initially teaching a new concept to children. When applying a more concept heavy method first the understanding is stronger when later providing arithmetic methods. And your cateogorization of more complex is in a bubble. Yes, this method takes longer for students to solve and learn, but under the new method it isnt a memorization of steps but rather a deep understanding of operations.

>The arguement isn't they don't understand it, its that its to complicated
complicated doesn't always mean hard to understand.
see:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Complicated is better, thus more rigorous, thus provides more understanding. But it is only more rigorous in the conceptual sense, which is beneficial to a students' long term understanding. That is a poor argument for something being not worthwhile.

>Isn't simplying learning how to remove a value from a number better than drawing out a graph?
No, have you studied pedagogy at all, or ever taught a student, or at least done some type of research in the subject? Because i have, and applied it in the classroom.

>Do the other schools practice similar stuff to this?
No, not exactly like this, in fact it is even more conceptual. While not the same as more progressive countries the CC method is far more similar than previous methods.

>less complexity =/= being fast

i would argue with CC that less complex = being fast short term, more complex = being fast in long term

>To make your side worthy you have to provide an alternative or explain why the previous status quo was better, neither of which anyone has ever done on this board. You are simply throwing weak evidence at my argument hoping something will stick, but none of it applies to specifically what i describe.

You aren't answering with logic. reason, or anything and i am responding to every question you have.

>Conceptually, yes it is infinitely easier for the student to understand what is happening.
But, does something as simple as adding and subtracting value really need to be deconstructed? Most children today simply understand that the value of 2 is 2 objects, and that subtracting 1 makes it 1. There really isn't a way you can deconstruct or explain that without overcomplicating it.

>Full courses in pre-algebra, algebra, geomtry, and precalc
Now did you just tell them to use the number line whenever they needed to add or subtract, or did you just teach it as a seperate lesson as to understanding? If you're talking about the latter than that makes sense as JR. High kids would have an easier understanding of it, but I doubt that a 3rd grader would get this

>Complicated is better, thus more rigorous, thus provides more understanding
Not only going back to my former arguement, but also isn't the problem with the US math system people not understanding how the functions work? I already posted a good way to make it simple thats also in the CC system, but wouldn't trying to understand the concepts behind it just add more and cause complication?

>Yes, this method takes longer for students to solve and learn, but under the new method it isnt a memorization of steps but rather a deep understanding of operations.
But does basic math need to be understood on a deep level. Again, the problem with our education system lies with people not understand how to put things together, not how it works

>Complicated is better, thus more rigorous, thus provides more understanding.
While rigorous activity is good, making the simple parts of math rigorous isn't.

>similar than previous methods.
to those methods that more accomplished countries use

This is not solid evidence, but rather an example. The hard journal papers do exist for why CC is more beneficial as well:the74million.org/listicle/6-reasons-why-singapore-math-might-just-be-the-better-way
>But that can most likely be fixed.
Exactly, and it wont be instantaneous, but the main two problems with CC currently are teacher implementation and parental acceptance. The method itself in how to teach students as compared to previous methods is widely accepted in the pedagogy realm

The better standard that CC is more inline with than previous teaching standards.

youtube.com/watch?v=RJMkFzVQEE4

>Most children today simply understand that the value of 2 is 2 objects, and that subtracting 1 makes it 1.

No, they don't, which is the issue. And this is exasperated when multiplying, dividing, working with exponents.

And you arent worth my time unless you can intelligently provide an answer to the following comment:
To make your side worthy you have to provide an alternative or explain why the previous status quo was better, neither of which anyone has ever done on this board. You are simply throwing weak evidence at my argument hoping something will stick, but none of it applies to specifically what i describe.

Who are you by the way? What experience do you have? What research have you done? Have you taught these methods? Have you attempted to understand them? Have you studied how they affect student performance? Have you done the same for previous methods? Even only if you compared them qualitatively. Anything? Are you even 21+?

You spout a lot of things that are plainly untrue, which worries me when you are so confident in your position.

There is a reason Singapore is much better than us..

How math should be taught ideally:

youtube.com/watch?v=16pphPJKTfM

the marginal social value extracted from educating the marginal child has long since tipped into net social cost

the marginal social value extracted from educating the marginal child has long since tipped into net social cost

The benefit is much more than marginal, and affects much more than a marginal amount of students (it isnt just in one district), and further more you have absolutely no proof linking that to net social cost. Stop talking out of your ass. The net social benefit was much higher for shanghai and singapore under methods more similar to these, and i posted stats.

Don't they just lie.

I trust a non-anonymous source than your opinion. That is disregarding the accolades and respect such sources have acclaimed worldwide.

Net social benefit measured how? Just how many people do you think are working in this economy?

I don't like the nationwide curriculum, but I love all the new Math Algorithms we are teaching.

But science programs are adopting the Next Generation Science Standards, which are actually OK. Engineering and crosscutting concepts are being folded into the curriculum. NGSS are miles above what is currently in place atm.

I don't like the thought that education has to be so rigid. Even if there is federal regulation on what is taught, content should be flexible based off of the student's interests/talents, and the experiences of the teacher.

But the Math Common Core is vastly superior to the way I was taught math. How they're teaching it now is how I ended up conceptualizing Math, but I had to do that entirely outside of the education system. I probably would have been even quicker at learning math if I had been exposed to the common core math curriculum.

Your personal experience is interesting but I fear it may lead you and others like you to a false conclusion. To know what the right conclusion is, though, we'd have to have a common social understanding of the purpose of education in any particular subject.

Common Core, in my opinion, attempts to optimize education up to the middle school level. In a sense it becomes a degenerate solution to education because it defines the very standards it will be judged by. It will not be judged by outputting more Fields medalists or Nobel Prizes. It will not be judged by its effect on whether Microsoft and Oracle shill for mass immigration to solve "skill" problems. It will not be judged by whether it saves school districts money, and it will definitely no be solved by efficiency of janitorial services.

There are a thousand different measures we might consider as estimating the efficacy of our educational system and it would be very surprising to me to discover that a fast food model of education should happen to be the best one. But, again, since we're unwilling to commit to a definition of "best", educators feel they have an infinite number of levers to pull and they can make anything fit no definition at all.

Also, they need more money. Always more money.

why is the top right courner a different projected image and why are kindergarteners learning factoring

non unique, this exists with or without common core

common core is liberal propaganda, probably.

Every single thing people don't like about the math part of cc is because of
>stupid parents
>a mistake in the text
>crying because change is scary

>those posters
Grade school for so comfy.

>those posters
They're so prevalent that you're never able to focus on any one of them. It's no wonder so many kids come out of school with ADD.