Slashdot Mirror

Aspie kids are stubborn & have a fetish for efficiency. Telling them they HAVE to do something the "hard" (inefficient) way

I'm not seeing where it says that.

From the horse's mouth:

What is the Common Core?
State education chiefs and governors in 48 states came together to develop the Common Core, a set of clear college- and career-ready standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts/literacy and mathematics.

What guidance do the Common Core State Standards provide to teachers?
The Common Core State Standards are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for the knowledge and skills students need in English language arts and mathematics at each grade level so they can be prepared to succeed in college, career, and life. The standards establish what students need to learn, but they do not dictate how teachers should teach. Teachers will devise their own lesson plans and curriculum, and tailor their instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.

I suppose they would say that though, wouldn't they?

Everybody hates common core, but isn't actually able to explain what common core is. As a teacher, I really think all the butthurt over Common Core is all a great pile of nonsense. In, say, 10th grade English, they want you to read books and be able to write a competent paragraph. It's the most basic generic BS you can imagine. Surely all but the most incompetent teachers would all go over this stuff anyway. There is no government inspector telling us we have to teach the true value of Communism on the third day of the week or whatever parents are afraid of. Just a list of basic things that teachers should be reviewing, I guess because maybe in really shitty school districts they never get around to teaching essay-writing.

But that is opposing the common core curriculum methodology which specifies not only what to teach but how to teach it. In many cases it does not matter if a student gets the correct answer if they do not do it the CC way

The Common Core standards are not a fully developed curriculum; they are a list of skills that students should have at certain points in their education. Here's an example:

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.7.G.B.5
Use facts about supplementary, complementary, vertical, and adjacent angles in a multi-step problem to write and solve simple equations for an unknown angle in a figure.

Notice that it says nothing here about how to teach this skill, nor does it prescribe any mode of assessment that a teacher must use. There is nothing in CC that says students should still get credit for getting the wrong answer as long as they got it in a particular way.

Certain for-profit education companies like Pearson have developed all kinds of wacky new instructional materials that have kids doing math in ways that make absolutely no sense to me. Maybe your school/district/state/whoever bought a package from one of these corporations and then mandated that teachers must teach exactly according to the materials, but the Common Core standards is only a list of skills, it does not force teachers to teach or evaluate students in specific ways.

The entire CC is freely available for your inspection at their web site: http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

Per my comment above, I'll assume you've read the actual standard, and that will be the subject of discussion, rather than any particular state's perversion of it.

What, exactly, is "loony" about the math? Please elaborate on how it slows down the student, since it explicitly does not restrict what teachers can teach.

As for history, do note that the actual standard does not specify any characters. There are reference texts to illustrate the complexity of the subjects, but the standard does not require their use.

Per my comment above, I'll assume you've read the actual standard, and that will be the subject of discussion, rather than any particular state's perversion of it.

What, exactly, is "loony" about the math? Please elaborate on how it slows down the student, since it explicitly does not restrict what teachers can teach.

As for history, do note that the actual standard does not specify any characters. There are reference texts to illustrate the complexity of the subjects, but the standard does not require their use.

If only it could be boiled down to a simple number. That'd make life easy.

The source for your linked article hints at much deeper insight:

Socio-economic background has a significant impact on student performance in the United States, with some 15% of the variation in student performance explained by this, similar to the OECD average. Although this impact has weakened over time, disadvantaged students show less engagement, drive, motivation and self-beliefs.

This is further elaborated on in other pages of the report. Basically, there are a number of factors, starting with the US having a higher percentage of disadvantaged students and schools. While those schools have equally-qualified teachers, their educational environment is less conducive to learning. There is also an observed correlation between teacher morale and student performance.

One interesting point in the study is that Common Core would likely improve things:

The analysis suggests that a successful implementation of the Common Core Standards would yield significant performance gains also in PISA. The prominence of modeling in U.S. high school standards has already influenced developers of large-scale assessments in the United States. If more students work on more and better modeling tasks than they do today, then one could reasonably expect PISA performance to improve.

Considering Slashdot's hatred of Common Core, I suggest that anyone commenting on this matter actually read the standards.

In short, we can spend all the money we want on making prison-like schools, but US education isn't going to improve until we make the schools a learning-oriented environment. Curently, we spend a lot of "education" money on making a big show of security to look like we're keeping our children safe, when that money would perhaps be better spent on community programs to improve those disadvantaged areas.

Hello. I'm a math teacher, licensed to teach in two states, currently teaching algebra 2 and AP calculus. What are you talking about? I'm familiar with the common core state standards (CCSS). I've never heard of a "common core addition method." Care to enlighten me?

Please give a link to the online version of the CCSS that describes this algorithm. If, instead, you're seeing this algorithm described in some crap textbook your school district got from the lowest bidder, well, that's too bad. The publishers don't have their books vetted by common core. They are completely independent.

Conspiracy theories aside, you're sorely mistaken on a few key details. Common Core is a set of concepts, and a timeline for when they should be understood. It is not a curriculum, and it does not change the organizational structure of any school. The teachers are accountable to the school district, as they always have been. The school district is accountable to the state, as it always have been.

Yes, schools that aren't producing employable graduates will face pressure to improve. On the other hand, schools whose students understand the concepts listed in the two standards will have no reason or requirement to change what they're doing.

Common Core also has absolutely nothing to do with your decision to send your child to an out-of-district school, should you desire to do so, and it has nothing to do with the additional expenses you may incur. Instead, the extra expenses are because you are opting out of the services provided by your local government, such as buses and shared textbooks, and must then cover those costs on your own. Yes, you do still have to pay taxes to support your local school district, because that's what your duly-elected representatives have written into law, and you do still benefit from having schools. Though you say you "derive zero direct benefit" from your local school district, you do still receive an indirect benefit in the community improvement. The benefit may not be as great as a well-performing school might provide, but that does not give you any right to stop contributing to it. If you want that right, feel free to petition your local representative government.

Conspiracy theories aside, you're sorely mistaken on a few key details. Common Core is a set of concepts, and a timeline for when they should be understood. It is not a curriculum, and it does not change the organizational structure of any school. The teachers are accountable to the school district, as they always have been. The school district is accountable to the state, as it always have been.

Yes, schools that aren't producing employable graduates will face pressure to improve. On the other hand, schools whose students understand the concepts listed in the two standards will have no reason or requirement to change what they're doing.

Common Core also has absolutely nothing to do with your decision to send your child to an out-of-district school, should you desire to do so, and it has nothing to do with the additional expenses you may incur. Instead, the extra expenses are because you are opting out of the services provided by your local government, such as buses and shared textbooks, and must then cover those costs on your own. Yes, you do still have to pay taxes to support your local school district, because that's what your duly-elected representatives have written into law, and you do still benefit from having schools. Though you say you "derive zero direct benefit" from your local school district, you do still receive an indirect benefit in the community improvement. The benefit may not be as great as a well-performing school might provide, but that does not give you any right to stop contributing to it. If you want that right, feel free to petition your local representative government.

Last I checked, the actual standard doesn't actually include any testing standards or teaching methods. It's really pretty loose for a standard (though my engineering bias rears its ugly head here).

Rather, the actual standard says what concepts must be taught at what grade levels... and that's about it. There are some examples and the set of minimal facts to be understood, but it doesn't prescribe any curriculum, and it doesn't say how to evaluate students' progress toward that basic comprehension.

It's also not a "federal standard". States are adopting it on their own, and if your state has chosen to legislate partucular testing methods to ensure compliance, that's your legislators' fault, not Common Core.

From what I've seen (from association with a highly-regarded educator's college), Common Core is a great step forward. Previously, every state had their own standard, so a Louisiana high-school student, for (a fictitious, as I've forgotten all states' relative rankings) example, might be far behind a similar Oregon student in mathematics, but still meet their state's standards. For high-achieving students who relocated and were then told that their education wasn't good enough for their new location, it was devastating. For students transferring the other way, they'd often end up skipping grades, leaving holes in their understanding that wouldn't appear until later, when the curriculum assumes a particular concept was covered.

Common Core has actually done the impossible: It is being adopted as a One True Standard to gauge a student's understanding, based on a set of concepts, rather than a district's particular placement test. Well-written tests against Common Core can also indicate whether a student has understood the concepts adequately for their grade level, based on real-world needs, rather than the opinions of a teacher who hasn't seen business needs in the past decade.

Disagree, but doesn't matter.

It totally does matter, because you're just plain wrong. The full title is "Common core state standards initiative". They aren't talking about heraldic flags there.

Straight from the horse's mouth. Not Fox. Not Vacccinesmakeyoucommunistandgay.org.
http://www.corestandards.org/a...

Scroll down to "Myths About Implementation".

In the real world "Common Core" is more than "Common Standards". It is sold as a parcel. Don't be such a pedant.

Example: http://www.corestandards.org/M...

At first I thought the Common Core was dumb after my elementary school child showed me what he was doing, but after researching the teaching methods I know understand the reasoning behind techniques they are using.

Clearly you need to do a bit more research. Common core isn't about methods or techniques at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"The standards do not dictate any particular pedagogy or what order topics should be taught within a particular grade level."

http://www.corestandards.org/a...

"That is why these standards establish what students need to learn but do not dictate how teachers should teach. Instead, schools and teachers will decide how best to help students reach the standards."

Oh you are too lazy to look it up yourself? Imagine that! Start here: http://www.corestandards.org/a...

I haven't really looked at the common core math section. What's so horrible about it?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Common Core math standards. The only complaint I consider valid is that they are low standards
But there is nothing in the Common Core that places a ceiling on what you teach. If you get through all the standards in the first month of 9th grade, you can keep going and teach them abstract algebra and ring theory in the time you have left.

Here they are.
http://www.corestandards.org/M...

The activity descriptions may seem to be obscure. Keep in mind that the activity descriptions are based on the need to describe to the teacher the activity in pedagological talk. The activity descriptions are NOT statements to be read or delivered to the students.
For example, some people might have a problem with this kindergarten statement:
"Understand the relationship between numbers and quantities; connect counting to cardinality."

That is not a statement that kindergarten students should be able to define the word "cardinality".
It just means "teach the kids how to count and that we have numbers to tell us how many we counted, and that those numbers come in an order."

The 1960s New Math movement was similar to the 2010s Common Core: alternative ways of teaching math make you learn it better.

Wrong. Common core is NOT a teaching method, it's a specification for what kids ought to be able to do at various ages. The "how" is up to the teacher.

http://www.corestandards.org/a...

HTTP://CORESTANDARDS.ORG

Middle of the page, hidden behind the tricky and intentionally obfuscated link titled "read the standards".

Yes it does.
It defnes both what to teach and the testing that ensures it was done. The only thing it doesn't speicify is how to teach that stuff, which is basically irrelevant compared to the what.

http://www.corestandards.org/a...
>> Teachers know best about what works in the classroom. That is why these standards establish what students need to learn, but do not dictate how teachers should teach.

If you don't believe me go and read the math requirements for the what is to be taught.

Let's go right to the source http://www.corestandards.org/M...
That all sounds sane and logical to me. What conspiracy theory website did you read the requirements from?

FTFS:

the district has been forced to postpone the Common Core-mandated PARCC state exams

But the Common Core DOES NOT mandate any particular exam or evaluation instrument of any kind. PARCC is, according to Wikipedia, "a coalition of 12 states and the District of Columbia that are working to create and deploy a standard set of K-12 assessments in math and English." PARCC is basing their assessments upon the Common Core standards, but it is PARCC that mandates the exams, not Common Core.

Common Core is, literally, just a list of skills that students should have at various grade levels. For example, sixth grade math students are supposed to be able to "Write, read, and evaluate expressions in which letters stand for numbers." That simple statement, and many like it, make up the Common Core. It has nothing to do with mandating exams.

The Common Core standards are freely available on the web, in case you would like to look at them: http://www.corestandards.org/r...

I forgot the most important thing: you aren't supposed to read about it . You're supposed to read it . Go ahead. It's free.

2. Homeschooling academics can be more rigorous. As an engineer, I consider math to be the foundation of all my success, and common core has turned math into a laughingstock. Enter homeschooling, where I can pick the "Singapore Math" curriculum. Singapore typically scores number 2 every year on the international math achievement exams, their math program is entirely in (British) English, and I can have their exact program for my kids instead of common core.

Losing mod points to respond to this, but as a math teacher I can say based on substantial study and practice that you are drinking the wrong cool aid about common core. To see why you have to understand what common core is and isn't. Common core is just the set of standards, and it's important to read a bit of them to realize what that means and doesn't. Everything else that isn't written in the common core standards, but yet people still incorrectly call "common core" is just an attempt at implementation of the common core. If you see a given incomprehensible homework assignment, that's the implementation, not the common core. The standards don't give implementation details, the teacher, textbook, and/or district provide those.

Before I go further though, I will agree with your first statement. Homeschooling can be more rigorous, but as I am considering homeschooling my children, the thing I would do would be to implement the common core to it's fullest extent and attempt to exceed it.

I'll cut to the chase and give you the summary: the common core standards are more rigorous and are a substantial improvement on every state standard before them that I am aware of. They embody the important parts of the best of education research and the math standards for example are substantially based on the previous work of the Principles for School Mathematics developed by NCTM. So if a given implementation is bad, it means either the teacher or textbook are not as good as they could be, not that common core is bad.

Look at the Standards for Mathematical practice: http://www.corestandards.org/M...

and the following specific standard: CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HSA.REI.A.1

Explain each step in solving a simple equation as following from the equality of numbers asserted at the previous step, starting from the assumption that the original equation has a solution. Construct a viable argument to justify a solution method.

A classroom attempting to implement the standards for mathematical practice to fully meet the standard above will be leaps and bounds above a traditional classroom in terms of rigor, cognitive demand, ability to reach diverse students, etc.

Also having studied the TIMMS study in depth I can say that the reason Singapore does well on the exams isn't necessarily related to their curriculum, but likely has more to do with parental support for education.

Here let me show you how this works:

Look at the standards below. If you don't "Build on others' ideas" (Standard 1) or " draw
conclusions in light of information and knowledge gained from the discussions." or"Engage eff
ectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-
led) with diverse partners"
You are not right, even if your conclusion is supported by the text, and theirs are not.
And the teacher is the sole arbitrator if the standards are met or not, because the standards are all subjective.

Standards in question, from http://www.corestandards.org/w...
Engage effectively in a range of collaborative
discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-
led) with diverse partners on
grade 5 topics and
texts,building on others’ ideas and expressing
their own clearly.
a. Come to discussions prepared, having read
or studied required material; explicitly draw
on that preparation and other information
known about the topic to explore ideas under
discussion.
b .Follow agreed-upon rules for discussions and
carry out assigned roles.
c.Pose and respond to specific questions by
making comments that contribute to the
discussion and elaborate on the remarks of
others.
d.Review the key ideas expressed and draw
conclusions in light of information and
knowledge gained from the discussions.
2.Determine the main ideas and supporting details
of a text read aloud or information presented in
diverse media and formats, including visually,
quantitatively, and orally.
2.Paraphrase portions of a text read aloud or
information presented in diverse media and
formats, including visually, quantitatively, and
orally.
2.Summarize a written text read aloud or
information presented in diverse media and
formats, including visually, quantitatively, and
orally.
3.
Ask and answer questions about information from
a speaker, offering appropriate elaboration and
detail.
3.
Identify the reasons and evidence a speaker
provides to support particular points.
3.
Summarize the points a speaker makes and
explain how each claim is supported by reasons
and evidence

Common Core isn't a curriculum, it's a set of standards. It does not have anything to do with homework, instruction methodology, grading rules, or anything like that. See for yourself. If your district is using shoddy curriculum like Engage NY, that is their fault.

I'm not saying that the CCSS are beyond criticism, but the criticism should be accurate.

Many people are like you - that is, they let others do their thinking for them. Please do not muddy the waters with your utter ignorance of the issue. The Common Core standards are contained in two PDF documents, consisting of a total of ~160 pages in total. (look here http://www.corestandards.org/) Do you understand the difference between a standard and a curriculum? A curriculum would be several times the size of the standards because it would include details on how/what to teach in order to have students meet the standards. Testing (summative assessment) is a way to determine the extent to which students can meet those standards (i.e. the effectiveness of the curriculum and pedagogical methods). Common Core aims to have students value evidence, to reflect on how they reach their conculsions = think critically. The larger goal is to provide the skills required for success in college.

That's the wrong way to do it according to Common Core [ijreview.com]. No, instead you need to do this:

Instead of citing a silly youtube video that's part of the FUD campaign against the common core (motivated by political dogmas that have nothing to do with math or education), why don't you try referencing the actual common core state standards say is that 2nd graders should be taught to:

Fluently add and subtract within 100 using strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.

Note "strategies" (plural). Good "common core" activities take a class of problem and look at multiple ways of solving it. As others have pointed out, your 'common core' subtraction method is one perfectly valid strategy for doing a subtraction in your head. Its not a replacement for the traditional way (which, as you can see, is perfectly compatible with the common core definition. If any teachers really are teaching "your" method, rote, as "the way" to do do subtraction, and marking the traditional method wrong, then they really don't have a clue about common core. More likely someone with an axe to grind has cherry-picked the example from an activity in which students are specifically told to try different methods, or explore strategies for mental arithmetic, and presented it out of context.

Also, please bear in mind that the current 'status quo' in US schools is not:

32
-12
------
20

....but more like:

What is 32 - 12?
(a) 44,
(b) 30,
(c) 20,
(d) -44
Shade the correct bubble.

...and its logically impossible to get any more insane than that (plus, the kids still can't do it).

This isn't even as insane as it gets. My son was given the problem: 1.62 / 0.27. Instead of actually dividing, he was told to draw 162 "tenths segments" Then he had to redraw them, but in groupings of 27. The number of groupings was his answer. Does this work? Yes, but it doesn't teach kids to work with numbers.

From the common core state standards:

Grade 6 The Number System Compute fluently with multi-digit numbers and find common factors and multiples. 3

Fluently add, subtract, multiply, and divide multi-digit decimals using the standard algorithm for each operation.

Either your son urgently needs to change school or, more likely, you've again picked out part of an activity designed to help kids understand a topic from different perspectives and weed out common misconceptions. In this case, lots of kids would answer '0.06' or '0.6' because they think division always makes things smaller. This sort of activity helps them understand why that is not true.

A good activity might have kids repeating a method like this with 1.62/27, 162/27 and 162/0.27, maybe using manipulatives or some software, and reflecting on the result sandwiched between more traditional problems using the standard algorithms.

and yet kids are being taught that THIS is how you solve math problems and doing it any other way is WRONG (even if it works and gives you the right answer).

[Citation Needed]. There's certainly nothing of the sort here. If anything, the thrust of the common core is that there isn't just one right way of doing something (read the Common Core Math Practices).

If any teacher is actually doing as you describe then they are emphatically not teaching the common core, and someone, somewhere along the line has either pulled a massive TL:DNR (not impossible) or is deliberately spreading (or unwittingly retweet

That's the wrong way to do it according to Common Core [ijreview.com]. No, instead you need to do this:

Instead of citing a silly youtube video that's part of the FUD campaign against the common core (motivated by political dogmas that have nothing to do with math or education), why don't you try referencing the actual common core state standards say is that 2nd graders should be taught to:

Fluently add and subtract within 100 using strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.

Note "strategies" (plural). Good "common core" activities take a class of problem and look at multiple ways of solving it. As others have pointed out, your 'common core' subtraction method is one perfectly valid strategy for doing a subtraction in your head. Its not a replacement for the traditional way (which, as you can see, is perfectly compatible with the common core definition. If any teachers really are teaching "your" method, rote, as "the way" to do do subtraction, and marking the traditional method wrong, then they really don't have a clue about common core. More likely someone with an axe to grind has cherry-picked the example from an activity in which students are specifically told to try different methods, or explore strategies for mental arithmetic, and presented it out of context.

Also, please bear in mind that the current 'status quo' in US schools is not:

32
-12
------
20

....but more like:

What is 32 - 12?
(a) 44,
(b) 30,
(c) 20,
(d) -44
Shade the correct bubble.

...and its logically impossible to get any more insane than that (plus, the kids still can't do it).

This isn't even as insane as it gets. My son was given the problem: 1.62 / 0.27. Instead of actually dividing, he was told to draw 162 "tenths segments" Then he had to redraw them, but in groupings of 27. The number of groupings was his answer. Does this work? Yes, but it doesn't teach kids to work with numbers.

From the common core state standards:

Grade 6 The Number System Compute fluently with multi-digit numbers and find common factors and multiples. 3

Fluently add, subtract, multiply, and divide multi-digit decimals using the standard algorithm for each operation.

Either your son urgently needs to change school or, more likely, you've again picked out part of an activity designed to help kids understand a topic from different perspectives and weed out common misconceptions. In this case, lots of kids would answer '0.06' or '0.6' because they think division always makes things smaller. This sort of activity helps them understand why that is not true.

A good activity might have kids repeating a method like this with 1.62/27, 162/27 and 162/0.27, maybe using manipulatives or some software, and reflecting on the result sandwiched between more traditional problems using the standard algorithms.

and yet kids are being taught that THIS is how you solve math problems and doing it any other way is WRONG (even if it works and gives you the right answer).

[Citation Needed]. There's certainly nothing of the sort here. If anything, the thrust of the common core is that there isn't just one right way of doing something (read the Common Core Math Practices).

If any teacher is actually doing as you describe then they are emphatically not teaching the common core, and someone, somewhere along the line has either pulled a massive TL:DNR (not impossible) or is deliberately spreading (or unwittingly retweet

That's the wrong way to do it according to Common Core [ijreview.com]. No, instead you need to do this:

Instead of citing a silly youtube video that's part of the FUD campaign against the common core (motivated by political dogmas that have nothing to do with math or education), why don't you try referencing the actual common core state standards say is that 2nd graders should be taught to:

Fluently add and subtract within 100 using strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.

Note "strategies" (plural). Good "common core" activities take a class of problem and look at multiple ways of solving it. As others have pointed out, your 'common core' subtraction method is one perfectly valid strategy for doing a subtraction in your head. Its not a replacement for the traditional way (which, as you can see, is perfectly compatible with the common core definition. If any teachers really are teaching "your" method, rote, as "the way" to do do subtraction, and marking the traditional method wrong, then they really don't have a clue about common core. More likely someone with an axe to grind has cherry-picked the example from an activity in which students are specifically told to try different methods, or explore strategies for mental arithmetic, and presented it out of context.

Also, please bear in mind that the current 'status quo' in US schools is not:

32
-12
------
20

....but more like:

What is 32 - 12?
(a) 44,
(b) 30,
(c) 20,
(d) -44
Shade the correct bubble.

...and its logically impossible to get any more insane than that (plus, the kids still can't do it).

This isn't even as insane as it gets. My son was given the problem: 1.62 / 0.27. Instead of actually dividing, he was told to draw 162 "tenths segments" Then he had to redraw them, but in groupings of 27. The number of groupings was his answer. Does this work? Yes, but it doesn't teach kids to work with numbers.

From the common core state standards:

Grade 6 The Number System Compute fluently with multi-digit numbers and find common factors and multiples. 3

Fluently add, subtract, multiply, and divide multi-digit decimals using the standard algorithm for each operation.

Either your son urgently needs to change school or, more likely, you've again picked out part of an activity designed to help kids understand a topic from different perspectives and weed out common misconceptions. In this case, lots of kids would answer '0.06' or '0.6' because they think division always makes things smaller. This sort of activity helps them understand why that is not true.

A good activity might have kids repeating a method like this with 1.62/27, 162/27 and 162/0.27, maybe using manipulatives or some software, and reflecting on the result sandwiched between more traditional problems using the standard algorithms.

and yet kids are being taught that THIS is how you solve math problems and doing it any other way is WRONG (even if it works and gives you the right answer).

[Citation Needed]. There's certainly nothing of the sort here. If anything, the thrust of the common core is that there isn't just one right way of doing something (read the Common Core Math Practices).

If any teacher is actually doing as you describe then they are emphatically not teaching the common core, and someone, somewhere along the line has either pulled a massive TL:DNR (not impossible) or is deliberately spreading (or unwittingly retweet

That's the wrong way to do it according to Common Core [ijreview.com]. No, instead you need to do this:

Instead of citing a silly youtube video that's part of the FUD campaign against the common core (motivated by political dogmas that have nothing to do with math or education), why don't you try referencing the actual common core state standards say is that 2nd graders should be taught to:

Fluently add and subtract within 100 using strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.

Note "strategies" (plural). Good "common core" activities take a class of problem and look at multiple ways of solving it. As others have pointed out, your 'common core' subtraction method is one perfectly valid strategy for doing a subtraction in your head. Its not a replacement for the traditional way (which, as you can see, is perfectly compatible with the common core definition. If any teachers really are teaching "your" method, rote, as "the way" to do do subtraction, and marking the traditional method wrong, then they really don't have a clue about common core. More likely someone with an axe to grind has cherry-picked the example from an activity in which students are specifically told to try different methods, or explore strategies for mental arithmetic, and presented it out of context.

Also, please bear in mind that the current 'status quo' in US schools is not:

32
-12
------
20

....but more like:

What is 32 - 12?
(a) 44,
(b) 30,
(c) 20,
(d) -44
Shade the correct bubble.

...and its logically impossible to get any more insane than that (plus, the kids still can't do it).

This isn't even as insane as it gets. My son was given the problem: 1.62 / 0.27. Instead of actually dividing, he was told to draw 162 "tenths segments" Then he had to redraw them, but in groupings of 27. The number of groupings was his answer. Does this work? Yes, but it doesn't teach kids to work with numbers.

From the common core state standards:

Grade 6 The Number System Compute fluently with multi-digit numbers and find common factors and multiples. 3

Fluently add, subtract, multiply, and divide multi-digit decimals using the standard algorithm for each operation.

Either your son urgently needs to change school or, more likely, you've again picked out part of an activity designed to help kids understand a topic from different perspectives and weed out common misconceptions. In this case, lots of kids would answer '0.06' or '0.6' because they think division always makes things smaller. This sort of activity helps them understand why that is not true.

A good activity might have kids repeating a method like this with 1.62/27, 162/27 and 162/0.27, maybe using manipulatives or some software, and reflecting on the result sandwiched between more traditional problems using the standard algorithms.

and yet kids are being taught that THIS is how you solve math problems and doing it any other way is WRONG (even if it works and gives you the right answer).

[Citation Needed]. There's certainly nothing of the sort here. If anything, the thrust of the common core is that there isn't just one right way of doing something (read the Common Core Math Practices).

If any teacher is actually doing as you describe then they are emphatically not teaching the common core, and someone, somewhere along the line has either pulled a massive TL:DNR (not impossible) or is deliberately spreading (or unwittingly retweet

The objectives of core standards are admirable and the approach makes sense to me. Teach everyone core concepts in a simple way and make it so they actually understand what they are doing.

http://www.corestandards.org/

It needs to be tempered with everyone learns at their own pace so that people like me, who were able to solve problems like 2 to the 5th power in first grade, aren't held back by other people who are still trying to understand that 32 - 12 is the same as concat(3-2, 2-2).

I think maths should be rolled up into programming. Math notation as I see it is atrocious. Kenneth Iverson comes to mind.

The answer is C, you can break 7 up into 5 and 2
So in your head you can subtract 5 from 15 quickly to get 10, then subtract another 2 to get 8.

But if you just subtract 7 from 15 and get 8, you are wrong.

http://www.corestandards.org/M...

"Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 – 4 = 13 – 3 – 1 = 10 – 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 – 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13)."

This is some serious confusion right here.

This stuff sounds like me when I try to explain things. The original problem took longer than it should for me to solve, as I didn't understand the format as I've never seen it before. Intuition won out, but it is too confusing for the level of material. It is good that they want students to think about problems in different manner, by breaking them down, but they will not understand it unless they discover it themselves. Material can be given that would support that, but none of this stuff seems to aim at getting to that, "Ah ha!" moment when the material becomes a simple task.

What I'm trying to complain about, is that the math shown still has an emphasis on the answers and not how to solve problems, so the focus is wrong. A student would look at the problem and see that there are more numbers, so the problem got more complicated. They would ask, "Why would you do this instead of using less numbers and operators if the answer is the same?" To fix that problem, they should give the answer of 8 in the description so the solution isn't the point of the problem and ask for an alternative solution using some arbitrary multiple of 2, 5, or 10 (easy to count numbers) in a fill in the blank manner instead of multiple choice.

The answer is C, you can break 7 up into 5 and 2 So in your head you can subtract 5 from 15 quickly to get 10, then subtract another 2 to get 8.

But if you just subtract 7 from 15 and get 8, you are wrong.

http://www.corestandards.org/M...
"Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 – 4 = 13 – 3 – 1 = 10 – 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 – 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13)."

This is some serious confusion right here.

Nope.

http://www.corestandards.org/E...

Interesting fact:
If you moved form Oregon to Georgia, the average IQ of both places you jump dramatically.

The Common Core is the one thing in modern politics that is capable of generating agreement between right-wing conspiracy nuts and left-wing conspiracy nuts: the Left hates it because they think it's an attempt to undermine teacher's union, and the Right hates it because they think the Feds are trying to undermine local control of schools. So everybody hates it.

But seriously, have you actrually read the standardds. There's nothing especially objectionable in them, and there is a lot to like. Implementation, particularly an over-emphasis on standardized testing, could well present a problem, but the standards themselves are pretty clearly positive.

I'm agreeing with Toe, The. (That's an awkward name to type out). This is like putting down the singleton code pattern because there is one bad implementation of it that you've come across. The Common Core are standards which, actually, give a lot of freedom to the individual states (once again following the Federalist pattern).

Digging a little deeper, we have this tid-bit about what 1st graders should learn about addition and subtraction:

Use addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.

Nothing about making drawings that put pennies into cups. May be it should say "using objects in familiar and sensible fucking ways"? But what can you expect. It's a standard, not a rule for writing tests...plus, you'd expect more intelligence from the people actually writing the tests.

If anything, this could give air to the argument that the Common Core is too vague, which is what the point of it was. Apparently, it was drafted in such a way to give freedom to the states and local educators to decide the best way to teach 1st graders how to add and subtract within 20. If anything, that says DOE should have more say in what and how states teach their kids to avoid them fucking up like this.

You are correct, and the original article is incredibly misleading.

The Common Core State Standards are, dontchya know, standards. They do not define tests. The states who participate in them can test to the standards. How they choose to do that is not a reflection on the standards themselves.

If anyone cares to learn more about what the standards are, a web search turns up the actual standards pretty easily: http://www.corestandards.org/

Here's the sort of language about testing that actually appears on that site:

"The Standards for Mathematical Practice describe ways in which developing student practitioners of the discipline of mathematics increasingly ought to engage with the subject matter as they grow in mathematical maturity and expertise throughout the elementary, middle and high school years. Designers of curricula, assessments, and professional development should all attend to the need to connect the mathematical practices to mathematical content in mathematics instruction."

You are correct, and the original article is incredibly misleading.

The Common Core State Standards are, dontchya know, standards. They do not define tests. The states who participate in them can test to the standards. How they choose to do that is not a reflection on the standards themselves.

If anyone cares to learn more about what the standards are, a web search turns up the actual standards pretty easily: http://www.corestandards.org/

Here's the sort of language about testing that actually appears on that site:

"The Standards for Mathematical Practice describe ways in which developing student practitioners of the discipline of mathematics increasingly ought to engage with the subject matter as they grow in mathematical maturity and expertise throughout the elementary, middle and high school years. Designers of curricula, assessments, and professional development should all attend to the need to connect the mathematical practices to mathematical content in mathematics instruction."

"My wife, who grew up in Hong Kong, was learning algebra in elementary school. Kids are capable of learning algebra much younger than it's taught here in America. When she immigrated, she literally didn't learn any new math for four years. It's not a mistake we're ranked so poorly in the world math standings." American children are introduced to algebra in the first grade http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics/. As a teacher for 10 plus years I can honestly say the problem with the american education system and math education is parenting, politicians and professors. Not all students are capable of higher order thinking and advanced mathematics. In the US our school system seeks to educate each child to the same level, regardless of the individuals intelligence level or health disability. We spend boatloads on children who can not learn. The rights of the incapable is put higher than the right of the capable. Would a baseball team spend 4 times as much on a 5 foot 2 inch overweight, uncoordinated person vs a 6 foot 4 flame thrower. The us education system does. Federal and state mandated require it to do so. 1) Parents. Many american parents do not value there child's education. First, They do not check there child's homework and notes. If your parent does not care you don't care. I have students in my class that show up with no homework, no notebooks and no pencils on a daily basis. Second, Parents think all learning goes on in the classroom. The students in my classrooms that struggle at algebra due to lack of real world experiences at home. Since algebra is a way to describe the world around us, if we do not know much about the world around us we have no reference point. There is not enough hours in the day for a teacher to teach every day activities. I have 7th graders that have no idea what the concept of unit price is thus struggle when the concept of calculating the unit price is introduced. 1) Professors have to published paper after paper. They do studies on a narrow population and then profess the next great solution. One such solution is heterogeneous classrooms that contain students of various intelligence levels. This holds back the mathematically gifted, the average student and the less intelligent students at the same time. Children learn at different rates. My experience has shown that mixing the students creates major problems. The quick responses of strong students ruins the confidence of the weaker. It also provides cover. If someone answers quickly, you do not have to think about it yourself. "An idle mind is the devils workshop" When a student can't keep up or is so smart he finishes at, that students talks and becomes disruptive. 2) Politicians . Politicians are more interested in doing something, anything no matter if it really makes sense or not. There has been 5 different math curriculums in nys in the past 10 years. Large schools have been closed, multiple small schools put in their place. Charter schools opened and closed etc. Strong schools have been forced to take low performing students. TOUGH STANDARDIZED TEST hold back the gifted. The passing grade is so low that unqualified students get passed on to the next level without mastering the earlier level. And the single biggest crime is that special education student get passed to the next grade based on an IEP which sets a far lower level that the student must score on the test. Many of theses students know the game and don't even try. Without a parental push they flounder year after year causing distractions to other students.

Microsoft has a new licensing program for K12 public schools that is based on FTE. Dirt cheap. Not as cheap as free linux, but if you are more comfortable with MS, then it is a rather cheap fix. Point out that the common core standards is on the way and all of those tests are online. 4 times a year. Your 4th graders will need to be able to type! http://www.corestandards.org/ What is your student information system? What does it run on? What about a website for your school? Have you looked at purchasing refurbished computer? Some vendors will be able to sell you 1 or 2 year old desktops with a 5 year warranty. Use FOG for imaging your systems (http://www.fogproject.org/), or if you are able to get the ESS licensing based on FTE from MS, you can use their software. Technology doesn't fix education, and should never be looked upon as a quick fix. It can only assist good teachers provide a better educational environment or it can really F-things up.