Some things just need memorization though. Just look at the alphabet and multiplication tables. And the division by multiple subtraction just seems like giving an alternative cumbersome method as the ''default'' one to use. Not to mention it doesn't help in getting decimal values. I'd be interested to know what is and isn't cut out of history and other subjects though. In my case, I haven't found mention of the Crusades or the Rationalistic Movement of the 19th century anywhere in local textbooks for schoolkids.

I admit I haven't looked at the humanities stuff yet - but then again, they really don't have much history in 3rd grade.

In my house, we really only use the public school as free babysitting anyway. My kids get most of their instruction at home and through reading.... but I haven't done a very good job about arraigning their humanities education.

But I do have a complete set of "Rush Revere" books read to go. :)

Now that you mention it, there actually was one lesson in the math book that I understood right away because it was similar to how I do math in my head. As a kid I was taught to solve math problems from right to left, but I always foundd it easier to go left to right. For example 258 + 116 I would add up as 258 + 100 =358 + 10= 368+6 =374. The text book my daughter had broke it out as 200+100+50+10+8+6 which is similar. I do multiplication in a similar way 24 * 16 becomes 20*10 + 20*6 + 10*4 + 4*6 in my head. It looks a little confusing but it works for me. However I can only solve problems this way because I know my multiplication tables. If I had to sit and figure out 4*6 the way my daughter is taught to in school then my method would not even work for me.

The problem is not how math questions are solved. The thing about math is that its flexible in how you find the answer to a question. An equation can be solved in many a method, unless it is explicitly stated, you are free to use whatever method you are comfortable with. Looking at an earlier image representing common core, I must admit this is a way to subtract numbers that I never knew of before. Its longer than just trying to calculate it the traditional way, but its new, and if you want to use it, so be it.

The problem is when math questions are forced to be solved with only answer, and with all other viable answers being thrown out of the window. Its obvious that 13+25 is equal to 38. How did I do this? 10 + 20 + 3 + 5. Or 1 + 2 and 3 + 5. Or draw the 38 boxes. All of these are great if you want proof of how I reached this conclusion. The problem becomes that then you're literally forced to do it in a specific way, such as the drawing method. And why? The first two methods I listed also reach the same conclusion with less effort and time wasted.

Math is a lovely subject when you are given the tools to solving the questions, and then told to solve these questions using any of the tools in any way possible. You can hate math however if you force it to be like a puzzle, and force the students to solve the questions using only one tool with one answer. That is the point I'm trying to deliver. It is true that what this is teaching is another method for solving maths problems, and that I appreciate. What I don't appreciate is forcing these methods and throwing out all the other viable methods that are proven time and again to work.

Good, so I am correct in assuming US freedom in criticism of government is about the level of China. That you have to move the goalpost to make a comparison with Nazi so you can say US is better than Nazi.

That does not change the fact that you can be thrown in prison if you are influential and criticize the US despite the first amendment. More political refugee are smarter and seek asylum out of US.

What's bad is bad, diverting attention to a worst case scenario will not magically turn bad into good.

I don't know what particular method is bothering you, but I'll say this about the common core multiplication, which bothers a bunch of people I talk to - it's designed with future algebraic manipulations in mind. There was an ugly argument about how "3x5" should be showable as three fives, or five threes; that makes sense to those of us who are old. But if you've done enough algebra to get to matrices, you know there's a specific way they have to "go together" or else you end up with unanswerable sets or answers that don't make sense ^_^ Common core multiplication, at least, is done so as to set good habits very early, so that if your child later on decides that partial diffs and Lie algebras look like fun, they've got the right habits already formed, and don't have to break bad ones first. Like I did, and like so many other people my age did.

Holy crap partial diffs kicked my ass.

It's you who moved the goalpost. I just moved it back. Look at the OP.

The US government isn't about the level of China, either, but I'm really not inclined to waste time arguing too much with people who have no idea how good they've got it.

Nope, I am directly addressing your statement that you can speak freely against your government is wrong.

You are shifting the topic to a worse comparison to divert attention from US political prisoners. You cannot argue against a fact that cannot be defended and now divert attention to how good US is.

That's sort of where I'm at on the whole thing. I mean, when I need to do this stuff in my head for work, I often use the old "x-squared + 2x + 1"-type formula. And it works fine. Doing it in my head, I find it more manageable than the old "carry the 6 method". And hell, that's a really fundamental concept for Algebra.

I do find it interesting that many of the most vocal opponents of Common Core are the teachers and administrators. And there are a LOT of them, not just some tiny percentage of educational Luddites. As the ones dealing with it first-hand on a trained and professional level, I think they're in a good position to pass judgment on it.

is anyone here brushing his teeth with toothpaste thats made without flourid and whats about chem trails?

Yeah. I'm friends with a couple teachers, which means though I have no more idea about CC than the next person, I've heard about it a little bit. I wonder if you notice the same thing - almost every complaint I hear from teachers is a procedural complaint, not a substantive one. CC is too rigid; we can't teach the kids in a different way, even when we know they can understand it. CC teaches to the test, and to too many of them, at that. CC doesn't do a good job of explaining why it's doing what it does. Interestingly to me, I haven't (yet) heard a complaint about CC from a science or math teacher. Though, as I said at the start, I've done no study on this and so my previous sentences are worth the paper they're printed on >.>

EDIT: actually, "teaching to the test" is both procedural and substantive. I should have known better.

Now that you mention it... that does sound quite a bit like the lion's share of the complaints.

I wonder how much of this stems from the fact that these folks went through a bunch of schooling and internship-time (hopefully) to give them the basics of teaching methodology from which they can then create their own style of teaching, and now CC might be instead turning teaching into a rote process where they are losing the freedom / opportunity to use their creativity in the classroom. At that point, they become instructors instead of teachers. That has to be frustrating. And further, that teaching to CC (and testing) takes so much time that there isn't much flexibility left.

But I can see the point of CC: create baseline teaching and measurement methods to help put all schools on a more equal footing, and also to make it easier to determine which schools are doing well and which aren't. Which isn't that dissimilar to what NCLB tried to do, at least from a very basic view of both programs.

Problem is we're talking about teaching kids with an enormous variety of backgrounds, not looking at production numbers at five different factories making the exact same widgets from the exact same raw materials. I don't know if CC can take into account those external factors or if it's that test results rule all. And I worry that putting all of our eggs into the CC basket means that we'll miss out on some local experimentation that could lead to better results.

Euch. Common Core. Another classic example of a good idea on paper (a standardized set of learning goals and expectations of knowledge and proficiency for English and Math) completely ruined in implementation thanks to politics, politicians, and an education culture and system that's still struggling to come out of the Industrial Revolutionp.

Pretty much this, and that's because they have to both witness first-hand, and bear the brunt of, the many problems that come out of the implementation of the Common Core...plus they often have their feedback and complaints ignored by the higher-ups. And when the parents come, angry and complaining over what the students are being fed, who are the ones who get the blame? The teachers on the front-lines, of course. Even though they really don't get much say in the matter.

I hate going into tinfoil hat territory, but sometimes I wonder if initiatives like this are purposefully designed to get the public to support for-profit privately-funded/corporate-sponsored education, at the expense of public education.

From my own experience, academic programs for teacher training are leaning towards the teacher adopting a role of facilitator, as opposed to authoritarian; give the students multiple ways to engage the material, so that they can internalize and learn it on their terms, in ways that are the most meaningful and impactful to them. Mentor teachers that take on student teachers for their practice teaching sessions often encourage their student teachers to develop their own style, being true to their own individual personalities, learning styles and interests. Well, that's how it happens at the best of times, of course.

The problem is that this runs at odds with the notion of having highly rigid standards that must be adhered to, with standardized testing that's just as rigid.

That's one of the biggest problems I've seen; so much time and energy is devoted to teaching to the test, that it's incredibly hard to cover the rest of the material that needs to covered. The stress coming out of that time constraint alone can be overwhelming, especially for new teachers.

From what I understand (and you can correct me if I'm mistaken) a big problem came out of the fact that CC was seen by a lot of people as Yet Another Power Grab by the eeevil Federal Government, to take control of education out of State hands. As a result, the implementation of CC became a mess because it was highly fragmented and inconsistent from state to state.

Yes, and it sadly seems to be cheaper and more politically expedient for the higher-ups to do so. Having classrooms that don't feel like factories enforcing homogeneity means hiring more teachers, more education assistants, and more special education teachers, as well as smaller class sizes. That needs a level of bi-partisanship and fiscal/socio-political commitment that I don't think I'll be seeing in the US anytime soon. But I hope I'm wrong on that.