Common Core Math - An Engineering Dad's Nightmare (Take Two)

A good rant can be very relieving.

Perhaps the best dope slap to New York, for failure to have algebra textbooks, would be for accredited colleges to refuse admission to New York students for three years. There would be hell to pay, of course, but the problem would almost surely be resolved within the three years.

You know what would happen? Only students from other countries would be qualified to enroll.

In the world of education, the problem with 'The old way of doing math' is that it can be labeled 'The old way of doing math'.

The education industry has become a rats warren of people who have decided that change is always good if the change can be described using the proper 'educatorese'. Forget any kind of logic or any analysis of teaching methods that existed prior to the year 2000.

Thus if some group can describe a 'new teaching method' with enough buzzwords and appeals that evoke the proper emotional response from the self-proclaimed 'leaders' - and thereby declare as 'outmoded' any prior teaching methods - the new method will be adopted.

I know this from personal experience, having spent some years teaching, and from the experiences of my (late) wife who was a public school teacher for a number of years.

I looked at the test in the link provided. It would be a fair test for students of 20 years ago or more. There is not much in it that is 'common core' per se. Had the students been taught properly, most would have passed.

The problem is that the Common Core 'method' of teaching is terrible. It's a non-solution to the wrong problem. (I.e., there have been problems with Math education over the past 20 years, but 'Common Core Math' is not the right solution. As even a fool can see, it has made the problems worse.)

The old way! How many millions of people learned that way? I can say that the old way just wasn't broken, but some people tried to fix it or "improve" anyway. What is "broken" these days isn't the basic math, but how a few people seem to think it should be taught, and all the other people they convinced that a change was required. It' been a long long time since my last classes in the various basic maths, but I still remember, especially as I have had to use a lot of it regularly, i.e., at least in my "real world".

"It all started with former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who was the 2006-07 chair of the National Governors Association and now leads the University of California system, says Dane Linn, a vice president of the Business Roundtable who oversees its Education and Workforce Committee. Napolitano's initiative had a strong focus on Napolitano's initiative had a strong focus on improving math and science education, as well as the workforce"

If, "improving math and science education" means totally revamping the way we arrive at solutions to problems by creating illogical, nonsensical paths to solutions to problems that have had straight forward solutions for centuries, then it has been a success.

If it means dumbing down those paths into stick figures and boxes, it has also succeeded.

If the goal is to prepare kids for college and the workforce, it is a total failure! Nothing about Common Core or "Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards" as we call it herein Arizona, prepares kids for life.

My daughter is a teacher. Her children are exceptionally gifted. (I can document this). She, and her 10th grade daughter HATE common core, as do I.

Another example of your tax dollars being squandered on useless federal programs.

This is just terrible. There is no reason a math problem should be done "a certain way". If the kid can get the correct answer, that's it.

When I was getting my M.S. in Physics I had a very old Japanese professor who taught Mathematics and Physics. On a test there was a question where I did every step correct but forgot a minus sign at the very end.

The result? A 3 out of 10. When I talked to the Professor afterwards I tried to make the case that I had done about 19 out of 20 steps correct, clearly understood the material, and should be given more points for that question. I'll never forget his response. He simply said "your answer is wrong" and sort of laughed.

In his mind, the most important thing was getting the answer exactly correct. He didn't care how much I understood or why I got it wrong. All that mattered was that it was wrong. It is a profoundly simplistic and yet powerful way of looking at the world. The answer was the point of the problem. The older I get, the more I appreciate his response. Common core seems to be taking the exact opposite of this approach.

When I was a kid we had a neighbor who taught in the College of Engineering at UT (Tennessee not Texas). He helped me with my high-school physics and math when they were beyond what my dad could handle. One night he told me about some enormous pages-long problem he worked through on a test and had gotten down to something like 2X=4 (I forget the details but it was equally Algebra I) and then for the final answer he had something outlandish like -1 or 400,000. His professor circled the answer, wrote "where the heck did THIS come from?" and gave him 99% credit. The prof figured that Mr. Xiques' brain had been thoroughly fried in the process of getting to 2X=4. A case where the teacher validated the through process and mechanics, knowing that if this were real life and the final answer mattered, it'd get checked again by fresh eyes.

When my youngest daughter was in high school, about 15 years ago, they tried to launch "Interactive Math". The theory is that they would give the kids problems to solve, but have them invent their own methods to solve the problem. It included NOT teaching anything like algebra principles, geometry or trigonometry.

For math to work, you have to have some sort of basis to work from and the new methods appear to want to build the house without a foundation. My daughter went to college having never had to do a mathematical proof or apply basic distributive and associative properties in algebra. She spent a year in remedial math and ended up in a business marketing program.

I learned that one plus one equals two, but nowadays the teaching method seems to lead to ,"What would you like it to be?"

Write a letter¡¡☻ Would be interesting to see what some of those would be, would cursive be used(see previous thread on that)? More than likely a text with all the related abbreviations. Boiled down to about 20 characters.

My mind didn't go that far, but you're right!

I don't understand what's wrong with simple subtraction - the right side of the parent's answer. It takes seconds to come up with the answer and it's very simple.

Imagine this: About a month ago, I stepped into an O'Reilly's Auto Parts store. The electricity was out, so the cash registered didn't work. The staff was using paper receipts to write up each sale. You should've seen them trying to total up a small number of items. Then trying to figure out 7.5% sales tax! They couldn't even get the numbers correct when using the calculator on their phone!

Common Core Math failed - miserably. I calculated the amount in my head and I had to correct the clerk when he did the math wrong! Very sad!

My grandkids are exposed to common core and I take every opportunity to teach them the "old way".

This is nothing new. Consider the following song, "New Math" by Tom Lehrer from 1965:

Some of you who have small children may have perhaps been put in the embarrassing position of being unable to do your child's arithmetic homework because of the current revolution in mathematics teaching known as the new math.

So as a public service here tonight I thought I would offer a brief lesson in the new math. tonight we're going to cover subtraction. this is the first room I've worked for
a while that didn't have a blackboard so we will have to make do with more primitive visual aids, as they say in the "Ed biz." consider the following subtraction problem, which I will put up here 342 - 173.

Now remember how we used to do that. three from two is nine; carry the one, and if you're under 35 or went to a private school you say seven from three is six, but if you're over 35 and went to public school you say eight from four is six; carry the one so we have 169, but in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing rather than to get the right answer here's how they do it now.

You can't take three from two,
Two is less than three,
So you look at the four in the tens place.
Now that's really four tens,
So you make it three tens,
Regroup, and you change a ten to ten ones,
And you add them to the two and get twelve,
And you take away three, that's nine.
Is that clear?

Now instead of four in the tens place
You've got three,
'cause you added one,
That is to say, ten, to the two,
But you can't take seven from three,
So you look in the hundreds place.

From the three you then use one
To make ten ones...
(and you know why four plus minus one
Plus ten is fourteen minus one?
'cause addition is commutative, right.)
And so you have thirteen tens,
And you take away seven,
And that leaves five...

Well, six actually.
the idea is the important thing.

Now go back to the hundreds place,
And you're left with two.
And you take away one from two,
And that leaves...?

Everybody get one?
Not bad for the first day!

Hooray for new math,
New-hoo-hoo-math,
It won't do you a bit of good to review math.
It's so simple,
So very simple,
That only a child can do it!
Now that actually is not the answer that I had in mind, because the book that I got this problem out of wants you to do it in base eight. but don't panic. base eight is just like base ten really
if you're missing two fingers. shall we have a go at it? hang on.

You can't take three from two,
Two is less than three,
So you look at the four in the eights place.
Now that's really four eights,
So you make it three eights,
Regroup, and you change an eight to eight ones,
And you add them to the two,
And you get one-two base eight,
Which is ten base ten,
And you take away three, that's seven.

Now instead of four in the eights place
You've got three,
'cause you added one,
That is to say, eight, to the two,
But you can't take seven from three,
So you look at the sixty-fours.

"sixty-four? how did sixty-four get into it? " I hear you cry.
Well, sixty-four is eight squared, don't you see?
(well, you ask a silly question, and you get a silly answer.)

From the three you then use one
To make eight ones,
And you add those ones to the three,
And you get one-three base eight,
Or, in other words,
In base ten you have eleven,
And you take away seven,
And seven from eleven is four.
Now go back to the sixty-fours,
And you're left with two,
And you take away one from two,
And that leaves...?

Now, let's not always see the same hands.
One, that's right!
Whoever got one can stay after the show and clean the erasers.

Hooray for new math,
New-hoo-hoo-math,
It won't do you a bit of good to review math.
It's so simple,
So very simple,
That only a child can do it!

Come back tomorrow night. we're gonna do fractions.

Read more: Tom Lehrer - New Math Lyrics | MetroLyrics

It smells like the English units to me. Are there any SI?

Depends on whether the fingers are digital or analog.

The Ten Dumbest Common Core Problems http://natl.re/1eWlXoH from a National Review article.

The link didn't lead to anything even remotely related to Common Core. Wanna try again?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373840/ten-dumbest-common-core-problems-alec-torres

Sorry. JPFALT already nailed the correct link

It doesn't matter much. Common Core does have some problems, and many of the critiques have just as many problems. The National Review article got maybe a couple of them right, but other than that was typical right-wing drivel.

"As so typical of cliches and stereotypes, that is partly true and partly false."

I can't say this was due to Common Core; I had the same problems with "show all your work" when I was going to school in the 50's and 60's.

SOME of the ridiculous-looking results of tests lately seem to be due to teachers trying to evaluate something a question does not ask, but should; one rather infamous example is that of students who described 15 as a set reading [5,5,5] , finding themselves marked down on the question because the teacher expected [3,3,3,3,3] (or vice-versa).

THAT I ascribe to a poorly written test and poorly prepared teachers; NOT to Common Core.

"The best question has many answers."

Seldom, if ever, true in ordinary high school math. ...and definitely NOT true when used on a multiple-choice test question. If there is not one clear best answer to anyone who understands all the pertinent information, then the question should be re-worded or discarded.

I commonly ran item analyses on my test questions. If many of the best students got wrong answers to a question, I would remove that question and re-score the entire set of tests.

That's a VERY good idea.

An article on the Teachthought site concerned the verification and editing of examination questions; one teacher commented that there was a question not one eighth-grader taking a state math test got correct in the section evaluating understanding of powers of 10.

I wish I could remember where it was; it was a doozy, and not because it was complicated. As is common in multiple-choice tests, there was no arithmetic needed to solve the problem; all one need do was eliminate the obviously incorrect answers. I got a little exercised about the teachers recommendation to remove that question; it was the only question among those shown that DID evaluate an understanding of powers of 10.

I said, "Engineers who make a 20 dB error can kill people."

No, the best question has ONE answer, but many solutions. Just as a mountain has one peak, but many ways to reach that peak. If you're climbing mountain A, but end up on the peak of mountain B, you did something wrong.

The answer to the building problem is 'the height of the building,' the solution is the method to determine the height.

By the way, the building barometer story is actually an analogy to C programming. In the original version, it was a college class trying to determine how many ways there were to measure the height of a building 'using a barometer.' Some of the other methods brought up in the original story were:

• The Tree-Fall method: hold the barometer upright in an outstretched hand, close one eye, and step back until the barometer looks as tall as the building, then turn the barometer on its side, and have a friend measure the distance from the side of the building to where you say the barometer reaches to.
• The Shadow method: set the barometer on the ground, upright, and measure the length of its shadow and the shadow of the building, knowing the height of the barometer, it is now a simple matter to get the building height, since the shadows, measured at the same time, will have the same ratio of shadow length to object height.
• The Mercantile method: sell the barometer at a pawn shop and buy some proper tools for measuring buildings.

I think you hit on something that may be an answer to teaching the New Way and Old Way. Why not have a test where the student is asked to illustrate how many different ways can a barometer be used to measure the height of a building? This would let the teacher know which methods of measurement the student understands and his/her creativity. For instance, if the student answers: 1. Tie a string and lower from the top of the building down. 2. Tie a rope and lower ... 3. Tie a piece of wire and lower ... 4. Tie a piece of yarn ... and so on. There sure isn't a lot of creativity and the student didn't show his/her understanding of other scientific methods.

A test like this would help the teacher find out where the strengths and weaknesses of the students.

I think you've proven that common sense is lacking in our education system - even going back to 1998!

I retired from teaching over 20 years ago, so I know absolutely nothing about common core, But I'll definitely fight calling a circle a disc. A circle is either a locus of points or a series of infinitely short straight lines. Anything smaller than the circle can pass through the circle without affecting the circle. In my mind at least, a disc (or disk, if you prefer) is a solid filled circle. No physical object can pass through a disk, even if the disc approaches infinitely thin.

What if the disc is made of a permeable material? Just kidding!

You're correct about the difference between a circle and a disc. Draw a circle on a piece of paper - that's a circle. Cut it out and that's a disc.

GA to you!

Well, Common Core IS just a standard. What we are seeing is a stupid way of purporting to comply with it.

I was in the Army for 21 years, and learned that when competent noncommissioned officers followed stupid orders issued by ignorant superiors, it meant that the organization was falling apart. I also saw that in industry after I retired from the service (30+ years in electromagnetic compatibility). Luckily, I got paid to tell people when they were being stupid.

"Luckily, I got paid to tell people when they were being stupid."

Where do I go to get your old job and is it okay to overachieve?

There is a difference between approximations being good enough, and rote memory being good enough. It takes some understanding of why the approximations are good enough to make use of them constructively.

In my post-military second career as an electromagnetic compatibility engineer, I was sometimes required to interview people applying for work in that area, and one of the questions I used to assess their experience was, "How many milliwatts is 23 dBm?"

The answer is 200 mW, and the approximation is right there in the open; 2.3 being approximately 10 times the logarithm of 200. If they had to pull out a calculator to do the math, I knew they didn't have a lot of experience. More to the point, there was some reason to suspect they hadn't yet understood deciBels.

I might then ask them what the average (to 1 dB) of three dBm denominated signals was; -3 dBm, say, -33 dBm and 60 dBm. If they understood how dB work, there was no math required, 60 dBm being so much greater than the other two that the difference would be less than one dB. If they didn't... I've had to explain on the job.

FWIW: I was one of those enlisted men, having run away to the Army at 17 and enlisted to be a point-to-point radio operator. I had already been playing with electromagnets, electronics and radio for some seven years, and a few years later I reenlisted to get into the avionics school, which was a rather interesting. I was to return to it some six years later as an instructor, and ended up serving 15 of my 21 years of active duty in avionics maintenance.

It was at the avionics school that I demonstrated to doubting classmates that one didn't always need test equipment to fix a radio; I'd bought a clock radio to awaken me while there was still hot water in the shower, and after it malfunctioned, I put it on my footlocker and began troubleshooting it with a screwdriver.

"What are you doing, Richmond?"

"I'm troubleshooting this radio."

"But you need test equipment to do that!"

"No, there are radio signals and static in the air and if your detector and audio stage are working you'll be able to use that to see which stage isn't."

I had been careful - this was a vacuum tube radio - with my screwdriver, relying only on the ambient RF picked up on its shaft, but for this I decided to give them something more to listen to and grasped the steel screwdriver shaft with my fingers. When I put that on the input pin of the detector tube, it happened that a local radio station was broadcasting a science fiction program, and what came out of the loudspeaker was:

"Major! We're in contact with the planet Mars!"

I already had a reputation as a brain, as, not wanting to do details for six weeks until the next class started, I asked if I could simply take the fundamentals of electronics test, allowing me to quit raking lines in the sand and start learning about real avionics. I passed and joined that class, which it seems no one had ever done.

And now I had a reputation as a mad scientist.

I never did get a degree, and except for the Physics 101 course i took after my Junior year in High School, I never took any engineering coursework. I TAUGHT Avionics four years in the Army, and, post-retirement, followed a smuggled resume' into working on EMC compliance and TEMPEST. At 72, I still get an occasional contract, and I'd work for nothing but expenses if anyone would keep me around (don't tell them). It's fun.

"And now I had a reputation as a mad scientist."

It's a fun reputation to have; if you get bored, you can just start doing random stuff FOR SCIENCE!

"Why are you stacking books in the middle of the room?" "For science!"

"Why did you rearrange all the silverware in the drawer?" "For SCIENCE!"

"Why are you wearing your swim trunks while shoveling the snow?" "FOR SCIENCE!" _{(Actually, it's Laundry Day, but I don't want to break up a good triptych.)}

Here's the source:

url=http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/teacher-marks-child-s-55515-answer-incorrect/

That link didn't go anywhere that actually showed the problem.

I said in my previous post #48 that I understood common core maths enough to follow the logic behind it. Meanwhile jpfalt has come in with #46 with a detailed explanation from which I have to change my mind and say I don't understand CC maths after all.

I am more than happy with the explanation in #46 but I had to rely on my leaning of the old ways we were taught by rote to make sense of it.

Young newcomers to CC will not know anything about our old methods to help them, so it must be hard for them.

Or is this a situation where a 'blank sheet' is required at the outset.

#46 wasn't common core. It was "New Math" introduced in 1965 , well before common core was even a gleam in some curriculum developer's eye.

I thought it interesting that some of the language on the common core cheat sheet was used in the 1965 song.

The "new math" was introduced at least as early as 1961, via SMSG (School Mathematics Study Group). There were parallel curriculum reform efforts in biology (BSCS, Biological Sciences Curriculum Study), physics (PSSC, Physical Science Study Committee), and chemistry (CHEM Study, I forget what it stands for). These were reactions to the Sputnik success.

And, once again, those who can, do.

Those who can't, teach.

As so typical of cliches and stereotypes, that is partly true and partly false. But, whichever it is, it doesn't pertain to my post.

You can't win 'em all.

You can if you have a two headed coin!

... and those who can't teach will (try to) administrate...

''... and those who can't administrate will (try to) legistrate...

Are you channeling Dubya?

I might as well be, after my previous comment...

I am rightly reminded not to run for office, where I might actually have to legislate something real...

I'm going home now to give my tired eyes some overdue rest...

But, on Tuesday morning, I might just change my mind...

Somehow, my fingers can't (see) well enough to keep from stumbling over each other oigcv xus syus zc...

If #46 wasn't common core, then that might explain why I jumped to the conclusion I might not have a grasp of common core - but perhaps I do after all - but I still have to fall back on my rote learning of the old ways to make sense of it.

NEWS FLASH!! The scaled scores just posted and my daughter passed with flying colors . The test doesn't count towards her quarter or final grade, but she needed to pass for an advanced Regents diploma. I had no doubts, but she didn't share my optimistic view.

she didn't share my optimistic view

That is the fear factor I was referring to in my earlier post. This can turn an A student into a dummy very quickly. Good she could handle the pressure, but there are some smart hard working students who just go to pieces under test conditions, when it is an unknown such as this or an SAT. One needs to figure a way to get the student to think he/she will destroy the test and then they will test more accurately. How to do that? Beats me.

The more math one takes before taking such a test, the better one is likely to do. Furthermore, if you happen be able to send your children to an elite prep school, the more likely they are to be more effectively (taught-to-the-test)... And, yes, I do think there is a certain elitism/exclusivity that is being served by so-called common core (mathing), if you will...

As one point-of-reference, I first took algebra way back in public school ninth grade (when it still had substance...), struggled mightily, and just barely ''got it'' in time, after much anguish, knashing-of-teeth, whining, and complaining... (sound a little familiar?...)

I'm now a working engineer who gets paid to use math on a daily basis.

But, if I had to face one of those so-called common (?) core tests back then, I probably would not be an engineer today.

(Don't feel too bad, because if you look look at question 19 in the Algebra I test for 2016, you can see that the four choose-able answers are the same two answers identically repeated !!!

(i.e.: who writes and/or proofreads those things anyway?...)

In any case, go take a casual visit to your nearest community college bookstore and peruse the current prices to see yet another reason regular people have trouble getting through college...

Let's fall back to step one.

rant/

-- No text books, teachers who had no idea what they were teaching or how to teach it, no help at all for a parent who took algebra over 35 years ago (thank God for the internet). Apparently the kids didn't get this common core crap either --
Anyone with his head elsewhere than a pedagogical Black Hole would recognize professional malpractice when they see it.

The teacher walks in and says: "Sorry; the class won't be about Socrates this year. It'll be Wiggenstein's Blue Book. In Hungarian. And no one gets the books. Not even me. We have a lot of ground to cover, so pay attention... "
"Az ötlet, hogy annak érdekében, hogy világos, hogy egy általános kifejezés értelmében kellett találni a közös elem a pályázatokat van bilincselve a filozófiai vizsgálat; mert azt nem csak hogy nincs ..."

As have many others, I've perused the Common Core Standards, if not studied them. They make sense -- so why doesn't what's being bruited about make sense?
I've a nasty suspicion that students who actually do well with this method -- no playing with the curve -- have exceptionally good teachers, and students who do poorly... don't. Teachers and students alike are in the Big Surf now, and you have to be really good to play there.
Worse, slavish application of unfamiliar methods of evaluation do more harm than good. 5+5+5 = 15 incorrect; 3+3+3+3+3 =15 correct. OK -- but that's not what the question asked for, and the people taking a test must be TOLD what the test is for -- in anything except (maybe) traditional Wu Shu.
NEVER use a test that hasn't been verified on actual students and teachers. Just DON'T. Would you get on an airplane whose autopilot I fixed using a light bulb as a voltmeter? Not without really, really needing to, right? Not without having me explain (clearly) why I can do this, every step of the way!
[It's possible to do stuff like this (story if you ask) but one really has to know the equipment and its basic physics. Not just memorized, but absorbed and understood.]
And then, then we come to the administrators and politicians who insist on doing things on the cheap, with neither time for preparation and resources, nor a look at what has to be done ahead of time. There is a special Hell for these folks, kept at a nice 24 degrees -- Kelvin.

We've had a really good school soccer team, and we're ready new season. Comes the day...and it's LACROSSE [Iroquois war analog.]
Whoops.

/rant

I didn't see the test where 5+5+5 = 15 was marked incorrect (link didn't work). Maybe they had a valid rationale for that (I know of one), but maybe not. I don't doubt that some Common Core ideas are goofy, but sometimes the critics are uninformed and even goofier.

I hate common core as much as the rest of the haters, but I'm trying to understand it for the sake of my 4 year old who will be starting school in a couple years. Hopefully common core will go the way of new math by then.

The equations of 5 x 3 is to be done in a grouping. Common core, from what I understand so far, says that this equation is to be read as 5 groups of 3. (who here ever thinks this in their head when doing math?! but I digress) So the correct answer would be 3,3,3,3,3. We older ones like to reduce things down to their simplest forms; 5,5,5; but I am again digressing. There are several things that could have happened to arrive at the wrong answer that I can see.

1. The student didn't fully grasp how he was 'supposed' to answer.
2. The teacher didn't fully explain how answers were to be given.
3. The system was given to the public without being fully finished; the teachers weren't taught how to teach it.

I had a high school teacher once tell me that tests (projects she called them) not only tests the students, but also tests the teacher. If most students pass consistently, the subject was explained well; if most students failed consistently...

It still seems that the math teachers need to teach more than just math now. It now would be helpful to diagram sentences to know what the question is asking to correctly answer it.

I just hope that I can understand this method and help my daughter(s) understand both methods. I am still unconvinced that this would work for anything other than simple math. And then what happens when higher math is taught? You need a lot of boxes for just 8⁶ x 12⁹, or even 12 x 12! Now they need to learn the old math? I can see more mistakes being made with common core than with old math. More steps create greater opportunities for mistakes.

As I said, I'm trying to learn. I don't like it at all, but I'm trying.

5 X 3 reads, 5 times 3, means 5 occurrences of 3 = 3+3+3+3+3=15

3 X 5 reads, 3 times 5, means 3 occurrences of 5 = 5+5+5=15

times is defined in the Random House UNABRIDGED dictionary as:

used as a multiplicative word in phrasal combinations expressing how many instances of a quantity or factor are taken together." 4 times 5 is 4 occurrences of 5 taken together = 5+5+5+5=20

This definition is often misunderstood when teaching elementary school math or when using simple dictionaries.

Dan

I agree. We say x times y. The test said grouping. In essence, the same thing, just semantics.

I was referring to what the test stated since Tornado hadn't seen it. All of us old people will understand it's '5 times 3', but the actual wording is '5 groups of 3' in this specific instance.

You are still correct to me, I still read it as 5 times 3; but I would think that changing the wording on this question from what is stated 'could' be confusing to someone that is just learning this common core style.

Thanks. If the test wording was indeed "5 groups of 3", then 5+5+5 was wrong, even though the sum (15) is the same.

So, if little Johnny said the answer was 12-18, would he get credit for being close enough in his estimation?

I think we are headed straight down a road back to Storks bringing babies and witch burnings.

No, because this problem is not about estimation.

There are worthwhile questions to ask about CC, but obtuse ones like that are not among them.

Will you be getting a blue admin star soon?

I doubt that your exposure to common core qualifies to define the topic at hand or to pass judgement on questions asked.

1. No. (Another obtuse question.)

2. I happen to be somewhat knowledgeable about this. You do not seem to be so.

Congratulations on your level of knowledge.

Condemnations on yours.

I agree.

We should 'attack' CC on the obvious, glaring deficiencies, not engage in hyperbole and non-sequiturs to build strawman arguments. There are enough legitimate targets downrange already.

Don't worry, by the time they get to something as complex as 8⁶ or 12⁹, they'll be able to use their $130 graphing calculator (that you will be required to buy). By the way, I find the calculator confusing to use (and I'm pretty technically inclined), but my daughter is an expert and can do practically anything with it. I find it interesting that the same kids who struggled so much with Commom Core math have these fairly complex and sophisticated calculators mastered.

Wouldn't the more meaningful evaluation of actual mathematical understanding be made if all electrical/mechanical/physical calculators were not allowed at all?...

For one thing, if there were only 26 questions on the test, then 25 correct answers would surely be a passing grade.

For another, it helps to distinguish between a raw score and a normalized score.

You haven't digested correctly either of these considerations.

"Amazing! So these kids are going to "pass" the test, but did they actually learn anything this year?"

If the kids have been paying attention, they would have learned what happens when Common Core meets up with No Child Left Behind: A wasted year of education, and grades inflated ('adjusted on the curve') to prevent loss of funding for teaching the mandated CC curriculum the CC way.

Time to bring out the old Talking Barbie dolls.

(*pulls string*) "Math is hard."

Yes it is, Barbie, when the schools are filling your head with fluff, plastic, and nonsense under the guise of Common Core.

I was looking for a another picture and came across this:

By Jove, I think you're on to something there.

As they say on the cop shows, "When you want to find the real perp, and understand the motive, just follow the money." On the attorney shows, they shorten it to just 'cui bono.'