kurtster wrote: 
I used to use Excel for statistical math pretty often (though SAS worked much better when I had access to that), but I don't have to deal with stats too much anymore.  Excel is apparently pretty powerful for calculus and other complex equations though.

 Proclivities wrote: 
Yeah, sooner or later it has to get to that.  This introductory concept is obviously new to me.  What I did find very interesting about math recently, well in 2007, I took a 160 math theory class at our local CC to catch up with a pre req for my 4 year degree.  The instructor was a PhD from Columbia and had been involved in developing math teaching methods.  The class before ours was a calculus class and there was occasionally some problems still up on the boards, such as volume ones.  Anyway, everyone in that class had laptops and were doing the problems in Excel.  He said that things had changed from working the equations to just knowing what the correct variables were and properly inserting them into the equations.  He said that in his opinion, Excel was the most powerful program ever devised and should be exploited to its fullest potential.

Even with Excel, I would still be doomed.  My problem was always with word problems.  I could never figure out which part was the proper one to plug into the proper place of the proper equation.  Still is.

 

 kurtster wrote: 
< sad trombone >

Oh jeez, you are so oppressed, just for coming in and asking a simple question while trying to gain enlightenment.  The mean liberals of RP are harshing your buzz and pushing you to an early grave. 

I think you missed a sarcasm tag, here's mine: < /sarcasm >

 islander wrote: 
No, I did not 'rail' against it.  If I did, please show where.  Just asking is all.  But if asking a question is now considered railing against something in this PC world, then my bad, not ...

But since you brought it up, one thing I have recently learned is that in a conversation with a Millennial, disagreeing with them is often considering yelling at them.  Oh well, too bad, so sad.

I'll be leaving this planet soon.  I'm irrelevant.  You're in charge. 

 kurtster wrote: 
I didn't think you were personally suspicious of any "conspiracy", that just seems to be a familiar sentiment on message boards or in commentary on news articles.  A lot of the press it gets is about math, and I think it's because some of the methods seem so alien to a lot of folks and also for the reason you stated: most people probably had trouble with math at some time.  So far this year, my son's math homework has been about determining 3-dimensional volume with some algebra thrown in lately; so the methods are probably pretty much the same as the ones you and I used.

 Proclivities wrote: 
I frequently thank my lucky stars for my hippie parents and my Montessori styled education.

 kurtster wrote: 
It's really not that hard. A couple minutes of study and you can figure out the math part. With an easily found guide it is even easier. This is literally 2nd grade math.  

If you and all the others railing against this "new math" (which is really just a very slight variation on the old math) and spend the few minutes to figure it out (hint: it's a lot like the methods you use for counting change in retail), you could assist the many kids and people in the rest of the world who are learning math and bridge that divide. Instead your constant refrain of "this is just wrong, it can't be done that way" (despite significant evidence to the contrary), is really what is driving a wedge.

Aren't you all about American exceptionalism? We've come up with a new method that is better than the old method. This should be a celebration, not a rallying cry against education. At the end of the day, math does have one right answer. As long as you get to it reliably, the method doesn't matter.

 Proclivities wrote: 
Not at all my concern.  If there is any conspiracy, it would be by publishers and writers, but again, not my concern, just genuinely curious.

So CC is an American invention, reading the link.  The story about the check is about the father who wrote it decided to do it that way after trying to help his 2nd Grade student with his math assignment the night before and needed to send a check to school to pay for the school lunch program.  He never sent it, but took a picture and posted it. 

So I was curious only because it was a current event.  The only things I've ever seen regarding CC have been about the math part.  Math troubles most of us at some level, so I guess that's why it gets the most attention.  I am curious about the development of this new again new math, but not terminally curious.  Done raising kids.  I can help with communications, but not math anymore cuz of this new system, unless you need to know how to divide polynomials by long division on paper ... 

Thanks.

My carpool's due soon so just 2 points with no support:

1. The Common Core math techniques that the guy was using on his check is a skill set that shows kids one way to do math in their heads. I can't multiply 47 x 58 just by looking at it but I can multiply 47 x 50 (4700/2) 2350 and 47 x 8 (50 x 8 = 400 minus 3x8 or 376) and 2350 + 376 = 2726. That's just how I do it.
2. Carpool's here. Bye.

 meower wrote: 
I communicate with school districts in several different states, so I have had to read about CC on numerous occasions, but I'm not really an expert or adherent.

 Proclivities wrote: 
that's what I thought. thank you for being articulater than me.

 meower wrote: 
Common core is sets of standards which vary by state - some states have not adopted CC.  The lessons and methods are ways of achieving those standards, but here are not really official "common core math" or "common core ELA" lessons per se (that I know of).  Some of the math methods have existed for a while - in other countries and in programs like Waldorf and Montessori.  One of the standards stresses students testing in writing at earlier ages.

 Proclivities wrote:

 
Actually, this gets exactly to what my fear of math was.... that there was only one way to do it (and obviously, only one right answer.)

Another question, is this really "common core math" or is it simply the new way to do math? I've thought of common core more as a system for tracking kids'/schools progress. I'd thought that this new way of teaching math came about before common core.....

 

 meower wrote: 
In third and fourth grade my son was using those grids (they call them "graphs" in his school), to do addition and multiplication but the students also used the "tradition methods" that we did - with carrying numbers and that stuff. Sometimes one method would be used as a "proof" for the other.  It seemed to be designed to show that different methods could be employed and some students took more to one method than the other.  My son doesn't seem like he has a preference usually, but since I have numerous pads of graph paper in the house (for some reason), he often preferred that grid system for multiplying five-or-six-digit numbers on his homework.  

 Proclivities wrote:

 
So, as a person who struggled with math my whole life especially the "ones,ten's hundreds thing" I wonder whether math would've been easier for me to have learned this way,

I have a memory of second grade math class, we had team teachers so we were switching classes and I was the only one left in class with NO IDEA WTF they meant by "borrowing" in long subtraction. It was my first experience of Math being Magic, and Me being Not-Magic.

 kurtster wrote: 
I'm not a full-on advocate of common core, but there is no one system of it - it varies by state. Each state applies CC to differing extents and the procedures themselves are methods of attaining those standards.  Districts and schools still create their own lesson plans.  The standards are largely based on international standards and derived from other countries with the highest levels of achievement.   The math lessons are about working out concepts from angles other than just a "43 x 37 = 1591" problem.  The grid system is used to visualize 1's, 10's, 100's, etc. when doing addition and multiplication and arrive at an answer, and is not used to write out answers like the guy who wrote that check did - apparently he does not understand a math procedure which most elementary school students do. The math is Base 10.  It's not a liberal/gay/minority/communist conspiracy. You can read about it here - granted it's their site, so it could be one-sided, but it's pretty informative, especially for someone who is curious like you are.

Just saw the story about this check.


So what is really up with Common Core math ?  Mathematics and music for that matter, are the only true universal languages.  But sticking to math, who invented the CC system and why ?  Is this being taught globally or just in the USA ?  

I really do not know the answers to the questions asked above.  If this is just being taught in the USA, then it isolates us from the rest of the world.  It already divides generations from each other in terms of understanding 2 + 2 = 4.  

I do know that our current math model is Base 10 and IIRC, CC is Base 2.  Computers use binary math, 0 and 1, which I'm guessing is essentially Base 2.  

Anybody ?? 

San Francisco elementary school creates gender-neutral bathrooms


 In response to the ongoing discussion about gender identity, a San Francisco elementary school has changed the signs differentiating the boys and girls bathrooms, declaring them gender-neutral restrooms.

     

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Isn't D+ a passing grade?

 Proclivities wrote: