Hacker News Reader

Common Core standards don't require that, and that kind of bad teaching can happen with any set of standards. This is especially true if the teachers implementing the standards aren't well trained on the intent of and intended application of the standards, which may be particularly problematic for Common Core, not because of anything inherent in the standards, but because the standards are far from the models many teachers are used to. This more of a transitional issue than anything else.

There's also a packages curriculum problem, which is basically a combination of the problems that exist worth oligopoly educational material regardless of the standards plus the same kind of transitional problems that impact teaching, where people will don't understand the outside of the standards address developing materials to be used under the standards.

> This more of a transitional issue than anything else.

Which will likely cause the whole thing to fail, and then we'll be on to the next "revolutionary concept" in education, and the whole mess starts again. Meanwhile, educating real small humans suffers.

Can you cite any references to the Common Core Standards that would indicate that they are at fault for the problems you indicate? Having examined them myself, I havn't found anywhere in them where they specify how things are taught or how they are tested- only a very basic outline of a few of the things that should be taught.

Well, here's the thing that perhaps I didn't explain very well: it's not the ideas, it's the execution that bothers me.

First grade stuff is here [0]. Reading through these ideas, I don't really see anything wrong with them other than the standard is clearly written by a committee and is useless for actually doing anything. Very nebulous language that sounds nice and has some good intentions but isn't concrete, as you said. So, as long as we gear these principles appropriately for the abilities of the kids, we should be fine.

So you have to look at the execution. Which is most visible in the avalanche of "look at this bullshit worksheet my kid brought home today" posts that angry parents put up. I think those speak for themselves. As I said, they're often so arbitrary that they make little sense.

[0]: http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/1/introduction/

I agree that the execution of the curriculum has been lousy! But we shouldn't confuse the Common Core Standards with the curriculum. I've actually been pondering this for the last little while- I think most states are paying gobs of cash money to the textbook industry to develop their curriculum and tests. The textbook industry is likely purposefully screwing it all up- they then orchestrate a PR campaign to blame it all on the Common Core Standards, to avoid having any blame on themselves. Best part? When the states decide to ditch it all and start over- guess who gets the contracts to redo the tests/curriculum! Brilliant bit of evil doing on the part of the scum suckers!

Ah, yes, the standards and the curriculum are not the same (just as my engineering schematics are not my system).

I, too, have been thinking about this a lot. My perspective is as a brand new dad who is sitting here looking at his 11 day old son and wondering how best to educate him. The standards aren't the curriculum, but as far as my son is concerned, what's the difference? It's all a big ball of nastiness that I don't want to expose him to. My wife and I are looking into homeschooling or private education to avoid Common Core and the rest of the insanity that is prevalent in public schools.

Regarding [0], The reference to `==` vs `===` in javascript seems like mad trolling.

If you're trying to explain this stuff to a general audience, the semantics of Javascript are probably not your best choice with regards to accessibility.

I don't understand why the conclusion of [0] would make your blood boil. She isn't saying "accept what I am saying because I know best." She devoted an an entire article explaining the rationale behind why the student was marked wrong and why it order matters in understanding the concept. She only devotes a couple of lines saying that you should understand what is being taught before jumping all over the teachers.

Because it's an appeal to authority.

"I know it’s frustrating but respect the teachers. They are qualified experts on child education. They have the best intentions for the students in mind. This teacher made a decision based off a lot more information about the student and class setting than we can tell from a photo. We don’t have to agree with it, but we can respect it." ...Why, exactly? Because they're experts?

That's hardly redeemed by the following, "If you are confused, ask them why they did something before you discredit a teacher on the internet."

I don't see it as an appeal to authority so much as an appeal to understand that the decisions are "based off a lot more information about the student and class setting than we cal tell from a photo."

But that's all most parents are ever going to see.

I have had coworkers, all degreed electrical engineers, show me some of their children's homework and ask me to figure it out, because they couldn't. Similarly, many existing teachers weren't trained in any of this, just told to go do it.

The ideas behind common core are not bad ideas, but the execution has been woeful.

Frankly it comes across not as learning buy obeying. You want to turn kids off permanently to learning just keep this up. The simple fact is not all kids are equal nor do they come from the same environment.

In US public schools, teachers are graded against hard milestones. If the kids in your classroom do not demonstrate "mastery" of this set of material, then you are a horrible teacher.

Never mind if a child comes in severely behind in reading or math skills and you spend much of the year working to improve those skills. Most teachers actually can't, now, because their state mandates exactly how they will progress through the curriculum. Schools require teachers to file lesson plans. Don't follow the exact content of that lesson plan on a given day, because you find you need to cover something in more detail or cover something the kids already should know, but don't? You might be formally reprimanded if your administration finds out.

My own mother, a career high school economics, accounting, and high-risk (meaning kids whose parents were extremely poor/in jail/other combinations of bad home situations) teacher, always said, "I am here to teach kids, not subjects."

Stuff like this is entirely arbitrary:

> Notice that the second problem is marked incorrect as well. Why is it important that 4 x 6 is 4 rows of 6, instead of 6 rows of 4? Not only does this adhere to the definition, it also teaches students the correct order for diagramming matrices, which is rows times columns.

This sort of slavish devotion to arbitrary conventions is really tiresome, and I think it promotes the wrong sort of thinking about math.

Every time I see one of those questions going around like "4+8÷3(5)=?", it drives me nuts. People look at these equations and point to rules taught in school, or examples in textbooks. They see math as a set of rules, rather than a means of communicating. The fact is, an equation should never be written that way, because as shown by all the arguments about it, the intent of the author is not understood by all readers.

The problem is that these sorts of questions just demand that students mechanically follow a bunch of rules.

Very well said. This is the sort of thing that drives me crazy.

Respect the Teachers. They are qualified experts on child education. They have the best intentions for the students in mind.

As a parent who has had to deal with these "experts" for years, I can't help rolling my eyes at this nonsense. Respect the teachers? I certainly respect many individual teachers, some of whom are wonderful, but this is a demand that we respect the special expertise of a group that pays politicians enormous sums of money to block any attempt at evaluating that expertise.

I have respect for groups of experts that vigorously weed out all but the top performers from their own ranks and willingly submit themselves to external competition to demonstrate their expertise, not those whose policy instead is to pay lawmakers to prevent anyone from removing the poor performers and to outlaw competitive threats to their monopoly.

I wonder what that external competition would look like? More charter/private schools with vouchers?