Hacker News Reader

Comment by noobermin | Hacker News Reader

I think the thing that distresses me the most is that any attempt that has been made to alleviate the situation (like the common core) has been stamped "big government" by people who seem to _not_ understand the urgency of this situation.

I'm out of ideas. What do we do?

EDIT: added a not. Wow did that change what I meant to say.

View on HN

It'll really require a culture shift, starting with the parents. I don't know much about school systems in other parts of the country, but going to school in Maryland there wasn't a lack of mathematical support and teaching. The kids who excelled and wanted to push themselves got all the support they needed. And usually it was kids with intelligent parents that pushed the importance of education and mathematics on them that did well. I'd bet the top performers in American schools are basically on par with top performers in other countries. The will and determination to push kids into that top performer bracket isn't there, even amongst the well-off.

You can force stricter math curriculum onto students, but all it will accomplish is more students failing and their parents complaining that they are pushing the kids too hard. And a lot of those parents have good paying jobs that don't require them to even remember algebra... so they probably don't have any respect for the subject. That type of mentality is endemic in America. Naturally it's going to get passed on to the kids.

It depends on when you start to force it down their throats :) The earlier in their education that they are pushed to reason more rigorously (again, within reason) the easier it will be for them to accept mire rigorous education earlier. Still, I really agree with you though that a cultural shift will be best, but I'm not sure how this ever will happen.

Part of the problem is that a subset of the right wing wants privatization. In order to encourage privatization, you actually want the public sector to be as bad as possible so there's greater outcry for subsidized privately-run alternatives.

A fair-sized proportion of the right wing (loosely defined to include libertarians also) favors privatization. It is fair to say that some of them want to believe that the public sector is as bad as possible. It is unlikely that any are deliberately making it worse.

Have you read through common core? That crap is confusing.

What? I just looked it up[1]. The common core math standard looks very readable and reasonable, and it’s not even very big (93 pages). Is there anything in particular that you found confusing, inappropriate, or overly prescriptive?

For example, in Grade 7, there are about 50 requirements, one of which is “Use proportional relationships to solve multistep ratio and percent problems. Examples: simple interest, tax, markups and markdowns, gratuities and commissions, fees, percent increase and decrease, percent error.” That sounds like an appropriate thing to learn in 7th grade.

Edit: In fact, most of the time when I am reading the standard I just nod and think “yep, that’s probably about when I learned that concept” when I grew up in California, although in a few cases (e.g. using scatterplots and proving Pythagorean theorem in 8th grade) I don’t think I learned them until high school.

[1] http://www.corestandards.org/Math/

Common core invents new arithmetic techniques that no one knows. It's the worst idiocy of reinventing the world.

Is that anywhere in the standard itself, or are you criticizing a particular textbook?

It sounds like the complaints my colleagues keep levelling against common core. And to a one, every example they found came from textbooks or blog posts, not the standard.

[Citation needed]

Citation needed.

As far as I can see common core defines standards of ability, rather than teaching methods. There are a bunch of awful, dreadful textbooks that claim 'common core compatibility' but which ignorant people conflate with being part of a common core syllabus, as if they are approved/endorsed by the same people who drafted the Common Core standards, whereas in reality textbook approval seems to be a an extremely politicized and corrupt process carried out by the individual states. I wish there were a single federalized syllabus, because it's not like Math works one way in Connecticut or Rhode Island and another in Texas or Arkansas.

Your argument is like saying Windows is terrible because you can find some poorly-programmed Windows software. Flaws in an individual textbook or exam paper are not the same thing as flaws in the standard they claim to adhere to. Perhaps you would like to use the link to the common core standard in the grandparent post to point out examples of what you are talking about.

> I wish there were a single federalized syllabus, because it's not like Math works one way in Connecticut or Rhode Island and another in Texas or Arkansas.

So we can replace 50 extremely politicized and corrupt processes with one massive, impenetrable, extremely politicized, and corrupt process?

Otherwise, I agree. The problems are with implementation, not the standards themselves.

It might be more efficient, and has proven to be so for a bunch of other things. The nature of grade school math is not changing so fast, for example, that we need to constantly rewrite our textbooks.

Common Core is much more legible than the prior standards. That being said, it is a framework and not a solution that should be applied blindly at any opportunity.

One size fits all is surely the answer.

"One size fits all" is the only possible answer when you have multiple, mutually contradictory goals.

The idea that even just one child out of millions might be left out means no answer that treats the problem on an individual, child-by-child basis can ever be considered.

It also rules out anything where one child might get "more" than another. (Never mind that many people are perfectly happy and comfortable despite having gotten less than others.)

The whole point of the common core, from my understanding was to be vague enough to let local governments decide how best to implement it. They were trying to avoid "one size fits all."

Having everyone in the same page with regards to an overall standard seems good in my book.

Mathematics is one of those few areas where there is only one right answer to most problems. You can have different methods of arriving at that answer, but in many cases one method is optimal and can be proven as such.

Mathematics isn't cultural. Numbers and the laws that govern them aren't going to change in response to how people feel about them or who is teaching them. I fail to see the benefit of working without objective criteria in this domain.

This standard isn't one size, its a system of measuring sizes. The size or sizes chosen to fit the particular purpose is an implementation detail. Your argument is like calling all shoe sizes "one size" because there is a standardized, limited range of choices.

Objective standards that come down from on high probably create perverse incentives and do more harm than good.

I think its our job to teach our own kids, if the govt cant do anything because of all the naysayers and doubters then its left to upon the parents.

My parents challenged me in Math at a young age and I was always a step ahead in school.

Also as a nation we need to stop putting everyone on the same playing field. Students will always be left behind lets start focusing on programs that will help the smart and the challenged, not one program for all.

> not one program for all.

It wasn't "one program for all" in any of the public schools I attended in the US. Admittedly, we send everyone to high school (well, offer it, some students fail out early, some are failed by their teachers, others by their family). But once in high school, all 4 states (VA, NC, GA, NV) I'm familiar with (admittedly dated, 90s) had different tracks and graduation requirements. At least two tracks, usually 3 (college prep, honors, vocational; the first two could be considered the same track with honors as a specialization given the overlap in courses).

I dont think common core was around in the 90s. Besides the tracks still share common math requirements. I believe at my school the only difference was you didnt have to take Math your senior year for vocational. (Of course honors/AP would be taking advanced courses).

I was trying to say common core was "one program for all".

That's not helpful for any kids whose parents are bad at math. You're condemning them to a lifetime of ignorance because of their parents' deficiencies.

Tutors, I used them in college once I left my parents house. You can find free tutors on most college campuses for challenging subjects, Math Chemistry etc.

If you are still in high school you can find many online resources to help, Youtube Kahn Academy etc...

Just because you are bad at something doesn't mean you cant find someone to help your kid whether its a relative, neighbor, tutor or old teacher.

Any parent can give encouragement and demand their kid work hard, but a parent without knowledge has no way of assessing whether a tutor or other pedagogical assistant is any good. Try thinking about this in the context of something that you're not good at.

>something that you're not good at.

This was kinda my message but it didnt come out that way. There are resources out there that are sometimes freely available you can use to get better at something you arent good at.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com