The Dad Who Wrote a Check Using “Common Core” Math Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About

[HuckleB]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/09/21/the-dad-who-wrote-a-check-using-common-core-math-doesnt-know-what-hes-talking-about/

"...

He didn’t actually send the check to the school, but the post struck a nerve. It’s been shared more than 25,000 times as of this writing and a whole bunch of articles have been written about it. Herrmann is already scheduled to appear on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning.

But does he have a point?

Not at all. Instead of trying to figure out what his child was learning, Herrmann did what so many parents do these days: He complained about something he doesn’t understand.

...

The problem with the method people like Herrmann learned is that it didn’t work when the math got harder. Strong math students find ways around that, but many students just give up on math altogether.

..."


------------------------------------------


In other words, this was more reactionary nonsense. Ugh.

Oh, hi!

[SidDithers]

1. DU rec...nt

Sid

[gollygee]

2. I'll give this a huge rec

I see my kids' homework and I'm amazed at how much sense this style of math teaching makes. I have no idea why we were taught to simply memorize stuff. The numerical system is built on tens, and now kids are being taught with a system based on tens, and people act like that's crazy.

[HuckleB]

3. Thanks, and good points!

[Dorian Gray]

18. It makes it more conceptual

I'm currently sending my daughter to a montessori school. It goes up to middle school, and the math there is more tactile and conceptual than the math we learned growing up. I love the difference. Common Core tries to make it more conceptual for the kids, so they understand what and why they need to do certain things. It's not rote learning. Parents are uncomfortable with it because they are not familiar with it.

My only problem with common core is when the teachers are not trained properly. I assume when my child joins the public school system in a few years, we are going to flow into the math quite easily.

[Orrex]

20. I'm struck that we're so eager to declare the system a success

The teachers must not be trained properly, and the parents must not understand it.

Why must that be the case? On what basis do we conclude that teachers and parents are failing while Common Core must be a success?

[Dorian Gray]

22. As you may have read

I send my child to a different school. Different math. I think it's still out there whether common core (math) will be a successful curriculum. But what it attempts to do is conceptualize math so it's more understandable to students. That is not a bad thing.

And yes, I speak for myself and my friends who I've discussed this with. It's different than how we've learned it, which is why it seems so... uncomfortable.

I have problems with some curriculums in public education (as I do in private and parochial schools). The focus on testing, however, is more problematic. Teachers are training and providing common core instruction. My good friend (a public school 3rd grade teacher) loves common core math and speaks highly of it. I know other friends who are more iffy. But the most common complaint amongst all groups is how do you test properly for an understanding of conceptualized mathematics? And some kids who are quick at grasping concepts may naturally skip steps in figuring out maths problems, and they can be penalized for that, too.

I've never declared common core a success. It's the evaluation of a child's knowledge (testing) where I think the biggest problems lie in this type of instruction.

[Orrex]

24. Whoa--I think you just hit the bullseye

It's the evaluation of a child's knowledge (testing) where I think the biggest problems lie in this type of instruction.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

In fact, this may underlie my suspicion about Common Core, in that it was rolled out in the same package of standardized testing that's now plaguing public education.

"Here, you're now required to use this new system regardless of your objections, and to prove that it works you're going to be subjected to this new kind of testing."

Now, my suspicions are far from the sole basis for my objection, but it would be naive of me to pretend that they have no place in it.

And some kids who are quick at grasping concepts may naturally skip steps in figuring out maths problems, and they can be penalized for that, too.

I think that's kind of my deal. I'm no ace when it comes to higher math, but I'm a freaking wizard at arithmetic, and I believe that my intuitive method aligns pretty well with the "make a ten" strategy. I'm still not sure that my technique is a good instructional method or that it's the best model for all kids, but I have to admit that it has worked for me after the basic now-passe math skills were in place.


Anyway, thanks for a terrific post. Very clear, compact and insightful.

[Dorian Gray]

27. I'm glad we found common ground!

Education fascinates me. As a mother and former teacher, I think about curriculum and schooling a lot.

[underpants]

4. I've seen it on FB a few times

I understand it now. Completely. I knew the father was being pigheaded. Now I inderstand the base ten thing. My wife and I basically already figured that out for ourselves as we grew up (we are both considered math whizzes) and we both tend to add from left to right. It's just how we learned to understand it for ourselves.

[erpowers]

5. Figured As Much

When I first read about this story I figured this guy was not telling the whole story. I agree with the author of the article, if the father had a hard time helping his son with the math problems he should have just gone to the teacher and asked the teacher to explain the problems. I figured the father was a person who had not tried to understand common core math.

[Codeine]

6. I hate the newer math methods and techniques

because they're alien to my old brain, but they seem to be effective tools for my children, both of whom are gratifyingly comfortable and skilled in that area.

[HuckleB]

8. It's good to try to figure them out, though.

It's not quite as painful as running, but both make me feel good afterward.

[Orrex]

7. When Wall Street and NASA use Common Core math, I'll believe that it's a better system.

Until then, it's a product designed to generate profit while frustrating children.

[HuckleB]

9. And your proof for this assertion is...?

It doesn't seem to follow the discussion and explanation of the math in the piece in the OP.

[Orrex]

11. Three things, with a post script

First, I will offer my "proof" once I see the "proof" that Common Core is indeed the world's absolute most bestest system ever, as is asserted by its proponents.

Second, direct observation. I've sat in on numerous classes and witnessed children struggling with the concept, generally in exactly the way that the now-maligned father describes. That is, why turn a simple math problem into three simultaneous math problems?

Look, I get the "make a ten" thing, because I've been doing that for decades on my own without realizing, and ultimately it's quite handy with larger numbers once you get the hang of it.

But I dispute the idea that Common Core is the best or most efficient way of stuffing this information into children's skulls.

Third, it's a mistake to dismiss this as a matter of stubborn old dogs simply unwilling/unable to learn new tricks. Time is already at a premium for many families, and a great many children do not enjoy the luxury of two fully engaged parents with the resources to assist their children with their homework, especially when it's a system utterly alien to parents who probably don't, in general, have degrees in math or education. Why create an obstacle to parental involvement?


In addition, that whole "and the reason for X is...?" is the most unctuous way to ask a question in the history of human interaction. A pox on you, sir.

[HuckleB]

13. Who said it was "the best system."

A kid struggling to learn is not a bad thing, in and of itself. Kids have struggled with math for all time.

Interestingly, part of the argument for common core math is that it's working toward an understanding of the material, rather than "stuffing information" as you state.

While families may struggle to engage with their kids, that's not a reason to simply do things the old-school way, ad nauseum.

Your last line is pure hooey, and you know it.

[Orrex]

15. Clearly that was hyperbole

Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 10:07 AM - Edit history (3)

No one ever said it was "the best system."

Obviously. You know me well enough to understand my tone. Give me enough credit to accept that I know how to exaggerate for rhetorical purposes.

However, Common Core is put forth as the only acceptable system for public schools that receive federal funding as well as the current (though dubious) gold standard against which educational philosophies are judged.

A kid struggling to learn is not a bad thing, in and of itself. Kids have struggled with math for all time.

Well no kidding. But if Common Core is to be backed by the full faith & credit of Arne Duncan and the fed, then it's not unreasonable to demand a pretty high standard of proof before we put all of our educational eggs in that basket. Certainly a higher standard than "Kids have struggled with math for all time." In essence, that's the same as saying "our system doesn't suck any worse than the system that we're forcing you to replace."

Interestingly, part of the argument for common core math is that it's working toward an understanding of the material, rather than "stuffing information" as you state.

Yeah, that's the same pitch made by the charter school that aggressively sought to muscle in on my town's already impoverished school district. There's lots of talk of "synergy" and "synthesis" and other lovely buzzwords, but I'll still withhold my glowing endorsement until we have more concrete results.

When we look at schools around the world that out-perform ours, do we conclude that Common Core is the reason behind their superiority? Or do other factors contribute, such as smaller class sizes, more generous funding, economic stability among the student body, etc?

In short, Common Core is lauded as the solution for a problem that might very well not be paramount in public schools. I don't even care if it generates a profit for someone, as long as it works as advertised, but this has yet to be demonstrated. I would prefer that the other issues (class size, funding, etc.) be addressed before we go fixing a system that wasn't shown to be broken in the first place.

Your last line is pure hooey, and you know it.

I may despise the unctuous way you asked that question, but I will defend until the rhetorical death your right to ask it in that unctuous way.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Meh - when you make a bald assertion like "it's just designed to generate profit"

you ought to be willing to back it up (which you haven't even attempted to, so far - you've just given reasons why you don't think it's a good educational move). And you certainly shouldn't whinge when someone points out you've given no evidence. No, asking "your proof for this assertion is ...?" is not 'unctuous'.

[Orrex]

16. Fair enough. I clarified that objection in my other reply to HuckleB

I corrected my objection because even if profit is a motive, that of course doesn't mean that a thing is necessarily bad. However, it is still reasonable to demand results whether or not profit is a factor.

No, asking "your proof for this assertion is ...?" is not 'unctuous'.

Indeed asking the question is not unctuous at all, but the format of the question is.

In face-to-face interaction, that format of question tends to be patronizing and diminishing tone, implying resentment or inconvenience rather than an invitation to engage with the topic. I have never heard that format of question except in exactly that tone, a la "And your reason for calling the help desk is...?" or "And you wanted to talk to the doctor why...?"

I would welcome a contradictory example from anywhere in audible discourse.


However, I know that HuckleB didn't mean anything by it, hence my jest.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. I'd dispute that it's unctuous in any way, pretty much ever

'Unctuous' means oily - ingratiating. "Your proof for that is ..." might be asked sarcastically, condescendingly, or dismissively, but I can't think how it would be unctuous.

[Orrex]

31. Well, I was going for definition 2

"Having a greasy or soapy feel."

Slimy, unpleasant. Like that.

[WestCoastLib]

10. They do...

The goal of common core math is to give kids a broader understanding of math concepts, to learn to be able to manipulate equations, that they will need to be able to function in high math environments when they get to Algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus, etc.

Some people intuitively understand about math, that the numbers can be manipulated to quickly get to the answers you need and even when taught through wrote memorization, still approach math that way. Others do not understand that about math, and need to have the formulas they were given to work through a problem. The methods being taught are to help those in the latter group to think more like those in the former group.

Those people are NASA, JPL and such that are capable of manipulating the math needed to figure out how to land a robot on a comet, are also in the former category...I.E. - they are "using common core math"

[Orrex]

17. An interesting response

I confess that I've never seen a problem in astrophysics solved by sketching out a box sectioned into ten sub-boxes with three of them shaded, but I'm not up on the latest journals. (pause for laughter)

The skill that you're describing makes sense to me--as I mentioned, I've done the same thing for years without articulating that way. But as I've also mentioned, I dispute that this is the best way to train children to develop the skill from the outset, and I've seen nothing to suggest that it the best system outside of aggressive marketing materials.

Even numerous elementary-level teachers I know aren't thrilled with it. Are they all subversive traditionalists who refuse to change, or might they have some insight in the education of children that leads them to that impression?

[Dr. Strange]

25. See...THIS is key:

I've done the same thing for years without articulating that way.

I've done a lot of that myself, largely because I developed a sense of numeracy through the years. But there are a LOT of students who were taught the traditional approach to addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division--and there was no numeracy that went along with it. It was all about following the algorithm to get the answer and don't worry about how or why it works. And then they struggle with fractions (hell, I've seen college students struggle with fractions!) and algebra is just a huge mystery with its factoring and whatnot.

One of the greatest things that just might come out of Common Core is that students might be able to explain the math that they're doing. I've seen a lot of students who can solve just about any calculus problem, but their solution is just a jumble of equations and numbers; if you ask them to explain their solution in writing, they give you a blank stare. They can explain it verbally--but the thought of combining math and writing is just foreign to them. One major focus of Common Core is having students explain their thinking in words. A lot of parents are confused by this because they've never had to do it. Which is quite unfortunate, in my opinion. And I'm a smart guy, so my opinion is important.

[LostOne4Ever]

12. The one about the engineer was even dumber

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Guy claims he passed Diffy-Q and was an engineer and couldn't even solve a simple problem on 100's, 10's, and 1's units. It was a painfully easy.

I would post a link but I can find nothing but far right sources.

Regardless, he needs to get a refund on his money from whatever diploma mill he bought his degree from. [/font]

[Orrex]

19. I think that the problem is the method

Obviously the problem is "painfully easy" on its own, but forcing it through the required hoops adds a pointless layer of complexity for children just introduced to the concept. Why create this barrier without a clear and demonstrable payoff? Is there a clear and demonstrable payoff?

I'm amazed at how enthusiastically people support this still-in-its-infancy system with comparatively little objective evidence. What is behind this willingness to trust?

At what point might we potentially conclude that Common Core is no better than its predecessor system? What if we determine that it's worse?

[LostOne4Ever]

21. I don't think it is that we are enthusiastic to accept it

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]But rather, that we want objective evidence and not anecodotal stories from people who are afraid of change and are trying to call it a failure before it is even tried.

It is kinda like the Iran deal where republicans were calling it a bad deal before even reading it.

I would be more than willing to scrap it if real evidence is provided that it is not working. But all these anecdotes from people who are so ideologically opposed to it that they are going out of their way to manufacture BS to call it a failure only obscure any real evidence.

Again, if an electrical engineer can't figure out that they want them to use units...he either got his degree from a diploma mill or didn't even try and understand what they wanted him to do.

Edit: The pay off in this case is knowing multiple ways of solving a problem in both traditional and non-traditional ways. The more tools you have, in theory, the better you are for facing whatever problem is thrown at you. [/font]

[Orrex]

23. An objection to the method is a reasonable objection

It is kinda like the Iran deal where republicans were calling it a bad deal before even reading it.

Or it's like asking us to accept that the TPP is terrific without showing us the results. It's a leap of faith that I'm not eager to make.

I would be more than willing to scrap it if real evidence is provided that it is not working. But all these anecdotes from people who are so ideologically opposed to it that they are going out of their way to manufacture BS to call it a failure only obscure any real evidence.

Fair enough, but every response by its supporters is to belittle the parents (as you've done) or the teachers who don't swallow it whole.

I'm not ideologically opposed to it, by the way; that accusation is a rhetorical trick intended to put its recepient on the defensive. On the contrary, I would be happy to accept it if I had good reason to believe in its efficacy. I simply do not find the supporting evidence convincing as yet, I don't see the results among students as conclusive, and I don't see why teachers should be discredited for expressing reservations about it.


As the upstart system, the burden is on Common Core to demonstrate that it works; its skeptics are not obligated to prove that it doesn't work nor to accept on faith that it works as advertised.

[LostOne4Ever]

26. Was it a reasonable objection though?

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]What is so hard about breaking down a problem into easier parts to solve it.

The problem was:

427-316

and they wanted him to do it by units of 100, then 10, then 1.

316=100+100+100+10+1+1+1+1+1+1

So

427-100=327
327-100=227
227-100=127

127-10=117

117-1=116
116-1=115
115-1=114
114-1=113
113-1=112
112-1=111

427-327=111

What was so hard about that? It teaches the kid an alternative way of solving it and teaches them about units at the same time.[/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Or it's like asking us to accept that the TPP is terrific without showing us the results. It's a leap of faith that I'm not eager to make.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I can agree with that. What is important is good data, and until it is given neither the hypothesis nor the null hypothesis can be accepted.[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Fair enough, but every response by its supporters is to belittle the parents (as you've done) or the teachers who don't swallow it whole.

I'm not ideologically opposed to it, by the way; that accusation is a rhetorical trick intended to put its recepient on the defensive. On the contrary, I would be happy to accept it if I had good reason to believe in its efficacy. I simply do not find the supporting evidence convincing as yet, I don't see the results among students as conclusive, and I don't see why teachers should be discredited for expressing reservations about it.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Okay, to start with, unless you are the person I am talking about or the father mentioned in the OP's article, I never accused you of being ideologically opposed to it. Nor did I directly mention any teachers. Nor did I try and discredit every critique of the system.


To be clear: That reference was aimed at those using anecdotal evidence for ideological reason like the electrical engineer father I am talking about and the father the OP was discussing.

Neither, so much as took 5 mins to try and figure out what it was that was trying to be taught. This is, in particular, obvious with the father who is an engineer. If they passed differential equations then that should have been cake. Their opposition can either be attributed to not trying or lack of competence. I figure accusing them of not really trying would be the more desirable outcome.

Further, by making their comments public, these parents invite criticism upon themselves. Similarly, by posting here I invited criticism of myself by you and others. The engineer, specifically, made his educational background an issue, and as such he should expect comment.[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]As the upstart system, the burden is on Common Core to demonstrate that it works; its skeptics are not obligated to prove that it doesn't work nor to accept on faith that it works as advertised.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Completely agree and no disagreement from me here.

That said, if they do choose to submit evidence (thus taking on the colossal task of proving a negative), it become subject to critique, criticism and burden of proof. Also, if they present criticism it must be logically sound and well reasoned.

For example, In a debate on the existence of gravity you can't object to its existence simply by hollering out "tacos."

The father in question went from simply saying "I am not convinced," to "this is dumb and here is why..." [/font]

[PowerToThePeople]

30. 427-316

427-6=421
421-10=411
411-300=111

Or, in other connotation:

427
-316
111

Oh, I also 4.0 diff. eq. during my engineering curriculum.

[X_Digger]

29. They payoff (if I understand it correctly) is that it primes you to think about math as math..

.. not as a rote set of actions to reach an answer.

Nobody does math the rote way after they leave school. They do it the common core way (minus the visual aids.) Heck, I'm sure cashiers do it when giving you your change for coffee. The ... 'and 5 makes ten' bit.

[Orrex]

32. I never did math "the rote way" in school, either, and that was a long time ago.

Sure, we learned multiplication tables, but that seems on par with learning the alphabet.

I don't believe that rote memorization, such as the type showcased in Pink Floyd's film The Wall, has had much traction in the US in at least five decades.

Also, Common Core has been in practice for, what, half a decade? When do we get to see the amazing results promised by this revolutionary system? Are we leading the world with math genius who can "make a ten" out of 7 and 6?


What's the demonstrable payoff, outside of the marketing brochures and sales presentations?

[X_Digger]

34. Talk to a student really struggling in algebra or geometry.

A lot of those students? Never 'got' the thinking in math bit that you did. The ability to convert a multiplication problem into an area grid, and using the associative property really helps when you get to variables.

Variables to a person who's only done the algorithmic shortcut are a heavy concept. To a person who's used to asking, 'what number plus this one equals {something}'? Are a cake walk. Their brains are already doing variables, they just don't know it yet.

Yeah, if you expect your kid to do no more math than make change at a McJob, not knowing the 'why' of math is fine.

The math methods in common core are 50+ years old. They've become popularized due to common core.

[Orrex]

36. Again, let's see the demonstrable results

Where is this mathematical utopia in which children can do more than make change? That's especially relevant because you can easily find threads here on DU wherein people decry the high schoolers working a till but who can't make change. Can Common Core can't be failing these poor youths? Say it ain't so!


Forgive me, but you're catapulting the same propaganda offered by the institutional devotees and vested interests in the Common Core system.

Show me the successes and not the slogans, please.

[X_Digger]

37. Kids are doing algebra in the 6th and 7th grade. How's that for concrete?

Last summer I volunteered with a local middle/high school teaching rudimentary programming, a 'code camp' kind of thing. We had middle schoolers and younger high schoolers. It was interesting seeing some of the younger students doing better than the high schoolers because they picked up on the math so quickly.

One example was an app that we wrote that compares two prices / quantity to see which is a better deal- you know, 24 pack of sodas for $6.99 or a 12 pack for $3.99. Simple fraction comparison. You'd be amazed how many of the middle schoolers picked it up as compared to the high schoolers.

[Orrex]

38. Half a grade sooner? Amazing!

Kids are doing algebra in the 6th and 7th grade. How's that for concrete?

All kids across the curriculum, or a small group of outliers? And would this early algebra have been impossible under the previous system? How do we know? Was it even attempted? With what result?

It was interesting seeing some of the younger students doing better than the high schoolers because they picked up on the math so quickly.

Really? How did you determine this to be the cause, exactly?

Would we see a similar benefit in kids who don't have an interest in--and likely an aptitude for--computer programming?

And what about the kids who aren't benefiting in the way you describe? Do they not exist, or are they unimportant?

Sorry, but you've offered a selective example of a tiny subsection of a non-representative sample. This tiny snapshot is insufficient except to persuade someone who's already on board.


I'm getting the sense that Common Core is an article of faith, in no small part because the objective evidence is either scant or altogether absent. Everything I've heard in favor of the system has come from someone who believes in it, who's contractually obligated to support it, or who stands to benefit financially from it.

[X_Digger]

39. I had a cross section of kids who had common core and 'new math' (the way we learned).

They were all motivated to learn- this was a program that they had to apply for, and get a recommendation from a teacher.

As to how I knew many of the younger students were doing better? They were the ones putting their hands up when I asked questions about how to solve a particular problem. Their older peers were also the ones struggling as I walked around helping them discover the answers.

The ones 'not getting it' just took longer, they weren't ignored. If you'd like to argue with the positions that you want me to have, you can go find someone else to talk to. My words come out just fine, thanks, I don't need your fingers trying to stuff new ones into my mouth.

I consider it axiomatic that having a deeper understanding of a subject is a good thing. Perhaps you disagree. If just enough information to pass the test is good enough for you, then have at it.

[Skittles]

33. I've always used that method when doing math in my head

just never on paper - did not NEED it on paper

[X_Digger]

35. You 'think in math', not the algorithm. Me too. n/t