Agree that reasoning is important. These worksheets do not demonstrate reasoning. They demonstrate parroting back what the publishers consider to be reasoning. |
That is because the teacher doesn't know how to teach or assess the kind of reasoning involved in such examples. Hardly the books fault. |
You will defend CC to the death. Bless your heart for your loyalty. |
to the contrary, I couldn't care less about common core, and I hate Everyday Math as a whole. I just don't see anything wrong with this particular example in isolation. I am also in a very math heavy field. |
|
http://michellemalkin.com/2014/10/09/look-whos-data-mining-your-toddlers/
More Common Core "Big Brother". |
Tea Party congressmen and senators are the ones fighting. Elect them and you will see the problem solved. |
Not true. My college age son is still doung great in calculus, etc. He is dysgraphic so CC nath would be horrid for him |
|
You know, there are two approaches: attack the disability or go with the strengths.
My personal philosophy: use both. Common Core outlines a specific route--not good. |
Malkin is whip smart. Sorry to disappoint |
Common Core doesn't outline any route. It is a list of standards. The route that is used to meet the standards, aka implementation, is not dictated by the standards. I find it hard to believe that so many allegedly intelligent people fail to grasp this simple concept. |
Common Core outlines specific "critical thinking" in math. Look at the earlier discussion on this thread. Look at some of the samples in the news. |
| Common core will make everyone unemployable |
Yes, specific "critical thinking", like these second-grade math standards: CCSS.Math.Content.2.NBT.A.1 Understand that the three digits of a three-digit number represent amounts of hundreds, tens, and ones; e.g., 706 equals 7 hundreds, 0 tens, and 6 ones. Understand the following as special cases: CCSS.Math.Content.2.NBT.A.1.a 100 can be thought of as a bundle of ten tens — called a "hundred." CCSS.Math.Content.2.NBT.A.1.b The numbers 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 refer to one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine hundreds (and 0 tens and 0 ones). If you think that these standards are bad, then please explain why. If you think that these standards are ok, but there are other standards that are not ok, then please provide an example of those standards. |
Oh, you're back! First, these "standards" are not consistent. Read them. Some are measurable, some are not. |
I've read them, thanks. Could you please provide some examples of some standards that you think are measurable and some standards that you think are not measurable? |