Is Common Core Math Good or Bad?

[Truthy]

Completely disagree. You don't need to be able to calculate the exact resultant force a bunch of electrons will have on a single proton to be able to understand the principle that positive and negative charges attract each other, and that like charges repel for example. You can show this with a simple demonstration with static electricity (rubbing a balloon on a woolly jumper for example). You don't need to know or do any maths to understand what is happening. That's qualitative and if it's not physics I don't know what else you'd decribe it as.

You think kids don't do stuff like that throughout elementary school in the US? Well, they absolutely do. And that's great. It's fun for kids, they get to see a cool demonstration, they learn that electrostatics is a thing, and some other cool factoids. But I'm saying none of the alluring benefits of physics education actually kick in until the rubber meets the road in high school or college.

What are the alluring benefits? Well, let me back up to explain why I'm even bringing up the "hard math." If you've been in the American education system anytime recently, you'll have been exposed an endless slew educators and videos and posters singing the praises of physics education. In particular, they'll talk about how physics improves problem solving and critical thinking and it'll fix the supposed "STEM gap" the US has with other countries (I call bs on that whole narrative, but that's a different discussion). That's lovely feel-good rhetoric that sells lesson plans well enough, but one begins to wonder what even is the mechanism for all these benefits? Then when you take these classes you realize they are talking about physics education for high schoolers and college students and how physics skills transfer to algebra classes, geometry classes, statistics classes, calculus classes, and engineering classes. Now, strictly speaking, what is physics education even doing that's of value for students taking these classes? First, it's teaching them the conceptual and mathematical tools they need for their other classes. Second, it's improving their math skills because a class like AP physics will make AP calculus a walk in the park. Third, the benefits are probably highly exaggerated/misunderstood because they are super confounded by the selection effects of the students themselves. Fourth, notice how every discipline ever has made the exact same claims about how their field is the panacea to turn close "the gap" with Finland and equip students with "21st century skills"? One starts to become skeptical...

So can we extrapolate backwards to reap lots of benefits for first graders? Maybe a little bit. But what are you even teaching them in way of generalizable skills that they aren't already learning? Is it good to teach first graders some basic physics? Yeah, maybe. Probably more fun than most alternatives. But I doubt it matters if they wait until high school.

 

[Farm Boy]

Outside play is a six year old's physics. At least when we aren't ruled by fear and judgement. Lessons in momentum and impulse are highly effective when accented by pain.

 

[Truthy]

Outside play is a six year old's physics. At least when we aren't ruled by fear and judgement. Lessons in momentum and pulse are highly effective when accented by pain.

I mean seriously, you can just as easily sell "just let the kids run around outside longer" as the silver bullet. Hey look, Finland lets their kids play outside a lot. They don't even have kindergarten, kids just horse around for another year. And then you can frame it in the usual education policy lingo: "cross-national research reveals a strong relationship between playtime, GDP per capita, and equitable enrollment in STEM degrees. Moreover, many psychologists theorize that a complex, but poorly understood process, process called so-shah-ly-zation is crucial for neural development!"

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You think kids don't do stuff like that throughout elementary school in the US? Well, they absolutely do. And that's great. It's fun for kids, they get to see a cool demonstration, they learn that electrostatics is a thing, and some other cool factoids. But I'm saying none of the alluring benefits of physics education actually kick in until the rubber meets the road in high school or college.

I wouldn't have a clue what goes on in elementary school in the US. I don't even know what "elementary school" is. I'm just saying that I think all that stuff:

a) is physics
b) is useful to learn about
c) probably does help with critical thinking, or at least logical analysis
d) doesn't require maths

And more of it's going to help more.

Doing maths isn't really critical thinking, it's just (literally) number crunching. It's what you're applying it to and how you decide to apply it that's the key.

 

[Truthy]

You can say all of that, except (a) about any other topic.

Also, I'm not saying doing math is the same as critical thinking or problem solving.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You can say all of that, except (a) about any other topic.

Also, I'm not saying doing math is the same as critical thinking or problem solving.

Well... I'll accept many other topics, but certainly not any other topic. But just as I wasn't making any sort of proclamation about the US school system works, I always wasn't saying that only physics is useful to learn about. Not really sure what else you want to claim I am saying?

 

[Truthy]

Physics education is an American national obsession that goes back to Sputnik. So maybe there's a cultural context here that doesn't make sense in the UK. However, I will make a proclamation about part of the US school system working: high school physics classes in the US work. They're good, they're rigorous, and they prepare kids to go into STEM. But they also teach a very particular subject matter to a particular cohort of kids and I doubt it matters much whether we beef up physics education for younger kids. It's very hard for me to understand how the particular important skills they teach high schoolers are important for every student or for kids earlier in their education.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Teaching kids to convert bases early (which is apparently part of this common core business) is a very useful thing. Not because kids need to convert bases regularly because they don't, and neither do adults, for that matter. But by teaching them to convert bases the existence of bases is rooted deep. Later in life if they do enter some field where thinking in a base other than ten is really useful it will come far more easily to them. I can be looking at what I KNOW is a string of hexadecimal numbers but still when I see 58 I reflexively think of it in terms of a base ten number and I know that slows me down. If I actually worked in computer sciences I'm sure I would acclimate more and more so it would slow me down less and less, but I doubt that I would ever completely overcome it.

 

[Farm Boy]

I mean seriously, you can just as easily sell "just let the kids run around outside longer" as the silver bullet. Hey look, Finland lets their kids play outside a lot. They don't even have kindergarten, kids just horse around for another year. And then you can frame it in the usual education policy lingo: "cross-national research reveals a strong relationship between playtime, GDP per capita, and equitable enrollment in STEM degrees. Moreover, many psychologists theorize that a complex, but poorly understood process, process called so-shah-ly-zation is crucial for neural development!"

Here to save STEM!

Spoiler :

Edit: You know, now I'm all sad. I had totally forgotten the biggest cowboy hero of my mom and dad's childhood made a huge deal out of making his bullets as expensive as possible to demonstrate a point about justice and violence. >.<

 

[Birdjaguar]

Hi HO Silver!

 

[Truthy]

Teaching kids to convert bases early (which is apparently part of this common core business) is a very useful thing. Not because kids need to convert bases regularly because they don't, and neither do adults, for that matter. But by teaching them to convert bases the existence of bases is rooted deep. Later in life if they do enter some field where thinking in a base other than ten is really useful it will come far more easily to them. I can be looking at what I KNOW is a string of hexadecimal numbers but still when I see 58 I reflexively think of it in terms of a base ten number and I know that slows me down. If I actually worked in computer sciences I'm sure I would acclimate more and more so it would slow me down less and less, but I doubt that I would ever completely overcome it.

Beyond real world uses, I do think it could be pretty useful for helping kids understand how number representations work and maybe that could make them better at thinking about numbers in general, as well as multiplication, etc. What does "110" mean? What if we interpret it differently (ie, in binary)? It seems like that could give kids more "mathematical maturity."

 

[Birdjaguar]

Beyond real world uses, I do think it could be pretty useful for helping kids understand how number representations work and maybe that could make them better at thinking about numbers in general, as well as multiplication, etc. What does "110" mean? What if we interpret it differently (ie, in binary)? It seems like that could give kids more "mathematical maturity."

Non decimal counting systems can be interesting but are pretty esoteric for 90% of the population. Education needs to focus getting fundamental math right first.

 

[Truthy]

Why isn't how we represent numbers part of fundamental math?

 

[Farm Boy]

Familiarity vs competency, I suppose?

 

[rah]

While I agree it would help many really advance, I worry about those that struggle with the basics. Any added complexity might scare them away from math totally thinking they'll never get it. Which is more important?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why isn't how we represent numbers part of fundamental math?

It's not more fundamental when we don't teach the basics necessary to transact business daily or understand the math necessary to be successful in most jobs or jobs in the future.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Non decimal counting systems can be interesting but are pretty esoteric for 90% of the population. Education needs to focus getting fundamental math right first.

Making decimal counting the only counting during the years when our minds are really flexible is what makes non decimal systems "esoteric." The truth is that a whole lot of the trouble kids have when introduced to fractions is rooted in that. Their minds are so geared to base ten that while they understand tenths and hundredths almost intuitively the leap to fourths and sevenths and eighteenths is overwhelming. And you have to admit that people who have an intuitive grasp of fractions have a substantial advantage in day to day life. I submit that a mind introduced to alternative numerical systems when it was young and flexible would not consider them esoteric and would be finding uses for them in every day life that never occur to you or me.

 

[rah]

My fear would be that people would be confused looking at numbers not realizing what they are representing.
Now people assume base 10 unless otherwise noted. Otherwise noted is often overlooked.

 

[Farm Boy]

The money lessons help with that. Quarters and half dollars and dimes and whatnot. Though the douchebag brigade is sort of over cash as an available payment option so maybe that won't last?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The money lessons help with that. Quarters and half dollars and dimes and whatnot. Though the douchebag brigade is sort of over cash as an available payment option so maybe that won't last?

Maybe not. Try to find a kid that is as excited when you give them a quarter as you or I would have been at their age.