• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Take the Common Core 4th grade math test

justabubba said:
very similar to what i experienced in DoD school
54 years ago
then it was called 'new' math
and we were all supposed to go into engineering
- it worked for me
hope it works for today's students

my wife teaches at a school that is 100% subsidized lunch
17% (17 out of a 100 for those who got a low score of the assignment) are on grade level in math and reading
doesn't seem to be working for them
Click to expand...

wait!

17 in 100 are where they are supposed to be?

Working is not the issue here, but how the **** such a failure rate even gets tried?

Imagine now if they were learning to pack parachutes.
 
US Conservative said:
Which is another issue. Part of wisdom is knowing how and where to put effort. I get that there are a few kids who might benefit from thinking about this in a more complex manner, but for the most part why even go there if you dont have to?
Click to expand...

If this Common Core stuff was just considered a tool to be used to help kids who otherwise have problems with math, it wouldn't be so bad. But to replace all other tools with this is making a mistake, I think.

Traditional methods of teaching math should be taught as the basics...Common Core can be introduced to all kids...but only emphasized for those who don't respond to the traditional methods. One size fits all is really not a good way to go.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Yeah, 19, 20, 21 can all be 70.

Rainfall and snow screwed me up at first, make a mistake and think 4" is only going to be 1/4" and you have a problem. One litre is about one US quart, four point 2 to the gallon, five in Imperial gallon.
Click to expand...


I think we could easily convert to celcius, it would just take some getting used to. As far as the rest of the metric system, I work in science (petroleum testing) and we use it exclusively. It took me less than a month to really get used to it, and by years end of using it every day metric comes naturally to me even moreso than the English system (American). It's way more efficient, and we could convert to it within a generation if we really wanted to. Might be harder for those of us who are older, but it would come eventually.
 
Mycroft said:
If this Common Core stuff was just considered a tool to be used to help kids who otherwise have problems with math, it wouldn't be so bad. But to replace all other tools with this is making a mistake, I think.

Traditional methods of teaching math should be taught as the basics...Common Core can be introduced to all kids...but only emphasized for those who don't respond to the traditional methods. One size fits all is really not a good way to go.
Click to expand...

The thing I like about this test (and I did not grow up with this) is the focus is much more on the critical thinking aspect than "guess the correct number." They try to give you scenario's where you aren't just pulling out a calculator, but have to actually think a little bit for yourself.

I didn't grow up with Common Core, I have no idea if I like it or not. I suppose one day when I have children I'll have to help them through it, and I'll get a chance to see much more of what it's about. But critical thinking skills are something that the American education system has lacked. We judge people based on their ability to properly use a calculator, and ultimately I think that's the wrong approach.
 
akrunner88 said:
I think we could easily convert to celcius, it would just take some getting used to. As far as the rest of the metric system, I work in science (petroleum testing) and we use it exclusively. It took me less than a month to really get used to it, and by years end of using it every day metric comes naturally to me even moreso than the English system (American). It's way more efficient, and we could convert to it within a generation if we really wanted to. Might be harder for those of us who are older, but it would come eventually.
Click to expand...

The conversion was considered complete here in five years.

However, some grocery stores still show the imperial price
 
Fearandloathing said:
Yeah, that's a bitch. But 98.6 is 37 dead on. Probably the only metric that tunes out that way.

You don't build much I guess, but when I need a 1/4" screw I want a ****ing 1/4" screw not some stupid 9.4 cm screw, when I want a half inch anything I want a 1/2" whatever not have to remember whether that's a 12 or 13 wrench. Tires drive me nuts, my head can't convert the numbers. But the rest is great, only with metric in distances you have to drive further, but you can go faster. speed limit here is 100.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in some cases the Celsius temp is the decimal, and the Fahrenheit is a nice whole number but its still a bitch.

No doubt its frustrating converting building materials from standard to metric. And with so much being made overseas its probably labeled in both ways.

Even in the shooting sports (one of my hobbies) the problem shows up, with milliradians, yards, meters, inches, etc. The superior system is the metric one, especially for long ranges and with ranging formulas because less conversion must be done, but American ranges are in yards, so unless I want to bring my own (huge) target stands I have to shoot yards. There are similar issues in orienteering (I backpack).

Im a nerd, so Ive recently been calculating via (poor-mans) maneuvering board. Its a way to stay sharp, and not just with math. Plus it kind of combines my interests in history, the military, and shooting. Who does this? :lol:
This type of thing...
artillery.jpg

1. The observer sees a ship that is 5km away at bearing 30 by the rangefinder and compass. Assuming the ship is neither head-on nor in profile, how can the observer calculate speed and the direction of travel of the ship from observation? Assume no readily visible landmarks behind the ship.

2. Let’s say that the ship is at this moment 5km away at bearing 30 as observed from the forward post. What are the distance and the bearing at this moment from the battery which is 3km behind the observer?

3. Let’s say that the ship’s direction of travel is 135 degrees from the zero reference bearing (going over the observer’s right shoulder) and the speed is 20 knots (approx. 36km/h). If it took the cannon crew fifty seconds to calculate the firing solution, and the shell flight time is ten seconds, at which point relative to the cannon (distance and bearing) should the gun be aimed?

4. Assuming the ship is 100m long and the combined side and deck projection at the 30 degree angle of the shell impact is 25m, what is the probability of a first-round hit from the cannon with 1 minute of angle dispersion?

National defense and 6th grade math | VolkStudio Blog
 
Fearandloathing said:
wait!

17 in 100 are where they are supposed to be?

Working is not the issue here, but how the **** such a failure rate even gets tried?

Imagine now if they were learning to pack parachutes.
Click to expand...

Nothing to worry about, these kids are only going to be running the country in a few decades, and maybe taking care of you in old age. :doh
 
US Conservative said:
Its quite a jump to look at that one website and infer its how education is now. Keep in mind graduation rates.
Click to expand...

When one website is the common core curriculum that schools are expected to teach, no, it's not so much of a jump at all.
 
Mycroft said:
If this Common Core stuff was just considered a tool to be used to help kids who otherwise have problems with math, it wouldn't be so bad. But to replace all other tools with this is making a mistake, I think.

Traditional methods of teaching math should be taught as the basics...Common Core can be introduced to all kids...but only emphasized for those who don't respond to the traditional methods. One size fits all is really not a good way to go.
Click to expand...

Agreed, things like this should be adjunctive, not primary.
 
akrunner88 said:
I think we could easily convert to celcius, it would just take some getting used to. As far as the rest of the metric system, I work in science (petroleum testing) and we use it exclusively. It took me less than a month to really get used to it, and by years end of using it every day metric comes naturally to me even moreso than the English system (American). It's way more efficient, and we could convert to it within a generation if we really wanted to. Might be harder for those of us who are older, but it would come eventually.
Click to expand...

If we converted to Celsius, it would be no problem for those who learned it from the start. It would be counter intuitive for everyone else.

Ive used both for years and its still a pain.
 
akrunner88 said:
The thing I like about this test (and I did not grow up with this) is the focus is much more on the critical thinking aspect than "guess the correct number." They try to give you scenario's where you aren't just pulling out a calculator, but have to actually think a little bit for yourself.

I didn't grow up with Common Core, I have no idea if I like it or not. I suppose one day when I have children I'll have to help them through it, and I'll get a chance to see much more of what it's about. But critical thinking skills are something that the American education system has lacked. We judge people based on their ability to properly use a calculator, and ultimately I think that's the wrong approach.
Click to expand...

Its math, they shouldn't be guessing at all. Im fine with critical thinking, and think its lacking-I just dont know that math is the place to lead that charge.
 
Dittohead not! said:
When one website is the common core curriculum that schools are expected to teach, no, it's not so much of a jump at all.
Click to expand...

You dont see how looking at one site, that is telling you that its the common core curricula (for one grade in one area), can't be used to deduce the overall state of public education?
 
Passing the "are you human" test was harder, I failed that 3 times. I hate those, damn robo spammers ruin it for the rest of us.

I was surprised how hard it was when thinking about doing that in 4th grade. I don't recall anything near that difficult in 4th grade, I only recall drills of basic math. Those are really focused on the concept rather than the calculation. The symmetry one I would think would be really difficult for most kids. My first guess was right, but I had to double check each one to confirm I was correct. Although when I was younger I could have probably noticed the pattern and identified it without really understanding it.

I'd be happy if my kid passed that at that age I suppose, definitely seems focused on knowing concept rather than simply calculation.
 
reinoe said:
I think the biggest irony is that conservatives have the most problems with common core and yet states that typically vote Republican tend to have the people with the lowest education and poorest schools.
Click to expand...

A lot of people in MA don't like it either. The major issue with me is the long construct responses. Kids that are left brained have a better chance of scoring high if they can conceptualize the problem, draw a diagram and label it. That is what they do on the MCAS. On the PARCC they are expected to sit and write out a step by step (linear fashion) way they arrived at the answer. Kids that can do this will get high scores 3/4's. Those that draw diagrams and label have been put on warning they will receive a 1 for a partial answer. Talk about punishing kids that have math brains. We fail to acknowledge kids learn in different ways. This is not better for kids and what continues to be wrong for many in education.
 
akrunner88 said:
The thing I like about this test (and I did not grow up with this) is the focus is much more on the critical thinking aspect than "guess the correct number." They try to give you scenario's where you aren't just pulling out a calculator, but have to actually think a little bit for yourself.

I didn't grow up with Common Core, I have no idea if I like it or not. I suppose one day when I have children I'll have to help them through it, and I'll get a chance to see much more of what it's about. But critical thinking skills are something that the American education system has lacked. We judge people based on their ability to properly use a calculator, and ultimately I think that's the wrong approach.
Click to expand...

There was no such thing as "calculators" when I was in the 4th grade. Heck, I wasn't really much interested in "critical thinking" then, either. But I already knew how to add, subtract, multiply and divide...and I could do it much faster without having to convert every number into another number first. Later on, when I was introduced to higher levels of math is when I developed my critical thinking.

It worked out pretty good for me.
 
Mycroft said:
If this Common Core stuff was just considered a tool to be used to help kids who otherwise have problems with math, it wouldn't be so bad. But to replace all other tools with this is making a mistake, I think.

Traditional methods of teaching math should be taught as the basics...Common Core can be introduced to all kids...but only emphasized for those who don't respond to the traditional methods. One size fits all is really not a good way to go.
Click to expand...

It really does not replace any other tools. Here are the math standards. It has everything I was taught, plus a bunch more. Mathematics Standards | Common Core State Standards Initiative
 
US Conservative said:
You dont see how looking at one site, that is telling you that its the common core curricula (for one grade in one area), can't be used to deduce the overall state of public education?
Click to expand...

You have a point there.

So, take a look at the common core and see whether you can find where the curriculum is easier, or more difficult than it was in times past (like, when you were in elementary school, for example).

Oh, here's a good place to start
 
Dittohead not! said:
You have a point there.

So, take a look at the common core and see whether you can find where the curriculum is easier, or more difficult than it was in times past (like, when you were in elementary school, for example).

Oh, here's a good place to start
Click to expand...

I'd need the standards, and competency rates from when I was in school to make a useful comparison.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Don't you remember what you were taught? What did you do, spend the day dreaming of recess?
Click to expand...

You are asking me to make a cogent comparison of the teaching concepts and techniques from when I was 9 (23 years ago), through the eyes of a 9 year old to this (non-official) website as an adult today.

Ever hear the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"?
 
Question #14 struck me as just plain dumb.

4 thousands + 3 tens + 5 hundreds is less than which number below?

4 thousands + 5 tens + 3 hundreds
8 hundreds + 3 thousands + 8 ones
4 thousands + 7 ones + 8 tens + 6 hundreds
9 hundreds + 9 tens + 2 thousands

Who in their right mind will take the time to convert 4,530, 4,350, 3,801, 4,687 and 2,990 to thousands, hundreds, tens and ones...just to order them from high to low? I mean, damn...all you have to do is LOOK at the stupid numbers!
 
US Conservative said:
You are asking me to make a cogent comparison of the teaching concepts and techniques from when I was 9 (23 years ago), through the eyes of a 9 year old to this (non-official) website as an adult today.

Ever hear the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"?
Click to expand...

I've heard the phrase, of course. It's not relevant to the current discussion, but I've heard it. What of it?

Now, do you think you could have answered the questions on the test, which was an example of the core curriculum currently being taught, when you were in the fourth grade?

Me neither, but then, that was a lot more than 23 years ago.
 
Mycroft said:
Question #14 struck me as just plain dumb.

4 thousands + 3 tens + 5 hundreds is less than which number below?

4 thousands + 5 tens + 3 hundreds
8 hundreds + 3 thousands + 8 ones
4 thousands + 7 ones + 8 tens + 6 hundreds
9 hundreds + 9 tens + 2 thousands

Who in their right mind will take the time to convert 4,530, 4,350, 3,801, 4,687 and 2,990 to thousands, hundreds, tens and ones...just to order them from high to low? I mean, damn...all you have to do is LOOK at the stupid numbers!
Click to expand...

I suspect they were trying to see if students could keep track of tens, hundreds, etc in different orders. Perhaps that was what they were assessing in the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom