If TLC did real pop up facts

[adidas]

I had a times tables placemat!

[ShepherdontheRock]

I was in the accelerated math classes-so I started multiplication in 1st and 2nd grade.

i remember I used to learn simple math by figuring it out in my head. Of course, that meant I was slower than the rest of my class at completing times tables (may have had more to do with my ADHD) but otherwise I was still generally proficient in math when not being timed. Meanwhile my mom and dad would quiz me at home so many times that I'd know it without thinking. 

My schools went K-5, then 6-8, and 9-12. By the time I got to grade 6, I knew all the multiplications so I didn't need a calculator even though we started being allowed them. 

I think memorization is good, but useless if the kids can't understand why these things work the way they do. I understand preferring to do big division by calculator, but if you can't do up to 12x12...

I'm 3x8-3 so I missed common core. To me it sounds like good ideas and it's important to have standards, but poorly executed. 

 

[NakedKnees]

I have never really grasped "junior high" of just two grades (6-7, 7-8, etc.). That seems like such a short time to be in a school! 

And regarding common core- I agree with many posters here, the math seems to reflect well how math really works in our heads. I don't know if the problem is execution (although a lot of people seem to think so), but a lot of the most vocal critics I've known focus more on how hard it is to help their kids with their basic math homework, because the parents were educated so differently. In my opinion, it seems that for many parents, their kids' lessons eventually surpass their own knowledge/memory anyway... so the struggles with common core math merely accelerate a parenting challenge that normally happens later on.

At least in my experience... I'm no math genius, I was usually one of the average-to-below-average kids in the highest math classes, but my parents couldn't help me much after I finished algebra in 8th grade, and they both have master's degrees (in liberal arts, but I think math expectations just may have been different in the 1960s when they were in grade school). 

[medimus]

1 hour ago, NakedKnees said:

I have never really grasped "junior high" of just two grades (6-7, 7-8, etc.). That seems like such a short time to be in a school! 

And regarding common core- I agree with many posters here, the math seems to reflect well how math really works in our heads. I don't know if the problem is execution (although a lot of people seem to think so), but a lot of the most vocal critics I've known focus more on how hard it is to help their kids with their basic math homework, because the parents were educated so differently. In my opinion, it seems that for many parents, their kids' lessons eventually surpass their own knowledge/memory anyway... so the struggles with common core math merely accelerate a parenting challenge that normally happens later on.

At least in my experience... I'm no math genius, I was usually one of the average-to-below-average kids in the highest math classes, but my parents couldn't help me much after I finished algebra in 8th grade, and they both have master's degrees (in liberal arts, but I think math expectations just may have been different in the 1960s when they were in grade school). 

It's true that it might be weird to have your child not do maths the way you were taught. I've not experienced that from the parent's point of view, but I have been the child.

My parents are not from the same country and I grew up in yet another country, so neither of them learnt maths the way I did and they hadn't learnt it the same way as eachother either. Once we figured out that it was more confusing for them to try and help me, they stopped. 

It astounds me every time how many different ways there are to write out long division (just one example)

[Valerie3kids]

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 9:36 PM, KSmom said:

I hope I can address this issue without sounding too stabby, but here goes...I have been a math tutor for 20 years and have a degree in math. I work with elementary students currently and I like common core. 

The objective of common core is not to get rid of memorizing math facts, learning how to carry, borrow, etc. It is to bring an understanding of how numbers work. If all you know is to carry when adding larger numbers, but do not understand why we do that you are limiting your abilities, especially when it comes to mental math.  Students do learn facts, carrying, borrowing, etc. but there are other ways to perform these operations and it is good to learn a variety of methods.

In short, many adults do not understand or like common core because it seems so foreign to them, but that is because for so long, math has been taught in a rote manner. It was only when you got to higher math that understanding was addressed. I do think that the implementation of common core was not done well, but the goals and concepts are good.

Thank you for explaining this. I am the one with the granddaughter and had no idea how it worked. That makes much more sense and I would prefer for her to "understand" vs "memorize". As I know that was a problem for me in Math I just did not understand how they got to the end so to speak. I could do it if I had an example but did not understand it.

I just had a fear of watching someone sit at their desk and draw out circles or something due to the fact they could not add. So that is me jumping to conclusions and not understanding core math. It does make it hard to help her with her homework in the afternoons!

 

[FundieFarmer]

I'm about to say "think" a lot, but here goes:

I think I understand the premise of common core, because I think that it teaches along the lines of how I already think about numbers. But I can't really tell, because I don't understand it. Is there a Common Core for Dummies breakdown video?

[LittleSpouseOnThePrairie]

One of the ideas behind common core was to ensure that kids all receive the same level of education regardless of where they attend. Also there is a growing number of students who do not have permanent homes or frequently relocate and common core standardizes things so they pick up the same stuff where they left off. I am neither for or against common core, but as high school teacher I can tell you that a lot of teachers dislike common core because it doesn't allow them to tailor their instruction methods to their own best teaching style. Also, because it is more standardized there is supposedly less room to "infuse" lessons with examples that are relevant to the particular students and therefore more culturally accessible based on the region they live in. 

[genever]

Or "Michelle Duggar won a mother of the year award in *insert year* but we're not sure why, as she doesn't do any actual parenting."

It should also include who awarded it to her.

Does anyone else think she looks like she's laying an egg?

[Chelio93]

11 hours ago, FundieFarmer said:

I'm about to say "think" a lot, but here goes:

I think I understand the premise of common core, because I think that it teaches along the lines of how I already think about numbers. But I can't really tell, because I don't understand it. Is there a Common Core for Dummies breakdown video?

My son is in 5th grade and will bring home math worksheets without his math book.  I often have to google the terminology or watch a YouTube video on the concept because I have no idea what he is learning.  Once, I figure out what is going on it does make sense but it is so different than how I learned math, I struggle with being any help.  It makes sense to teach different methods because everyone learns differently but I find myself in that old dog category.  I know that my kids "regroup" but I still borrow and carry.

Every elementary student in our district receives an IPad for the school year.  The district uses an app called Extra Math that teaches multiplication tables.  The student is responsible for a certain amount of minutes per week.  This can be done during free time at school or as part of their homework.

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

Common Core math isn't the first time we've had a big change in how math is taught. In the late 1960s, it was called "New Math".

 

My first grader is learning with the Common Core. So far, so good. The teacher had an informational event to teach parents how the kids were learning math and it was really helpful. She lured the parents in by having the kids sing a few fun songs first. Smart teacher. 

[Fundie Bunny]

4 hours ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

Common Core math isn't the first time we've had a big change in how math is taught. In the late 1960s, it was called "New Math".

 

My first grader is learning with the Common Core. So far, so good. The teacher had an informational event to teach parents how the kids were learning math and it was really helpful. She lured the parents in by having the kids sing a few fun songs first. Smart teacher. 

What the hell was that? I tried it, but it doesn't make sense

[catlady]

4 hours ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

Common Core math isn't the first time we've had a big change in how math is taught. In the late 1960s, it was called "New Math".

 

My first grader is learning with the Common Core. So far, so good. The teacher had an informational event to teach parents how the kids were learning math and it was really helpful. She lured the parents in by having the kids sing a few fun songs first. Smart teacher. 

I love Tom Lehrer, and I've seen this before but it never gets old.  Being 7x7-6+2* and having attended grade school in the 70's, I actually learned subtraction this way.

*i like this!  I'm sorry that I forgot who did this first, but thank you; it's fun!

[MyMilkshake]

16 hours ago, genever said:

It should also include who awarded it to her.

 

Does anyone else think she looks like she's laying an egg?

LOL 
Probably just smiling through a contraction

[Valerie3kids]

1 hour ago, MyMilkshake said:

LOL 
Probably just smiling through a contraction

The lady next to her looks like she would rather be having a kidney stone than standing there! Jim Bob, of course is the only one who seems tickled to death about it. Michelle looks lost and not sure why she is there.

[rhianna]

WRT arithmetic, I don't actually get how memorizing is any different from understanding. 7*8 is 56 because 7 groups of 8 is 56. Are there people who actually just memorize "7*8=56" without having any idea what the "7", "*", "8", "=" and "56" stand for, as if they are a series of hieroglyphics? Surely not. 

[EmCatlyn]

36 minutes ago, rhianna said:

WRT arithmetic, I don't actually get how memorizing is any different from understanding. 7*8 is 56 because 7 groups of 8 is 56. Are there people who actually just memorize "7*8=56" without having any idea what the "7", "*", "8", "=" and "56" stand for, as if they are a series of hieroglyphics? Surely not. 

Yes there are people who just memorize without understanding.  It is not uncommon with people who memorize Biblical quotes either.

 

[Whoosh]

20 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Yes there are people who just memorize without understanding.  It is not uncommon with people who memorize Biblical quotes either.

 

I agree with this.  I think the goal of common core math is to have a kid know that 7*8 means 7 groups of 8 which is 56, but also to know that 7*8 is also like 5 groups of 8 plus 2 groups of 8 which is 40 + 16 which is 56.  Or it is also like 10 groups of 8 minus 3 groups of 8 which is 80 - 24 = 56.  If a kid fully understands that, they will likely do it whatever way works best with those particular numbers.  So 112*9 means 112 groups of 9.  I don't have that memorized.  It is also 10 groups of 112 (1120) minus 1 groups of 112 (112).  So that is 1008.  And I can do that in a sailboat, at the store, while jogging all without a calculator or paper and pen.

[missegeno]

I never understood why they told us to memorize our times tables. They also taught us the 7 groups of 8, ... approach, and problem sets involved enough repetition that I memorized a large portion of them, enough to usually figure out any nearby pairs. I was praised for memorizing my times tables, though I never once sat down with a times table and purposed to memorize it. I was a little confused by this, but I just took the compliment and didn't correct the teacher. It wasn't until I was an adult and conversing with some friends about early math that I realized some people actually did approach it as a memory exercise and tried to will the table into their brains. Way too hard for me. I would say I still don't have my times tables memorized, because if I imagine one in my head, the numbers aren't clear. But if I try to multiply two numbers, I can generally pull an answer from memory.

 

There's a lot of good and a lot of bad in the current US education system. It's always going to be hard to make the most of good teachers while minimizing variability between classrooms. I don't know enough about common core math to really speak to it, but I'm glad that there was at least an attempt to completely shift framework. So much of the school environment hasn't changed even as research has demonstrated the shortcomings of x, y, and z aspects. Math is at least one area that there was some willingness to let go of the "but this is the way we've always done it" tether and really reframe the subject. Please don't let it stay on common core math, but at least it's another angle from which we can learn what works and what doesn't work, so that we can develop more effective programs for future generations.

[Mrsaztx]

I'm terrible at math and from what I've seen on Facebook of my friends with kids throwing common core under the bus, I like it. I think it's the terminology that freaks people out, and also the "that's not how I do it!" But I also think that if they stopped and considered, that it is how they do it, they just call it something different. Or at least common core is how I do math in my head. For example if someone told me "18+5" I would actually think to myself "15+5=20 because 5's are easier to add, + the remaining 3 to complete the 18, so it's 23" or "12x3" is "10x3 because 10's multiply easily, then the remaining 2's X3" so in my head it's "10x3=30 + 2x3= 6, 30+6=36" again, obviously at this point in my life I have memorized most simple math facts due to repitition, but that's how my mom taught me to do math in my head, and I think it's basically common core.

[Whoosh]

Another thing about all of this is that different kids learn more easily in different ways.  Some people excel at rote memorization and others do not.  All subjects are likely best taught to just about everyone through a combination of memorization techniques and understanding techniques.  Also, once you move to higher levels of many (maybe most) subjects, the understanding component becomes more important.  Early on, kids that really excel in memorization will tend to do well in subjects such as history and foreign language.  Kids that are terrible at memorization will struggle with those subjects but may do better with something like science.  

As an example, I am one that really struggles with rote memorization.  In college I took several art history classes.  I did fairly well because typically the names of works, the artistic style and period they represented, etc "makes sense".  I don't know as I would have ever been capable of getting a straight A though, since whether the work was completed in 1874 or 1878 doesn't "make sense" - I have nothing to hang my hat on when trying to grasp that and I struggle with simply memorizing.  Same thing (mostly) was true for the name of the artist.

tl;dr - memorization and understanding really are both critical.  The names of the 50 states of the USA or the USA presidents etc will never "make sense" (unless you are talking about a president who is the son of a president or something LOL).  There is nothing "more Florida like" about Florida than there is about any other state that I know of.  Those types of things need to be memorized.  On the other hand, as someone else said earlier, I think learning based on understanding has more staying power if you aren't frequently using the information and allows for - idk - maybe more expansive and novel lines of thinking.

[Mrsaztx]

4 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Another thing about all of this is that different kids learn more easily in different ways.  Some people excel at rote memorization and others do not.  All subjects are likely best taught to just about everyone through a combination of memorization techniques and understanding techniques.  Also, once you move to higher levels of many (maybe most) subjects, the understanding component becomes more important.  Early on, kids that really excel in memorization will tend to do well in subjects such as history and foreign language.  Kids that are terrible at memorization will struggle with those subjects but may do better with something like science.  

As an example, I am one that really struggles with rote memorization.  In college I took several art history classes.  I did fairly well because typically the names of works, the artistic style and period they represented, etc "makes sense".  I don't know as I would have ever been capable of getting a straight A though, since whether the work was completed in 1874 or 1878 doesn't "make sense" - I have nothing to hang my hat on when trying to grasp that and I struggle with simply memorizing.  Same thing (mostly) was true for the name of the artist.

tl;dr - memorization and understanding really are both critical.  The names of our 50 states or our presidents etc will never "make sense" (unless you are talking about a president who is the son of a president or something LOL).  There is nothing "more Florida like" about Florida than there is about any other state that I know of.  Those types of things need to be memorized.  On the other hand, as someone else said earlier, I think learning based on understanding has more staying power if you aren't frequently using the information and allows for - idk - maybe more expansive and novel lines of thinking.

Bad example, when someone is 50 years old and caught high on bath salts and naked perched on the roof of their trailer screaming about how their 22 yo grandson is trying to implant tracers in their brain and flinging cats at the police, that is definately "Florida-like", you never hear of that shit in Connecticut. And that's what you get from the state shaped like america's dick, a bunch of crazy dicks. But other than that, you're right.

[missegeno]

3 hours ago, Whoosh said:

Another thing about all of this is that different kids learn more easily in different ways.  ....

... memorization and understanding really are both critical.  The names of the 50 states of the USA or the USA presidents etc will never "make sense" (unless you are talking about a president who is the son of a president or something LOL).  There is nothing "more Florida like" about Florida than there is about any other state that I know of.  Those types of things need to be memorized.  On the other hand, as someone else said earlier, I think learning based on understanding has more staying power if you aren't frequently using the information and allows for - idk - maybe more expansive and novel lines of thinking.

Have you heard the Freakonomics podcasts about the School of One? It's like a Pandora (the personalized online radio service), but for lessons, so that an algorithm can try to match lessons with kids according to their individual learning style? I think building an effective algorithm would likely take many years, but the ability to target lessons to learning style seems brilliant to me. I'm also one of those science-oriented people, and the only way I can keep track of the cranial nerves is still to go through a whole long mnemonic that puts some order to it. I also struggle like no other with languages (despite one being necessary to communicate with members of my own family!) and never was able to memorize dates for paintings, much to the chagrin of my language- and art- oriented parents who think neuroscience is far too difficult! Given a blank map of the states, I can only reliably fill in the states I have some context to tie them to (ie. everywhere I've been, plus Florida because dong, Hawaii because Ocean, and Alaska because Canada).

 

The only disagreement I have with your statement is that Florida is absolutely more Florida-like than any other state. My friends and I sometimes read crazy headlines to eachother (or make up our own) and play a game I like to call "Florida or Fiction?" What could be more fitting than for it all to happen on a giant dick?

 

tl:dr - Agreement with Whoosh about memorization being hard and the fact that this preference is not universal, leading to varying aptitudes in various fields. Plus Florida fun.

[TeaGrannie]

One of our local morning radio shows does a "Meanwhile in Florida" segment with all the truly bizarre headlines/articles about things that occur there. It does seem to attract more than it's fair show of oddness.

[quiverofdoubt]

On 12/30/2015 at 6:33 PM, CorruptionInc. said:

I don't know if I'm right, because I'm not a mum but I am thinking that cloth diapers would be more economical in terms of cost if JB really is that tight. On the other hand I can imagine the reason they don't cloth diaper is time although I'm sure giving a few more chores to her children wouldn't upset mullet that much.

I've been cloth diapering since 2012, so have a little experience.  Since cloth diapers would last 2-4 kids, depending on care, she would save a boat load of money. Some, like flats (yes they still sell those , they are my favorites actually) may last far longer.  I was really curious as to why she used disposables, and remember her saying something about "not being able to do t he extra laundry".  which seems silly, because cd's only make an extra load every 2-3 days per child, if that.  I think that mostly she didn't do her research, and didn't want to spend the energy learning something new.  Modern cloth diapers have a steep learning curve. Also, the initial investment of cloth diapers is high and can be scary, compared to a bag of disposables. But the investment pays out, especially with how many children she chose to have.  Excuse me. god chose for her to have.

[SassyPants]

Cloth diapers= WORK

From what we have seen, most people named Duggar are deathly allergic to work.