State test results…with updated “math” problem…

[njtosd]

I know this sounds like I’m 130 years old, which I am not, however . . . math as it was traditionally taught in the U.S. was sufficient to get us to the moon and to fuel the IT and biotech industries.

My mother was a science teacher – she bragged that she could get kids to like her class second best to PE. It was unfair, but years ago smart women (who would now be doctors or engineers) became math and science teachers, nurses, etc. I have encountered very few elementary teachers in recent years who love math or science (and, sadly, science in 6th grade is relegated to a 3 month “rotation” along with public speaking). If the teachers don’t love the subject, the students won’t either, regardless of all of the methods that you use to teach.

What is the answer? Pay science and math teachers more to lure science-y types to teaching. Not sure whether the unions would permit that. But when you look at the fact that California’s big industries – agriculture, high tech, biotech and pharma all are dependent on a supply of people with math and science capabilities, something has to be done.

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd]I know this sounds like I’m 130 years old, which I am not, however . . . math as it was traditionally taught in the U.S. was sufficient to get us to the moon and to fuel the IT and biotech industries.

My mother was a science teacher – she bragged that she could get kids to like her class second best to PE. It was unfair, but years ago smart women (who would now be doctors or engineers) became math and science teachers, nurses, etc. I have encountered very few elementary teachers in recent years who love math or science (and, sadly, science in 6th grade is relegated to a 3 month “rotation” along with public speaking). If the teachers don’t love the subject, the students won’t either, regardless of all of the methods that you use to teach.

What is the answer? Pay science and math teachers more to lure science-y types to teaching. Not sure whether the unions would permit that. But when you look at the fact that California’s big industries – agriculture, high tech, biotech and pharma all are dependent on a supply of people with math and science capabilities, something has to be done.[/quote]

Agree that we should pay math and science teachers more if we’re not getting them in sufficient quantity and quality with the current pay structure.

And since some teachers can earn more for being bilingual or for having certain certifications, I think one could easily make the argument that math and science teachers could be paid more.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]There’s a lot of money to be made with all of this testing and the related curriculum changes. Lots and lots of money.[/quote]

That’s a really compelling argument.

I particularly like all the evidence you’ve provided.

(Cue the confirmation bias dance and links to fringe websites … maybe we can even work shadowstats into the mix!)[/quote]

Yes, “fringe” websites like NBER or the Federal Reserve’s website, or Grant’s Interest Rate Observer,” to which you’ve responded with “lol” in the past. (These are literally the websites/sources that you claimed weren’t valid in another thread.)

Anyway, follow the money…

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
Agree that we should pay math and science teachers more if we’re not getting them in sufficient quantity and quality with the current pay structure.

And since some teachers can earn more for being bilingual or for having certain certifications, I think one could easily make the argument that math and science teachers could be paid more.[/quote]

Teaching is the one of the few decent paying job centers for liberal arts majors. Really want to displace some of those opportunities for History and English majors with Math and Engineering majors.

The fundamental problem with public education is it socialistic approach to everything. Teacher compensation is based on time served because any other performance based approach would be unfair for some reason or another. Students can’t be failed and held back and they also can’t advance and perform at a higher level because that too would be unfair. Every decision made is based on some sort of perceived fairness so when that is your guiding principle you underachieve in everything.

Teaching the way you teach math probably isn’t going to solve the problem that you continually allow kids to underachieve and fail math without any consequences. All in the name of not hurting anybody’s feelings. Until being able to do math and solve problems is more important than feelings the problems will remain.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=poorgradstudent]My issue with that execution is step counting is a rather silly metric. Especially since the accounting of steps is minimally controversial, and arguably somewhat irrelevant.

As a TEACHING tool I can see the use. As an EVALUATION tool I don’t care for it.[/quote]

You’re still thinking of tests in the old format,me very kid gets the same piece of paper. That’s notnhownthe core computer test work, they’re dynamic and based on whether or not you’re getting concepts correct, it moves you one to more complex things. Get them wrong and it moves you towards simpler things.[/quote]

Sure, I’m familiar with how that works, as it was the system used when I took the (general) GRE, and possibly also the SAT, although that all sort of blends together.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=njtosd]What is the answer? Pay science and math teachers more to lure science-y types to teaching. Not sure whether the unions would permit that. But when you look at the fact that California’s big industries – agriculture, high tech, biotech and pharma all are dependent on a supply of people with math and science capabilities, something has to be done.[/quote]

Well, like those of you who work for QCOM and associated industries and like to complain about the number of foreign visas, the fact is right now we don’t really NEED more science grads for biotech and pharma. The current pipeline is fine, and it’s arguably not a growth industry.

It’s funny when we talk about STEM, we really mean “TE”, specially those with computer programming skills. There’s actually a glut of biologists, and we’re fine on chemists.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter][quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]There’s a lot of money to be made with all of this testing and the related curriculum changes. Lots and lots of money.[/quote]

That’s a really compelling argument.

I particularly like all the evidence you’ve provided.

(Cue the confirmation bias dance and links to fringe websites … maybe we can even work shadowstats into the mix!)[/quote]

Yes, “fringe” websites like NBER or the Federal Reserve’s website, or Grant’s Interest Rate Observer,” to which you’ve responded with “lol” in the past. (These are literally the websites/sources that you claimed weren’t valid in another thread.)

Anyway, follow the money…[/quote]

“Grant’s Interest Rate Observer” – often cited by Tyler Durden on zerohedge – thanks for another LOL!

Of course I never questioned the credibility of the Federal Reserve or the NBER and of course you won’t be able to point out where I did. And of course you won’t even try to do so but instead respond with predictable “I already proved you wrong with my self-confirmed claims…”

Yes, follow the money to … where?

Oh … to the massive textbook publishing and student testing lobby – key figures in the Illuminati – they’ve got Obama pwned!

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter][quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]There’s a lot of money to be made with all of this testing and the related curriculum changes. Lots and lots of money.[/quote]

That’s a really compelling argument.

I particularly like all the evidence you’ve provided.

(Cue the confirmation bias dance and links to fringe websites … maybe we can even work shadowstats into the mix!)[/quote]

Yes, “fringe” websites like NBER or the Federal Reserve’s website, or Grant’s Interest Rate Observer,” to which you’ve responded with “lol” in the past. (These are literally the websites/sources that you claimed weren’t valid in another thread.)

Anyway, follow the money…[/quote]

Follow the money is a bit trite when talking about schools. Schools ARE big business. School teacher unions ARE big business. LAUSD is the 2nd largest school district. It’s adopted budget only for 2015 is $12.6 Billion. As a matter of comparison, Facebook ranked #242 has revenues of $12.4 Billion. Starbucks, $16 Billion, Visa is $12.7 Billion and that little piddly utility called Sempra energy in San Diego ranking #270 on the Fortune 500 by revenue pulls revenues of $11 Billion.

That’s ONE school district in California. They serve just under 10% of california students.

Schools are BIG business. And there are a lot of entrenched deep pocket vested interests in the Educational-Political complex.

[all]

Flu, common core requirements make more sense as you move to slightly more complex material.

Sixth grade handbook has a problem similar to this

Person A is asked to find the least common multiple for the following pairs: (17, 41), (31, 11), (29, 37). Person A concludes that LCM(a1, a2) can be calculated as a1 x a2, for a1, a2 > 0.
Person B is given the following pairs: (8, 32), (12, 36), (9, 45). Person B concludes LCM(a1, a2) = MAX(a1, a2).
Person C is given (14, 18), (42, 10), (22, 4) and person C comes up with LCM(a1, a2) = a1 x a2 / 2.

Are A, B, or C conclusions accurate? If not, what additional requirement(s) must a1 and a2 meet to make each formula accurate?

I thought it was good problem and it is very different from what no child left behind requirements were.

[livinincali]

[quote=all]Flu, common core requirements make more sense as you move to slightly more complex material.

Sixth grade handbook has a problem similar to this

Person A is asked to find the least common multiple for the following pairs: (17, 41), (31, 11), (29, 37). Person A concludes that LCM(a1, a2) can be calculated as a1 x a2, for a1, a2 > 0.
Person B is given the following pairs: (8, 32), (12, 36), (9, 45). Person B concludes LCM(a1, a2) = MAX(a1, a2).
Person C is given (14, 18), (42, 10), (22, 4) and person C comes up with LCM(a1, a2) = a1 x a2 / 2.

Are A, B, or C conclusions accurate? If not, what additional requirement(s) must a1 and a2 meet to make each formula accurate?

I thought it was good problem and it is very different from what no child left behind requirements were.[/quote]

I’m not sure I’m a huge fan of a question where the correct response ends up being a simple yes. I’d be more of a fan if the test question asked the taker to figure out an algorithm to get the LCM for the following pairs.

[Coronita]

Out of curiosity…I am sort of curious what percentage of the people that like ccm are STEM degreed/career oriented people.

[all]

[quote=livinincali][quote=all]Flu, common core requirements make more sense as you move to slightly more complex material.

Sixth grade handbook has a problem similar to this

Person A is asked to find the least common multiple for the following pairs: (17, 41), (31, 11), (29, 37). Person A concludes that LCM(a1, a2) can be calculated as a1 x a2, for a1, a2 > 0.
Person B is given the following pairs: (8, 32), (12, 36), (9, 45). Person B concludes LCM(a1, a2) = MAX(a1, a2).
Person C is given (14, 18), (42, 10), (22, 4) and person C comes up with LCM(a1, a2) = a1 x a2 / 2.

Are A, B, or C conclusions accurate? If not, what additional requirement(s) must a1 and a2 meet to make each formula accurate?

I thought it was good problem and it is very different from what no child left behind requirements were.[/quote]

I’m not sure I’m a huge fan of a question where the correct response ends up being a simple yes. I’d be more of a fan if the test question asked the taker to figure out an algorithm to get the LCM for the following pairs.[/quote]

That is the point of asking to figure out the additional requirements that would make the statements accurate.

[all]

[quote=flu]Out of curiosity…I am sort of curious what percentage of the people that like ccm are STEM degreed/career oriented people.[/quote]

I like the fact that common core is not 100% focused on making sure that 12 year old child can multiply one digit numbers. Imagine where your kid would be if all she had to do is meet pre-ccm standard of good enough?

[Coronita]

[quote=all]Flu, common core requirements make more sense as you move to slightly more complex material.

Sixth grade handbook has a problem similar to this

Person A is asked to find the least common multiple for the following pairs: (17, 41), (31, 11), (29, 37). Person A concludes that LCM(a1, a2) can be calculated as a1 x a2, for a1, a2 > 0.
Person B is given the following pairs: (8, 32), (12, 36), (9, 45). Person B concludes LCM(a1, a2) = MAX(a1, a2).
Person C is given (14, 18), (42, 10), (22, 4) and person C comes up with LCM(a1, a2) = a1 x a2 / 2.

Are A, B, or C conclusions accurate? If not, what additional requirement(s) must a1 and a2 meet to make each formula accurate?

I thought it was good problem and it is very different from what no child left behind requirements were.[/quote]

I am not against all of ccm…. But questions like this seem to beat around the bush of whether a kid really knows what a least common multiple is and overcomplicates explaining what an lcm is and how one goes about finding it.

The purpose of this question is suppose to challenge whether a kid knows lcm or not. But along with it, it introduces a lot of other things that while may be fine for some of us more mathematically inclined, will utterly confuse the heck out of those that aren’t. For example, your average nonmath oriented kid is not going to feel that comfortable with fsomething like a function and variables. And now this questions overcomplicates the lcm lesson by introducing max(a1,a2), etc….and there’s a more practical consideration… When is such a “puzzle” type lcm question ever used in the real world, even in engineering and science… (It isn’t)…third.. This type of question will also make math incredibly more difficult to understand for those social-economically disadvantaged esl students by now introducing a heck of lot of English leaning language into a fundamentally easy math concept that should have been language agnostic. So… Again…I am not sure I understand the point of this type of question, except to see how well kids are at solving clever puzzle questions that have very little bearing on the real practical math use cases in the real world.

Anyway..my 4th grader figured this out, simple because her Chinese ol school math lessons taught lcm the old fashion way back when she was in 3rd grade and because she understands lcm now..simply because of practice practice practice.

[NotCranky]

[quote=flu]Out of curiosity…I am sort of curious what percentage of the people that like ccm are STEM degreed/career oriented people.[/quote]
Two of my kids are in STEM schools, which I believe have to put priority on common core. Common core doesn’t worry me as long as my kids are given full opportunity to participate in honors math and nerd classes up to their abilities and my and my wifes interests. The thing is common core is not going to hurt them anymore than it is going to help the kids who can’t meet standards. Even before honors and tiger parent electives the brighter and or more facilitated kids in the younger also common core grades are getting pretty good educations. The kids the teacher and parents overcome” teaching to the test problems”.

For most kids It still really comes down to how bright are you and who all is on your side.

[Author]

Posts