Often the war on white privilege manifests itself as preventing white success rather than helping PoC. Families that help their children with math homework have been irritated that students often get no credit on math homework if they use the older arithmetic methods. Rather than allowing students to use any valid mathematical principles to learn, children are forced to use a new system that (in my opinion) generates extra work to achieve the correct result.
I dated a teacher many years ago, long before the political climate shift, and she constantly ranted about how common core was slowing her students down. At the time I didn’t understand much (and didn’t ask her to elaborate much), but it’s been interesting seeing her rants validated the last couple of years.
Common core makes sense when a student struggles with the traditional methods. But forcing all students to use it, and it’s historical background of being driven by racial issues, is a damning sign that it’s intentionally holding high performers (often White or Asian) back.
Khan Academy, for example, conforms to the Common Core perfectly.
In the Age of Google, it shouldn't be hard to summon the relevant passages which are problematic so that everyone can discuss them. But the vagueness of critique is a tell that someone doesn't care to lead with detail.
For instance on the math side, a focus on numeracy rather than rote memory gives students without access to extra out of school resources another set of tools to approach later math classes on their own.
On top of that, a focus numeracy also helps out privileged students as well and IMO actually teaches math rather than just arthimetic. It'll actually be useful in an age where everyone has multi ghz calculator in their pocket.
Everyone wins.
This whole discussion reminds me of the push back against New Math, where the changes in education were described by some as a soviet plot. No, we just keep making improvements to how we teach each generation, using the data we got from the previous gens.
That's the idea, but there's no evidence of actual improvement in, say, student math skills.
For instance:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/a-progress-report-on-the-...
"The 2012 Brown Center Report predicted, based on empirical analysis of the effects of state standards, that the CCSS will have little to no impact on student achievement. Supporters of the Common Core argue that strong, effective implementation of the standards will sweep away such skepticism by producing lasting, significant gains in student learning. So far, at least—and it is admittedly the early innings of a long ballgame—there are no signs of such an impressive accomplishment."
That's the context of your cherry picked sentence, that even a foundation expecting no benefits found them, and is left with trying to downplay those findings.
And that's to be expected, a long tail of continued improvements as the students get older and the benefits of increased numeracy in higher math pay off, and as we get better at communicating to K-5 teachers (who, frankly probably didn't have the best math background either) start grasping the meta point of what's being taught.
> States that more aggressively implemented the CCSS registered larger gains from 2009-2013. That’s an optimistic finding for CCSS.
Even they find that clear data that states implementing CCSS have better outcomes, only a few years after implementation, that correlates with how aggressively CCSS was rolled out in the state.
I provided this source because they're ideologically opposed to CCSS, but even they admit that there's a positive effect early in the roll out. The rest is them bending over backwards trying to explain why their own data doesn't actually matter. In short I cited them because it's one of the best cases for the antithesis of my argument and it still proves what I'm saying.
How does "everyone win" when students who understand math are failing tests because they're not using an absurd roundabout method of multiplying numbers?
The Common Core specifications for any grade are very sparse, and simply lists learning goals for the year. It takes 5-10 minutes to read over an entire grade.
> Find whole-number quotients and remainders with up to four-digit dividends and one-digit divisors, using strategies based on place value, the properties of operations, and/or the relationship between multiplication and division. Illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models.
This is the level of specification that the Common Core will offer. Where do you find the story that borrowing is not to receive credit, or is not to be taught?
To anyone who has been paying attention, the Common Core advances the CA math curriculum by about 0.5 years, and that's really about it. Students are absolutely learning the same math. Khan Academy is an example of a curriculum which conforms Perfectly to the Common Core.
There's nothing racial about it, and it's quite a reasonable curriculum for math in the sum of all things.
You did, by implying that an emphasis on less privileged students harms more privileged students, and that this was in fact the goal of common core. You continue down this assumption further in your post.
> What I did mention was that students who were able to comprehend mathematics using the traditional arithmetic techniques were not getting credit for their work, because the education system was forcing a new thought model for learning elementary math.
The whole point is to demphasize lucking into or remembering the right answer, but demonstrating true mathematical understanding via different forms of symbol manipulation. Memorizing times tables doesn't help students when they have a computer measured in 10s to 100s of GLOPS in their pocket, but a deeper understanding of numerical relationships does.
They don't get credit for their assignment, because they didn't do the assignment, or fulfill the assignment's goals.
> The fact that this new model, Common Core, was specifically designed to reduce privelege[sic]
Giving less privileged children more tools to understand higher math takes nothing away from more privileged children.
> How does "everyone win" when students who understand math are failing tests because they're not using an absurd roundabout method of multiplying numbers?
Because the point of the assignment isn't teaching them multiplication, it's to teach them numeracy. Just because parents (and a lot of K-5 teachers) were failed in that regard doesn't mean we should lower the bar or continue teaching in ways that don't prepare students for the modern world.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with common core, but it starts actually at addition and subtraction, before students even get to memorizing multiplication tables. The traditional method of "borrowing a 1" from the next digit is no longer a valid method of showing work for multi-digit subtraction. This is the method most of us learned on just fine. It works, it doesn't abstract away any numerical concepts. Again, if students struggle, I'm all for alternative methods. But forcing students with solid comprehension into "finding a zero" can do more damage than good.
>Giving less privileged children more tools to understand higher math takes nothing away from more privileged children.
I just explained how students who grasp the math are forced to learn a new method, one that often adds unnecessary confusion. You would be correct if students were allowed to use the methods they understood (assuming the methods are mathmatically sound)
You're clearly arguing in bad faith, I wish you all the best with your trolling career
These students aren't successful by definition. They're students that are failing the assignments. The goal isn't arithmetic, it's numeracy. Greater numeracy helps "successful" students as well.
> I'm not sure how familiar you are with common core, but it starts actually at addition and subtraction..
The whole point of common core is that there's next to no emphasis on teaching arithmetic but instead numerical relationships. Yes, the borrow a one method is still taught _in addition_ to other numerical relationships. The point of these assignments isn't to get to 3 + 9 = 12 (because everyone is surrounded by equipment that'll make that determination before your brain has processed what your retina sees). If you have children who can't demonstrate these different forms of numerical relationships, but only have a memorized algorithm, then sort of by definition they don't have solid comprehension of the concepts being taught, and unsurprisingly fail the assignment.
> I just explained how students who grasp the math...
And I explained how your view of the goal is wrong. We're not teaching arithmetic, we're teaching numeracy. It's like how in higher math if you just state an answer without your proof chain, you fail. The point isn't seeing if you can crank away at the calculations, it's if you understand the different, specific logical relationships between numbers.
These students failing aren't "grasping the math", they're not demonstrating the mathematical concepts being taught and falling back to another (most likely rote) method.
Math isn't arithmetic.
> You're clearly arguing in bad faith, I wish you all the best with your trolling career
I'd prefer if you kept HN conversations civil even if you disagree with the person you're communicating with.
Same, which is why I will continue to walk away from straw man arguments.
> Often the war on white privilege manifests itself as preventing white success rather than helping PoC.
other than you intrinsically view common core as a zero sum strategy, that's taking from privileged students to as a strategy to relatively help less privileged students?
Addressing your point head on isn't making a strawman argument, and doesn't make me a troll.
Would you care to address my point, that your understanding of student success is wrong here, and that's the core of your misunderstanding, and they are in fact helping students across the privilege spectrum? Or will you just continue to call people who disagree with you trolls?
* I didn't say education was a zero sum game, I said that forcing this pedagogical style was harming successful students.
* I don't even know how to address your arguments because you're inserting claims I did not make. Again you're saying I intrinsically view common core as a zero sum strategy? When I just want students to be able to learn in the method they understand, whether that is Common Core, or not.
These are straw man arguments, you are the one who is not addressing my points. So yes, you are trolling, currently. And I call it out when I see it.
That person _is_ a teacher in addition to creating common core. Common core was designed by teachers overall.
The title of the video is literally "Teacher admits he helped write Common Core to end white privilege"
> I didn't say education was a zero sum game, I said that forcing this pedagogical style was harming successful students
..to help non "successful" students. When someone says "we did this to help this subset" and you use that as proof that they're intending to harm another subset, that's the definition of a zero sum argument.
You're also continuing to not address the root of my argument, falling back on name calling.
I have enough time to get the nuance of common core and help my child but plenty of others don't have that luxury of time.
1. "No child left behind".
2. Common core. Which is inherently very racist and damaging to high performing kids.