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.
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.