Legislative math problem: 1 + 1 = ?
Published June 17, 2016
By Tom Campbell
by Tom Campbell, Executive Producer and Moderator, NC SPIN, June 16, 2016.
The checkout line was stalled and grew long. “What’s taking so long,” one impatient customer groused? Word passed down the line that the computers were down, the customer at the front of the line didn’t have exact change and the beleaguered cashier wasn’t able to calculate the difference between the cost of goods and the cash submitted without the computer.
How well I remember my mother drilling me in addition and subtraction. She made flash cards for the multiplication and division tables we were required to memorize. Even at this advanced age I can still recite those tables from memory.
Computers, smartphones and calculators appear to have replaced the need to know simple math skills, clearly evident when those devices aren’t available or fail. Too many can’t do basic math calculations, making it almost comical to watch the debate our lawmakers are waging over which advanced math curriculum high school students should employ.
At question is whether to continue the integrated math concepts of math 1, 2 and 3, developed as part of the Common Core Curriculum, or return to the traditional instruction of Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra II. Many don’t like the Common Core, in part because they mistakenly think it a scheme concocted by Obama and Democrats. In reality it resulted from state superintendents’ of education and governors who became increasingly alarmed at American students’ poor math performance. Our legislature created the Academic Standards Review Commission with the implied intent of scrapping Common Core. After months of careful and thoughtful study that commission recommended leaving the English Common Core component as it was, while stating they saw some need for modification of math standards, but didn’t have specific recommendations for changes.
Now the legislature is trying to solve this vexing math problem and lawmakers are getting an earful from parents, students, teachers and others wanting them to choose the traditional or integrated solution. There’s even the suggestion that they kick the can down the road and allow school systems to choose one or the other; perhaps even allowing them to employ both methods of instructions within the same system. That addition looks like 1 + 1 = 3, absolutely the wrong answer. One or the other curriculum should be chosen.
Here’s what we know. Tomorrow’s jobs will require different solutions from our students. We believe North Carolina could have done a better job of preparing and implementing the integrated math curriculum that is such a big departure from the traditional way of teaching math. It is hard for students to grasp new ways of solving problems but the basic concept of a more integrated, rather than just a linear approach, should serve them well in the future. Too many math teachers now favor this approach after struggling to implement it. We trust their judgment.
One conclusion that must be reached, however, is that we are not doing a good enough job in lower grades teaching the fundamentals of addition, subtraction and especially multiplication and division. Just as it is imperative that students learn to read so they can read to learn, without basic math skills any advanced curriculum will be difficult. If you don’t believe it just stand in the checkout line when the computers fail.
June 17, 2016 at 9:16 am
Norm Kelly says:
It's definitely a problem when the computer fails and the child can't do simple math. But is the solution Communist Core? No.
First, it's not that we believe the socialist community organizer unqualified occupier created or had a hand in creating the core. It's that the Core was not properly vetted before being implemented. Kinda like his scheme to integrate muslim 'refugees' into our society without proper vetting. Kinda like the lie he also told about socialized medicine. Communist Core was stalled in implementation and adoption UNTIL the occupier got into office. It was his administration that paid states to adopt Communist Core. It was our legislature CONTROLLED BY DEMONS who went along with the occupier's scheme for PARTY LOYALTY! Our Demon legislature didn't implement Communist Core because they thought it was a better way to teach. They went along with adopting Communist Core BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE the newly elected (mostly) black demon paid them to adopt the scheme. One thing that is utmost in every demon pols 'mind' is unity in scheme, especially when getting paid for unity.
Second problem with Communist Core: the unfortunate child at the cash register that has failed to provide the answer for how much change to produce is the fact that it takes 12 or more steps to do simple math such as 14+4. When Communist Core makes it this complicated for simple math, the student is left bewildered. And make no mistake, regardless of what Communist proponents tell you, children ARE BEING PENALIZED for not following the dictated steps required to reach the proper answer for 14+4. Children are required to show that they have completed ALL 12 steps to get to the right answer. Children are required to draw the appropriate number of lines and then count them to arrive at the proper answer, even if THEY KNOW and can document their arrival at the proper answer WITHOUT following the silly, over-bearing requirements of Communist Core.
So, should students be allowed, or parents, to choose WHICH math curriculum to follow? Yes, at every grade level parents should be allowed to dispose of Communist Core for their child(ren). If parents were allowed to choose, how many would actually willingly choose a system geared toward the least common denominator (the least skilled student) with the most rigorous standards for arriving at the correct answer? How many parents would voluntarily frustrate their child(ren) that much that they would CHOOSE Communist Core? How many would adopt Communist anything without central planners forcing them (or bribing them) to make the choice central planners prefer?
June 19, 2016 at 7:53 am
Bob Macfarlane says:
For 40+ years I was an adjunct professor in computer science and mathematics. It never surprised me to see so many incoming freshmen that could not read, write a coherent sentence or do the most basic of math problems. I was out the classroom prior to Common Core.
The worm in the apple causing Johnny and Janie not to be able to do any of the above is known as teachers union and tenure. Once a public school teacher gets tenure and has the union to protect them, they do not have to worry about doing their job. This includes tenured professors. In my 40+ years in a college classroom, the only tenure professor I saw terminated was one that refused to turn in his grade sheets at the end of term. And that wasn't easy.
June 19, 2016 at 5:52 pm
Bill Bush says:
NC has no teacher union, just an education association, and tenure is breakable with evidence of moral turpitude or bad performance despite efforts on the part of the administration to create improvement. It IS possible to be fired in NC, but it requires documentation, as it should. Teachers should not lose their jobs at a whim of a principal, and principals should be able to document poor performance. The problems you cite do not come from one problem alone.
June 19, 2016 at 9:09 am
Tad Richard says:
The biggest issue with the common core is that parents haven't been educated in its purpose or methods. It's difficult to support and tutor your child when you have as much trouble understanding the problems as he does. On the other hand, we complain about the US falling behind other nations in math competency while simultaneously declaring, "the old way was good enough for me, it's good enough for my kids."
We can't have our cake and eat it too. Educators who are resistant to teaching the common core need to be brought in line. Teachers need to educate parents as to why and how the common core is not just different, but better than the traditional curriculum, and provide additional materials to parents to assist them in assisting their own children.
Those of us that grew up without computers get frustrated at not understanding them sometimes. But you seldom hear someone say that our kids should go back to using typewriters. It's the same with the "new math." Just because it's not what we used, takes longer, requires more thought and less memorization than the "old math", does not mean that we should force our kids to learn or use the antiquated system.
