# Is there anything good about Common Core? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899 "2015-10-27T20:18:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GargoyleWB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gargoylewb/32/199_2.png) [@GargoyleWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GargoyleWB)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/41 "2015-10-28T18:43:17Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > … > My kids will always try to do things the easiest way possible. They are impatient, as I was impatient, as many kids are impatient. I distinctly remember a math test where I could determine the answer in my head so I did so, and got marked down for not showing my work. I complained that the test instructions said “Solve…” which I did. It also said “show your work” and my complaint was, there is no work to show. I did not prevail but I was pissed off at the teacher. This perfectly illustrates my complaint with the grading / instruction methods of much math in general (not just Common Core). The psychology of the student isn’t taken into account when teaching and grading of the techniques. Ideally, the student should only have to demonstrate the process for 1 or 2 examples, and then be allowed to skip over all of the “doing it in your head” steps instead of repeating the drudgery 20 more times. This teaching pattern follows long into college. Doing it the “easy way” should be encouraged, impatience can turn into a virtue where motivation can be encouraged with allowance of the “easy way” as the reward. The student’s frustration at enforced demonstration of the full process long after they have internalized it into quick rote in-the-head capability is detrimental. IMO, a student that still requires writing down the explicit cookbook steps to solve each problem is still missing fundamental understanding. I was in graduate school and still getting marked down in exams because I recognized a trig substitution and substituted in my head on the fly instead of wasting precious test time writing out all of the intermediate steps. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/42 "2015-10-28T18:54:32Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > If that is the lesson then the method for showing the result is flawed. It could make more sense to the child to group the ones by vertical lines instead of horizontal. If you are testing the understanding of 5 groups of 3 vs. 3 groups of five then you should require the child to circle the groupings on the grid or use bunches instead of a grid. This method would remove any ambiguity and help to reinforce the lesson. I don’t know. The difference between ‘5+5+5’ and ‘3+3+3+3+3’ seems pretty clear as is. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/43 "2015-10-28T19:01:50Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I think far too much of Ender talking to his squadmates and telling them, “The enemy’s gate is down.” His point: forget what you think is the right way to approach the problem. As long as you solve the problem, the way you used way the right way to solve it. That’s what I said! Didn’t stop my Math 31 teacher from marking that question wrong, though. > [@](#): > > As much as I hate discussing particular Internet memes, I gotta agree in this case it looks like the teacher was grading poorly. It’s the teacher’s job to interpret a test, figure out what students are thinking, and grade their work based on sound mathematical reasoning, not on whether a student is showing the work in precisely the format the teacher is expecting. That teacher doesn’t think so. And if the lesson was what I imagine it to be, I agree with the teacher. If not, then I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/44 "2015-10-28T19:23:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not really a fan of Ted Cruz. But I am even less of a fan of this kind of absolutist suggestion of yours, when there are nuances about the issue – specifically, the federal government’s [Race to the Top](http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html) grant program, in which states that adopted Common Core standards earned bonus points on their ability to receive a share of the $3.4 billion available. > > While Cruz’s statement was not a model of clarity either, he’s not a poster here and thus the light of my sweet reason cannot shine upon him. You, however, are reachable and should understand that although Common Core is itself not a federal standard, it is incentivized by federal grant money, over which Cruz would presumably have some control, so the gravamen of his claim is not entirely without basis. So, the “gravamen” is more important than he words Cruz actually used. He spoke of “repealing every word of Common Core.” Not removing the incentive. It doesn’t matter, since he will never be President. But thank you for your condescension. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/45 "2015-10-28T19:46:43Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > So, the “gravamen” is more important than he words Cruz actually used. He spoke of “repealing every word of Common Core.” Not removing the incentive. > > It doesn’t matter, since he will never be President. But thank you for your condescension. You’re welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/46 "2015-10-28T21:09:15Z")
This 3x5 thing might be an example of bad teaching . . . . . . or, it might not be. It amazes me that people are so eager to throw the teacher or system under the bus. Taking for granted that there are practical reasons why 3x5 and 5x3 ought to be represented differently, then I see nothing wrong with that test. Assuming that the lessons involved teaching specific methods, then failure to show those methods should obviously result in no/partial credit. I sometimes wonder if the real problem here is that adults looking at this stuff don’t remember what was expected of them in their math classes of long ago. It’s perfectly reasonable and common for a teacher to grade on methods. I am fairly sure that I can remember answering basic calculus questions with guesses/brute force, and getting marked off for it, because I didn’t show mastery of the subjects discussed in class. Just because the quiz/test doesn’t lay that out explicitly doesn’t mean the students weren’t told and didn’t understand. And, just because the teacher didn’t write an essay on the paper doesn’t mean that he/she didn’t explain after the fact why the student got only partial credit on those questions. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/47 "2015-10-28T21:27:27Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Assuming that the lessons involved teaching specific methods, then failure to show those methods should obviously result in no/partial credit. I sometimes wonder if the real problem here is that adults looking at this stuff don’t remember what was expected of them in their math classes of long ago. > > It’s perfectly reasonable and common for a teacher to grade on methods. I am fairly sure that I can remember answering basic calculus questions with guesses/brute force, and getting marked off for it, because I didn’t show mastery of the subjects discussed in class. Either the methods are wrong or the teacher is. Any method (or teacher) that teaches a child that 5x3 is different to 3x5 is inherently wrong. Just as wrong as an English teaching method that taught you don’t need a capital letter at the start of a proper noun. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/48 "2015-10-28T21:36:00Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Either the methods are wrong or the teacher is. Any method (or teacher) that teaches a child that 5x3 is different to 3x5 is inherently wrong. Just as wrong as an English teaching method that taught you don’t need a capital letter at the start of a proper noun. Never mind; I agree with you completely. I misread your first post on the subject as saying that there _was_ a fundamental difference, and so thought, “well, doesn’t make sense to me, but it’s just likely he/she has more math experience than I.” So yes, if there is no functional difference between 3x5 and 5x3 (and now I feel both gullible and illiterate for being willing to buy the idea that there is a difference), then those questions should have been marked right. In response to **The Tooth** : baring context, 5x3 does not mean “five groups of three” any more or less than 3x5 does. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/49 "2015-10-28T22:59:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I distinctly remember thinking like this all through school. The sentiment can be summed up with the question, why is this useful to me? Using an array to solve 3x5 is not useful. Using an array to solve 28x54 may be useful (I still don’t get the technique actually). I disagree. The array method with one digit numbers is just a completely different problem than doing it with two digit numbers. I don’t think they are transferable except in the general process of using area for multiplication. It’s really not useful until you are at least doing 2 x 1 digits. Then you can start to see that you’re putting different rectangles together. Then, when you get to 2 x 2, you can see you’re putting together more rectangles. And then, if you get what the rectangles represent, you can basically derive the FOIL method by yourself. 28_54 = 20 \* 50 + 20_4 + 50 \* 8 + 4 \* 8 = 2500 + 80 + 400 + 32 = 3012. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly how I learned using the area method at Montessori, where I maxed out their math curriculum by fourth grade and coasted in public until seventh grade when I finally got to learn something new–pre-algebra. And be fed up with a teacher that made us do 30 problems every night for no good reason. And that, BTW, is my problem with Common Core. It still is adhering to the crappy “tons of homework” method of teaching. It’s busy work. At home you’ll either get it quickly and not need to practice a whole lot, or you won’t get it and will be stuck. Arithmetic is the one subject that should be online now. And streamlined to each student and how they learn. We were doing that in fifth and sixth grade in the computer lab. What happened? Why did we revert to new math but old methods of giving the kids busywork? BTW, i also learned multiplication using the times table square. That was the last step before you were to have your times tables memorized. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/50 "2015-10-28T23:50:25Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I disagree. The array method with one digit numbers is just a completely different problem than doing it with two digit numbers. I don’t think they are transferable except in the general process of using area for multiplication. > > It’s really not useful until you are at least doing 2 x 1 digits. Then you can start to see that you’re putting different rectangles together. Then, when you get to 2 x 2, you can see you’re putting together more rectangles. > > And then, if you get what the rectangles represent, you can basically derive the FOIL method by yourself. 28_54 = 20 \* 50 + 20_4 + 50 \* 8 + 4 \* 8 = 2500 + 80 + 400 + 32 = 3012. > > In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly how I learned using the area method at Montessori, At any time when you were learning that, did they also demonstrate or explain what “Fundamental Law” of arithmetic you were using? Something I’m seeing (_especially where the FOIL method, which I consider an abomination BTW, is taught by rote_) is that kids aren’t even taught the basic laws of arithmetic, especially the one in question here because it’s _complicated_ :rolleyes: Hint: The 1-digit x 2-digit case is the Distributive Law. The 2-digit x 2-digit case is just a repeated use of the Distributive Law. But I’m not seeing children coming out of all those rectangle drawings knowing that. And I’ve looked at a few of those tutorial YouTube videos that taught and worked through the rectangle method. If I didn’t already know what they were thinking in that method, I’d have found them incomprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/51 "2015-10-28T23:51:56Z")
By the way, this discussion is still going on [over in GQ too](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=769545), with a lot of redundancy between that thread and this one. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/52 "2015-10-29T00:19:24Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And that, BTW, is my problem with Common Core. It still is adhering to the crappy “tons of homework” method of teaching. It’s busy work. At home you’ll either get it quickly and not need to practice a whole lot, or you won’t get it and will be stuck. Be a dear, would you, and point me to the standard requiring “tons of homework”? [Here are the third grade standards](http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/3/introduction/). I’ve studied them pretty carefully, but admittedly I don’t have them memorized. I teach common core, but get complaints from parents (and some kids! they’re weird) that I don’t give **enough** homework, since I tend not to think it’s the best use of a nine-year-old’s time. Kids that master material in my class have the option to complete some advanced work in Khan Academy as an alternate homework assignment. But if you’re right about Common Core, I’m doing it wrong. So could you cite what you’re looking at? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/53 "2015-10-29T00:26:43Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Never mind; I agree with you completely. I misread your first post on the subject as saying that there _was_ a fundamental difference, and so thought, “well, doesn’t make sense to me, but it’s just likely he/she has more math experience than I.” > > So yes, if there is no functional difference between 3x5 and 5x3 (and now I feel both gullible and illiterate for being willing to buy the idea that there is a difference), then those questions should have been marked right. > > In response to **The Tooth** : baring context, 5x3 does not mean “five groups of three” any more or less than 3x5 does. Apparently the teacher thinks otherwise. I think this student was expected to come up with a six by four matrix, and he came up with a four by six matrix instead. If the kid was expected to apply what he was taught when it comes to putting numbers in groups and didn’t, the low mark is deserved. That’s the only reason I can think of for marking those questions wrong. I don’t know, I wasn’t there for the lesson. Maybe the fact that there’s a\* representational \*difference between 5x3 and 3x5 was never mentioned in the class before. But looking at the test, that’s what I would assume was taught. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/54 "2015-10-29T00:57:25Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > I think this student was expected to come up with a six by four matrix, and he came up with a four by six matrix instead. It’s not a matrix. When the problem is that a teacher is wrongly implying that multiplication of numbers is not commutative, introducing the possibility of confusion with matrix multiplication is an absurdly terrible idea. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/55 "2015-10-29T02:18:50Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Apparently the teacher thinks otherwise. … And that is precisely the problem. Not anything to do with Common Core: one teacher who does not understand the concepts (s)he is supposed to be teaching and mistakenly thinks that there _is_ functional difference between 3x5 and 5x3. Common Core Standard for Grade 3 is to understand and apply properties of operations as strategies to multiply and divide. The grading of that test is teaching the exact opposite of the correct information and _in direct opposition to the Common Core Standard._ What goes on is that anything bad is being blamed on Common Core. Odd and different grading system? Common Core. A bad teacher doing the job poorly? Common Core. Too much homework? Common Core. Too little homework? Common Core … ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/56 "2015-10-29T04:28:27Z")
It’s pretty clear that the teacher thought the kid arrived at the right answer the wrong way, and part marks for that sort of thing is nothing new, and I wasn’t there to see how this kid was taught to multiply. But I’m not going to argue further because whatever I think, it’s probably not relevant to the pros and cons of Common Core. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/57 "2015-10-29T16:15:40Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > It’s pretty clear that the teacher thought the kid arrived at the right answer the wrong way, and part marks for that sort of thing is nothing new, and I wasn’t there to see how this kid was taught to multiply. But I’m not going to argue further because whatever I think, it’s probably not relevant to the pros and cons of Common Core. It actually does. If the teacher was NOT teaching that for multiplication 5 x 3 = 3 x 5, was not teaching the correct information about order of operations, then (s)he was IGNORING the standards of Common Core and doing it very wrong. Common Core Standard is to teach, explicitly teach, that those two are identical and not different in any way. The point that the Common Core wants emphasized and clearly understood is that 5 x 3 and 3 x 5 are the same thing, both represented additively as either 5+5+5 or 3+3+3+3+3 whichever one is written first. If this teacher was teaching to Common Core (s)he would not have taught it otherwise or scored it otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/58 "2015-10-29T16:26:39Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > What goes on is that anything bad is being blamed on Common Core. Odd and different grading system? Common Core. A bad teacher doing the job poorly? Common Core. Too much homework? Common Core. Too little homework? Common Core … Be that as it may … a lot of “change for change’s sake” happened after states adopted Common Core standards. Ask your kids’ teachers most any “_why it this the way it is_” question, and the answer will invariably be “_Common Core_”. That response may be shorthand for “_Dunno exactly, we got a lot of new materials and guidance after Common Core standards were adopted_”. Why didn’t teachers and administrators know that existing methods, textbooks, etc. could be readily used to teach to Common Core standards? I mean, no one anywhere around here seems to have recognized that – why not? In any event, it is common (no pun) for perceptions to trump reality in the marketplace of ideas. At the moment, Common Core desperately needs a PR makeover. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/59 "2015-10-29T16:58:20Z")
As a parent I lived through lots of changes for changes sake before and after Common Core. School administrators seem to be prone to do that. Multiple math programs and pendulums swinging from phonics to whole language to phonics while the best teachers always tried to keep doing both in balance. Hell, I am 56 and my parents were complaining about the “new math” I was being taught (big on learning different base systems as I recall it.) No doubt however that the execution was flawed, again with an excessive embrace of lots of standardized testing as _the_ evaluative method. That motivated many districts to try to quickly game their processes to test performance and many have done that badly. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899/60 "2015-10-30T18:58:21Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > It actually does. If the teacher was NOT teaching that for multiplication 5 x 3 = 3 x 5, was not teaching the correct information about order of operations, then (s)he was IGNORING the standards of Common Core and doing it very wrong. Common Core Standard is to teach, explicitly teach, that those two are identical and not different in any way. The point that the Common Core wants emphasized and clearly understood is that 5 x 3 and 3 x 5 are the same thing, both represented additively as either 5+5+5 or 3+3+3+3+3 whichever one is written first. If this teacher was teaching to Common Core (s)he would not have taught it otherwise or scored it otherwise. This was my assumption though [this link](http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/teacher-marks-child-s-55515-answer-incorrect) says otherwise (though doesn’t provide any evidence of where it says so): > [@](#): > > The question simply asked to use repeated addition to solve 5x3. The math question is a typical question set by the Common Core for third graders. However, under the guidelines for the Common Core, you supposed to understand 5x3 as “five groups of three” not “three groups of five.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-good-about-common-core/735899.md?page=4)