NationStates

Salandriagado wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Some understanding of how numbers work is important, but most of what is taught in math classes in school never becomes useful for most people.

The thing that is being taught in maths lessons is useful for absolutely everybody who manages to learn it. It has fuck all to do with numbers, though. The stuff with numbers is a nice side-effect that you get on the way to the point of the lesson.

And what's that thing?

Telconi wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
The thing that is being taught in maths lessons is useful for absolutely everybody who manages to learn it. It has fuck all to do with numbers, though. The stuff with numbers is a nice side-effect that you get on the way to the point of the lesson.

And what's that thing?

Elementary logic and abstract thinking.

Valrifell wrote:

Telconi wrote:
And what's that thing?

Elementary logic and abstract thinking.

Which is only learnable in math class?

Telconi wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Elementary logic and abstract thinking.

Which is only learnable in math class?

No, but that's not particularly relevant.

Valrifell wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Which is only learnable in math class?

No, but that's not particularly relevant.

It is, if the purpose of math class is to teach logic and abstract thinking. But those could be learned elsewhere, then to what end do we require math class?

Telconi wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Elementary logic and abstract thinking.

Which is only learnable in math class?

There exist other subjects that could be used to teach it, but none are usually taught in schools, and none have as good side-benefits as mathematics.

Salandriagado wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Which is only learnable in math class?

There exist other subjects that could be used to teach it, but none are usually taught in schools, and none have as good side-benefits as mathematics.

I've found no side benefit to the many hours spent in math class. No core benefit either. And plenty of costs.

Telconi wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
No, but that's not particularly relevant.

It is, if the purpose of math class is to teach logic and abstract thinking. But those could be learned elsewhere, then to what end do we require math class?

Most if not all of the professional careers require at least some background in mathematics. Removing it from the curriculum is just setting yourself up for failure down the line.

Valrifell wrote:

Telconi wrote:
It is, if the purpose of math class is to teach logic and abstract thinking. But those could be learned elsewhere, then to what end do we require math class?

Most if not all of the professional careers require at least some background in mathematics. Removing it from the curriculum is just setting yourself up for failure down the line.

How many people do you think work in fields that require the level of mathematics taught in High School?

As a teacher I'd have to say, stop making us and your children jump through hoops. Children are not test scores. The current system focuses way more than it should on numbers. Not everything can be measured by tests and assessments.

Telconi wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Most if not all of the professional careers require at least some background in mathematics. Removing it from the curriculum is just setting yourself up for failure down the line.

How many people do you think work in fields that require the level of mathematics taught in High School?

About 10% of the population. Plus, again, the "literally everybody" who get the core "learn how to think" benefit.

Salandriagado wrote:

Telconi wrote:
How many people do you think work in fields that require the level of mathematics taught in High School?

About 10% of the population. Plus, again, the "literally everybody" who get the core "learn how to think" benefit.

So you mandate that 100% of students take a class in which the core subject benefits approx. 1/10 of them, and is a detriment to 9/10. And you justify this based upon the benefits of a fringe lesson they may or may not actually learn, and which is able to be taught elsewhere?

Telconi wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
About 10% of the population. Plus, again, the "literally everybody" who get the core "learn how to think" benefit.

So you mandate that 100% of students take a class in which the core subject benefits approx. 1/10 of them, and is a detriment to 9/10.

Can you name another class which hits that large a percentage of the population?

And you justify this based upon the benefits of a fringe lesson they may or may not actually learn, and which is able to be taught elsewhere?

No, the benefit of a core lesson, that everybody who was going to learn anything at all in any kind of lesson will learn, and which can't effectively be taught in any better way.

Salandriagado wrote:

Telconi wrote:
So you mandate that 100% of students take a class in which the core subject benefits approx. 1/10 of them, and is a detriment to 9/10.

Can you name another class which hits that large a percentage of the population?

And you justify this based upon the benefits of a fringe lesson they may or may not actually learn, and which is able to be taught elsewhere?

No, the benefit of a core lesson, that everybody who was going to learn anything at all in any kind of lesson will learn, and which can't effectively be taught in any better way.

English, perhaps, but no, not really.

The core lesson is math, which benefits 10%, according to you. The ability and desire to learn mathematics at that level is not necessarily related to the ability to learn categorically. It can very easily be taught in other ways, logic and reason are not exclusive to algebra and calculus.

Telconi wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Can you name another class which hits that large a percentage of the population?



No, the benefit of a core lesson, that everybody who was going to learn anything at all in any kind of lesson will learn, and which can't effectively be taught in any better way.

English, perhaps, but no, not really.

The core lesson is math, which benefits 10%, according to you. The ability and desire to learn mathematics at that level is not necessarily related to the ability to learn categorically. It can very easily be taught in other ways, logic and reason are not exclusive to algebra and calculus.

Can you name another way to teach deductive reasoning?

Finally people that agree that the education sucks. Easy, remove common core, so teachers can teach what they know, real stuff not common crap.

Woods Is Back wrote:Finally people that agree that the education sucks. Easy, remove common core, so teachers can teach what they know, real stuff not common crap.

As a teacher I can vouch for the fact that common core sucks.

Urran wrote:

Woods Is Back wrote:Finally people that agree that the education sucks. Easy, remove common core, so teachers can teach what they know, real stuff not common crap.

As a teacher I can vouch for the fact that common core sucks.

As a smart student failing all of my classes because of it, I 100% agree

Salandriagado wrote:

Telconi wrote:
English, perhaps, but no, not really.

The core lesson is math, which benefits 10%, according to you. The ability and desire to learn mathematics at that level is not necessarily related to the ability to learn categorically. It can very easily be taught in other ways, logic and reason are not exclusive to algebra and calculus.

Can you name another way to teach deductive reasoning?

By teaching literally any other subject that utilizes deductive reasoning. It's hardly exclusive to mathematics.

Telconi wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Can you name another way to teach deductive reasoning?

By teaching literally any other subject that utilizes deductive reasoning. It's hardly exclusive to mathematics.

Name one.

Salandriagado wrote:

Telconi wrote:
By teaching literally any other subject that utilizes deductive reasoning. It's hardly exclusive to mathematics.

Name one.

Small engine repair.

Telconi wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Name one.

Small engine repair.

Does not teach any of the skills under discussion.

Salandriagado wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Small engine repair.

Does not teach any of the skills under discussion.

Deductive reasoning? Yes it does.

Telconi wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Most if not all of the professional careers require at least some background in mathematics. Removing it from the curriculum is just setting yourself up for failure down the line.

How many people do you think work in fields that require the level of mathematics taught in High School?

Any engineer, any scientist, any electrician, plumber, bookkeeper, accountant. Etc


Asking if you want fries with that, or after watching my idiot governor, those jobs dont, I agree.

Woods Is Back wrote:Finally people that agree that the education sucks. Easy, remove common core, so teachers can teach what they know, real stuff not common crap.

The idea of a nationally consistent curriculum isn't bad, teachers vary widely in ability and curricula vary widely in content. Having a "common core" would be more beneficial for students who are required to move around and could, in principle, help struggling districts who would otherwise lack the resources they'd need to teach it.

The common core as it stands, sure, is garbage. But don't toss out the whole idea just yet.