|
It is entirely possible for a student with a significant disability to be assigned to an alternative curriculum at an IEP meeting. Students who cannot communicate should not assigned the common core standards, and cases where this occurs can be explained by incompetence or extreme parental intransigence.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
I've haven't seen anywhere where Common Core overrides IEPs and mandates kids fulfill standards that are beyond them. I do know that NCLB mandates 100% fulfillment of certain standards by, uh, I think it's this year or soon, and makes few or no exceptions. If there's any law set up to try and ensure schools fail, it's NCLB.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Teachers tend to be a lot more educated than Wal-Mart employees, and they have a union, which offers a modicum of protection. Most of that protection manifests in the form of an understanding of the system and access to legal counsel, which will help guarantee that if you are being fired, the firing party followed the required processes. A lot of teachers do not have union protections. I really hate the perception that every teacher is sitting behind an army of lawyers if school or district wants to get rid of them. temple fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
temple posted:A lot of teachers do not have union protections. I really hate the idea that every teacher is sitting behind an army of lawyers if school or district wants to get rid of them. Your wording is confusing. Do you mean you hate the possibility that a teacher would have that or do you mean you hate that others have the idea?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:Your wording is confusing. Do you mean you hate the possibility that a teacher would have that or do you mean you hate that others have the idea? I changed it. I meant perception.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
viewtyjoe posted:Because public education is compulsory In most US states there are very liberal policies about alternative schooling. In Texas for example the statement is flat-out false. It may be true in the actual situation that was the basis of your anecdote, if there was such a situation you had in mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:One of the things that aways annoys me in discussions of Common Core are parents who are somehow engaged enough to throw a fit that their children's curriculum is different from what they learned 30 years ago, but not engaged enough to take 10-15 minutes and figure it out. Like they always circulate these examples where it's like "oh God this is so ridiculous how are our kids supposed to understand this New Math" but the examples make plenty of sense if you look at them for a minute to two, much less if you go over with the kid what the teacher said in class or look at the textbook or online resources or whatever. I'm not shocked at all that parents (who don't want to look like a dumbfuck to their kids) are upset about a radically different system of doing the most basic problems if there was no real effort to explain to parents why the changes were made (and in many cases most of the teachers don't know why either). The problem also becomes even if they understand what is going on numerically in the new method it isn't clear at all why you would prefer that method or why it's better (and there's actually not much evidence it is)*. This is particularly true if that parent was good at math themselves because many people who go on to math heavy careers did in fact pick up the 'old' method naturally, and developed the mental rules new math is trying to show straight away naturally in the course of things. It's really hard to see the point of a new if you don't think there was anything difficult or wrong with how the old worked. Oh and what happens if a parent tries to google how to help their kid with this? They are going to be getting a whole bunch of stories of 'math teacher can't explain new math' or 'quantum physicist can't do simple 'new' math problem' or whatever- the politicization of, well, everything doesn't help of course. Related, there's also lingering memories of new math in the 60's which was an ill conceived reform based on the fear of communism more than anything else. The complaints of parents then weren't much different than the complaints you hear today either, though it was a qualitatively different situation as the math in it was concepts that traditionally you never learn till you are in college or advanced HS math courses. That type of math was more what the wolfram alpha dude is now pushing for- where you use (surprise) wolfram alpha to get into things like derivatives very early in math (which seems misguided as well for a variety of reasons). Dirk the Average posted:I was a tutor and worked with a lot of tutors, and we all had some difficulty understanding Common Core. We knew the math, obviously, and could very easily teach students how to properly solve problems, but some of the examples and methods used were completely out of left field for us, and given that we were getting second or thirdhand knowledge of what was being taught through a student who didn't properly comprehend the lesson (after all, they're in tutoring because they don't get the concept), it was fairly difficult to get quickly. Yep, when people who 'get' math can't quickly or easily see why exactly the methods are done it shouldn't shock anyone that parents are going to get frustrated. emfive posted:In most US states there are very liberal policies about alternative schooling. In Texas for example the statement is flat-out false. Not to speak for them but I'm pretty sure they meant if you want to send your kid to school the public school of their district has to take them with very few exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
tsa posted:Not to speak for them but I'm pretty sure they meant if you want to send your kid to school the public school of their district has to take them with very few exceptions. You're right. (I mean, that's certainly one way to interpret the statement to which I responded, and it may have been the intention.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
I learned fuckall in my math classes and probably learned the most from my dad simply asking why something is or to try and figure out how something can't. My physics teacher made math fun (and applicable) by trying to get us to discuss and analyse what is actually happening rather than here are x equations and let us derive most of what we needed. The principal was shocked that we took basically no notes and had nearly no equations and nearly had the guy fired. We all went on to have 4 or 5s on ap physics c exams, even the "bad" students.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Interesting article from a Swedes perspective. We are failing pretty hard at math as well after switching once or twice to Brand New Revolutionary Systems(tm), and I certainly recognize some of the issues from my own time in school. I'd say we have something in the middle of the US/Japanese system, overheads were rare and whiteboards very common, but then the "you" followed were everyone were supposed to sit quietly and churn through a chapter of practice equations each lesson, followed possibly by a last 15 minutes of the teacher going through student questions or solving particularly hard questions together. The common conclusion to this method achieving poor results compared to say Finland, is that there's too few teachers per students, basically because the lone teacher got no way of really helping more than a handful of students during the long "everyone practice by themselves" part of the class. Critics have pointed out that we have a rather good teacher:student ratio, so perhaps the problem lies more in the structure of the class-session. I went through some optional classes for advanced math at high-school were we had a younger "savant" teacher who taught university prepatory math (planes/dimensional math, however you translate that) who used small study-groups a lot more, although old habits remained amongst the students. I found the later easier to approach than the old traditional sessions. The younger teachers I had were a lot more firebrand about using new methods, but I often had the feeling they didn't really know how to implement them, and fell back to the old methods. Likewise the older teachers were stuck in their old habits and the only thing that changed were the books (now with interesting historical tid-bits about famous mathematicians! Why, did you know that Sweden managed to kill René Descartes with our lovely weather and poor castle heating?  )Not really sure how easily this issue is to solve when you get down to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Just as an anecdote, my wife's current school has five reading intervention resource teachers and zero math resource teachers. If a kid is struggling to read it's loving Armageddon but if a kid isn't getting math it's basically "eh I wasn't good at math either". I think culturally and from a resource perspective the US doesn't take math illiteracy anywhere near as seriously as language illiteracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Just as an anecdote, my wife's current school has five reading intervention resource teachers and zero math resource teachers. If a kid is struggling to read it's loving Armageddon but if a kid isn't getting math it's basically "eh I wasn't good at math either". I think culturally and from a resource perspective the US doesn't take math illiteracy anywhere near as seriously as language illiteracy. Yeah, being illiterate is seen as shameful, whereas we basically allow even teachers to basically say, "oh, I'm not a math person, tee hee!" I had multiple teachers in middle school and jr. high that wouldn't have been able to calculate marks without a computerized system (I'm guessing even a calculator wouldn't have been enough). Can you imagine a person just saying, "oh, I'm not a 'words' person"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, being illiterate is seen as shameful, whereas we basically allow even teachers to basically say, "oh, I'm not a math person, tee hee!" I had multiple teachers in middle school and jr. high that wouldn't have been able to calculate marks without a computerized system (I'm guessing even a calculator wouldn't have been enough). Yes. Not exactly in those terms, but it happens depressingly often in my experience. People claim that they're "not into reading" or "they don't read". A college English major even once admitted to me that she "didn't read" without any sort of self-awareness or shame. I'm not trying to say that it's not a problem that people claim that their ignorance or lack of interest in math is the result of some natural inborn tendency rather than a conscious choice on their point, because it's a drat stupid thing to say (barring some form of learning disorder) but it's something that happens with all subjects. People claim that they aren't good at math, reading, writing, art, sports, etc. in terms of identity ("I've never been good at sports", "I can't draw/dance/write", "I hate math", "I've never had a knack for science") rather than treating them like skills that need to be trained and maintained.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Basically this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1995 I always found the Incompleteness Theorems to be a comfort against math anxiety. Worried about making a mistake? It's all bullshit anyway; the answer is based on assumptions. Change the assumptions and you change the answer. Not only that, but we CAN'T come up with something that works all the time. It's provably impossible. Make sure your reasoning is sound and everything should work out. I wish we had focused more on process and playing with math in High School. Before college I learned how to do computation; in college I learned how to do MATH.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
MGTen posted:Yes. Not exactly in those terms, but it happens depressingly often in my experience. People claim that they're "not into reading" or "they don't read". A college English major even once admitted to me that she "didn't read" without any sort of self-awareness or shame. Lots of people don't read in their leisure time, but that doesn't mean they can't read. I'm not going to defend it as an excellent life choice, but it's better than basically being illiterate. Many people seem to revel in their innumeracy, though, which I find a little disturbing. On another point, I think you're spot on comparisons to other subject areas. In a sense, I think the problems with PE and the problems with math education are quite similar, at least in my experience. They both seem designed to cater to the people who already show a natural aptitude/inclination towards them. I was always good at math (arithmetic through discrete math, calculus, and some cryptography stuff in university), but I was always lovely at PE and out of shape (part of which has to do with a minor birth defect, but that shouldn't be an excuse). Now that I've started working out, and working on my balance, and everything, I've realized there was no reason for me to be lovely and out of shape for so long, it's just that the PE curriculum didn't really want to do much in the way of "education" in terms of helping me build up my basic level of fitness. As a result, I can't help but wonder if math education is so hosed up simply because we haven't come up with a good way to teach and re-enforce the fundamentals -- a problem which, as I see it, the Common Core reforms are meant to address.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
I think a lot of us have had that revelation, maybe within math itself. I was taught in the tradition of Old Math, or basically the "do this, move this number here, and do this," method. Sometimes realizing why you do something, like "borrowing" during subtraction, makes sense, is really surprising, because math was not about the why when I was a kid. This extends a lot further than math too; I recall being really confused by stoichiometry in chemistry, wondering why "you take this element and multiply it by this mole and multiply it by the other mole" or whatever worked, until I realized it's just conversions basically, despite it not being explained as such. If Common Core does make emphasis on averting this, then I'm for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Lots of people don't read in their leisure time, but that doesn't mean they can't read. I'm not going to defend it as an excellent life choice, but it's better than basically being illiterate. Many people seem to revel in their innumeracy, though, which I find a little disturbing. This is really a minor quibble, and for the record I think you're pretty much correct on this at least partly stemming from the way we teach these subjects, but your comparison between illiteracy and people who say "I'm not a math person" isn't quite correct. I mean, people who say that can do at least general and basic math. Much like how a person that says "I don't read" has at least basic reading skills, the mathematically disinclined can almost always do basic arithmetic and maybe even some light algebra. Sure, they might stare at you in bewilderment if you ask them to calculate a percentage or multiply two fractions together, but you'd probably get the same reaction if you asked them to spell or define some simple words. If someone didn't even know how to add two numbers together or count, like they didn't even understand how to do the most basic things, that would be closer to a complete illiterate and I imagine it would be treated pretty similarly to how we treat illiteracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Zesty Mordant posted:I think a lot of us have had that revelation, maybe within math itself. I was taught in the tradition of Old Math, or basically the "do this, move this number here, and do this," method. Sometimes realizing why you do something, like "borrowing" during subtraction, makes sense, is really surprising, because math was not about the why when I was a kid. This extends a lot further than math too; I recall being really confused by stoichiometry in chemistry, wondering why "you take this element and multiply it by this mole and multiply it by the other mole" or whatever worked, until I realized it's just conversions basically, despite it not being explained as such. If Common Core does make emphasis on averting this, then I'm for it. Huh, I was taught under the old system and always understood why to do things like that. I always taught those concepts to my students and classmates whenever they needed help as well; I think your example with stoichiometry is apt - I've never had a student fail to understand stoichiometry after I explained the underlying concepts and forced them to set a seven or eight step stoichiometry themselves (not necessarily just chemistry, but dates/times/etc. as well).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Huh, I was taught under the old system and always understood why to do things like that. You're lucky then. I would guess most students in the past have had no idea why they do particular arrangements, but only that doing them leads to the answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 06:37
|
|
MGTen posted:This is really a minor quibble, and for the record I think you're pretty much correct on this at least partly stemming from the way we teach these subjects, but your comparison between illiteracy and people who say "I'm not a math person" isn't quite correct. I mean, people who say that can do at least general and basic math. Much like how a person that says "I don't read" has at least basic reading skills, the mathematically disinclined can almost always do basic arithmetic and maybe even some light algebra. Sure, they might stare at you in bewilderment if you ask them to calculate a percentage or multiply two fractions together, but you'd probably get the same reaction if you asked them to spell or define some simple words. The OP Article posted:One of the most vivid arithmetic failings displayed by Americans occurred in the early 1980s, when the A&W restaurant chain released a new hamburger to rival the McDonald’s Quarter Pounder. With a third-pound of beef, the A&W burger had more meat than the Quarter Pounder; in taste tests, customers preferred A&W’s burger. And it was less expensive. A lavish A&W television and radio marketing campaign cited these benefits. Yet instead of leaping at the great value, customers snubbed it. It is that bad.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:It is that bad. Yeah, I certainly know adults who can barely do basic arithmetic, and it's possible to graduate from high school in my province with nothing beyond basic arithmetic skills. I think a better criterion for whether a person is innumerate or illiterate is if their lack of literacy or numeracy impairs them in everyday life, and I would argue that a lot of people are seriously impaired by innumeracy even if they possess basic arithmetic skills.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
There's a reason McDonalds has the "Double Quarter Pounder" and not the "Half Pounder."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, I certainly know adults who can barely do basic arithmetic, and it's possible to graduate from high school in my province with nothing beyond basic arithmetic skills. I think a better criterion for whether a person is innumerate or illiterate is if their lack of literacy or numeracy impairs them in everyday life, and I would argue that a lot of people are seriously impaired by innumeracy even if they possess basic arithmetic skills.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
KillHour posted:There's a reason McDonalds has the "Double Quarter Pounder" and not the "Half Pounder." Then again, places like Fuddruckers have fractional denominations and I doubt their clientele are significantly more intelligent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Trent posted:I'm back to working retail while I work on my masters, and I see this all the time. Trying to explain to someone that even though (for example) ink cartridge A costs 40% more than B, B has 60% more ink, so it's actually cheaper per unit volume... It's a lost cause with a depressing number of people. That's horrifying. At least at grocery stores they do the money/unit food conversion for you, but I can't even conceive of people who don't do that calculation. It's the first thing that both my mother and my father independently taught me about shopping and looking for deals. Granted, there are some times where it's beneficial to go with the "worse" deal, such as when you don't need the extra stuff, or the extra stuff will spoil, but that's on a case by case basis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:That's horrifying. At least at grocery stores they do the money/unit food conversion for you, but I can't even conceive of people who don't do that calculation. It's the first thing that both my mother and my father independently taught me about shopping and looking for deals. Well sure, just like you don't always need the 128 roll pack of toilet paper even though they are 1¢ cheaper per roll, but I'm taking about blank stares and people actually thinking I'm trying to trick them somehow. It feels like I might as well be taking about fractional roots of imaginary numbers and string theory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Trent posted:I'm back to working retail while I work on my masters, and I see this all the time. Trying to explain to someone that even though (for example) ink cartridge A costs 40% more than B, B has 60% more ink, so it's actually cheaper per unit volume... It's a lost cause with a depressing number of people. I think you typed this wrong. If ink cartridge A costs 40% more, and B has 60% more ink, of course B is the better value - it's both cheaper and bigger. I think you mean A costs 40% more AND has 60% more ink than B. In which case, A would be cheaper per unit but the answer would be less obvious. KillHour fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I think you typed this wrong. If ink cartridge A costs 40% more, and B has 60% more ink, of course B is the better value - it's both cheaper and bigger. I think you mean A costs 40% more AND has 60% more ink than B. In which case, A would be cheaper per unit but the answer would be less obvious. You're right of course. I'll blame it on trying to make a fancy post from my phone, but it was probably just a typo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:It is that bad. It would appear there is indeed a numeracy problem 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 21:57
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Dirk the Average posted:That's horrifying. At least at grocery stores they do the money/unit food conversion for you, but I can't even conceive of people who don't do that calculation. It's the first thing that both my mother and my father independently taught me about shopping and looking for deals. Is there an actual reason why American supermarkets continue to defy progress by displaying neither 100g/1kg normalised prices nor price after tax on shelf labels?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Is there an actual reason why American supermarkets continue to defy progress by displaying neither 100g/1kg normalised prices nor price after tax on shelf labels? No one in the US displays price after tax and in my experience for a group of products they do $/[unit weight] where the unit weight is the same (there are some exceptions though; popcorn is occasionally $/ounce or $/package for seemingly random reasons). Price after tax is also different in the US because it's explicitly not a VAT.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Is there an actual reason why American supermarkets continue to defy progress by displaying neither 100g/1kg normalised prices nor price after tax on shelf labels? Very rarely do I run into an issue where two competing brands of the same good have different units in their price/unit displayed on the tag. As for the tax thing, computer parts is right; we don't generally mention the after-tax/recycling fee/whatever cost of goods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Price after tax is also different in the US because it's explicitly not a VAT. What does this even mean
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Gasoline is the only product sold at a price after tax
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Gasoline is the only product sold at a price after tax Alcoholic beverages at bars are typically sold with the tax included
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
rscott posted:Alcoholic beverages at bars are typically sold with the tax included This is true if it is served open, it's plus tax if it's sold closed. Because, that's why.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Trent posted:This is true if it is served open, it's plus tax if it's sold closed. Because, that's why. Because no one at a bar wants to calculate the loving tax on their beer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No one in the US displays price after tax  Ok, you're officially the hermit kingdom. When looking at a price tag I don't give a poo poo about how much of that is tax, I only want to know how big the stack of cash I need to get out of my wallet is. Put a "and $Texas of that price goes to the greedy gubmint" under the main number on the price tag if you want to live up to the special snowflake country image for the sake of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
blowfish posted:
We do display for a few things (gasoline, movie theaters), but in general we don't include sales tax into the price of things. I think it's messed up since it helps out regressive southern hellholes (who fund themselves through sales taxes instead of income taxes) since it makes your prices seem similar when you're actually paying 1-2% extra.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:39 |
|
blowfish posted:
It's because sales tax varies on a state by state basis. McDonalds and such don't want to have to print a different menu for each state or deal with the complaints that items on the "dollar" menu say $1.08 instead of $1. Plus it lets businesses effectively charge extra.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:28
|
|