SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 66:
Line 66: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Common Core: new section
:idk. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:36, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:idk. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:36, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
::i do know that conservative news sites have blown past their liberal counterparts; breitbart, drudge, daily caller --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:38, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
::i do know that conservative news sites have blown past their liberal counterparts; breitbart, drudge, daily caller --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:38, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
== Common Core ==
Greetings, JPatt:
I write this in the spirit of friendship and cooperation. It may sound hostile, given that I disagree with Conservapedia's apparent stance regarding Common Core, but I don't mean to be hostile.
If you were to look around on the web for all the examples of massive stupidity and inappropriateness in things schoolteachers do, and put them into the [[Essay:Common Core]] article, you would run out of disk space on Conservapedia's server. There's just no limit to human stupidity, and there's no point putting examples of stupidity into the Common Core article ''unless they relate to the Common Core standards''.
I looked around at your examples. The "Ruby and the hairclip" article came from [https://jeopardylabs.com/play/reading-mastery-3rd-6-weeks-review this article, select "inference for 500"]. It's the most pathetic thing I've seen on the internet in quite a while. The [https://jeopardylabs.com https://jeopardylabs.com] website is truly awful, and the "be sure your answer is in the form of a question" garbage is just incredible. They are certainly not Alex Trebek! It's a web site where you can make your own stupid Jeopardy game thing, and then upload it so others can see it. That a teacher downloaded such a thing for his or her class is utterly pathetic in many ways. But the website has nothing to do with Common Core!
As far as I can tell from a Google search, the "Peter and Patty" story was from some kind of book titled "Daily Warm-ups, Reading, Grade 3" by Shelle Russell. You can find it on Amazon [http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=1420634895 here]. Unbelievably stupid. (By the way, the story was pretty much cribbed from Hansel and Gretel; the author is incredibly lazy, as well as stupid.) That a 3rd grade teacher on Long Island went to this book for material is unbelievable. But, once again, it has nothing to do with Common Core.
You and I can find stupid things that teachers do until we are blue in the face. There's already a Conservapedia page on [[Public_school]] that has this stuff.
As far as your math example from yesterday, the news article says it's from Common Core, but I'm not convinced. I need to look around some more. I Googled "breaking apart numbers", and it seems to be a real thing. As a math major, I find it appalling that people would teach it that way. It's true that you can mentally add 105+79 by saying that 79 is 1 less than 80, and 105+80 is obviously 185, so 105+79=184. I think that's what the method is about, but the example is an incredibly inappropriate one. I can't figure out what he's doing. The [http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/217018.php article you cited], says it's a common core example, giving [https://twitter.com/hoffmanrich/status/384806802262470656/photo/1 this item by Rich Hoffmann]. But it gives no evidence that that example came from Common Core; it just said that it came from a 3rd grade workbook, with no further information. It may be that Common Core does teach the "breaking apart" method, but I hope it's more like my 105+79 example rather than the garbage from that workbook.
I haven't checked out the "Constitution Day" thing in detail, but I think the fundamental point, that we have a great deal of freedom because of the Constitution, and that America is special because of this, is appropriate. It's what I was taught in school. I don't agree with their claim that the Constitution is not a piece of paper. At the time that it was signed, on September 17, 1787, it ''was'' a piece of paper. Well, quite a few pages. And it most certainly is our written plan.
I need to do more Googling. :-)
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:08, 7 October 2013 (EDT)