This about sums it up.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Complicated Core
A couple days ago, this image started making the rounds on the internets. Then, this morning, I heard Glenn Beck joking about it:
Later this afternoon, I heard that Indiana was the first state to reject Common Core.
But what's been really weird is watching my progressive and conservative friends finally agree on something:
They can't stand Common Core!
Here's the thing: everybody needs to calm down.
CC may not perfect, but it's also not complete garbage either.
Kind of like Frustrated Parent's letter: It isn't complete garbage, but it's certainly far from perfect.
First of all, "in the real world" there is more than one way to solve a problem. That's what this CC exercise is trying to teach. It's fine to use the standard algorithm (as FP did), but I want my students to know that even though the difference has three 1's in it, they're not all the same value. Using a number line and skip counting is one way to teach that, but not the only way... like the old saying goes, "There's more than one way to skin a cat!"
Why wouldn't a parent with a BS know that?
Second, while both FP and I would probably whole-heartedly agree with Bukowski that, "An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way," I would maintain that FP is a perfect example of why we shouldn't necessarily "value" "simplificaiton" "over complication."
(Who would have thought that someone with a BS "which included extensive study in differential equations and other higher math applications" could not "explain the CCM approach" of SKIP COUNTING? Or would find it anything but simple??)
But I digress...
FP and I agree! "The process used is ridiculous and [might] result in termination if used..."
Yes... if that 3rd grader had a job!
(By the way, CC does NOT mandate that once your child is old enough to be employed, he MUST use skip counting to solve ALL subtraction problems.)
Sorry, I think FP might be simplifying things a bit...
To many youngsters, the symbolic nature of numbers and operations makes them very slippery concepts to comprehend, especially before their brains have physically developed the ability to understand abstract thought. Developing minds need concrete connections (like number lines) to understand these fuzzy concepts.
CC (and more specifically CGI strategies developed by Meagan Franke, et al, 2000) attempts to give students a concrete basis for these abstract concepts (like place value to the hundreds in primary grades) so that they can articulate their thinking behind using the standard algorithm like FP used.
Unlike FP's child, we can assume that FP's adult brain is fully developed, with the ability to comprehend highly technical, abstract ideas and nuanced perspectives (not that this letter is a shining example of this)...
So are we really comparing apples to apples when we compare the mathematical understanding of the fully developed (not to mention, more educated) brain of FP to an elementary school student's?
Again, is FP simplifying things or does FP simply not know the differences in physiology between the two?
(In fairness, I don't think that Electronic Engineering degrees include a childhood development prerequisite.)
Progressives AND conservatives should be celebrating the diversity of thought that these standards support. No longer is there The One Right and True Way of Doing Things (the teacher's way). Students are encouraged to think creatively and try different strategies that work for THEM, so that they can articulate, not just a correct answer, but HOW they got it and WHY it works.
Everybody, That's a Good Thing!
Obviously, CC is not perfect--the fact that it's a top-down approach (funded by the Walton, Broad, and Gates' Foundations, to name a few) that is still tied to high-stakes standardized testing is unfortunate...
But sometimes I feel like my fellow progressive friends won't take yes for an answer... To wit: for years we've been championing students understanding the how and the why of math problems... Lo and behold, CC calls for that, and we still complain!
As one of my favorite bands said a decade ago, "History will show our progress is slow... when we win, we win in inches."
Baby steps. Little victories. Progress is slowly being made...
Can't we celebrate that?
We, as a nation, have gotten pretty good at guessing on multiple choice questions (only 1 right answer/when in doubt, always guess C!), and our critical thinking skills have suffered.
Simplifying everything down to The One Right Way is part of the problem, and FP, as well-intentioned as he/she seems, may be a good example of this.
Later this afternoon, I heard that Indiana was the first state to reject Common Core.
But what's been really weird is watching my progressive and conservative friends finally agree on something:
They can't stand Common Core!
Here's the thing: everybody needs to calm down.
CC may not perfect, but it's also not complete garbage either.
Kind of like Frustrated Parent's letter: It isn't complete garbage, but it's certainly far from perfect.
First of all, "in the real world" there is more than one way to solve a problem. That's what this CC exercise is trying to teach. It's fine to use the standard algorithm (as FP did), but I want my students to know that even though the difference has three 1's in it, they're not all the same value. Using a number line and skip counting is one way to teach that, but not the only way... like the old saying goes, "There's more than one way to skin a cat!"
Why wouldn't a parent with a BS know that?
Second, while both FP and I would probably whole-heartedly agree with Bukowski that, "An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way," I would maintain that FP is a perfect example of why we shouldn't necessarily "value" "simplificaiton" "over complication."
(Who would have thought that someone with a BS "which included extensive study in differential equations and other higher math applications" could not "explain the CCM approach" of SKIP COUNTING? Or would find it anything but simple??)
But I digress...
FP and I agree! "The process used is ridiculous and [might] result in termination if used..."
Yes... if that 3rd grader had a job!
(By the way, CC does NOT mandate that once your child is old enough to be employed, he MUST use skip counting to solve ALL subtraction problems.)
Sorry, I think FP might be simplifying things a bit...
To many youngsters, the symbolic nature of numbers and operations makes them very slippery concepts to comprehend, especially before their brains have physically developed the ability to understand abstract thought. Developing minds need concrete connections (like number lines) to understand these fuzzy concepts.
CC (and more specifically CGI strategies developed by Meagan Franke, et al, 2000) attempts to give students a concrete basis for these abstract concepts (like place value to the hundreds in primary grades) so that they can articulate their thinking behind using the standard algorithm like FP used.
Unlike FP's child, we can assume that FP's adult brain is fully developed, with the ability to comprehend highly technical, abstract ideas and nuanced perspectives (not that this letter is a shining example of this)...
So are we really comparing apples to apples when we compare the mathematical understanding of the fully developed (not to mention, more educated) brain of FP to an elementary school student's?
Again, is FP simplifying things or does FP simply not know the differences in physiology between the two?
(In fairness, I don't think that Electronic Engineering degrees include a childhood development prerequisite.)
Progressives AND conservatives should be celebrating the diversity of thought that these standards support. No longer is there The One Right and True Way of Doing Things (the teacher's way). Students are encouraged to think creatively and try different strategies that work for THEM, so that they can articulate, not just a correct answer, but HOW they got it and WHY it works.
Everybody, That's a Good Thing!
Obviously, CC is not perfect--the fact that it's a top-down approach (funded by the Walton, Broad, and Gates' Foundations, to name a few) that is still tied to high-stakes standardized testing is unfortunate...
But sometimes I feel like my fellow progressive friends won't take yes for an answer... To wit: for years we've been championing students understanding the how and the why of math problems... Lo and behold, CC calls for that, and we still complain!
As one of my favorite bands said a decade ago, "History will show our progress is slow... when we win, we win in inches."
Baby steps. Little victories. Progress is slowly being made...
Can't we celebrate that?
We, as a nation, have gotten pretty good at guessing on multiple choice questions (only 1 right answer/when in doubt, always guess C!), and our critical thinking skills have suffered.
Simplifying everything down to The One Right Way is part of the problem, and FP, as well-intentioned as he/she seems, may be a good example of this.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Street Fighting Man
"What can a poor boy do, except to sing for a rock and roll band?"
Well, he could read the fascinating oral history of the '90's arcade sensation, Street Fighter II.
Never played the game in my life, so I'm not sure why I found the article so compelling...
I mean, 5 chapters is no small piece....
Someone please tell me in comments why this was so entertaining!
Well, he could read the fascinating oral history of the '90's arcade sensation, Street Fighter II.
Never played the game in my life, so I'm not sure why I found the article so compelling...
I mean, 5 chapters is no small piece....
Someone please tell me in comments why this was so entertaining!
Monday, March 17, 2014
Thursday, March 06, 2014
Panther Heart
A few years ago, I was in a folk-pop band called, The Clouds. When we broke up, two separate bands formed in the aftermath:
California Lions and Panther Heart.
Much like the splintering of At the Drive-in, the two groups created were diametrically opposite: the former, a pure pop band and the latter, an art/orchestral rock band.
I wasn't involved with either, but I did attend both groups' shows.
California Lions were a tight, cohesive unit with concise, if not quirky pop songs, a self-contained group with a Hollywood producer to boot. Their songs were catchy and would sometimes be played in the background of reality shows on MTV.
In other words, they were pros.
Panther Heart were the antithesis of that. Their first show was a fully improvised 60-minute set, complete with psychedelic projections and interpretive dance. The next time I saw them, they performed a song cycle that would soon form the basis of their first two ep's, "Panther Heart Defeats the Dire Wolf," parts 1 & 2.
These songs intrigued me. They reminded me of my favorite Talk Talk albums, dreamy with a hint of foreboding. They had wordless melodies, and their harmonies were gorgeous. But while their songs were captivating, they lacked bass, and without its counterpart, the drums seemed noticeably unmoored from the rest of the band.
I saw my opening...
Sometime in the middle of 2012, I asked if I could play bass for them, and thankfully they let me, thus beginning my Tuesday ritual of weekly practices at the Panther Den. By then, we had eight members, including me, and when we all sang, the sound was incredible!
We recorded the aforementioned ep's (Part 1 includes a book we hand-made) and occasionally played shows until this year, when we decided that this iteration of Panther Heart had run its course...
The good news is, I'm told there will be more music coming from a different version of Panther Heart...
In the meantime, here's our website. There are a few nice photos of our rather elaborate shows (including this line-up's farewell performance, January 31) and hopefully, very soon, you'll be able listen to (or purchase) our two e.p.'s directly from the site...
Enjoy!
California Lions and Panther Heart.
Much like the splintering of At the Drive-in, the two groups created were diametrically opposite: the former, a pure pop band and the latter, an art/orchestral rock band.
I wasn't involved with either, but I did attend both groups' shows.
California Lions were a tight, cohesive unit with concise, if not quirky pop songs, a self-contained group with a Hollywood producer to boot. Their songs were catchy and would sometimes be played in the background of reality shows on MTV.
In other words, they were pros.
Panther Heart were the antithesis of that. Their first show was a fully improvised 60-minute set, complete with psychedelic projections and interpretive dance. The next time I saw them, they performed a song cycle that would soon form the basis of their first two ep's, "Panther Heart Defeats the Dire Wolf," parts 1 & 2.
These songs intrigued me. They reminded me of my favorite Talk Talk albums, dreamy with a hint of foreboding. They had wordless melodies, and their harmonies were gorgeous. But while their songs were captivating, they lacked bass, and without its counterpart, the drums seemed noticeably unmoored from the rest of the band.
I saw my opening...
Sometime in the middle of 2012, I asked if I could play bass for them, and thankfully they let me, thus beginning my Tuesday ritual of weekly practices at the Panther Den. By then, we had eight members, including me, and when we all sang, the sound was incredible!
We recorded the aforementioned ep's (Part 1 includes a book we hand-made) and occasionally played shows until this year, when we decided that this iteration of Panther Heart had run its course...
The good news is, I'm told there will be more music coming from a different version of Panther Heart...
In the meantime, here's our website. There are a few nice photos of our rather elaborate shows (including this line-up's farewell performance, January 31) and hopefully, very soon, you'll be able listen to (or purchase) our two e.p.'s directly from the site...
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
