The error in the math problem is that Jack subtracted 360, not 316 (and incorrectly at that). It doesn't take a science degree to see that. If you were to solve the problem in your head, the thought process would probably resemble the counting-up or counting down (shown) method of subtracting hundreds first, then tens, then ones, rather than the algorithm. Often kids don't understand how or why certain algorithms work, and are utterly lost if they forget the procedure. Is procedural, rote learning good education? Most of you probably did not really understand how "borrowing" worked until several years after you had been using the algorithm. We now call it "regrouping" because it is a more accurate term- the overall value of the numerator does not change. These other math strategies promote mental math problem-solving skills, and seeing a variety of ways to solve a problem. There are plenty of problems with the education system and methodologies, but this IMO is not one of them. I am a teacher, by the way, and am quite familiar with the work of John Taylor Gatto and, to a lesser degree, Charlotte Iserbyt.
That said, I am not a proponent of 2+2 can be 5 if you can explain it well enough. Putting emphasis on the problem-solving process as well as the product will not make kids dumber. If the final product (correct answer) is ignored or given no emphasis, then perhaps so. But that is not actually happening in the classroom. However, for the next generation to solve the world's problems they will have to question and challenge things that are currently assumed and taken for granted to be true, in all realms of academics and science.
My problem with the original post's Common Core reading comprehension example is the sexual nature of it. It may be sexist- both men and women lie and cheat and always have- but the implied sexual nature of the passage is more disturbing than the feminist sexism. But hey, at least it's not about a lesbian couple or something. If this is truly for 4th graders, as the source article claims, I find that highly unethical. As a male elementary teacher, I would be very uncomfortable assigning or discussing that with my students. I simply would not do it, and would re-write a nonsexual passage with questions that fulfill the same standards. And at my international school, we do not have students actually take the PARCC test (the nation-wide Common Core test in the USA that will be implemented this next school year I believe). Perhaps the one good thing I can say about the posted comprehension problem, it does promote higher-level and inferential thinking, not merely picking out details or regurgitating.
Now I'm going fishing...sadly, a lot of the criticisms I see about Common Core in articles and comments are more a reflection of the failings of the previous models of education, than the failings of Common Core itself. If a scientist can't find the error that Jack made, I wouldn't expect him to be able to think outside the box in science if he can't think outside the box of the traditional algorithm.
That said, I am not a proponent of 2+2 can be 5 if you can explain it well enough. Putting emphasis on the problem-solving process as well as the product will not make kids dumber. If the final product (correct answer) is ignored or given no emphasis, then perhaps so. But that is not actually happening in the classroom. However, for the next generation to solve the world's problems they will have to question and challenge things that are currently assumed and taken for granted to be true, in all realms of academics and science.
My problem with the original post's Common Core reading comprehension example is the sexual nature of it. It may be sexist- both men and women lie and cheat and always have- but the implied sexual nature of the passage is more disturbing than the feminist sexism. But hey, at least it's not about a lesbian couple or something. If this is truly for 4th graders, as the source article claims, I find that highly unethical. As a male elementary teacher, I would be very uncomfortable assigning or discussing that with my students. I simply would not do it, and would re-write a nonsexual passage with questions that fulfill the same standards. And at my international school, we do not have students actually take the PARCC test (the nation-wide Common Core test in the USA that will be implemented this next school year I believe). Perhaps the one good thing I can say about the posted comprehension problem, it does promote higher-level and inferential thinking, not merely picking out details or regurgitating.
Now I'm going fishing...sadly, a lot of the criticisms I see about Common Core in articles and comments are more a reflection of the failings of the previous models of education, than the failings of Common Core itself. If a scientist can't find the error that Jack made, I wouldn't expect him to be able to think outside the box in science if he can't think outside the box of the traditional algorithm.