Teaching Arithmetic and Common Core

Teaching arithmetic under Common Core Standards—teaching arithmetic at all—requires the teacher first to understand arithmetic. Teaching any subject requires the teacher first to understand that subject, come to that, but in this article, I’m interested in arithmetic.

Below is an image from a Fox News Insider piece about a third-grader’s math problem: solve the problem “5 x 3 = ?.” The student wrote his answer in pencil; the teacher marked the answer wrong and wrote his version of the correct answer in red.CommonCoreMath_Crop

Of course, anyone with an actual third grade education knows that both versions are correct. What’s the problem here?

The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics has this suggestion for teaching a third-grade multiplication problem:

1.  Interpret products of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 5 × 7 as the total number of objects in 5 groups of 7 objects each.

Thus, 5 x 3 might be interpreted as five groups of three objects each, as our student’s teacher has written. Except that by marking the student’s representation of three groups of five objects each as wrong, the teacher has shown he’s interpreting Common Core’s suggestion as a requirement, as the only right way to solve the problem.

The fault here is not in Common Core Standards; those are just setting a performance standard and suggesting a mechanism for achieving it.  No, the failure here is in the shocking arithmetic illiteracy—innumeracy—of this person presuming to “teach” third-graders their numbers.

“Justice” Redux

It turns out the Secret Service Director, Joseph Clancy, not only can’t keep his Secret Service straight, he can’t even keep his own stories about what he heard about his Secret Service’s misbehavior straight. The AP has reported, via Fox News, that Clancy’s claims of when he heard “rumors” of his agency’s illegal search of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz’ personnel records keeps changing.

What’s interesting to me about this, though, is what the AP buried at the end of its article.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Friday that his department will proceed “expeditiously” to determine whether any laws or policies were broken. To avoid a conflict of interest, Johnson said the determination about accountability will be made by him and not Clancy.

DHS will decide whether any laws were broken? Whatever happened to DoJ and its role in determining whether any laws were broken?

Oh, wait….

“Justice”

The Justice Department announced Friday afternoon that it will not bring criminal charges against Lois Lerner or any other IRS official involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups[.]

There’s a surprise. Why would anyone think President Barack Obama’s DoJ would prosecute anyone in Obama’s IRS for their abuse of IRS—of Executive Branch—power in the IRS’ persecution of groups of Americans of whom Obama disapproves?

Lies of the Democrat

Or of the proud Progressive who wants to be President.

From the just concluded Benghazi hearing interview of Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, we learned this:

At 11:12 pm on the night of the attack, Sept 11, 2012, Mrs Clinton emailed her daughter Chelsea that, “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al-Qaeda-like group: the Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w[ith] a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

And this:

…a State Department summary of Mrs Clinton’s call the next day, Sept 12, with Egypt’s Prime Minister. “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest,” Mrs. Clinton said. The call summary then blocks out a comment by the Egyptian, to which Mrs. Clinton replies, “Your [sic] not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

Compare that with her public statements in the immediate aftermath that it was a YouTube video that was responsible, and compare that with her statements on meeting the coffins of the murdered Ambassador and three of those who tried to protect him, repeating her claim that it was a YouTube video that was responsible.

Remember that display of Clintonian…integrity…in a year and a month.

Food Processing Plant!?

Progressives just can’t stand to see freedom of choice, just can’t stand to have any sort of enterprise not under their regulatory thumb. Case in point: Londonderry, NH, school district. The superintendent of schools pulled the high school out of the Federal government’s National School Lunch Program and to have the school’s cafeteria serve the school’s meals. You know—sort of like school cafeterias used to do before all this government intervention.

Having escaped regulation from the NSLP, though, which sent significant fractions of food served directly from the serving line to the garbage cans, the Department of Agriculture stepped in. Seeing an unregulated enterprise, the DoA has decided the school is a food processing plant—because the cafeteria does what school cafeterias did just find before regulation, it cooks the students’ lunch meals—and it must be regulated like one.

Remember this Progressive Democratic Party regulatory overreach in a year and a month.