# Tag Archives: cynical

## Smarter Balanced: Lacking Smarts; Precariously Balanced

It’s a bit long, but it sure takes the lid off the CCSS. Read it now.

In this time of  “public-education-targeted boldness,” the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has made the American public one whopper of a “bold” promise:

The standards were created to ensure that all students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life, regardless of where they live. [Emphasis added.]

There is neither now nor never has been any empirical investigation to substantiate this “bold” claim.

Indeed, CCSS has not been around long enough to have been thoroughly tested. Instead, the above statement–which amounts to little more than oft-repeated advertising– serves as its own evidence.

However, if it’s on the *official* CCSS website, and if CCSS proponents repeat it constantly, that must make it true… right?

Now, it is one issue to declare that CCSS works. It is quite another to attempt to anchor CCSS assessments to the above cotton…

View original post 1,321 more words

Filed under education

## The Distributive Law, again !

The formal statement of the distributive law should read as follows:

If a, b, c and d are numbers, or algebraic expressions (same thing really) and b = c + d then ab = ac + ad

It is a by-product of the law that it tells you how to expand an expression with a bracketed factor.

In any case, what’s the big deal ?

Filed under abstract, algebra, arithmetic, language in math, teaching

## Long division, the explanation.

Since the kids have to explain everything in the new CCSS math standards,

they better have this under their belt, even if they have to learn it and parrot

it out in some test or other (careful, cynicism is not always just round the

corner).

So, here is a long division calculation for you, 32 divided into 2768, or if you

prefer the old fashioned, only used in schools notation,   2768 <the old

fashioned division sign, not on my keyboard>  32. (and < and > are not

representing inequalities at this point).

Division is at bottom repeated subtraction, so we do it:-

32)2768    100×32 = 3200 is too big
2560   so take a smaller multiple (in 10’s)
——   Choose from 90×32=2870, 80×32=2560 (OK!)
208   and subtract,leaving 208, and 10×32=320
192   So try 6×32=192 (OK!). 7×32 is too much.
—-   Subtract again, leaving 16,which is less
16    than 32 and so is the remainder.

So 2768 = 90×32 + 6×32 + remainder,
which is  96×32 + 16,
and so 2768 divided by 32 is 96  with remainder 16

The End