Skip to comments.ANOTHER impossibly stupid Common Core worksheet sure to make your kid a moron
Posted on 02/13/2014 8:05:41 AM PST by rktman
Here is the latest in a long line of frighteningly stupid Common Core math worksheets to bubble up courtesy of Twitter, according to Twitchy.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
LOL! Like I said, close is good enough. Lord help us.
It's even more important in multiplication when one mistake can get an answer an order of magnitude away from the real answer.
theres some sort of useless ..aka pointless rounding off going on there by WHY....
the purpose of the excerise escapes me entirely!
“transgender math” perhaps?
It makes no sense. If they were to round the numbers correctly they would have the correct answer.
Agreed. Mentally check all calculations. Do not depend on electronics. You might make an entry error.
Yeah, I would round both of those up. 400 + 300 = 700
Yep, when you throw the numbers into a calculator and slip a digit you should have some idea when the number is wildly off.
Estimation has its places, but it seems to be given way too much emphasis.
agreed that the estimation is terrible....especially for addition. 291 is much close to 300. all they are accomplishing here is validating that the 1st digit is close; so for addition, this estimation exercise is not of much value...
I agree with you. They are attempting, in math at least, to teach a wise check on ones calculations.
Damm - where was this math when the bank was calculating my mortgage. Could have saved a few hundred dollars a month!!!
Suppose an airplane is flying from St. Louis to Hawaii... it needs 354 gallons of fuel to reach the west coast and another 291 gallons of fuel to get from the west coast to Hawaii. How many gallons of fuel must the pilot put in his plane to make sure he gets to Hawaii?
300 + 200 = 500... close enough.
If they had rounded correctly to the nearest hundred they still would have run out of fuel but might have been able to glide the last 45 miles.
IMO, 354 should also be rounded up instead of down. (I thought 50 and under round down, and 51 and up round up.)
My immediate estimate of that would be 350 plus 300, just as quick and much more accurate than 500!
The trouble is, this sort of estimation has become a part of every math problem, needlessly gumming up and dumbing down regular math instruction.
If you have a younger relative enrolled in one of these so called core systems, do them a favor for the rest of their lives..
Enroll them in Kumon learning center and pay for them to learn how to do math.
One of our younger relatives became the village idiot in math in his Californicator school.
This is inspite of his gene pool on both sides having high math processors.
His parents enrolled him in a Kumon math tutoring class. In a couple of months, he went from village idiot to doing real math two+ grades ahead. He became a member of the Math Olympics and still is a member.
Why not just teach kids to do addition so they get the right answer. Then they don’t have to worry about estimating the number, they know what it actually is.
Significant figures. There is no decimal point in either number so have to assume that both were measured to 3 significant figures. A “ball park” estimate is not the same thing.
They are confusing apples and oranges.
I rounded both numbers up to the nearest thousand and got 2,000. Just as valid in this instance.
I just got a twinge from a semiconductor physics class where the professor gave us a "simple" problem (only about five pages of calculations) which resulted in an electron going twice the speed of light. Each of the students independently was asking the professor bizarre questions about how relativity works in a semiconductor lattice or what effects the increase in mass of an electron because of its speed would have without ever admitting the problem - the professor broke the primary law of the universe. The next class the professor said "I don't know why you thought this problem was hard," cranked out two blackboards of math and came up with twice the speed of light. Oops. He admitted to just changing a couple of input numbers from the problem he gave the class a couple of years before without solving it himself.
Both numbers were incorrectly rounded down. Perhaps this means students can no longer learn, “Round down from 49 or lower; round up from 50 or higher.”
“But estimation is a valid technique for making sure that the real answer is just horribly wrong and for real life when you need to do something like estimate how much fertilizer you need (since you can’t buy 6.47839 bags, 7 is a good enough answer).”
I agree, knowing how to estimate should be taught.
LOL! Reasonable answer.
“Reasonable”? Not accurate?
You are correct. The problem here is not the concept of estimating, but the fact that they are teaching kids to estimate improperly. The proper technique is to pick the degree of accuracy and then round to the nearest zero. In this case, the most accurate estimate is achieved by rounding up or down to the nearest zero: 354+291=645 becomes 350+290=640.
1. Many real life problems don't require exact answers.
2. Most people (even students now, unfortunately) will use calculators for the exact answer. Estimates are good to check for fat fingering the inputs so you know the answer is way off and needs to be redone.
3. Long multiplication and division require many steps where it is very easy to screw up and put the numbers in the wrong columns. Estimation gives you a quick check to make sure you haven't really screwed up.
4. In long division to get each individual digit of the quotient you make an estimate of the current division. For example 63496/874 will be estimated to be 70 (63000 / 900), which will give 7 as the first digit of the quotient.
I think estimation comes naturally over time.
I suck at math but I’ve found my own means of estimating to close and measuring to accurate.
I had a job where I had to cut a hole in the center of truck lids for a key/latch assembly. Rather than measuring the whole distance and calculating the center, I measured to a round number near center and then measured the same distance from the other side and gave myself a nice short 2 to 4 inches distance to measure the center accurately. The boss shook his head at it but couldn’t complain because I was finding center.
Maybe that’s what happened to poor Loretta Fuddy’s plane.
Close enough is good enough for government work. And since all the products of Common Core will be working for the government, why give them more than enough?
Please check the problem in the main article once again. The problem was correctly solved at the top. Then as a check on the answer simple 100’s and tens were used. I was trained in this method 60 years ago. Scientists use it, engineers use such a check, businessmen use it. IT IS A METHOD USED TO CHECK ONES INITIAL COMPUTATION. IT IS NOT THE COMPUTATION ITSELF. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE TRUE AND ACCURATE COMPUTATION BUT TO CHECK.
I would be interested in seeing more of this work book. Are they teaching truncation as the only method, or is this the first day and then the next day they will show that rounding is more accurate than truncating?
Some of my complaints with some of the newer math techniques are that they get stuck on more explanatory but less efficient methods (like lattice multiplication, if I have the term right) rather than just using that as a stepping stone to the best methods.
I have a BS degree in Business Administration and a MBA.
My senior year in college, my landlord and also an accounting professor gave me some great advice re checking accts.
His advice was to forget about the pennies. If the cents were under 33 cents on a check, round down to the nearest $. If over 33 cents round up to the nearest $.
We have used that advice for over 50+ years with our personal checking accts., and we have never had a problem.
A friend, with a Masters in Accting and years as a CFO for big and small companies uses that rounding system with his non profits. He never has a problem.
I have used the rounding up or down in most aspects of my life with no problems. I have never run out of gasoline on a trip or just driving around town. I know when/where to stop to eat on a long road trip.
Many fly fishers with the one or two handed rods carry and/or use a small electronic scale to weigh their lines, leaders and even flies. I use a simple SWAG system, and it works. I know with a couple of practice casts if the fly line and terminal system is too light, too long, too short, too heavy or too light or just right.
However, the rounding up or down could be a disaster if one is in medicine, heavy duty construction, flying an airplane, payroll accounting, and other services where accurate math is a must.
Estimation is a great tool, but only viable when you’ve done enough arithmetic for the concept to dawn on you. If you haven’t figured out estimation on your own, you’re not ready to learn it.
Interesting that they always estimate down, e.g., 291 -> 200.
The next time I am charged $2.91 I’ll tell the clerk I’ll give her $2. I like this idea of estimating down.
I was gonna say......if they just teach them basic arithmetic they don’t have to estimate. lol
I observed an entire family in a restaurant trying to puzzle through just such a worksheet with their child. There was a grandmother, grandfather, mother, and a 9 year old boy. The book they were using was called “California Math”, which was offensive right there.
I couldn’t see what they were doing, but the grandfather worked on the problem for about an hour, muttering things like, “What is this estimate thing?” and “You cannot round up 229 to 300. That’s just not right!”
Sheer abuse by the educators.
This so called ‘estimate’ didn’t even use the rules of rounding correctly.
The old fashion drill and kill method of learning ones ‘tables’ did more to help teach arithmetic (which this is....it is not ‘mathematics’ as such).
We wonder why people can’t do calculations when their quackulator dies and we now know why.
This is malfeasance of the highest order
GMTA - that was the poorest excuse for an estimate I can imagine. The larger skill evident in that example is the ability to do such problems in your head. Better rounding improves accuracy and allows the learner to understand numbers better. This also builds toward such skills as understanding why multiplying a fraction or a decimal by another fraction or decimal achieves an answer that is smaller than the original number.
Yes estimation is a legitimate technique. It also assumes that you know how to round correctly.
The best method is have these children learn their tables and then there is no issue.
That’s the way I learned it but to be even more correct and not to introduce bias whenever it is truly _ 50 (Not 501 or 50001) you round to the nearest even.
350 rounds up to 400 because 4 is even
450 rounds down to 400, not up to 500 (because 5 is odd)
My kids would go bats if I tried to teach them that ... except for Patrick, who would memorize it and then try to apply it to all sorts of irrelevant situations.
How are you doing in the snow? We’re out of beer, wine, and club soda. My husband is getting restive.
Ayup. Works for me at the checkout counter. Just last night, in fact, I was charged twice for something that was $6.94, and not for the item that was $0.94. I had a rough idea in my head how much my 5 items should have cost, so when it was so much higher, I asked.
Actually that’s a rounding rule if you’re doing statistical calculations. It’s pretty easy once you get the hang of it. Pretty irrelevant though because any kind of statistical calculations are done by computer. It’s important if you’re writing code though.
When do you think they’ll clear the roads? Or will they just wait for everything to melt?
Nobody’s going to clear the roads in my neighborhood. I haven’t been out to see what 74 is like, but they’d pretreated it before the snow started.
Well, not really. Rounding properly will give an estimation of 700. Plenty of fuel.
I remember in 2nd and 3rd grade, our teachers continually asked us, “Does your answer seem reasonable?” I am a Mechanical Engineer, and minored in math. That question has saved my bacon many times.
Common Core is crap, but this is not a good example of that. (Except they don’t know how to round...)