Our politicians try to convince us that they have Budgeting skills, yet we are in debt. Enormous debt. Point it out to them and they will obfuscate, invent, evade and lie. Their language skills are fine.
Where do they learn such fine words; such explanations that can leave a listener absolutely amazed.
How many times are we told that "Women can do a household budget and should be in Government where they will do all the right monetary things and run a 'proper' home for us all"?
Fine words. Empowering.
Children are taught that in school by our female dominated (whoops, one can only say that men dominate workplaces and professions) education industry.
Empowered women teachers.
Here is one teaching the teachers. Or is she convincing parents? Getting the party-line just so.
Juliar Gillard ran a Government in Oz. Her Finance Minister was Penny Wong. Two women's heads are better than one, Shirley?
Look where that got us.
$280 BILLION in debt.
Now do you see why.
Just think of what the next generation are going to be like in Government.
Michael Schaus sat us down and told us to open our books at the Townhall page:
The left has long sought to bolster self-esteem by downplaying wrong answers in education. Everyone gets a ribbon; a truly disastrous lesson to teach when not everyone is capable of getting a job.
And while the how is important in any lesson plan, in the end, the answer should still be correct. Amanda’s students are going to be in for a world of surprise when their first employer decides that doing the job correctly is more important than demonstrating “with words” an employee’s fundamental failure to grasp the concept of their task.
To the credit of the presumably leftists audience, someone asked if teachers will still be correcting students on math tests. The simple fact that someone had to ask the question should demonstrate the atrocious nature of American education reform.
The question “are we still going to correct wrong answers” would seem incomprehensible in a system of honest instruction.
Amanda, however, stumbles through a very entertaining non-answer:
“We want our students to compute correctly but the emphasis is really moving more towards the explanation, and the how, and the why, and ‘can I really talk through the procedures that I went through to get this answer; and not just knowing that it’s 12, but why is it 12? How do I know that?”
Well. . . Amanda, if they answered “11”, my guess is they won’t be able to answer “how do I know that” to a satisfactory degree.
Well, 3 + 4 = 7, and both 3 and 7 are prime numbers. This leaves only 4 left, so we add it to our answer of 7 which is, of course, 11. Another prime number. . . How’d I do? Do I pass?
What kind of world do we live in when math becomes a philosophical essay, and not a system of numbers, arithmetic, and simple truths?
Well, it’s the same type of world that gives ribbons out to “honorary mentions” and lets every child star in the Christmas “winter” musical.
And this is at the centre of Common-Core. At its heart is not an intent to better our failing school system (after all, you don’t do that by praising kids who get basic multiplication wrong) but to instil an altruistic sense of self-worth and liberal flexibility.
To the American left, school should be an instrument to instruct children that they can be anything they want, and that the most important thing is life is that you get an “A” for effort.
Of course, I wanted to be an astronaut. . . And it doesn’t matter how hard you try, if you can’t answer the multiplication problem “3 x 4”, you’re not very likely to move into the highly competitive world of extra-terrestrial exploration (although you could run for congress as a Democrat).
Amanda’s purported concentration on making sure children understand what they are taught certainly has its place in the classroom. . . Right behind getting the right answer.
But don’t worry: People like Amanda will soon be writing up your child’s lesson plans.
PS: It makes you think: Would Abbott and Costello pass Amanda's math test?
Fortunately I will not be around by the time the current crop of 6 year olds graduate. If they are asked at University (also dominated by the same pedagogy) how old I was when I departed this life they will possibly be able to use words - or alternatively an 'oral explanation' - for how they arrived at the number 'old' (or 'ancient', or 'he'll be back in surplus next year'.)
NOW, listen up at the back !
If you really want an exceptional mathematician who can 'describe' maths in words. Vi Hart is your gal.
I suggest that you slow the video right down - or pause every four seconds - because Vi will leave you sitting open-mouthed as her pencil flashes across the pages keeping up with her rapid-fire script.
(She is wonderful, and has a whole series of entertaining maths vids.)
I need a drink.
Fortunately our supplier has an infinite store.