Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Education

A friend sent me this. I found it both funny and sad at the same time.........

Teaching math in 1950:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 the price. What is his profit?

Teaching math in 1960:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 the price, or $80. What is his profit?

Teaching math in 1970:
A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money. The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar. Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M". The set "C", the cost of production, contains 20 fewer points than set "M". Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?

Teaching math in 1980:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching math in 1990:
By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you think o this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers.

Teaching math in 2000:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $120. How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?

Teaching math in 2010:
El hachero vende un camion carga por $100. La cuesta de production es..........

Nice one Larry!

BTW, you are at 999 posts! Make the 1000th count! (Can it be a copy of the lawsuit against that driver ?)

LOL!!!

This is really great Larry! Thanks!

Hahahaha
2010 is the funniest!!

Cute

1000 posts?

Larry, I have to sell you another company. You have too much time!

Maths education in New Zealand has now sunk to the point where long division is taught in the sixth form (age about 17). The deterioration of English education has been such that only a small percentage of first year university students can write a grammatical sentence with no spelling mistakes.

I could see it coming and taught my son myself when he was very young. It required discipline but looking at how some of his contemporaries have turned out I'm very glad I didn't rely on the vagaries of public education.

Larry, that's really funny! I printed it out, and will take it to our next site council (high school) meeting, though I'll probably remove the last one as somebody will have a cow.

Ted2,

What's the deal in New Zealand? What has caused the deterioration in the educational system?

Curious. . . my daughter has an old friend visiting from Wisonsin (moved there 2 years ago). She brought her school yearbook along, and in her yearbook is a page that shows a school Christmas party (labled Christmas!), and a page regarding their Halloween party (the word "Halloween" is at the top of the page).

Now, in our school district here in the suburbs of Portland, this would never be tolerated. My kids yearbook would never mention these two forbidden words, or anything specific which would of course be so offensive to somebody.

Excellent, Larry, I've already emailed it on to some friends. Everything from 1970 through 1990 sounds exactly like some Ten's math homework. The 1950 example sounds more like the home instruction she gets, that usually starts out with "okay, now that you can give the answer the teacher wants, here's what's really important and how it really works..." funny, by learning to "reverse engineer" many of her math lessons, she's able to actually understand the "concept" that the teachers want, coupled with actually being able get the "correct answer." She's now in the Gifted & Talented program.

Does anyone remember "New Math" by Tom Lehrer?:

"Some of you who have small children may have perhaps been put in the embarrassing position of being unable to do your child's arithmetic homework because of the current revolution in mathematics teaching known as the New Math. So as a public service here tonight, I thought I would offer a brief lesson in the New Math. Tonight, we're gonna cover subtraction. This is the first room I've worked for a while that didn't have a blackboard, so we will have to make do with more primitive visual aids, as they say in the ed biz. Consider the following subtraction problem, which I will put up here: 342 minus 173. Now, remember how we used to do that:

Three from two is nine, carry the one, and if you're under 35 or went to a private school, you say seven from three is six, but if you're over 35 and went to a public school, you say eight from four is six ...and carry the one, so we have 169.

But in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer. Here's how they do it now:

You can't take three from two,
Two is less than three,
So you look at the four in the tens place.
Now that's really four tens
So you make it three tens,
Regroup, and you change a ten to ten ones,
And you add 'em to the two and get twelve,
And you take away three, that's nine.
Is that clear?

Now instead of four in the tens place
You've got three,
'Cause you added one,
That is to say, ten, to the two,
But you can't take seven from three,
So you look in the hundreds place.

From the three you then use one
To make ten ones...
(And you know why four plus minus one
Plus ten is fourteen minus one?
'Cause addition is commutative, right!)...
And so you've got thirteen tens
And you take away seven,
And that leaves five...

Well, six actually...
But the idea is the important thing!

Now go back to the hundreds place,
You're left with two,
And you take away one from two,
And that leaves...?

Everybody get one?
Not bad for the first day!

Hooray for New Math,
New-hoo-hoo Math,
It won't do you a bit of good to review math.
It's so simple,
So very simple,
That only a child can do it!

Now, that actually is not the answer that I had in mind, because the book that I got this problem out of wants you to do it in base eight. But don't panic! Base eight is just like base ten really - if you're missing two fingers! Shall we have a go at it? Hang on...

You can't take three from two,
Two is less than three,
So you look at the four in the eights place.
Now that's really four eights,
So you make it three eights,
Regroup, and you change an eight to eight ones
And you add 'em to the two,
And you get one-two base eight,
Which is ten base ten,
And you take away three, that's seven.
Ok?

Now instead of four in the eights place
You've got three,
'Cause you added one,
That is to say, eight, to the two,
But you can't take seven from three,
So you look at the sixty-fours...

"Sixty-four? How did sixty-four get into it?" I hear you cry! Well, sixty-four is eight squared, don't you see? "Well, ya ask a silly question, ya get a silly answer!"

From the three, you then use one
To make eight ones,
You add those ones to the three,
And you get one-three base eight,
Or, in other words,
In base ten you have eleven,
And you take away seven,
And seven from eleven is four!
Now go back to the sixty-fours,
You're left with two,
And you take away one from two,
And that leaves...?

Now, let's not always see the same hands!
One, that's right.
Whoever got one can stay after the show and clean the erasers.

Hooray for New Math,
New-hoo-hoo Math!
It won't do you a bit of good to review math.
It's so simple,
So very simple,
That only a child can do it!

Come back tomorrow night...we're gonna do fractions!

-from "That Was the Year That Was," 1965

Rvaga,
While I don't have any Nativity scenes in my school programs, about 90 percent of the concert is religious. I did have one principal that wanted the programs to be called Winter Holiday Concerts. When she left, they were called Christmas Concerts again. I've never had any parent take offense to the content of any program. I attribute this to the fact that the kids love these programs, and attendance is huge. But, through the years, I've heard many stories in other districts. Just recently I received a call from a former principal. He offered me a job. I didn't even consider the job, because of the "restrictions" in the district. While visiting my cousin in Tempe, Az, she told me that her children have no religious pieces in their Winter Concerts. However, this year, after 911, they had a huge patriotic program....including America, America, the Beautiful and God Bless America. Just my $.02.

Rvaga:

The answer to your question is complex, and the rot started at least forty years ago. About that time new teaching methods were introduced into the schools. They tended to concentrate on finding easy ways of doing everything and neglect the fact that all learning requires hard work and discipline. In other words, somehow or other we stopped teaching our kids how to learn properly.

A worse blow occurred in the mid-eighties, when the whole structure of school administration was radically changed. Without going into too much detail, the teachers were suddenly burdened with too many administrative duties and the best of them left for other jobs through frustration at being unable to concentrate solely on teaching.

From 1984 schools were run by boards of trustees. These usually comprise amateurs who know absolutely nothing about children or teaching, and yet they have the collective power to hire and fire teachers including principals. If they are business people they just aim for cost cutting and get rid of good, expensive teachers in favour of cheap novices just out of training college.

There's more to it than that, but basically these latter changes were simply part of a government con-job to save salaries - that's what it boils down to.

The biggest practical problem is discipline though - by a long way. My wife is a teacher. She taught in the Philippines for nearly twenty years, a supposedly third world country. But there the children are quiet in the classroom, and remain quiet until told differently. Here the children are allowed to talk and bellow flat out from year one - by the time they reach adolescence they're virtually uncontrollable.

I can't comment about Christmas and Halloween because I don't know what the schools do in relation to those occasions here.

Of course, the late 90's saw the introduction of so-called World Math. The problem would be more like:
A logger sells some lumber. What would be a reasonable process for determining the price and his costs in light of the environmental impact of such commerce?

There's no right answer. The response is judged (but not graded) on the thinking process that went into it. A mathematically correct answer is not needed as long as the thinking process is ok.

Bridges fall down.

At one time, the teacher in the classroom was expected to handle his/her classroom in a way which served the students he/she was teaching. The teacher had autonomy and authority. If problems arose, the principal of the local school was there to handle things based on what was best for the school in that neighborhood, under the broad guidelines of the local Board of Education.

Then, the Board began to micro-manage things and the teacher lost some of his/her autonomy. This was not too bad, since most districts serve relatively homogenous communities. But it was another matter completely if one was in a large urban school district with educational needs spanning a massive demographic and cultural diversity. Not allowing shcools to individualize for their own neighborhoods made things worse.

Then candidates for statewide office found education to be a great campaign issue. They ran on it, got elected for it and then started to micro manage local school districts from the state capital. The local districts lost autonomy and could no longer handle their affairs as they saw best for the individual communities. This, of course, took the micromanagement even further away from the teachers in the classroom who know the students best.

This was bad enough, but then Il Duce made control of local classrooms one of the hallmarks of his campaign and decided to raise local education decisions to a national level, imposing very specific restrictions. No longer is the Federal Government involved in simply financing specialized programs. Now it is setting standards to be met in each classroom.

So now, the teachers have to dance to the tune of the local districts and waltz to the music of the States they are in, but will also have to minuet to the compositions developed by Washington.

If we thought things were bad enough, just wait until the Il Duce inspired bureaucrats in Washington start writing and forcing compliance to regulations written in the sterile offices of Washington DC. Imagine what it is all going to be like in 10 -15 years after subsequent Administraions have their say, based on their own policies. What a mess!

Things are only going to get worse.

George, is your last name Van Winkle? Were you asleep the last 20 years? The federal government has highly regulated local classroom content for ages. They've just called their requirements "guidelines" or "suggestions." But then they tie their funding to achieving those guidelines, so if you don't go along with their party line, no problem - you just forfeit your money.

This has been a longstanding issue George, but still you find a way to drag President Bush into this discussion. It's all his doing. I'm sure that you could tie everything that is wrong in the world today to George Bush. Terrorist attacks? It's Bush's fault. Corporate corruption? Bush's fault. High gas prices? Bush. Woeful state of education? Bush again. Communists behind every tree; suppression of the miracle engine that runs on water; fluoride in our tapwater? Bush, Bush, and more Bush.

Please...learn another note to play, this one is getting old. Many people here like George Bush, many people do not. But his supporters don't use every post as an excuse to praise him, and most of those who don't, don't appear to use every post as an excuse to bash him. But it just seems like every thread you start is another droning attack on the man, and almost every message you respond to is turned into an ad hominem against him. I don't mind political debate, but for God's sake man, give it a rest once in a while. Try this: let's see if you can make at least 20 general conversational posts without complaining about Bush or Cheney. Who knows, you may even find that you enjoy the pleasant conversation. Many of us here - even those with hardened viewpoints - actually enjoy the occasional nonconfrontational, nonpolitical debate. Stop trying to turn every topic into one. Sheesh.

About a week ago, I got frustrated and said essentially the same thing to you. After I had a chance to cool down, I apologized to you for what I said. I'm not apologizing this time. Give it a rest.

Interesting Dwain that Il Duce can make local education one of the primary themes of his campaign and now you feel no one should comment on how he has handled it or what his policies are.

To me, if a politician makes an certain issue a central part of his campaign, he is fair game for comments about how he handles it whether he is elected by the people or appointed by the Supreme Court to the job.

Two points for you, George. First, Bush is not trying to dictate to the local school level from the federal level. If this is what you think, you're simply not well read on the subject. Bush is trying to do the opposite - he's trying to *remove* federal control and return it *to* the local level.

Second - since you've decided that the problems in the school system stem from Bush's policies and the Republican party, tomorrow when I have the time I will show you where the school system left the track, starting in the 40s. I will show you the blood on the hands of liberals and the Democrat party as they blended themselves into the Marxists and Socialists of the day, the goal being to destroy Americans' religious and family values, to eliminate our belief in God and replace it with the religion of Humanism (yes, it's a religion, and I'll prove that too), to destroy our belief in the rights of the individual, and to "reorientate" our whole country using our education system to condition us to being turned over to a one world government under the rule of the UN.

It won't be pretty, George. And though I'm sure you think I'm nuts, the facts will be laid out. The wisdom of returning control of education back to the local level and out of the hands of the federal government will be evident, as will the evil intent of many of your party, the Socialist Democrats. You will see how the Democrat party has become the vehicle the Marxists and Socialists chose to win their war against individual freedom and capitalism. Now, whether you accept it or understand it, that's a whole other matter.

Ted,

Thanks for the explanation regarding the situation in New Zealand (boy, do I want to visit NZ someday, would love to rent a motorcycle and simply tour -- but that's got nothing to do with education. . ). Unfortunately, your explanation about New Zealand is very similar to the mess that has been taking place here in the U.S. for decades.

In Oregon, the State is now totally in control of education, Big Time

In 1992 (I think, or around there), it was decided to level the playing field so to speak, by making lottery money an intregal part of state funding per student. The intention (always good intentions by government), was to give each district money per student, thereby helping the poor rural districts. Great idea, another sincere governmental approach to solving a problem. . .

With the change in funding source away from local school district taxes, and the state now funding education per student, came the inevitable State Mandates. Fine for awhile, but now we have the "Certificate of Initial Mastery" which will be a graduation requirement next year, based on test results, continual public speaking and other hoops and hurdles, the "Certificate of Advanced Mastery" which will be an optional achievement for college bound students, we have the "Senior Seminar Experience" which will be worked into all districts as a requirement (year long independent study, based on "helping" the community in a project format, and once statewide, will make pursuing a diploma at community colleges impossible), and all of this starts at the Jr. High level with test after test after test. Teachers are of course now totally teaching to the test.

Where do these "educational solutions" come from? Well, the State Board of Education has panels, made up of the usual, but a strong emphasis on education is from the tech INDUSTRY. The corporations want skilled workers that are peak performers, and they decide what is important in the curriculm, and what is superfluous.

I remember years ago learning that "the purpose of education is NOT skill training."

This is no longer the case, at least in Oregon. Skill training is paramount in public education. World History (in our district high schools) is an optional class taught only if enough students sign up (last semester, not enough did). American History is so watered down due to the PC movement, it's very heavy on black history while little is made of european influence including those "founding father" guys. Very sad.

Any good news regarding government intervention? Yes, of course. One that pops to mind is the "World History" lack of. . . The state is going to require 2 semesters since the colleges were complaining about entering freshmen knowing absolutely nothing about history.

Add to the above impending federal mandates and tests, and I think we might see some very serious attrition numbers over the next few years, as students burn out from the state and federal government trying to "fix" education.

It does seem to me, that so often when government tries to fix anything, the result is often a whole new set of problems, perhaps worse than the original ones they felt obliged to fix!

Get the government out of the classroom!!

It's a well-known fact the John Dewey was actually a member of the Bush family, and was setting the stage for the radical reorientation of the American educational system - all just part of a larger Bush family plan of domination, patiently waiting for the next two generations to dupe the public into electing them both President of the United States, allowing them to finish the job of controlling the minds of the country's youth that was started years before.

While we're at it, we should also have George Bush try on O.J.'s bloody glove. Surely he had something to do with all that, too.

Beyond the annoying drone of your apparent single theme of bashing Bush, do you have any idea how repugnant your choice of language is? Speaking as a person who had a relative killed in Italy, fighting against the real Il Duce in World War II, your constant comparison of George Bush - even if you disagree with his policies - to the totalitarian dictator, is intellectually dishonest and incredibly offensive. If anything, it only serves to diminish any legitimate point that you may have otherwise made.

George, for the love of Pete, please - PLEASE - prove me wrong, I beg you. Twenty consecutive posts that aren't a diatribe against the Bush administration. That shouldn't be too tough. Show us that you are intelligent and multifaceted, not just a single-topic troll. I'll bet you can do it, if you try.

Intellectual dishonesty is only the stock in trade of the true Marxist who always, as a matter of reflex, compares anything to his right to fascism.

As much as I love the 4th movement of Beethoven's 9th, I tire of hearing it again and again and again. And while Loudon Wainwright III is one of my favorites, you can imagine how quickly Dead Skunk in the Middle of the Road wears on me.

When one hears the same sound constantly, like people who live next to a railroad, one becomes inured to the sound and no longer notices it. I agree with Dwain, it's time for George to apply his obvious intelligence to another subject so that his messages don't become the 11:06 to Lexington.

DT
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. -Sir Winston Churchill