An Excellent Explanation of Why Common Core Won't Work

As always, Ace takes a topic and absolutely breaks it down wonderfully. Today, he did a great breakdown of Common Core, and why it's not a great way of teaching. I'm going to do a big block-quote here, but go read the whole thing.

Common Core needlessly complicates the simple. They complicate the simple, supposedly, to impart "number sense" to kids, to get them to understand not just that 9 +3 = 12, but why 9 + 3 =12.

That's a very ambitious goal.

I suppose we should ask this question, however: Given that teachers are currently failing in the less-ambitious goal of simply teaching that 9+3= 12, why do we believe they'll be better at the more-ambitious goal of teaching why 9+3 =12.

You guys see Stand and Deliver, the story (IIRC) of Jamie Escalante, some kind of aerospace engineer (IIRC) who decided to try his hand at teaching math at a poor, underpeforming majority-Hispanic school?

Well, he has a class of higher-level students. He drills them to say "zero times six is zero, zero times seven is zero, zero times eight is zero," and so on, and then, in what the movie industry calls a "Button" (an exit-line designed to end a scene on a dangling, interesting question that either leads organically to the next scene or suggests unfilmed activity going on beyond the filmed scene), he says to the class:

"Good (that you understand that zero times any number is zero).

Now: Why?"

The "Why?" is an interesting question. But note the order in which he introduced it: First he drilled the basics. Then, with his higher-performing students only, he introduced the Why?, not as the foundationof mathematical exploration (the foundation being rote memorization and drilling), but as the apex of it.

The last step, not the first, and not even the fifth.

I have previously written of this, calling it Cargo Cult. Previously uncontacted aboriginal populations would see the great planes flying in the sky, and would see them land and discharge various cargoes, including, say, cans of Coca-Cola.

The aboriginals wanted their own Sky God Chariots, and wrongly believed that Coca-Cola had something to do with aerospace technology; they'd collect empty cans of Coca-Cola and arrange them in red-and-white shrines in the belief that mastery of the Coca-Cola would lead to mastery of the power of flight.

They confuse the end result of a highly technological civilization (standardized cans of mass-produced, globally-sold beverages) with the necessary prerequisites for that civilization.

Go read the whole thing.

Cool Link of the Day: How Big Space Really Is

Space is big. No, it's really big. Normally, when you see a map of the solar system, it looks like this:

But the thing is, this isn't to scale. What this map fails to show you is all the space that's out there in space. If you want to really get an idea of how much empty space there is out there in space, check out this scale map of our solar system.

It takes a bit of time to scroll through it all, but there are some little bits of information in the empty space as you journey through the solar system. I would say that the first bit is the hardest, but the real hard part is once you get past Saturn. Our brains just cannot deal with such large numbers.

h/t @comradearthur

Rocky Balboa Is Smarter Than Norman Ornstein

I'll admit, I don't have a degree in math. I don't excel at it. I don't particularly enjoy it. My forte lies in other things. I have the utmost respect for my friends who are engineers or have hard science degrees. Much like fire, poisonous snakes, and VX gas, I have a healthy respect for math.

The second you don't respect this, it kills you.

Accordingly, I don't try to mess around with math without making darn sure that I'm doing it correctly and following the rules.

Some goof named Norman Ornstein doesn't excel at math either. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that he doesn't have the same healthy respect for math that I do. When you don't have a healthy respect for something that you can't control, you get into trouble.

Norman Ornstein got himself into trouble with math. Here, see if you can spot the problem:

The first iteration of KidSave, in simple terms, was this: Each year, for every one of the 4 million newborns in America, the federal government would put $1,000 in a designated savings account. The payment would be financed by using 1 percent of annual payroll-tax revenues. Then, for the first five years of a child's life, the $500 child tax credit would be added to that account, with a subsidy for poor people who pay no income. The accounts would be administered the same way as the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan...under the initial KidSave proposal, the funds could not be withdrawn until age 65, when, through the miracle of compound interest, they would represent a hefty nest egg. At 5 percent annual growth, an individual would have almost $700,000.

Since I'm not Euler, I'm going to break this down a bit. The Federal government is going to give every baby a $1,000 in an account. Then each year (for five years) the feds drop $500 more dollars into the account. So on the child's fifth birthday, they'll have $3,500.00 of principal. (and maybe a little interest over those five years) With me so far? So we're maybe at $4,100.00 with the interest at year five.

As an aside, who the heck gets a 5% rate of return? If you know anywhere that guarantees a 5% rate of return these days, send me an e-mail. Banks around here are paying less than 1%. But let's just leave that aside. Assume that your old buddy Ornstein has a magical bank that pays 5%. If you put your $4,100.00 in there, at the end of sixty years, will you have "almost $700,000.00"?

No. No, you will not.

Hint, it's not even close. Not. Even. Close. The link above has the more detailed fisking.

If you're a "math person" (or just have some common sense) you'll immediately realize that you can't take $4,100.00 and turn it into "almost $700,000" with a 5% interest rate over sixty years. It's just not possible. Perhaps the best line of the piece above is as follows:

I am no finance guy, but it was immediately obvious to me that Ornstein’s numbers are ridiculous. If you could turn $3,500 into $700,000 in 60 years at 5%, I wouldn’t be practicing law these days. As Rocky said to his two goldfish, “If you guys could sing and dance, I wouldn’t be doin’ this.” Money, unfortunately, does not sing and dance as hypothesized by Ornstein.

Yo, how's about some compound interest?

Math. It doesn't care about your good intentions. It's just going to do its thing. So show some respect, sucker. Also, for all y'all out there defending Obamacare, I have news for you. Math is coming.

Goodell: NFL Might Get Rid of PATs

While I was busy working yesterday, the NFL Commissioner was busy coming up with weird ideas. Specifically, he floated the idea of eliminating the PAT.

“You want to add excitement with every play,” Goodell said. “So there have been some proposals. Some are still going through the process of creativity, but there’s one proposal in particular that I’ve heard about (where) it’s automatic that you get seven points when you score a touchdown, but you could potentially go for an eighth point, either by running or passing the ball. But if you fail, you’d go back to six.”

So we're talking about scoring a touchdown, getting seven points for that, and then having the ability to gain an extra point by going for the two point conversion, with the idea being that if you fail, you go back to six.

This is a silly idea. First, it's not going to motivate any coaches to go for two (or should we call it one?) with the conversion "bet", unless they otherwise would due to the score being odd. If you didn't know, there's actually a chart that you can use to determine when to go for the two-point conversion. I'm told there was math involved.

Anyway, my point is that eliminating the PAT kick won't really change the game at all, other than to have the effect of going directly from TD to kickoff most of the time. Does that really make the game "more exciting"? Not really.

It does move the game along a little, but the PAT only takes a few seconds. The big delay is really a feature of the TV timeouts they take between the TD, the PAT, the kickoff, and then the first offensive possession of the other team. In that span of time, you can get a TV timeout (a commercial) between all of those, resulting in about 4-5 minutes before more actual football occurs.

So, it's really the commercials. Also, do you know anyone who complains about PATs? Hey bro! You know, the thing I hate most about the NFL is those darn PATs. They're soooo boring! I wish they would get rid of them!

No, you don't know anyone who says that, because no one says that. You know what I would like to see? I would like to see the NFL tell advertisers that they can only show a certain commercial a limited number of times during each game.

Think about it. How many times have you watched a football game and seen the same commercial for three hours, over, and over, and over? Being overexposed to the same commercial makes you start to loathe the product. Case in point: Before he saw this commercial, my friend Will probably didn't have any strong feelings about the Nissan Rogue. Now I bet you a nickel he would never buy one, because he's had that stupid commercial force-fed to him about a billion times in the span of a few football games. If you bought one, he would probably make fun of you.

Keep the PAT, drop the repetitive commercials.

And. Here. We. Go.

But in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Humana disclosed to investors, "as a result of the December 2013 federal and state regulatory changes allowing certain individuals to remain in their previously existing off-exchange health plans, the Company now expects the risk mix of members enrolling through the health insurance exchanges to be more adverse than previously expected."

Can you say "death spiral"?

Math doesn't care about your good intentions. It just likes to watch the world burn.

365,000 Have Signed Up for Private Insurance through Obamacare

I say "signed up" for insurance rather than "obtained" insurance because I still think it remains to be seen how many people have actually had their information properly transmitted to the private insurance company. I'm not assuming a 100% success rate like the Washington Post seems to be. I'm also not sure this number is requiring that people to have actually mailed a payment.

 

 

Remember, an insurance policy is a contract. It doesn't exist until a payment is made. Let's assume everyone's paid though. (Ok, try to suppress your laughter. I'll wait.) I'll tell you what the real problem is.

Done laughing? The real problem is that 803,000 have been enrolled onto Medicaid. That's not exactly the same as private insurance. That means most of the people who have "signed up" aren't paying any premiums at all. They're getting free health insurance from the taxpayers.

Here are also a couple of things to consider. First, millions of people have had their private insurance cancelled because of Obamacare, so the 365,000 number still means that we're in net negative territory for total private plans.

Second, the 365,000 total is still far below what the original estimate of success was. Sure, measured against a total trainwreck of ZERO, it's better. Sure, anything is better than zero. But let's not start congratulating ourselves just yet.

Remember that HHS has a goal of 3.3 million signups by the end of the year. That means we're going to need another three million more people to get the private insurance (not Medicaid option) in the next two weeks. Don't forget, that's what the prices are based on. If they don't hit that total number, the policies are getting re-priced, in the upwards direction.

Finally, there's still no information on the demographics of who has signed up for these plans. Personally, I'm not optimistic that the necessary number of young people have signed up. Don't forget, getting enough premiums from the young, healthy people is one of the necessary conditions to make this whole thing work.

This whole business is going to get out of control. It's going to get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it.

Healthcare.gov's Enrollment Numbers

Less than 27,000.

27,000. Let that sink in for a moment.

I know the White House is pushing a higher figure, that figure includes people who "picked a plan" but didn't actually enroll (you know, pay for it). An AP reporter is saying the actual number of people is less than 27,000.

What I really want to know is the breakdown of the number. How many of these less than 27,000 people have pre-existing conditions? How many are low-income and need significant subsidies? How many of the really important "young healthy" people are in this group? Does this include the number of people enrolled in Medicaid through the site?

My little blog here has more pageviews (since October of 2011) than people who have signed up for Obamacare through healthcare.gov. Let's see how long I can keep that streak going.

This is some epic failing that we're witnessing here. I cannot wait for Jay Carney's next press conference.

California Liberals Get Hit With a Clue Bat

This has to be my favorite story so far about the ACA rollout. It's priceless. If you don't want to go read the whole thing, I'll give you the highlights. However, you should go read the whole thing.

Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.

They're just two Californians living the liberal dream. They're really excited about Obamacare being active, because they buy their health insurance on the private market. Accordingly, they were interested to see how that might affect their existing policies. It's all sunshine and puppy dogs, right?

Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.

Whoa! I'm pretty sure that Vinson and Waschura thought that someone else would be paying for all this great coverage. You know, the rich!

"I was laughing at Boehner -- until the mail came today," Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare. "I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy."

Hey, now! Look who's starting to talk like a Republican, talking about his family's money and the local economy. That's just crazy, winger-talk. To quote John McClane: Welcome to the party, pal.

Now, as good as that quote is, here's the best one. Seriously, hold on to your butt. Ready? Ok. Here's where he gets hit with the Clue Bat:

"Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally."

I love it. Love it. He wants people to have free stuff. He just doesn't want to be the one who pays for it. This probably sums up every liberal program ever thought up. I love the thought of this liberal Californian finally having the reality of math hit him in the head. When you give free stuff to one person, you don't just magic it up out of thin air - someone has to pay for it.

You can almost use this quote like a template and put anything in. "Of course, I want people to have _________," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally." See? Works for whatever you want.

Welcome to the real word, y'all. I wonder if they can relate to some folks who think they are Taxed Enough Already. Maybe? It always cracks me up that liberals like these folks think that they are the smartest people ever, but can't figure out that 2 + 2 = 4. I would like to conclude this post with a direct letter to these two Californian liberals.

Dear Waschura and Vinson: 

Remember how funny it was when Pelosi said they had to pass the bill (in the middle of the night on Christmas eve with only Democrat Votes and parliamentary tricks and payoffs) so you could find out what was in it? Remember how you screamed that anyone opposed was a racist teabagger? Remember how you giggled every time you said teabagger? Remember how happy you were when it was signed by the President? Remember how many times you've said "It's the law!" Remember all that? 

I do. 

Not so funny now, is it?

Sincerely,
Permanent Press

Sen. Lindsey Graham is in Trouble

I shared this on Twitter earlier, but I thought I should post it here for those of you who aren't Twitter-inclined. If you haven't been paying attention, Lindsey Graham is in big trouble for his reelection this fall. How much trouble?

Try 31% on for size.

Clemson political science professor Dave Woodard conducted the poll last week and found only 31 percent of South Carolina's Republicans plan to vote to re-elect Graham, regardless of who else was in the race.

For those of you not familiar with math, that's bad. Further down, the article cites Richard Quinn who is critical of the methodology that Woodard uses. That may or may not be a fair criticism. As Quinn notes, he doesn't know what methodology was used.

For comparison's sake, a Landmark/Rosetta Stone poll has Senator Graham up by a comfortable margin in the primary. However you slice it, I don't think Senator Graham is going to coast to reelection in a state known for long-term senators.

Sunday Math Problem

Three Sons and a Camel. All I can say is that a lawyer would have probably helped them solve this problem by taking about a third of their camels.

General Disclaimer

It has been brought to my attention that some of my physics and math in this post may be....what's the word....wrong. If you know me, then you know that I am not to be trusted with either math or physics. If you don't know me, I'm telling you know Do not trust me when it comes to math or physics.

I became a lawyer because I was bad at math.

Can I get an "Amen" from some lawyers in the house?

Math - It's Hard

The Columbia City Council spends more Hospitality Tax money than it brings in. 

The Council itself has a track record of overspending its H-tax budget – then turning around to balance the deficit with money from a hospitality surplus account that over the past four years has been all but drained.

What the heck is wrong with these people? Don't spend more money than you have. It's simple. They just decide to give everyone Hospitality Tax money and then pull money from another ledger. It's crazy.

At some point our elected officials need to learn to say "No."

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/09/04/2424952/city-council-moving-to-exert-more.html#.UEZBGI5j7zI#storylink=cpy

Powerball Lotto Simulator

I like a friendly wager as much as the next guy. I enjoy Saturday night card games with the guys, the friendly wager of a few beers on the outcome of a football game, that kind of stuff. However, one thing that holds no interest for me is the lotto.

I don't get any enjoyment out of picking some numbers and seeing if they match other numbers. There's no skill, no strategy, nothing. You just pick some numbers at random. It seems silly to me, and I refer to the lotto as a tax on people who are bad at math, because that's what it is.

If you would like to simulate playing the Powerball, here's a nice little app to keep track of how much you would win and spend. Just click on the "Start" button, and watch the numbers start to roll. I simulated buying two tickets each week for a year, and I lost $276.00.

Anybody hit the big one?

Paul Ryan Picked for Vice President

All you need to know about Paul Ryan:

1. He used to drive the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile as a summer job. That's the kind of awesome that cuts across party lines. It doesn't get more American than that. Someone who can handle the responsibility of the Weinermobile can handle being Vice-President.


2. He's a hunter, and he doesn't even need a gun to kill deer. Paul Ryan kills deer with a bow, but some people have alleged that he unfairly draws the deer in with his dreamy good looks.

In all seriousness, Paul Ryan should at least get the Presidential campaign back to a debate of serious ideas instead of fussing about people's car elevators, people's tax returns, people eating dogs, people strapping dogs to the roof of their car. He's not here to waste time talking about contraception, gay marriage, or any of the other stupid culture issues. Ryan's here to talk about numbers. Math.

You want to talk about the federal budget? You want to talk about specifics? Paul Ryan is the only guy in Washington DC who has actually proposed a budget with specifics. There are plenty of folks out there who are quick to criticize, but it's pretty rare to find a politician who will put themselves out there, because there are so many people ready to tear you down.

I'm sure there are some people who think the Ryan pick was a disaster for Romney, but this guy isn't Sarah Palin. He's capable of effectively delivering the message of conservatism, he does it with a smile, and he's smart.

All across the country, actuaries are going weak in the knees.

Debt Ceiling Update: Math Always Beats up on Words (Dirty Harry Edition)

Ever since Obama couldn't guarantee that Social Security checks would go out, the Washington Examiner has done the unthinkable; they've obtained the hard numbers and done the math.

Actual math below the jump. For those of you who avoid math at all costs, just move along. Nothing to see here.