<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_25_1755231</id>
	<title>BC Prof Suggests Young Children Need Less Formal Math, Not More</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269545820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:DesScorp.Gmail@com" rel="nofollow">DesScorp</a> writes <i>"Professor Peter Gray, a developmental psychologist and researcher at Boston College, recounts an experiment done in New Hampshire schools in 1929, where <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-schools">math was completely taken out of the curriculum</a> of the poorest schools from the area until the sixth grade. The results were surprising; with just one year of math under their belts, the poor students did as well or better than students from better schools by the end of the sixth grade year, despite the fact that the better schools had math in their curriculum all throughout elementary school. Professor Gray thinks children are not mentally wired for the kind of formal math instruction that is taught in schools, and that we'd be better served by putting off the teaching of theory until the seventh grade. He scoffs at the notion that if children are failing with current levels of math instructions then we should double down and make them do more math in school."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DesScorp writes " Professor Peter Gray , a developmental psychologist and researcher at Boston College , recounts an experiment done in New Hampshire schools in 1929 , where math was completely taken out of the curriculum of the poorest schools from the area until the sixth grade .
The results were surprising ; with just one year of math under their belts , the poor students did as well or better than students from better schools by the end of the sixth grade year , despite the fact that the better schools had math in their curriculum all throughout elementary school .
Professor Gray thinks children are not mentally wired for the kind of formal math instruction that is taught in schools , and that we 'd be better served by putting off the teaching of theory until the seventh grade .
He scoffs at the notion that if children are failing with current levels of math instructions then we should double down and make them do more math in school .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DesScorp writes "Professor Peter Gray, a developmental psychologist and researcher at Boston College, recounts an experiment done in New Hampshire schools in 1929, where math was completely taken out of the curriculum of the poorest schools from the area until the sixth grade.
The results were surprising; with just one year of math under their belts, the poor students did as well or better than students from better schools by the end of the sixth grade year, despite the fact that the better schools had math in their curriculum all throughout elementary school.
Professor Gray thinks children are not mentally wired for the kind of formal math instruction that is taught in schools, and that we'd be better served by putting off the teaching of theory until the seventh grade.
He scoffs at the notion that if children are failing with current levels of math instructions then we should double down and make them do more math in school.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616422</id>
	<title>Re:most people arent wired for math</title>
	<author>vishbar</author>
	<datestamp>1269550560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see you were involved in his other study where children weren't taught punctuation or capitalization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you were involved in his other study where children were n't taught punctuation or capitalization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you were involved in his other study where children weren't taught punctuation or capitalization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622198</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1269540600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>grade 1-3 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes (passed off as geometry)
grade 4-6 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes, might see a fraction by grade 6
grade 6-8 - all of the above, fractions, simple geometry.

Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I started learning Algebra in Year 6 (grade for you yanks), but then again here in Australia if you show an aptitude at something they will take you out of your regular class and put you in an advanced class.<br> <br>

A real shame about my English education though, due to a muscular problem I can't write neatly so they held back my English education for 9 years before some bright spark said "just use the computer, that way I can read it" at got a 6 year education in written English in 3 months.<br> <br>

High schools here have at least three levels of math and English education, Smart, Normal and Dumb and your ability determines which class you go into. It's not unusual for larger schools to have 5 levels. One unit of Math and English per year is mandatory for all 12 years of schooling (the last two years are voluntary, mandatory schooling finishes at the 10th year)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>grade 1-3 - addition , subtraction , basic shapes ( passed off as geometry ) grade 4-6 - addition , subtraction , basic shapes , might see a fraction by grade 6 grade 6-8 - all of the above , fractions , simple geometry .
Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra .
I started learning Algebra in Year 6 ( grade for you yanks ) , but then again here in Australia if you show an aptitude at something they will take you out of your regular class and put you in an advanced class .
A real shame about my English education though , due to a muscular problem I ca n't write neatly so they held back my English education for 9 years before some bright spark said " just use the computer , that way I can read it " at got a 6 year education in written English in 3 months .
High schools here have at least three levels of math and English education , Smart , Normal and Dumb and your ability determines which class you go into .
It 's not unusual for larger schools to have 5 levels .
One unit of Math and English per year is mandatory for all 12 years of schooling ( the last two years are voluntary , mandatory schooling finishes at the 10th year )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>grade 1-3 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes (passed off as geometry)
grade 4-6 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes, might see a fraction by grade 6
grade 6-8 - all of the above, fractions, simple geometry.
Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra.
I started learning Algebra in Year 6 (grade for you yanks), but then again here in Australia if you show an aptitude at something they will take you out of your regular class and put you in an advanced class.
A real shame about my English education though, due to a muscular problem I can't write neatly so they held back my English education for 9 years before some bright spark said "just use the computer, that way I can read it" at got a 6 year education in written English in 3 months.
High schools here have at least three levels of math and English education, Smart, Normal and Dumb and your ability determines which class you go into.
It's not unusual for larger schools to have 5 levels.
One unit of Math and English per year is mandatory for all 12 years of schooling (the last two years are voluntary, mandatory schooling finishes at the 10th year)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621978</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>TCP-mHz</author>
	<datestamp>1269538020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>grade 1-3 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes (passed off as geometry)
grade 4-6 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes, might see a fraction by grade 6
grade 6-8 - all of the above, fractions, simple geometry.</p><p>Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra.</p></div></blockquote><p>Having read this, it doesn't surprise me that the students who took no mathematics were able to catch up so fast. You hardly did anything at all.</p><p>OK, attempting to jury rigging the K-12 system around the one over here (Ireland), this is how I remember things going(My memory is fuzzy and I wasn't keeping a record at the time. But I think this is fairly representative.).</p><p>grades -1,0 - naming numbers 1-10, possibly some teens. Very basic addition. Shapes.
grades 1-2 - General addition, subtraction. Introduction of base number system, unit, tens, hundreds, etc. (Fractions?) Multiplication. Times table, perhaps basic geometry.
grades 3-4 - More times tables. Fractions I presume. Division. Decimals. Long division. More geometry.
grades 5-6 - More decimals. More long division. More geometry(Pi gets badly introduced here). (square roots?). Word problems.</p><p>grade 7 - Basic algebra. Exponents. Co-ordinate geometry. Set Theory. Euclidean Geometry. Polynomial Long Division. Simultaneous linear equations.
grades 8-9 -  Functions. Basic Trigonometry. Quadratic equations. Basic Statistics. Logarithms. Even more Euclidean Geometry. (Differentiation?)</p><p>grades (10)-11-12 - Complex numbers. Coordinate Trigonometry. Vectors. Differential Calculus. Integration. Binomial Expansions. Probability. More statistics. Matrices.</p><p>And my understanding is that what I is somewhat less than that done in the English GCSEs, and apparently pales in comparision to the mathematics curricula in Russia and post Soviet states. I honestly don't know how the US expects to maintain an adequate presences in STEM if the basic mathematics curriculum is so deficient. The notion of an able student of 18 completing 12 years of formal education without being able to differentiate seems very odd to me.</p></div><p>My kids are in 3rd and 4th grade, and your table there looks accurate for them so far with the exception that my son (4th grade) is already doing square root and they started word problems in 3rd grade.  From reading over the school districts web site, the comparison ends around the 10th grade mark unless the child chooses to pursue higher level mathmatics (which from what I remember of high school is a small percentage while the rest take some form of applied math or none at all).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>grade 1-3 - addition , subtraction , basic shapes ( passed off as geometry ) grade 4-6 - addition , subtraction , basic shapes , might see a fraction by grade 6 grade 6-8 - all of the above , fractions , simple geometry.Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra.Having read this , it does n't surprise me that the students who took no mathematics were able to catch up so fast .
You hardly did anything at all.OK , attempting to jury rigging the K-12 system around the one over here ( Ireland ) , this is how I remember things going ( My memory is fuzzy and I was n't keeping a record at the time .
But I think this is fairly representative .
) .grades -1,0 - naming numbers 1-10 , possibly some teens .
Very basic addition .
Shapes . grades 1-2 - General addition , subtraction .
Introduction of base number system , unit , tens , hundreds , etc .
( Fractions ? ) Multiplication .
Times table , perhaps basic geometry .
grades 3-4 - More times tables .
Fractions I presume .
Division. Decimals .
Long division .
More geometry .
grades 5-6 - More decimals .
More long division .
More geometry ( Pi gets badly introduced here ) .
( square roots ? ) .
Word problems.grade 7 - Basic algebra .
Exponents. Co-ordinate geometry .
Set Theory .
Euclidean Geometry .
Polynomial Long Division .
Simultaneous linear equations .
grades 8-9 - Functions .
Basic Trigonometry .
Quadratic equations .
Basic Statistics .
Logarithms. Even more Euclidean Geometry .
( Differentiation ? ) grades ( 10 ) -11-12 - Complex numbers .
Coordinate Trigonometry .
Vectors. Differential Calculus .
Integration. Binomial Expansions .
Probability. More statistics .
Matrices.And my understanding is that what I is somewhat less than that done in the English GCSEs , and apparently pales in comparision to the mathematics curricula in Russia and post Soviet states .
I honestly do n't know how the US expects to maintain an adequate presences in STEM if the basic mathematics curriculum is so deficient .
The notion of an able student of 18 completing 12 years of formal education without being able to differentiate seems very odd to me.My kids are in 3rd and 4th grade , and your table there looks accurate for them so far with the exception that my son ( 4th grade ) is already doing square root and they started word problems in 3rd grade .
From reading over the school districts web site , the comparison ends around the 10th grade mark unless the child chooses to pursue higher level mathmatics ( which from what I remember of high school is a small percentage while the rest take some form of applied math or none at all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>grade 1-3 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes (passed off as geometry)
grade 4-6 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes, might see a fraction by grade 6
grade 6-8 - all of the above, fractions, simple geometry.Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra.Having read this, it doesn't surprise me that the students who took no mathematics were able to catch up so fast.
You hardly did anything at all.OK, attempting to jury rigging the K-12 system around the one over here (Ireland), this is how I remember things going(My memory is fuzzy and I wasn't keeping a record at the time.
But I think this is fairly representative.
).grades -1,0 - naming numbers 1-10, possibly some teens.
Very basic addition.
Shapes.
grades 1-2 - General addition, subtraction.
Introduction of base number system, unit, tens, hundreds, etc.
(Fractions?) Multiplication.
Times table, perhaps basic geometry.
grades 3-4 - More times tables.
Fractions I presume.
Division. Decimals.
Long division.
More geometry.
grades 5-6 - More decimals.
More long division.
More geometry(Pi gets badly introduced here).
(square roots?).
Word problems.grade 7 - Basic algebra.
Exponents. Co-ordinate geometry.
Set Theory.
Euclidean Geometry.
Polynomial Long Division.
Simultaneous linear equations.
grades 8-9 -  Functions.
Basic Trigonometry.
Quadratic equations.
Basic Statistics.
Logarithms. Even more Euclidean Geometry.
(Differentiation?)grades (10)-11-12 - Complex numbers.
Coordinate Trigonometry.
Vectors. Differential Calculus.
Integration. Binomial Expansions.
Probability. More statistics.
Matrices.And my understanding is that what I is somewhat less than that done in the English GCSEs, and apparently pales in comparision to the mathematics curricula in Russia and post Soviet states.
I honestly don't know how the US expects to maintain an adequate presences in STEM if the basic mathematics curriculum is so deficient.
The notion of an able student of 18 completing 12 years of formal education without being able to differentiate seems very odd to me.My kids are in 3rd and 4th grade, and your table there looks accurate for them so far with the exception that my son (4th grade) is already doing square root and they started word problems in 3rd grade.
From reading over the school districts web site, the comparison ends around the 10th grade mark unless the child chooses to pursue higher level mathmatics (which from what I remember of high school is a small percentage while the rest take some form of applied math or none at all).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616090</id>
	<title>most people arent wired for math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269549540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>but some, including me, are.  ill kill you before you take my math!</htmltext>
<tokenext>but some , including me , are .
ill kill you before you take my math !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but some, including me, are.
ill kill you before you take my math!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616772</id>
	<title>Oh fuck.</title>
	<author>rigorrogue</author>
	<datestamp>1269508620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just replied to Math Skills For Programmers - Necessary Or Not? <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/25/0312233" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/25/0312233</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>I want round up a posse to go 'round to this fool's house and beat him to life with a clue-stick. Anyone?</p><p>Not formally wired! Are we formally wired to take this git's* opinion seriously? Are we formally wired to work 9 to 5, or eat burgers, or browse<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</p><p>Here's a delicious quote from the article (I know, I know):</p><p>"For some years I had noted that the effect of the early introduction of arithmetic had been to dull and almost chloroform the child's reasoning facilities."</p><p>Bwahahaa!</p><p>Then:</p><p>"It appears that the higher scores of the affluent districts are not due to superior teaching but to the supplementary informal 'home schooling' of children."</p><p>My, you don't say!</p><p>It finishes with:</p><p>"At the present time it seems clear that we are doing more damage than good by teaching math in elementary schools. Therefore, I'm with Benezet. We should stop teaching it. In my next post--about two weeks from now--I'm going to talk about how kids who don't go to traditional schools learn math with no or very little formal instruction. If you have a story to tell me about such learning, which might contribute to that post, please tell it in the comments section below or email it to me at grayp@bc.edu"</p><p>If Satan is keen on ignorance I reckon he's got a special place in Hell for this dick.</p><p>*I'm very glad Linus re-introduced this word to the mainstream of popular culture. It's a term of singular contempt, and I should know, I'm Irish.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just replied to Math Skills For Programmers - Necessary Or Not ?
http : //science.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 10/03/25/0312233 [ slashdot.org ] I want round up a posse to go 'round to this fool 's house and beat him to life with a clue-stick .
Anyone ? Not formally wired !
Are we formally wired to take this git 's * opinion seriously ?
Are we formally wired to work 9 to 5 , or eat burgers , or browse / .
? Here 's a delicious quote from the article ( I know , I know ) : " For some years I had noted that the effect of the early introduction of arithmetic had been to dull and almost chloroform the child 's reasoning facilities .
" Bwahahaa ! Then : " It appears that the higher scores of the affluent districts are not due to superior teaching but to the supplementary informal 'home schooling ' of children .
" My , you do n't say ! It finishes with : " At the present time it seems clear that we are doing more damage than good by teaching math in elementary schools .
Therefore , I 'm with Benezet .
We should stop teaching it .
In my next post--about two weeks from now--I 'm going to talk about how kids who do n't go to traditional schools learn math with no or very little formal instruction .
If you have a story to tell me about such learning , which might contribute to that post , please tell it in the comments section below or email it to me at grayp @ bc.edu " If Satan is keen on ignorance I reckon he 's got a special place in Hell for this dick .
* I 'm very glad Linus re-introduced this word to the mainstream of popular culture .
It 's a term of singular contempt , and I should know , I 'm Irish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just replied to Math Skills For Programmers - Necessary Or Not?
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/25/0312233 [slashdot.org]I want round up a posse to go 'round to this fool's house and beat him to life with a clue-stick.
Anyone?Not formally wired!
Are we formally wired to take this git's* opinion seriously?
Are we formally wired to work 9 to 5, or eat burgers, or browse /.
?Here's a delicious quote from the article (I know, I know):"For some years I had noted that the effect of the early introduction of arithmetic had been to dull and almost chloroform the child's reasoning facilities.
"Bwahahaa!Then:"It appears that the higher scores of the affluent districts are not due to superior teaching but to the supplementary informal 'home schooling' of children.
"My, you don't say!It finishes with:"At the present time it seems clear that we are doing more damage than good by teaching math in elementary schools.
Therefore, I'm with Benezet.
We should stop teaching it.
In my next post--about two weeks from now--I'm going to talk about how kids who don't go to traditional schools learn math with no or very little formal instruction.
If you have a story to tell me about such learning, which might contribute to that post, please tell it in the comments section below or email it to me at grayp@bc.edu"If Satan is keen on ignorance I reckon he's got a special place in Hell for this dick.
*I'm very glad Linus re-introduced this word to the mainstream of popular culture.
It's a term of singular contempt, and I should know, I'm Irish.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617322</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>Tanaric</author>
	<datestamp>1269510180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We already are using the lowest common denominator enough, if we keep on this way you won't learn anything.</p></div><p>Unfortunately, students under Professor Peter Gray's proposed curriculum won't understand what "lowest common denominator" means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already are using the lowest common denominator enough , if we keep on this way you wo n't learn anything.Unfortunately , students under Professor Peter Gray 's proposed curriculum wo n't understand what " lowest common denominator " means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already are using the lowest common denominator enough, if we keep on this way you won't learn anything.Unfortunately, students under Professor Peter Gray's proposed curriculum won't understand what "lowest common denominator" means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616190</id>
	<title>What about "parts of speech"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269549840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had way too many English classes dealing with things like participles.. Who cares, when will that EVER be useful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had way too many English classes dealing with things like participles.. Who cares , when will that EVER be useful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had way too many English classes dealing with things like participles.. Who cares, when will that EVER be useful?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619710</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269521700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that AxB is equal to BxA isn't important?  Ok, maybe you're against giving it a name, but I'd say it's wildly important.  First off, it means that you only have to memorize half of all multiplications.  Second, I would say that if you understand what multiplication means (for numbers), then you should even be able to figure out why multiplication does commutate (my 7 year old just did this last night, with my help).</p><p>I don't know if anyone else later mentions this, but the study itself goes to show why we do need more formal math and logic training.  The prof shows that removing 1929 math from the curriculum resulted in kids being able to catch up in 1 year several years later.  First, who wants to catch up, and second, how do you conclude that removing 1929 math means that removing all math is good?  Maybe the curriculum in 1929 wasn't so effective.  Was that hypothesis disproven?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that AxB is equal to BxA is n't important ?
Ok , maybe you 're against giving it a name , but I 'd say it 's wildly important .
First off , it means that you only have to memorize half of all multiplications .
Second , I would say that if you understand what multiplication means ( for numbers ) , then you should even be able to figure out why multiplication does commutate ( my 7 year old just did this last night , with my help ) .I do n't know if anyone else later mentions this , but the study itself goes to show why we do need more formal math and logic training .
The prof shows that removing 1929 math from the curriculum resulted in kids being able to catch up in 1 year several years later .
First , who wants to catch up , and second , how do you conclude that removing 1929 math means that removing all math is good ?
Maybe the curriculum in 1929 was n't so effective .
Was that hypothesis disproven ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that AxB is equal to BxA isn't important?
Ok, maybe you're against giving it a name, but I'd say it's wildly important.
First off, it means that you only have to memorize half of all multiplications.
Second, I would say that if you understand what multiplication means (for numbers), then you should even be able to figure out why multiplication does commutate (my 7 year old just did this last night, with my help).I don't know if anyone else later mentions this, but the study itself goes to show why we do need more formal math and logic training.
The prof shows that removing 1929 math from the curriculum resulted in kids being able to catch up in 1 year several years later.
First, who wants to catch up, and second, how do you conclude that removing 1929 math means that removing all math is good?
Maybe the curriculum in 1929 wasn't so effective.
Was that hypothesis disproven?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616704</id>
	<title>Let's fix all of the academics!</title>
	<author>InsaneProcessor</author>
	<datestamp>1269508380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We don't need to teach the truth about history either.  Let's just teach the kids racially sensitive, altered history instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need to teach the truth about history either .
Let 's just teach the kids racially sensitive , altered history instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need to teach the truth about history either.
Let's just teach the kids racially sensitive, altered history instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619804</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269522060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd never heard of tribes counting logarithmically. What I had heard, though, is that foraging cultures tend not to have a very complex numbering system. They'll have words for 'one', 'two', maybe 'three', and 'many'. When they need to compare two 'many' quantities, if it's not obvious at a glance, they make pairs (one from each set) until one set runs out.</p><p>The only ones who count one, two, four, eight, sixteen, and so on would be us computer scientists...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd never heard of tribes counting logarithmically .
What I had heard , though , is that foraging cultures tend not to have a very complex numbering system .
They 'll have words for 'one ' , 'two ' , maybe 'three ' , and 'many' .
When they need to compare two 'many ' quantities , if it 's not obvious at a glance , they make pairs ( one from each set ) until one set runs out.The only ones who count one , two , four , eight , sixteen , and so on would be us computer scientists.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd never heard of tribes counting logarithmically.
What I had heard, though, is that foraging cultures tend not to have a very complex numbering system.
They'll have words for 'one', 'two', maybe 'three', and 'many'.
When they need to compare two 'many' quantities, if it's not obvious at a glance, they make pairs (one from each set) until one set runs out.The only ones who count one, two, four, eight, sixteen, and so on would be us computer scientists...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617594</id>
	<title>Re:less FORMAL math, maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269511320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? You'd do that to a child? It just makes me sad. To hell with humanity already....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
You 'd do that to a child ?
It just makes me sad .
To hell with humanity already... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
You'd do that to a child?
It just makes me sad.
To hell with humanity already....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616700</id>
	<title>It's magic.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on one study, done 71 years ago, and a visit to two schools in an anecdote in a talk by one person (which sound like BS to me, you'd be hard pressed to find ANY group of 50 adults who don't know the area of a rectangle, let alone among college educated teachers), we should teach less math so the kids magically learn more.</p><p>This is the biggest bunch of idiocy I've seen in a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on one study , done 71 years ago , and a visit to two schools in an anecdote in a talk by one person ( which sound like BS to me , you 'd be hard pressed to find ANY group of 50 adults who do n't know the area of a rectangle , let alone among college educated teachers ) , we should teach less math so the kids magically learn more.This is the biggest bunch of idiocy I 've seen in a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on one study, done 71 years ago, and a visit to two schools in an anecdote in a talk by one person (which sound like BS to me, you'd be hard pressed to find ANY group of 50 adults who don't know the area of a rectangle, let alone among college educated teachers), we should teach less math so the kids magically learn more.This is the biggest bunch of idiocy I've seen in a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616680</id>
	<title>Re:good teacher</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269508260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that several years with a mediocre teacher can actually destroy a person's ability to deal with math. I had a friend who only passed his final math exam because three people taught him stuff that in 3 months he was supposed to have learned years ago. But thank to a horrible Math teacher in his formative years, he hated math and was almost incapable of getting over it. Thankfully, he did - but it was amazing the impact that one bad teacher had on him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that several years with a mediocre teacher can actually destroy a person 's ability to deal with math .
I had a friend who only passed his final math exam because three people taught him stuff that in 3 months he was supposed to have learned years ago .
But thank to a horrible Math teacher in his formative years , he hated math and was almost incapable of getting over it .
Thankfully , he did - but it was amazing the impact that one bad teacher had on him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that several years with a mediocre teacher can actually destroy a person's ability to deal with math.
I had a friend who only passed his final math exam because three people taught him stuff that in 3 months he was supposed to have learned years ago.
But thank to a horrible Math teacher in his formative years, he hated math and was almost incapable of getting over it.
Thankfully, he did - but it was amazing the impact that one bad teacher had on him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616556</id>
	<title>Damn Numbers...</title>
	<author>Ornlu</author>
	<datestamp>1269507780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe this is why 5 out of every 4 people have trouble with fractions!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is why 5 out of every 4 people have trouble with fractions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this is why 5 out of every 4 people have trouble with fractions!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619734</id>
	<title>Re:There is more than one BC in the world...</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1269521760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was Boston College of Education before the Texas school board changes the rules.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was Boston College of Education before the Texas school board changes the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was Boston College of Education before the Texas school board changes the rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616282</id>
	<title>good teacher</title>
	<author>jmyers</author>
	<datestamp>1269550140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the 6 graders that just started math had a really good teacher. One year with a good teacher can outpace several years with a mediocre teacher. The conclusion of the study should be better teaching methods not less education.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the 6 graders that just started math had a really good teacher .
One year with a good teacher can outpace several years with a mediocre teacher .
The conclusion of the study should be better teaching methods not less education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the 6 graders that just started math had a really good teacher.
One year with a good teacher can outpace several years with a mediocre teacher.
The conclusion of the study should be better teaching methods not less education.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616326</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the general idea is that if you wait to teach it until they're ready, you can teach it quickly instead of dumbing it down the way it is now.</p><p>I'm not at all sure it would actually work out that way, but the option deserves to be investigated. Especially in light of the current situation, anything that could offer improvements should be considered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the general idea is that if you wait to teach it until they 're ready , you can teach it quickly instead of dumbing it down the way it is now.I 'm not at all sure it would actually work out that way , but the option deserves to be investigated .
Especially in light of the current situation , anything that could offer improvements should be considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the general idea is that if you wait to teach it until they're ready, you can teach it quickly instead of dumbing it down the way it is now.I'm not at all sure it would actually work out that way, but the option deserves to be investigated.
Especially in light of the current situation, anything that could offer improvements should be considered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616724</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>zhrike</author>
	<datestamp>1269508440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return. We already are using the lowest common denominator enough, if we keep on this way you won't learn anything.</i></p><p>As someone who was better than average?  Perhaps you need some help with statistics and correlation.</p><p><i>I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow, boring and dumbed down that there's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes.</i></p><p>Your experience is anecdotal. This article cites a longitudinal study. Perhaps we should restructure all education based on your second-hand observations of someone who has a child.</p><p>But hey, why bother with that when we can arrogantly assume that we know better?</p><p>Do you actually think before</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return .
We already are using the lowest common denominator enough , if we keep on this way you wo n't learn anything.As someone who was better than average ?
Perhaps you need some help with statistics and correlation.I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow , boring and dumbed down that there 's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes.Your experience is anecdotal .
This article cites a longitudinal study .
Perhaps we should restructure all education based on your second-hand observations of someone who has a child.But hey , why bother with that when we can arrogantly assume that we know better ? Do you actually think before</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return.
We already are using the lowest common denominator enough, if we keep on this way you won't learn anything.As someone who was better than average?
Perhaps you need some help with statistics and correlation.I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow, boring and dumbed down that there's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes.Your experience is anecdotal.
This article cites a longitudinal study.
Perhaps we should restructure all education based on your second-hand observations of someone who has a child.But hey, why bother with that when we can arrogantly assume that we know better?Do you actually think before</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616690</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1269508320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Here in the US, we have an entire state that believes you can teach US history without mentioning Thomas Jefferson, and biology without mentioning evolution.</p><p>I think the point of no-return was reached for them some time ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return .
Here in the US , we have an entire state that believes you can teach US history without mentioning Thomas Jefferson , and biology without mentioning evolution.I think the point of no-return was reached for them some time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return.
Here in the US, we have an entire state that believes you can teach US history without mentioning Thomas Jefferson, and biology without mentioning evolution.I think the point of no-return was reached for them some time ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616566</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>urusan</author>
	<datestamp>1269507840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another explanation: the recitation class that replaced arithmetic caused the difference.</p><p>We'd have to run more experiments to be sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another explanation : the recitation class that replaced arithmetic caused the difference.We 'd have to run more experiments to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another explanation: the recitation class that replaced arithmetic caused the difference.We'd have to run more experiments to be sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620394</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269525540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>holy shit! I thought it was just me. I have a masters in math, and my wife a masters in education (she's a high school math teacher) and between the two of us we have a hell of a time trying to figure out what our little monster's kindergarten teacher is trying to get out of math homework.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>holy shit !
I thought it was just me .
I have a masters in math , and my wife a masters in education ( she 's a high school math teacher ) and between the two of us we have a hell of a time trying to figure out what our little monster 's kindergarten teacher is trying to get out of math homework .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>holy shit!
I thought it was just me.
I have a masters in math, and my wife a masters in education (she's a high school math teacher) and between the two of us we have a hell of a time trying to figure out what our little monster's kindergarten teacher is trying to get out of math homework.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618242</id>
	<title>which particular homework ?</title>
	<author>curri</author>
	<datestamp>1269514140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My kids are not there yet (my oldest is in 1st grade), but I've helped many friends and kids of friends, and I've always been able to read their textbook and understand what they wanted.</p><p>BTW, the fact that numbers have those properties is incredibly useful; the commutative property tells me that 3+15 = 15+3 (the later being much easier to calculate by counting with my fingers) and that 3*9 = 9*3 (the later being much easier to calculate by repeated addition). Making it explicit gives it a name, but also helps with the kids who haven't got it yet (my kids don't know the name, but they know the commutative property and can apply it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My kids are not there yet ( my oldest is in 1st grade ) , but I 've helped many friends and kids of friends , and I 've always been able to read their textbook and understand what they wanted.BTW , the fact that numbers have those properties is incredibly useful ; the commutative property tells me that 3 + 15 = 15 + 3 ( the later being much easier to calculate by counting with my fingers ) and that 3 * 9 = 9 * 3 ( the later being much easier to calculate by repeated addition ) .
Making it explicit gives it a name , but also helps with the kids who have n't got it yet ( my kids do n't know the name , but they know the commutative property and can apply it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My kids are not there yet (my oldest is in 1st grade), but I've helped many friends and kids of friends, and I've always been able to read their textbook and understand what they wanted.BTW, the fact that numbers have those properties is incredibly useful; the commutative property tells me that 3+15 = 15+3 (the later being much easier to calculate by counting with my fingers) and that 3*9 = 9*3 (the later being much easier to calculate by repeated addition).
Making it explicit gives it a name, but also helps with the kids who haven't got it yet (my kids don't know the name, but they know the commutative property and can apply it)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616644</id>
	<title>games and programming</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1269508080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine, cut out theory, but teach math using basic problem solving games, and teach programming.  If a kid is smart, they should start writing basic video games like age 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine , cut out theory , but teach math using basic problem solving games , and teach programming .
If a kid is smart , they should start writing basic video games like age 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine, cut out theory, but teach math using basic problem solving games, and teach programming.
If a kid is smart, they should start writing basic video games like age 7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617878</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1269512580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even Calc 1 could be compressed into an algebra course.  The techniques used are the same.  If you understand how to solve equations by substitution, you understand how to take derivatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even Calc 1 could be compressed into an algebra course .
The techniques used are the same .
If you understand how to solve equations by substitution , you understand how to take derivatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even Calc 1 could be compressed into an algebra course.
The techniques used are the same.
If you understand how to solve equations by substitution, you understand how to take derivatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616392</id>
	<title>Re:Relevance?</title>
	<author>Fallingcow</author>
	<datestamp>1269550440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if they did re-create the study, and a bunch of schools started doing this, I can assure you that most of them would decide that "less math" was just as good as "no math" and far less scary, and that "6th-7th grade" could be cut back to "2nd grade" without affecting the results of the program.</p><p>From what I've seen, school administrators (principals up to and including district supers) are very good at latching on to (possibly useful) fads in pedagogy, but very bad at actually implementing <i>entire</i> programs; they'll go on about how important this is, and how the teachers must follow its principles, then direct them to do things contrary to it either because they don't actually understand it or because those parts are too scary.  A couple years later they'll pick some other program to get excited about and it'll start all over.</p><p>Most of them also have a damn poor understanding of the scientific process, which might explain some of the above nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they did re-create the study , and a bunch of schools started doing this , I can assure you that most of them would decide that " less math " was just as good as " no math " and far less scary , and that " 6th-7th grade " could be cut back to " 2nd grade " without affecting the results of the program.From what I 've seen , school administrators ( principals up to and including district supers ) are very good at latching on to ( possibly useful ) fads in pedagogy , but very bad at actually implementing entire programs ; they 'll go on about how important this is , and how the teachers must follow its principles , then direct them to do things contrary to it either because they do n't actually understand it or because those parts are too scary .
A couple years later they 'll pick some other program to get excited about and it 'll start all over.Most of them also have a damn poor understanding of the scientific process , which might explain some of the above nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they did re-create the study, and a bunch of schools started doing this, I can assure you that most of them would decide that "less math" was just as good as "no math" and far less scary, and that "6th-7th grade" could be cut back to "2nd grade" without affecting the results of the program.From what I've seen, school administrators (principals up to and including district supers) are very good at latching on to (possibly useful) fads in pedagogy, but very bad at actually implementing entire programs; they'll go on about how important this is, and how the teachers must follow its principles, then direct them to do things contrary to it either because they don't actually understand it or because those parts are too scary.
A couple years later they'll pick some other program to get excited about and it'll start all over.Most of them also have a damn poor understanding of the scientific process, which might explain some of the above nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617260</id>
	<title>Another Flakely Psychologist</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269510000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         Sure, children are not wired for math theory. That is why it is required in school. We normally do rewire the mind in education. That is what learning is all about.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And think about it a bit. According to this psychologist we might conclude that a child who is very good at math is somehow abnormal. That turns into a messed up, circular pile of goo. High levels of education are not present in the majority of people. In a way that makes educated people a minority or abnormal by definition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , children are not wired for math theory .
That is why it is required in school .
We normally do rewire the mind in education .
That is what learning is all about .
                  And think about it a bit .
According to this psychologist we might conclude that a child who is very good at math is somehow abnormal .
That turns into a messed up , circular pile of goo .
High levels of education are not present in the majority of people .
In a way that makes educated people a minority or abnormal by definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         Sure, children are not wired for math theory.
That is why it is required in school.
We normally do rewire the mind in education.
That is what learning is all about.
                  And think about it a bit.
According to this psychologist we might conclude that a child who is very good at math is somehow abnormal.
That turns into a messed up, circular pile of goo.
High levels of education are not present in the majority of people.
In a way that makes educated people a minority or abnormal by definition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617288</id>
	<title>Too Radical</title>
	<author>pscottdv</author>
	<datestamp>1269510120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if the study was correct, this is unlikely to happen (in the USA at least).  It is simply too radical a change for anything as rigid as our public schools systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the study was correct , this is unlikely to happen ( in the USA at least ) .
It is simply too radical a change for anything as rigid as our public schools systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the study was correct, this is unlikely to happen (in the USA at least).
It is simply too radical a change for anything as rigid as our public schools systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621684</id>
	<title>Flaws in logic</title>
	<author>Targon</author>
	<datestamp>1269535080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are some very basic concepts that people should know prior to making such "public" comments.    First off is that a poor teacher in the early part of the education process will often turn students AWAY from certain subjects.    Yes, this means that all those liberal arts focused elementary school teachers are HURTING the students by not having any interest or skill in math and science.    It is far better to let someone dedicated to a subject and with a love of the subject teach that subject starting at an early age.    So, dedicated math teachers for ALL grades, not just "middle school" and higher.    The same goes for science, and all other subjects, we need to put an end to the old idea of a one room schoolhouse where one person is teaching ALL subjects to a class.</p><p>So, if you eliminate all the BAD teaching of math in the early years, you will find that students will respond to math better, no matter if they start sooner, or later.    Logic may not really develop until around the age of 12, but learning approaches to problem solving early can help quite a bit.  If you also start teaching ways to come up with solutions to problems from an early age, then children MAY start looking for new solutions at younger ages as well.    Having students memorize things and recite them on demand may have its place, but nothing beats having students come up with their own solutions to problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some very basic concepts that people should know prior to making such " public " comments .
First off is that a poor teacher in the early part of the education process will often turn students AWAY from certain subjects .
Yes , this means that all those liberal arts focused elementary school teachers are HURTING the students by not having any interest or skill in math and science .
It is far better to let someone dedicated to a subject and with a love of the subject teach that subject starting at an early age .
So , dedicated math teachers for ALL grades , not just " middle school " and higher .
The same goes for science , and all other subjects , we need to put an end to the old idea of a one room schoolhouse where one person is teaching ALL subjects to a class.So , if you eliminate all the BAD teaching of math in the early years , you will find that students will respond to math better , no matter if they start sooner , or later .
Logic may not really develop until around the age of 12 , but learning approaches to problem solving early can help quite a bit .
If you also start teaching ways to come up with solutions to problems from an early age , then children MAY start looking for new solutions at younger ages as well .
Having students memorize things and recite them on demand may have its place , but nothing beats having students come up with their own solutions to problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some very basic concepts that people should know prior to making such "public" comments.
First off is that a poor teacher in the early part of the education process will often turn students AWAY from certain subjects.
Yes, this means that all those liberal arts focused elementary school teachers are HURTING the students by not having any interest or skill in math and science.
It is far better to let someone dedicated to a subject and with a love of the subject teach that subject starting at an early age.
So, dedicated math teachers for ALL grades, not just "middle school" and higher.
The same goes for science, and all other subjects, we need to put an end to the old idea of a one room schoolhouse where one person is teaching ALL subjects to a class.So, if you eliminate all the BAD teaching of math in the early years, you will find that students will respond to math better, no matter if they start sooner, or later.
Logic may not really develop until around the age of 12, but learning approaches to problem solving early can help quite a bit.
If you also start teaching ways to come up with solutions to problems from an early age, then children MAY start looking for new solutions at younger ages as well.
Having students memorize things and recite them on demand may have its place, but nothing beats having students come up with their own solutions to problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619836</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1269522240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That was in Russia - and is typical of elementary schools there - but I don't think that it's relevant. Unless, that is, you're willing to argue that American kids are somehow mentally deficient from birth...</p></div></blockquote><p>Ah, but what you don't realize is that Russian kids who didn't show any promise in math were taken away to special schools, taught in English, where they trained deep cover agents for use in espionage against America.  It seems the FBI had learned that aptitude in math was a major red flag.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was in Russia - and is typical of elementary schools there - but I do n't think that it 's relevant .
Unless , that is , you 're willing to argue that American kids are somehow mentally deficient from birth...Ah , but what you do n't realize is that Russian kids who did n't show any promise in math were taken away to special schools , taught in English , where they trained deep cover agents for use in espionage against America .
It seems the FBI had learned that aptitude in math was a major red flag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was in Russia - and is typical of elementary schools there - but I don't think that it's relevant.
Unless, that is, you're willing to argue that American kids are somehow mentally deficient from birth...Ah, but what you don't realize is that Russian kids who didn't show any promise in math were taken away to special schools, taught in English, where they trained deep cover agents for use in espionage against America.
It seems the FBI had learned that aptitude in math was a major red flag.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619892</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs math... That'll be $2..</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269522540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, learning to do math that way instead of in a classroom would teach a kid 100x faster than the shit they do in school.  It'd take him a week to learn how not to get screwed instead of 6 years.</p><p>Trial by fire is a very efficient and effective way to learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , learning to do math that way instead of in a classroom would teach a kid 100x faster than the shit they do in school .
It 'd take him a week to learn how not to get screwed instead of 6 years.Trial by fire is a very efficient and effective way to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, learning to do math that way instead of in a classroom would teach a kid 100x faster than the shit they do in school.
It'd take him a week to learn how not to get screwed instead of 6 years.Trial by fire is a very efficient and effective way to learn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617388</id>
	<title>We need math, but cultural differences persist.</title>
	<author>reporter</author>
	<datestamp>1269510420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>One problem with this study by the professor at Boston College is that the study does not include adequate numbers of people of non-European ancestry.
<p>
Intelligence -- and the ability to absorb mathematical knowledge -- depends on 2 factors:  culture and genetics.  For example, Americans of Japanese ancestry have a slight advantage over other ethnic groups in comprehending mathematical concepts.  Delaying the introduction of mathematics would deprive Japanese-Americans of an opportunity to learn the subject.
</p><p>
Americans of African ancestry are at the other extreme.  They have much greater difficulty in comprehending mathematics.  Delaying the introduction of mathematics in primary school may actually not impact their comprehension of the subject.
</p><p>
By the way, these ethnic differences are one strong argument in favor of maintaining schools that are independent of the federal government.  School districts where Japanese-Americans predominate would be free to build a curriculum that is best suited for their ethnic group.  The same goes for African-Americans.
</p><p>
The only role that Washington should play is to (1) create national tests of academic knowledge, (2) require that all students up to the 12th grade take the tests, and (3) publish the results.  How to respond to the results is left to the school districts.  Washington merely measures and publishes.  This approach avoids the problem of certain ethnic groups's using lawyers to terminate national standards because certain ethnic groups underperform due to cultural and genetic reasons.
</p><p>
My idea is that Washington does not mandate any national standards.  Washington merely measures and publishes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem with this study by the professor at Boston College is that the study does not include adequate numbers of people of non-European ancestry .
Intelligence -- and the ability to absorb mathematical knowledge -- depends on 2 factors : culture and genetics .
For example , Americans of Japanese ancestry have a slight advantage over other ethnic groups in comprehending mathematical concepts .
Delaying the introduction of mathematics would deprive Japanese-Americans of an opportunity to learn the subject .
Americans of African ancestry are at the other extreme .
They have much greater difficulty in comprehending mathematics .
Delaying the introduction of mathematics in primary school may actually not impact their comprehension of the subject .
By the way , these ethnic differences are one strong argument in favor of maintaining schools that are independent of the federal government .
School districts where Japanese-Americans predominate would be free to build a curriculum that is best suited for their ethnic group .
The same goes for African-Americans .
The only role that Washington should play is to ( 1 ) create national tests of academic knowledge , ( 2 ) require that all students up to the 12th grade take the tests , and ( 3 ) publish the results .
How to respond to the results is left to the school districts .
Washington merely measures and publishes .
This approach avoids the problem of certain ethnic groups 's using lawyers to terminate national standards because certain ethnic groups underperform due to cultural and genetic reasons .
My idea is that Washington does not mandate any national standards .
Washington merely measures and publishes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem with this study by the professor at Boston College is that the study does not include adequate numbers of people of non-European ancestry.
Intelligence -- and the ability to absorb mathematical knowledge -- depends on 2 factors:  culture and genetics.
For example, Americans of Japanese ancestry have a slight advantage over other ethnic groups in comprehending mathematical concepts.
Delaying the introduction of mathematics would deprive Japanese-Americans of an opportunity to learn the subject.
Americans of African ancestry are at the other extreme.
They have much greater difficulty in comprehending mathematics.
Delaying the introduction of mathematics in primary school may actually not impact their comprehension of the subject.
By the way, these ethnic differences are one strong argument in favor of maintaining schools that are independent of the federal government.
School districts where Japanese-Americans predominate would be free to build a curriculum that is best suited for their ethnic group.
The same goes for African-Americans.
The only role that Washington should play is to (1) create national tests of academic knowledge, (2) require that all students up to the 12th grade take the tests, and (3) publish the results.
How to respond to the results is left to the school districts.
Washington merely measures and publishes.
This approach avoids the problem of certain ethnic groups's using lawyers to terminate national standards because certain ethnic groups underperform due to cultural and genetic reasons.
My idea is that Washington does not mandate any national standards.
Washington merely measures and publishes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616504</id>
	<title>Re:sixth grade?</title>
	<author>fotoguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1269507600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was not in honers classes.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was not in honers classes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was not in honers classes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616754</id>
	<title>Summary is misleading</title>
	<author>Pinckney</author>
	<datestamp>1269508560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In addition to removing <i>arithmetic</i> from the curriculum, they added<p><div class="quote"><p>recitation. By "recitation" he meant, "speaking the English language." He did "not mean giving back, verbatim, the words of the teacher or the textbook." The children would be asked to talk about topics that interested them--experiences they had had, movies they had seen, or anything that would lead to genuine, lively communication and discussion. This, he thought, would improve their abilities to reason and communicate logically. He also asked the teachers to give their pupils some practice in measuring and counting things, to assure that they would have some practical experience with numbers.</p></div><p>Simply removing all math from the curriculum would very probably not produce the same results.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to removing arithmetic from the curriculum , they addedrecitation .
By " recitation " he meant , " speaking the English language .
" He did " not mean giving back , verbatim , the words of the teacher or the textbook .
" The children would be asked to talk about topics that interested them--experiences they had had , movies they had seen , or anything that would lead to genuine , lively communication and discussion .
This , he thought , would improve their abilities to reason and communicate logically .
He also asked the teachers to give their pupils some practice in measuring and counting things , to assure that they would have some practical experience with numbers.Simply removing all math from the curriculum would very probably not produce the same results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to removing arithmetic from the curriculum, they addedrecitation.
By "recitation" he meant, "speaking the English language.
" He did "not mean giving back, verbatim, the words of the teacher or the textbook.
" The children would be asked to talk about topics that interested them--experiences they had had, movies they had seen, or anything that would lead to genuine, lively communication and discussion.
This, he thought, would improve their abilities to reason and communicate logically.
He also asked the teachers to give their pupils some practice in measuring and counting things, to assure that they would have some practical experience with numbers.Simply removing all math from the curriculum would very probably not produce the same results.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617030</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1269509220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My son is in 4th grade and they studied fractions earlier in the year. They also covered basic Algebra and are now into what I would call beginners Geometry. Acute, Obtuse, calculate one side knowing the other two, etc...</p><p>This is at a public school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My son is in 4th grade and they studied fractions earlier in the year .
They also covered basic Algebra and are now into what I would call beginners Geometry .
Acute , Obtuse , calculate one side knowing the other two , etc...This is at a public school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My son is in 4th grade and they studied fractions earlier in the year.
They also covered basic Algebra and are now into what I would call beginners Geometry.
Acute, Obtuse, calculate one side knowing the other two, etc...This is at a public school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618048</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269513300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it was a strange thing in school; none of the teachers or the other students seemed to care that we were covering the same topics year after year after year in elementary school. Seriously 3/4 of the math we learned one year would be a complete retread of the math we learned the previous year.</p><p>Here's the problem with streamlining that though... **Most of the kids still struggled.** For a kid with a bit of talent and/or motivation, being taught how to multiply three digit numbers for 3 years in a row seems ridiculous. But most kids have no talent and no motivation. They can be taught the same thing 3 years in a row and barely scrape by (if that).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it was a strange thing in school ; none of the teachers or the other students seemed to care that we were covering the same topics year after year after year in elementary school .
Seriously 3/4 of the math we learned one year would be a complete retread of the math we learned the previous year.Here 's the problem with streamlining that though... * * Most of the kids still struggled .
* * For a kid with a bit of talent and/or motivation , being taught how to multiply three digit numbers for 3 years in a row seems ridiculous .
But most kids have no talent and no motivation .
They can be taught the same thing 3 years in a row and barely scrape by ( if that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it was a strange thing in school; none of the teachers or the other students seemed to care that we were covering the same topics year after year after year in elementary school.
Seriously 3/4 of the math we learned one year would be a complete retread of the math we learned the previous year.Here's the problem with streamlining that though... **Most of the kids still struggled.
** For a kid with a bit of talent and/or motivation, being taught how to multiply three digit numbers for 3 years in a row seems ridiculous.
But most kids have no talent and no motivation.
They can be taught the same thing 3 years in a row and barely scrape by (if that).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617576</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269511260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is true, adults learn exponentially faster than kids (which is why I don't think it really matters that other countries are more advanced in high school math; we can easily catch up in college).<br> <br>
I have a friend who did tutoring for the ASVAB for a while, which is a standardized test for the military.  He was working with the 'dumb' kids, the ones that somehow managed to get out of high school without learning subtraction.  In 8-12 weeks he was able to get them from that through algebra and geometry.  They did have to work hard, and a lot of what he did was just making sure they were concentrating and studying (since that kind of student usually has no self-concentration whatsoever), but he was quite successful at it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is true , adults learn exponentially faster than kids ( which is why I do n't think it really matters that other countries are more advanced in high school math ; we can easily catch up in college ) .
I have a friend who did tutoring for the ASVAB for a while , which is a standardized test for the military .
He was working with the 'dumb ' kids , the ones that somehow managed to get out of high school without learning subtraction .
In 8-12 weeks he was able to get them from that through algebra and geometry .
They did have to work hard , and a lot of what he did was just making sure they were concentrating and studying ( since that kind of student usually has no self-concentration whatsoever ) , but he was quite successful at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is true, adults learn exponentially faster than kids (which is why I don't think it really matters that other countries are more advanced in high school math; we can easily catch up in college).
I have a friend who did tutoring for the ASVAB for a while, which is a standardized test for the military.
He was working with the 'dumb' kids, the ones that somehow managed to get out of high school without learning subtraction.
In 8-12 weeks he was able to get them from that through algebra and geometry.
They did have to work hard, and a lot of what he did was just making sure they were concentrating and studying (since that kind of student usually has no self-concentration whatsoever), but he was quite successful at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616662</id>
	<title>Great, now the rednecks will be even STUPIDER</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this was instituted, we'd actually see the impossible happen: rednecks getting stupider. Not only would they be waving tea bags and complaining about federal taxes being 40\%, they wouldn't even know what 40\% MEANT. After all, Jeebus wants you to drop out after 6th grade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was instituted , we 'd actually see the impossible happen : rednecks getting stupider .
Not only would they be waving tea bags and complaining about federal taxes being 40 \ % , they would n't even know what 40 \ % MEANT .
After all , Jeebus wants you to drop out after 6th grade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this was instituted, we'd actually see the impossible happen: rednecks getting stupider.
Not only would they be waving tea bags and complaining about federal taxes being 40\%, they wouldn't even know what 40\% MEANT.
After all, Jeebus wants you to drop out after 6th grade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616570</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Eggbloke</author>
	<datestamp>1269507840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This.

I remember being told that "we would learn about negative numbers next year" even though we all already knew of their existence and the basics of them. The teacher would simply refuse to teach them to us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This .
I remember being told that " we would learn about negative numbers next year " even though we all already knew of their existence and the basics of them .
The teacher would simply refuse to teach them to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This.
I remember being told that "we would learn about negative numbers next year" even though we all already knew of their existence and the basics of them.
The teacher would simply refuse to teach them to us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</id>
	<title>Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've long felt that math taught in grades 1-7~8 could be compressed into a year or two with no repercussions. They just 'teach' the same thing over and over and it's not until middle school that you start really seeing anything different.<br> <br>
grade 1-3 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes (passed off as geometry)<br>
grade 4-6 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes, might see a fraction by grade 6<br>
grade 6-8 - all of the above, fractions, simple geometry.<br>
<br>
Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra.<br> <br>So is it that children don't do well learning math early, which goes against everything else we know about how the human brain learns, or that you've bored them to tears by grade 3 and they just stop listening?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've long felt that math taught in grades 1-7 ~ 8 could be compressed into a year or two with no repercussions .
They just 'teach ' the same thing over and over and it 's not until middle school that you start really seeing anything different .
grade 1-3 - addition , subtraction , basic shapes ( passed off as geometry ) grade 4-6 - addition , subtraction , basic shapes , might see a fraction by grade 6 grade 6-8 - all of the above , fractions , simple geometry .
Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra .
So is it that children do n't do well learning math early , which goes against everything else we know about how the human brain learns , or that you 've bored them to tears by grade 3 and they just stop listening ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've long felt that math taught in grades 1-7~8 could be compressed into a year or two with no repercussions.
They just 'teach' the same thing over and over and it's not until middle school that you start really seeing anything different.
grade 1-3 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes (passed off as geometry)
grade 4-6 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes, might see a fraction by grade 6
grade 6-8 - all of the above, fractions, simple geometry.
Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra.
So is it that children don't do well learning math early, which goes against everything else we know about how the human brain learns, or that you've bored them to tears by grade 3 and they just stop listening?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618714</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269516540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see your point and agree that we should motivate things more, but some of this is analogous to teaching a carpenter to use a chisel or table saw before starting on real world projects.  This establishing of a comfort level/craftsmanship with birdhouses, etc. is necessary before building a china cabinet for instance.  Similarly, if the frameworks and scaffolding are not built up and established beforehand, it is nearly impossible to apply that to linear algebra, calculus, etc.</p><p>I teach calculus, and having students struggle with the quadratic formula or trig identities presents more problems than trouble with limits or derivatives.  Think of it as trying to poor a concrete floor while the floor below is not yet set, the entire structure wobbles and either it will be poorly made or will easily collapse and even the lower floor will need to be redone.</p><p>I agree with the math history comments above to a degree, though it should be noted that most theorems are no longer proved or use the same terminology that was originally used.  This is because as time goes by, someone else tends to discover a more natural framework and has a larger collection of theorems to build on.  The Pythagorean Theorem for instance even has a proof ascribed to a former US president.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see your point and agree that we should motivate things more , but some of this is analogous to teaching a carpenter to use a chisel or table saw before starting on real world projects .
This establishing of a comfort level/craftsmanship with birdhouses , etc .
is necessary before building a china cabinet for instance .
Similarly , if the frameworks and scaffolding are not built up and established beforehand , it is nearly impossible to apply that to linear algebra , calculus , etc.I teach calculus , and having students struggle with the quadratic formula or trig identities presents more problems than trouble with limits or derivatives .
Think of it as trying to poor a concrete floor while the floor below is not yet set , the entire structure wobbles and either it will be poorly made or will easily collapse and even the lower floor will need to be redone.I agree with the math history comments above to a degree , though it should be noted that most theorems are no longer proved or use the same terminology that was originally used .
This is because as time goes by , someone else tends to discover a more natural framework and has a larger collection of theorems to build on .
The Pythagorean Theorem for instance even has a proof ascribed to a former US president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see your point and agree that we should motivate things more, but some of this is analogous to teaching a carpenter to use a chisel or table saw before starting on real world projects.
This establishing of a comfort level/craftsmanship with birdhouses, etc.
is necessary before building a china cabinet for instance.
Similarly, if the frameworks and scaffolding are not built up and established beforehand, it is nearly impossible to apply that to linear algebra, calculus, etc.I teach calculus, and having students struggle with the quadratic formula or trig identities presents more problems than trouble with limits or derivatives.
Think of it as trying to poor a concrete floor while the floor below is not yet set, the entire structure wobbles and either it will be poorly made or will easily collapse and even the lower floor will need to be redone.I agree with the math history comments above to a degree, though it should be noted that most theorems are no longer proved or use the same terminology that was originally used.
This is because as time goes by, someone else tends to discover a more natural framework and has a larger collection of theorems to build on.
The Pythagorean Theorem for instance even has a proof ascribed to a former US president.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616686</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>OlRickDawson</author>
	<datestamp>1269508320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't that what the "New Math" was that was taught during the late 1970s in America? I was taught set theory in grade school then, but my kids aren't being taught that now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that what the " New Math " was that was taught during the late 1970s in America ?
I was taught set theory in grade school then , but my kids are n't being taught that now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that what the "New Math" was that was taught during the late 1970s in America?
I was taught set theory in grade school then, but my kids aren't being taught that now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619258</id>
	<title>Re:What sort of Math?</title>
	<author>AlejoHausner</author>
	<datestamp>1269519420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you about Piaget.  Children are not ready for math at a very early age.  And teaching them too early has exactly zero long-term benefit.  I would say it's better for children to be kept out of school until they're around 10 years old.  Then they can have a childhood and develop as independent beings, instead of being taught to conform and fit into a group.</p><p>Of course, that would put pressure on families to actually stay home and take care of their kids, depriving the economy of valuable employees.  The main reason for getting kids into school so early is to socialize them into conformity, and to provide a form of daycare so mothers can go and work in factories.</p><p>Any talk about early teaching being good for young kids is just an excuse for taking them away from their mothers.  It's motivated by industry, and not based on science.</p><p>TFA's argument that elementary school teachers don't know math well is a different issue, though I agree with it heartily.  In fact, most of us don't understand math well, and few teachers can explain things well.  Bad teachers exists at all levels, including university.  I took several courses in real analysis in university, managed to get a math degree, and yet I only really understood infinity clearly when I read David Foster Wallace's book "Everything and More", about 10 years ago.  He gives you the context and the history behind the idea, tells you who invented the epsilon-delta definition of limits, and more importantly WHY, when the mathematical crisis on infinity occurred, which solutions were tried when, and so on.  I've met few university teachers who actually know the historical context behind the techniques they're teaching.  How then can we expect elementary school teachers to have the necessary contextual knowledge?</p><p>The world is full of practicioners, the equivalent of auto mechanics, who know that "if I do this by rote, the right answer will come out", but who lack the context to explain WHY it works.  This kind of mechanical thinking occurs at all levels, from elementary school to graduate school.  Few are the people with leisure enough to figure out why things work the way they do.</p><p>Alejo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you about Piaget .
Children are not ready for math at a very early age .
And teaching them too early has exactly zero long-term benefit .
I would say it 's better for children to be kept out of school until they 're around 10 years old .
Then they can have a childhood and develop as independent beings , instead of being taught to conform and fit into a group.Of course , that would put pressure on families to actually stay home and take care of their kids , depriving the economy of valuable employees .
The main reason for getting kids into school so early is to socialize them into conformity , and to provide a form of daycare so mothers can go and work in factories.Any talk about early teaching being good for young kids is just an excuse for taking them away from their mothers .
It 's motivated by industry , and not based on science.TFA 's argument that elementary school teachers do n't know math well is a different issue , though I agree with it heartily .
In fact , most of us do n't understand math well , and few teachers can explain things well .
Bad teachers exists at all levels , including university .
I took several courses in real analysis in university , managed to get a math degree , and yet I only really understood infinity clearly when I read David Foster Wallace 's book " Everything and More " , about 10 years ago .
He gives you the context and the history behind the idea , tells you who invented the epsilon-delta definition of limits , and more importantly WHY , when the mathematical crisis on infinity occurred , which solutions were tried when , and so on .
I 've met few university teachers who actually know the historical context behind the techniques they 're teaching .
How then can we expect elementary school teachers to have the necessary contextual knowledge ? The world is full of practicioners , the equivalent of auto mechanics , who know that " if I do this by rote , the right answer will come out " , but who lack the context to explain WHY it works .
This kind of mechanical thinking occurs at all levels , from elementary school to graduate school .
Few are the people with leisure enough to figure out why things work the way they do.Alejo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you about Piaget.
Children are not ready for math at a very early age.
And teaching them too early has exactly zero long-term benefit.
I would say it's better for children to be kept out of school until they're around 10 years old.
Then they can have a childhood and develop as independent beings, instead of being taught to conform and fit into a group.Of course, that would put pressure on families to actually stay home and take care of their kids, depriving the economy of valuable employees.
The main reason for getting kids into school so early is to socialize them into conformity, and to provide a form of daycare so mothers can go and work in factories.Any talk about early teaching being good for young kids is just an excuse for taking them away from their mothers.
It's motivated by industry, and not based on science.TFA's argument that elementary school teachers don't know math well is a different issue, though I agree with it heartily.
In fact, most of us don't understand math well, and few teachers can explain things well.
Bad teachers exists at all levels, including university.
I took several courses in real analysis in university, managed to get a math degree, and yet I only really understood infinity clearly when I read David Foster Wallace's book "Everything and More", about 10 years ago.
He gives you the context and the history behind the idea, tells you who invented the epsilon-delta definition of limits, and more importantly WHY, when the mathematical crisis on infinity occurred, which solutions were tried when, and so on.
I've met few university teachers who actually know the historical context behind the techniques they're teaching.
How then can we expect elementary school teachers to have the necessary contextual knowledge?The world is full of practicioners, the equivalent of auto mechanics, who know that "if I do this by rote, the right answer will come out", but who lack the context to explain WHY it works.
This kind of mechanical thinking occurs at all levels, from elementary school to graduate school.
Few are the people with leisure enough to figure out why things work the way they do.Alejo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616288</id>
	<title>Who needs math... That'll be $2..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you're telling me that anyone under 6th grade will never have to count, ever, not for lunch at school, the change needed for a candy bar?  God forbid he wants 3 candy bars and has to multiply, or wants to SPLIT a whole candy bar with a friend and divide.  <br> <br>
Sounds legit, lets take out reading too and let our children just growl at each other until they are adults, then throw it at them all at once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're telling me that anyone under 6th grade will never have to count , ever , not for lunch at school , the change needed for a candy bar ?
God forbid he wants 3 candy bars and has to multiply , or wants to SPLIT a whole candy bar with a friend and divide .
Sounds legit , lets take out reading too and let our children just growl at each other until they are adults , then throw it at them all at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're telling me that anyone under 6th grade will never have to count, ever, not for lunch at school, the change needed for a candy bar?
God forbid he wants 3 candy bars and has to multiply, or wants to SPLIT a whole candy bar with a friend and divide.
Sounds legit, lets take out reading too and let our children just growl at each other until they are adults, then throw it at them all at once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616510</id>
	<title>There is more than one BC in the world...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1269507600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For some of us when we see BC, Boston College is <b>not</b> the first location that comes to mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For some of us when we see BC , Boston College is not the first location that comes to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some of us when we see BC, Boston College is not the first location that comes to mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617130</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>mpeskett</author>
	<datestamp>1269509520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's a sign of too many years of having maths taught to me, but I'm finding it hard to think how I'd go about counting things logarithmically.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's a sign of too many years of having maths taught to me , but I 'm finding it hard to think how I 'd go about counting things logarithmically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's a sign of too many years of having maths taught to me, but I'm finding it hard to think how I'd go about counting things logarithmically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622524</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>konohitowa</author>
	<datestamp>1269544980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current math curriculum my kids are using (which isn't anything magical - just the standard Houghton-Mifflin stuff) starts algebraic concepts in the 4th grade. Fractions get started up in 3rd grade. And, in general, many concepts are started much earlier than they once were. However, I'm not seeing any improvement in attention.</p><p>On the one hand, not adding math until later ages may have some merit - I'm not really sure. On the other hand, it may just be the ways in which that math is presented that's the real problem. Memorizing tables of basic arithmetic operations isn't likely to keep anyone's attention for very long, and yet it's still necessary to be able to do arithmetic if you want to be able to handle more advanced math [where advanced means algebra, trig, calc, linear, etc.].</p><p>I've been looking into this: <a href="http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/" title="uchicago.edu">http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/</a> [uchicago.edu] The coolest thing I've found about it so far is that it has workbooks for the *parents* so that they can help their kids with their homework. Nice idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current math curriculum my kids are using ( which is n't anything magical - just the standard Houghton-Mifflin stuff ) starts algebraic concepts in the 4th grade .
Fractions get started up in 3rd grade .
And , in general , many concepts are started much earlier than they once were .
However , I 'm not seeing any improvement in attention.On the one hand , not adding math until later ages may have some merit - I 'm not really sure .
On the other hand , it may just be the ways in which that math is presented that 's the real problem .
Memorizing tables of basic arithmetic operations is n't likely to keep anyone 's attention for very long , and yet it 's still necessary to be able to do arithmetic if you want to be able to handle more advanced math [ where advanced means algebra , trig , calc , linear , etc .
] .I 've been looking into this : http : //everydaymath.uchicago.edu/ [ uchicago.edu ] The coolest thing I 've found about it so far is that it has workbooks for the * parents * so that they can help their kids with their homework .
Nice idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current math curriculum my kids are using (which isn't anything magical - just the standard Houghton-Mifflin stuff) starts algebraic concepts in the 4th grade.
Fractions get started up in 3rd grade.
And, in general, many concepts are started much earlier than they once were.
However, I'm not seeing any improvement in attention.On the one hand, not adding math until later ages may have some merit - I'm not really sure.
On the other hand, it may just be the ways in which that math is presented that's the real problem.
Memorizing tables of basic arithmetic operations isn't likely to keep anyone's attention for very long, and yet it's still necessary to be able to do arithmetic if you want to be able to handle more advanced math [where advanced means algebra, trig, calc, linear, etc.
].I've been looking into this: http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/ [uchicago.edu] The coolest thing I've found about it so far is that it has workbooks for the *parents* so that they can help their kids with their homework.
Nice idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621136</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1269530820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about the specific case of the person you know, but many cases of "bright" kids being bored at school are largely the fault of the parents pushing their kids outside of school to get ahead.  It has become a real problem in Japan, where attending "juku" (after school lessons) has become normal for the middle classes, and kids are doing all their learning there and sleeping through classes or being disruptive in school.  Its no fun for the kids to spend their whole lives studying, and it doesn't really help them get ahead as much as the parents would like to think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the specific case of the person you know , but many cases of " bright " kids being bored at school are largely the fault of the parents pushing their kids outside of school to get ahead .
It has become a real problem in Japan , where attending " juku " ( after school lessons ) has become normal for the middle classes , and kids are doing all their learning there and sleeping through classes or being disruptive in school .
Its no fun for the kids to spend their whole lives studying , and it does n't really help them get ahead as much as the parents would like to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the specific case of the person you know, but many cases of "bright" kids being bored at school are largely the fault of the parents pushing their kids outside of school to get ahead.
It has become a real problem in Japan, where attending "juku" (after school lessons) has become normal for the middle classes, and kids are doing all their learning there and sleeping through classes or being disruptive in school.
Its no fun for the kids to spend their whole lives studying, and it doesn't really help them get ahead as much as the parents would like to think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618440</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>alexhs</author>
	<datestamp>1269514980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, New Math. Nobody seems to have posted the old joke yet, so here it is for your enjoyment.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Classic Math Pro</p><p>In 1960 "A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of this price. What is his profit?"</p><p>In 1970 (traditional math): "A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of this price; in other words $80. What is his profit?</p><p>In 1970 (new math): "A logger exchanged a set L of lumber for a set M of money. The cardinality of set M is 100, and each element is worth $1. Make one hundred dots representing the elements of the set M. The set C of the costs of production contains 20 fewer points than set M. Represent the set C as a subset of M, and answer the following question: 'What is the cardinality of the set P of profits?'"</p><p>In 1980: "A logger sells a truckload of wood for $100. His cost of production is $80, and his profit is $20. Your assignment: underline the number 20."</p><p>In 1990 (outcome based education): "By cutting down beautiful forest trees, a logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? (Topic for class participation: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel?)"</p><p>- Extracted from "21st Century Science and Technology," Winter, 1993-4, p.12</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , New Math .
Nobody seems to have posted the old joke yet , so here it is for your enjoyment.The Classic Math ProIn 1960 " A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $ 100 .
His cost of production is 4/5 of this price .
What is his profit ?
" In 1970 ( traditional math ) : " A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $ 100 .
His cost of production is 4/5 of this price ; in other words $ 80 .
What is his profit ? In 1970 ( new math ) : " A logger exchanged a set L of lumber for a set M of money .
The cardinality of set M is 100 , and each element is worth $ 1 .
Make one hundred dots representing the elements of the set M. The set C of the costs of production contains 20 fewer points than set M. Represent the set C as a subset of M , and answer the following question : 'What is the cardinality of the set P of profits ?
' " In 1980 : " A logger sells a truckload of wood for $ 100 .
His cost of production is $ 80 , and his profit is $ 20 .
Your assignment : underline the number 20 .
" In 1990 ( outcome based education ) : " By cutting down beautiful forest trees , a logger makes $ 20 .
What do you think of this way of making a living ?
( Topic for class participation : How did the forest birds and squirrels feel ?
) " - Extracted from " 21st Century Science and Technology , " Winter , 1993-4 , p.12</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, New Math.
Nobody seems to have posted the old joke yet, so here it is for your enjoyment.The Classic Math ProIn 1960 "A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of this price.
What is his profit?
"In 1970 (traditional math): "A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of this price; in other words $80.
What is his profit?In 1970 (new math): "A logger exchanged a set L of lumber for a set M of money.
The cardinality of set M is 100, and each element is worth $1.
Make one hundred dots representing the elements of the set M. The set C of the costs of production contains 20 fewer points than set M. Represent the set C as a subset of M, and answer the following question: 'What is the cardinality of the set P of profits?
'"In 1980: "A logger sells a truckload of wood for $100.
His cost of production is $80, and his profit is $20.
Your assignment: underline the number 20.
"In 1990 (outcome based education): "By cutting down beautiful forest trees, a logger makes $20.
What do you think of this way of making a living?
(Topic for class participation: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel?
)"- Extracted from "21st Century Science and Technology," Winter, 1993-4, p.12
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616202</id>
	<title>Re:most people arent wired for math</title>
	<author>Zediker</author>
	<datestamp>1269549840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn pythagoreans... Always hiding in the woodwork somewhere...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn pythagoreans... Always hiding in the woodwork somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn pythagoreans... Always hiding in the woodwork somewhere...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616520</id>
	<title>too earlly to do math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269507660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, don't all the Chinese (and Koreans<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) kids statistically do better than the American kids at math? And if I am not mistaken, they start learning math in kindergarten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , do n't all the Chinese ( and Koreans ... ) kids statistically do better than the American kids at math ?
And if I am not mistaken , they start learning math in kindergarten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, don't all the Chinese (and Koreans ...) kids statistically do better than the American kids at math?
And if I am not mistaken, they start learning math in kindergarten.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617448</id>
	<title>wasted talent</title>
	<author>Singularitarian2048</author>
	<datestamp>1269510660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Terence Tao scored a 760 on the math SAT when he was 8.  He won a bronze medal in the international math Olympiad at the age of 10.<br><br>We need a system that respects the individuality of our students, not a one-size-fits-all approach.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Terence Tao scored a 760 on the math SAT when he was 8 .
He won a bronze medal in the international math Olympiad at the age of 10.We need a system that respects the individuality of our students , not a one-size-fits-all approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terence Tao scored a 760 on the math SAT when he was 8.
He won a bronze medal in the international math Olympiad at the age of 10.We need a system that respects the individuality of our students, not a one-size-fits-all approach.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617832</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1269512400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, arithmetic with pencil and paper is like pulling teeth for me. I hate it with a passion. Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture. </i></p><p>Arithmetic by hand is tedium for anyone who does it.  There's nothing really to understand, just mindless symbol manipulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , arithmetic with pencil and paper is like pulling teeth for me .
I hate it with a passion .
Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture .
Arithmetic by hand is tedium for anyone who does it .
There 's nothing really to understand , just mindless symbol manipulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, arithmetic with pencil and paper is like pulling teeth for me.
I hate it with a passion.
Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture.
Arithmetic by hand is tedium for anyone who does it.
There's nothing really to understand, just mindless symbol manipulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616712</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the biggest problem with both primary and secondary school math programs is that they teach students how to do problems, and not to understand the concept of the problem.</p><p>For example, I'm currently a TA for a statistics class. It's easy to get a student to remember that if they want X in standard units given average $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma$, they use the formula $z = \frac{X - \mu}{\sigma}$, and if they want to find a number $X$ that is $z$ standard deviations from the mean, then they use the formula $\mu + z \cdot \sigma = X$ (if you don't get the LaTeX, please ask).</p><p>What is difficult is to make the student realize that they have memorized the same formula twice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the biggest problem with both primary and secondary school math programs is that they teach students how to do problems , and not to understand the concept of the problem.For example , I 'm currently a TA for a statistics class .
It 's easy to get a student to remember that if they want X in standard units given average $ \ mu $ and standard deviation $ \ sigma $ , they use the formula $ z = \ frac { X - \ mu } { \ sigma } $ , and if they want to find a number $ X $ that is $ z $ standard deviations from the mean , then they use the formula $ \ mu + z \ cdot \ sigma = X $ ( if you do n't get the LaTeX , please ask ) .What is difficult is to make the student realize that they have memorized the same formula twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the biggest problem with both primary and secondary school math programs is that they teach students how to do problems, and not to understand the concept of the problem.For example, I'm currently a TA for a statistics class.
It's easy to get a student to remember that if they want X in standard units given average $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma$, they use the formula $z = \frac{X - \mu}{\sigma}$, and if they want to find a number $X$ that is $z$ standard deviations from the mean, then they use the formula $\mu + z \cdot \sigma = X$ (if you don't get the LaTeX, please ask).What is difficult is to make the student realize that they have memorized the same formula twice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616466</id>
	<title>John Holt said much the same decades ago...</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1269550680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See John Holt's books here (he was a long time school teacher):<br>
 <a href="http://www.holtgws.com/" title="holtgws.com">http://www.holtgws.com/</a> [holtgws.com] </p><p>NYS Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto says the whole point of schooling is to dumb most people down:<br>
  <a href="http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt" title="newciv.org">http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt</a> [newciv.org] <br>
  <a href="http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm" title="johntaylorgatto.com">http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm</a> [johntaylorgatto.com] <br>"Look again at the seven lessons of schoolteaching:  confusion, class assignment, dulled responses, emotional and intellectual dependency, conditional self-esteem, surveillance -- all of these things are good training for permanent underclasses, people derived forever of finding the center of their own special genius.  And in later years it became the training shaken loose from even its own original logic -- to regulate the poor; since the 1920s the growth of the school bureaucracy and the less visible growth of a horde of industries that profit from schooling just exactly as it is, has enlarged this institution's original grasp to where it began to seize the sons and daughters of the middle classes."</p><p>The whole point of those early lessons is to waste kids' time and dumb them down. As Gatto says elsewhere, it was all worked out in public to create and industrial utopia and powerful nation-states with strong armies. He calls it a "conspiracy against ourselves":<br>
  <a href="http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm" title="johntaylorgatto.com">http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm</a> [johntaylorgatto.com] <br>"A huge price had to be paid for business and government efficiency, a price we still pay in the quality of our existence. Part of what kids gave up was the prospect of being able to read very well, a historic part of the American genius. Instead, school had to train them for their role in the new overarching social system. But spare yourself the agony of thinking of this as a conspiracy. It was and is a fully rational transaction, the very epitome of rationalization engendered by a group of honorable men, all honorable men--but with decisive help from ordinary citizens, from almost all of us as we gradually lost touch with the fact that being followers instead of leaders, becoming consumers in place of producers, rendered us incompletely human. It was a naturally occurring conspiracy, one which required no criminal genius. The real conspirators were ourselves. When we sold our liberty for the promise of automatic security, we became like children in a conspiracy against growing up, sad children who conspire against their own children, consigning them over and over to the denaturing vats of compulsory state factory schooling."</p><p>With the internet, we could have "learning on demand", not "learning just in case". My essay on that:<br>
  "Why Educational Technology Has Failed Schools"<br>
  <a href="http://patapata.sourceforge.net/WhyEducationalTechnologyHasFailedSchools.html" title="sourceforge.net">http://patapata.sourceforge.net/WhyEducationalTechnologyHasFailedSchools.html</a> [sourceforge.net] <br>"""<br>Ultimately, educational technology's greatest value is in supporting "learning on demand" based on interest or need which is at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to  "learning just in case" based on someone else's demand.<br>Compulsory schools don't usually traffic in "learning on demand", for the most part leaving that kind of activity to libraries or museums or the home or business or the "real world". In order for compulsory schools to make use of the best of educational technology and what is has to offer, schools themselves must change.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  So, there is more to the story of technology than it failing in schools. Modern information and manufacturing technology itself is giving compulsory schools a failing grade. Compulsory schools do not pass in the information age. They are no longer needed. What remains is just to watch this all play out, and hopefully guide the collapse of compulsory schooling so that the</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See John Holt 's books here ( he was a long time school teacher ) : http : //www.holtgws.com/ [ holtgws.com ] NYS Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto says the whole point of schooling is to dumb most people down : http : //www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt [ newciv.org ] http : //www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm [ johntaylorgatto.com ] " Look again at the seven lessons of schoolteaching : confusion , class assignment , dulled responses , emotional and intellectual dependency , conditional self-esteem , surveillance -- all of these things are good training for permanent underclasses , people derived forever of finding the center of their own special genius .
And in later years it became the training shaken loose from even its own original logic -- to regulate the poor ; since the 1920s the growth of the school bureaucracy and the less visible growth of a horde of industries that profit from schooling just exactly as it is , has enlarged this institution 's original grasp to where it began to seize the sons and daughters of the middle classes .
" The whole point of those early lessons is to waste kids ' time and dumb them down .
As Gatto says elsewhere , it was all worked out in public to create and industrial utopia and powerful nation-states with strong armies .
He calls it a " conspiracy against ourselves " : http : //www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm [ johntaylorgatto.com ] " A huge price had to be paid for business and government efficiency , a price we still pay in the quality of our existence .
Part of what kids gave up was the prospect of being able to read very well , a historic part of the American genius .
Instead , school had to train them for their role in the new overarching social system .
But spare yourself the agony of thinking of this as a conspiracy .
It was and is a fully rational transaction , the very epitome of rationalization engendered by a group of honorable men , all honorable men--but with decisive help from ordinary citizens , from almost all of us as we gradually lost touch with the fact that being followers instead of leaders , becoming consumers in place of producers , rendered us incompletely human .
It was a naturally occurring conspiracy , one which required no criminal genius .
The real conspirators were ourselves .
When we sold our liberty for the promise of automatic security , we became like children in a conspiracy against growing up , sad children who conspire against their own children , consigning them over and over to the denaturing vats of compulsory state factory schooling .
" With the internet , we could have " learning on demand " , not " learning just in case " .
My essay on that : " Why Educational Technology Has Failed Schools " http : //patapata.sourceforge.net/WhyEducationalTechnologyHasFailedSchools.html [ sourceforge.net ] " " " Ultimately , educational technology 's greatest value is in supporting " learning on demand " based on interest or need which is at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to " learning just in case " based on someone else 's demand.Compulsory schools do n't usually traffic in " learning on demand " , for the most part leaving that kind of activity to libraries or museums or the home or business or the " real world " .
In order for compulsory schools to make use of the best of educational technology and what is has to offer , schools themselves must change .
... So , there is more to the story of technology than it failing in schools .
Modern information and manufacturing technology itself is giving compulsory schools a failing grade .
Compulsory schools do not pass in the information age .
They are no longer needed .
What remains is just to watch this all play out , and hopefully guide the collapse of compulsory schooling so that the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See John Holt's books here (he was a long time school teacher):
 http://www.holtgws.com/ [holtgws.com] NYS Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto says the whole point of schooling is to dumb most people down:
  http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt [newciv.org] 
  http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm [johntaylorgatto.com] "Look again at the seven lessons of schoolteaching:  confusion, class assignment, dulled responses, emotional and intellectual dependency, conditional self-esteem, surveillance -- all of these things are good training for permanent underclasses, people derived forever of finding the center of their own special genius.
And in later years it became the training shaken loose from even its own original logic -- to regulate the poor; since the 1920s the growth of the school bureaucracy and the less visible growth of a horde of industries that profit from schooling just exactly as it is, has enlarged this institution's original grasp to where it began to seize the sons and daughters of the middle classes.
"The whole point of those early lessons is to waste kids' time and dumb them down.
As Gatto says elsewhere, it was all worked out in public to create and industrial utopia and powerful nation-states with strong armies.
He calls it a "conspiracy against ourselves":
  http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm [johntaylorgatto.com] "A huge price had to be paid for business and government efficiency, a price we still pay in the quality of our existence.
Part of what kids gave up was the prospect of being able to read very well, a historic part of the American genius.
Instead, school had to train them for their role in the new overarching social system.
But spare yourself the agony of thinking of this as a conspiracy.
It was and is a fully rational transaction, the very epitome of rationalization engendered by a group of honorable men, all honorable men--but with decisive help from ordinary citizens, from almost all of us as we gradually lost touch with the fact that being followers instead of leaders, becoming consumers in place of producers, rendered us incompletely human.
It was a naturally occurring conspiracy, one which required no criminal genius.
The real conspirators were ourselves.
When we sold our liberty for the promise of automatic security, we became like children in a conspiracy against growing up, sad children who conspire against their own children, consigning them over and over to the denaturing vats of compulsory state factory schooling.
"With the internet, we could have "learning on demand", not "learning just in case".
My essay on that:
  "Why Educational Technology Has Failed Schools"
  http://patapata.sourceforge.net/WhyEducationalTechnologyHasFailedSchools.html [sourceforge.net] """Ultimately, educational technology's greatest value is in supporting "learning on demand" based on interest or need which is at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to  "learning just in case" based on someone else's demand.Compulsory schools don't usually traffic in "learning on demand", for the most part leaving that kind of activity to libraries or museums or the home or business or the "real world".
In order for compulsory schools to make use of the best of educational technology and what is has to offer, schools themselves must change.
...  So, there is more to the story of technology than it failing in schools.
Modern information and manufacturing technology itself is giving compulsory schools a failing grade.
Compulsory schools do not pass in the information age.
They are no longer needed.
What remains is just to watch this all play out, and hopefully guide the collapse of compulsory schooling so that the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618006</id>
	<title>Re:good teacher</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1269513120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps the 6 graders that just started math had a really good teacher. One year with a good teacher can outpace several years with a mediocre teacher. The conclusion of the study should be better teaching methods not less education.</p></div><p>Except it wasn't just one teacher. The results were uniform across the poor schools participating in the study.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the 6 graders that just started math had a really good teacher .
One year with a good teacher can outpace several years with a mediocre teacher .
The conclusion of the study should be better teaching methods not less education.Except it was n't just one teacher .
The results were uniform across the poor schools participating in the study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the 6 graders that just started math had a really good teacher.
One year with a good teacher can outpace several years with a mediocre teacher.
The conclusion of the study should be better teaching methods not less education.Except it wasn't just one teacher.
The results were uniform across the poor schools participating in the study.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618768</id>
	<title>Re:There is more than one BC in the world...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269516780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I'm not the only one having trouble picturing Prof. Peter Gray in <b>B</b>aja <b>C</b>alifornia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm not the only one having trouble picturing Prof. Peter Gray in Baja California .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm not the only one having trouble picturing Prof. Peter Gray in Baja California.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617026</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1269509220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if math shouldn't be shifted rather than postponed...  Why teach geometry and other "basic" math that early?  Personally, I found calculus made most of mathematics far easier.  Basically, what I'm saying is would it be worth it to try to teach calculus and algebra earlier, and the more formal concepts later?  Sure, if you don't know that 2 * 2 = 4, how can you solve x * x = 4, but do students really need to learn anything more than basic algebra and the Cartesian coordinate system to grasp the foundations of calculus?  And also what about introducing the concept of vectors earlier than college?  I'm not saying to go into tensors in 5th grade, but I do think that you could introduce the calculus concepts along with y = mx + b.  Sure, you don't need to make them do complex integrals and derivations at that age, but at least get the wheel turning...  I don't know if it would work, but it's something I've been curious about for quite some time...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if math should n't be shifted rather than postponed... Why teach geometry and other " basic " math that early ?
Personally , I found calculus made most of mathematics far easier .
Basically , what I 'm saying is would it be worth it to try to teach calculus and algebra earlier , and the more formal concepts later ?
Sure , if you do n't know that 2 * 2 = 4 , how can you solve x * x = 4 , but do students really need to learn anything more than basic algebra and the Cartesian coordinate system to grasp the foundations of calculus ?
And also what about introducing the concept of vectors earlier than college ?
I 'm not saying to go into tensors in 5th grade , but I do think that you could introduce the calculus concepts along with y = mx + b. Sure , you do n't need to make them do complex integrals and derivations at that age , but at least get the wheel turning... I do n't know if it would work , but it 's something I 've been curious about for quite some time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if math shouldn't be shifted rather than postponed...  Why teach geometry and other "basic" math that early?
Personally, I found calculus made most of mathematics far easier.
Basically, what I'm saying is would it be worth it to try to teach calculus and algebra earlier, and the more formal concepts later?
Sure, if you don't know that 2 * 2 = 4, how can you solve x * x = 4, but do students really need to learn anything more than basic algebra and the Cartesian coordinate system to grasp the foundations of calculus?
And also what about introducing the concept of vectors earlier than college?
I'm not saying to go into tensors in 5th grade, but I do think that you could introduce the calculus concepts along with y = mx + b.  Sure, you don't need to make them do complex integrals and derivations at that age, but at least get the wheel turning...  I don't know if it would work, but it's something I've been curious about for quite some time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</id>
	<title>As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>Nemyst</author>
	<datestamp>1269549660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return. We already are using the lowest common denominator enough, if we keep on this way you won't learn anything. I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow, boring and dumbed down that there's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes.<br>
<br>
For once, <i>think of the bright children!</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return .
We already are using the lowest common denominator enough , if we keep on this way you wo n't learn anything .
I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow , boring and dumbed down that there 's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes .
For once , think of the bright children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return.
We already are using the lowest common denominator enough, if we keep on this way you won't learn anything.
I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow, boring and dumbed down that there's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes.
For once, think of the bright children!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31629310</id>
	<title>Maybe it's not that their brains weren't ready...</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1269628980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Professor Gray thinks children are not mentally wired for the kind of formal math instruction that is taught in schools, and that we'd be better served by putting off the teaching of theory until the seventh grade.</p></div><p>Or maybe children are told that math is hard and they're bad at it, and we'd be better served by putting off that message until the seventh grade (by which point they're truly rebellious and it will only spur them to try harder).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Professor Gray thinks children are not mentally wired for the kind of formal math instruction that is taught in schools , and that we 'd be better served by putting off the teaching of theory until the seventh grade.Or maybe children are told that math is hard and they 're bad at it , and we 'd be better served by putting off that message until the seventh grade ( by which point they 're truly rebellious and it will only spur them to try harder ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Professor Gray thinks children are not mentally wired for the kind of formal math instruction that is taught in schools, and that we'd be better served by putting off the teaching of theory until the seventh grade.Or maybe children are told that math is hard and they're bad at it, and we'd be better served by putting off that message until the seventh grade (by which point they're truly rebellious and it will only spur them to try harder).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617966</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1269512940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's quite as bad as you claim... I remember taking "pre-algebra" in 6th grade, and algebra and geometry in 7th-8th.  Elementary school definitely did things like multiplication, simple division, fractions, and some geometry.</p><p>Then again, I am confused by the article talking about "formal theory" in elementary school.  I wouldn't call any of it very "formal" until 6th grade, which is when they suggested students start learning it.  I also think it's stupid not to provide some "non-formal" math like said addition, subtraction, multiplication, etc. before that.  So how is this different from the way things work (in the US at least) right now??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's quite as bad as you claim... I remember taking " pre-algebra " in 6th grade , and algebra and geometry in 7th-8th .
Elementary school definitely did things like multiplication , simple division , fractions , and some geometry.Then again , I am confused by the article talking about " formal theory " in elementary school .
I would n't call any of it very " formal " until 6th grade , which is when they suggested students start learning it .
I also think it 's stupid not to provide some " non-formal " math like said addition , subtraction , multiplication , etc .
before that .
So how is this different from the way things work ( in the US at least ) right now ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's quite as bad as you claim... I remember taking "pre-algebra" in 6th grade, and algebra and geometry in 7th-8th.
Elementary school definitely did things like multiplication, simple division, fractions, and some geometry.Then again, I am confused by the article talking about "formal theory" in elementary school.
I wouldn't call any of it very "formal" until 6th grade, which is when they suggested students start learning it.
I also think it's stupid not to provide some "non-formal" math like said addition, subtraction, multiplication, etc.
before that.
So how is this different from the way things work (in the US at least) right now?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616346</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269550260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see holding off on math, but NOT basic arithmetic. However, when you teach a kid how to add and subtract, do it with examples. Show him two beads have him count, show him two more, have him count, then pile them together and have him count them again. That way he has a basic understanding of what numbers are for and how they work.</p><p>I think they do this now, they didn't when I was in school. Then, it was all rote memorization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see holding off on math , but NOT basic arithmetic .
However , when you teach a kid how to add and subtract , do it with examples .
Show him two beads have him count , show him two more , have him count , then pile them together and have him count them again .
That way he has a basic understanding of what numbers are for and how they work.I think they do this now , they did n't when I was in school .
Then , it was all rote memorization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see holding off on math, but NOT basic arithmetic.
However, when you teach a kid how to add and subtract, do it with examples.
Show him two beads have him count, show him two more, have him count, then pile them together and have him count them again.
That way he has a basic understanding of what numbers are for and how they work.I think they do this now, they didn't when I was in school.
Then, it was all rote memorization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616758</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1269508560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People learn through repetition and college is no different, at least with stuff in my 'core' engineering curriculum.</p><p>First few weeks of differential equations is algebra and calculus. Dynamics is just Statics with some extra terms. Controls is just differential equations and calculus. Algebra is used constantly in all of the above.</p><p>Education is meant to build on itself.</p><p>And I think that your numbers are a bit off. I know we started long division in 4th grade. 3th grade was simple multiplication and division. Fractions was long before 6th grade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People learn through repetition and college is no different , at least with stuff in my 'core ' engineering curriculum.First few weeks of differential equations is algebra and calculus .
Dynamics is just Statics with some extra terms .
Controls is just differential equations and calculus .
Algebra is used constantly in all of the above.Education is meant to build on itself.And I think that your numbers are a bit off .
I know we started long division in 4th grade .
3th grade was simple multiplication and division .
Fractions was long before 6th grade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People learn through repetition and college is no different, at least with stuff in my 'core' engineering curriculum.First few weeks of differential equations is algebra and calculus.
Dynamics is just Statics with some extra terms.
Controls is just differential equations and calculus.
Algebra is used constantly in all of the above.Education is meant to build on itself.And I think that your numbers are a bit off.
I know we started long division in 4th grade.
3th grade was simple multiplication and division.
Fractions was long before 6th grade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617112</id>
	<title>Re:What about "parts of speech"</title>
	<author>Alien1024</author>
	<datestamp>1269509460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, who would have thunk?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , who would have thunk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, who would have thunk?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617452</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1269510660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't learn Polynomials in Grade 7? Fractions by Grade 4, Algebra by grade 6! Man, Canada is ahead of the curve!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't learn Polynomials in Grade 7 ?
Fractions by Grade 4 , Algebra by grade 6 !
Man , Canada is ahead of the curve !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't learn Polynomials in Grade 7?
Fractions by Grade 4, Algebra by grade 6!
Man, Canada is ahead of the curve!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617308</id>
	<title>Re:How long ago was this?</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1269510120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in my late 20s, and my schedule sounds more like the grandparents than the one you list, at a fairly good suburban public school system. In the mid-1990s, we did pre-algebra in 7th grade, algebra in 8th grade, geometric proofs in 9th grade, trigonometry/precalculus in 10th, calculus in 11th, and optionally calculus 2 in 12th.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in my late 20s , and my schedule sounds more like the grandparents than the one you list , at a fairly good suburban public school system .
In the mid-1990s , we did pre-algebra in 7th grade , algebra in 8th grade , geometric proofs in 9th grade , trigonometry/precalculus in 10th , calculus in 11th , and optionally calculus 2 in 12th .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in my late 20s, and my schedule sounds more like the grandparents than the one you list, at a fairly good suburban public school system.
In the mid-1990s, we did pre-algebra in 7th grade, algebra in 8th grade, geometric proofs in 9th grade, trigonometry/precalculus in 10th, calculus in 11th, and optionally calculus 2 in 12th.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616164</id>
	<title>Relevance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269549720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless they are going to re-create the study today, I don't believe the conclusions can be held as valid.  Too much has changed in the intervening years.<br> <br>It is an interesting concept, however, though some would argue along a similar vein regarding reading: some kids are just not ready until they are older. I just don't think anyone in the U.S. today has the brass to re-create the study.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they are going to re-create the study today , I do n't believe the conclusions can be held as valid .
Too much has changed in the intervening years .
It is an interesting concept , however , though some would argue along a similar vein regarding reading : some kids are just not ready until they are older .
I just do n't think anyone in the U.S. today has the brass to re-create the study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they are going to re-create the study today, I don't believe the conclusions can be held as valid.
Too much has changed in the intervening years.
It is an interesting concept, however, though some would argue along a similar vein regarding reading: some kids are just not ready until they are older.
I just don't think anyone in the U.S. today has the brass to re-create the study.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617874</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1269512580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A related study is <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5759/317a" title="sciencemag.org">Hunter-Gatherers Grasp Geometry</a> [sciencemag.org].  The conclusion of the article was the geometry learned by children in isolated culture was equivalent to the geometry learned by children in western cultures.  In particular the results on the test given were all but the same for children, and only diverged in the higher level test given to adults.  My interpretation is that while we must teach the formalized language of geometry, i.e. what is the formal difference between a quadrilateral and square, the concepts themselves are learned through the experience of a varied and active childhood.
<p>
Which is why I don't think most of the formal stuff that goes on in elementary school, at least prior to about 10 years old, is all that useful.  If kids were more actively engaged, and not in desks, perhaps we could teach them the formalizations in middle and high school.  Unfortunately not all kids, especially lower SE kids, have the opportunity to actively challenged in their non schools lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A related study is Hunter-Gatherers Grasp Geometry [ sciencemag.org ] .
The conclusion of the article was the geometry learned by children in isolated culture was equivalent to the geometry learned by children in western cultures .
In particular the results on the test given were all but the same for children , and only diverged in the higher level test given to adults .
My interpretation is that while we must teach the formalized language of geometry , i.e .
what is the formal difference between a quadrilateral and square , the concepts themselves are learned through the experience of a varied and active childhood .
Which is why I do n't think most of the formal stuff that goes on in elementary school , at least prior to about 10 years old , is all that useful .
If kids were more actively engaged , and not in desks , perhaps we could teach them the formalizations in middle and high school .
Unfortunately not all kids , especially lower SE kids , have the opportunity to actively challenged in their non schools lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A related study is Hunter-Gatherers Grasp Geometry [sciencemag.org].
The conclusion of the article was the geometry learned by children in isolated culture was equivalent to the geometry learned by children in western cultures.
In particular the results on the test given were all but the same for children, and only diverged in the higher level test given to adults.
My interpretation is that while we must teach the formalized language of geometry, i.e.
what is the formal difference between a quadrilateral and square, the concepts themselves are learned through the experience of a varied and active childhood.
Which is why I don't think most of the formal stuff that goes on in elementary school, at least prior to about 10 years old, is all that useful.
If kids were more actively engaged, and not in desks, perhaps we could teach them the formalizations in middle and high school.
Unfortunately not all kids, especially lower SE kids, have the opportunity to actively challenged in their non schools lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621354</id>
	<title>Re:John Holt said much the same decades ago...</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269532620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That book was an incredibly interesting read.</p><p>It makes a lot of sense too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That book was an incredibly interesting read.It makes a lot of sense too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That book was an incredibly interesting read.It makes a lot of sense too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617508</id>
	<title>We need specialization and we're wasting time</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1269510960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a lot of subjects that are over-taught in schools.

Science has evolved much; this era of hyperspecialization makes forcing kids to  memorize the birth and death years of insignificant Roman emperors seem so trivial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lot of subjects that are over-taught in schools .
Science has evolved much ; this era of hyperspecialization makes forcing kids to memorize the birth and death years of insignificant Roman emperors seem so trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lot of subjects that are over-taught in schools.
Science has evolved much; this era of hyperspecialization makes forcing kids to  memorize the birth and death years of insignificant Roman emperors seem so trivial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618192</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269513960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello, I was not a victim of New Math. (I've only heard of it by reading old Peanuts comics.)</p><p>Symbolic logic is not a mystery to me, either. Arithmetic is also like pulling teeth for me.</p><p>So it may not have made any difference at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , I was not a victim of New Math .
( I 've only heard of it by reading old Peanuts comics .
) Symbolic logic is not a mystery to me , either .
Arithmetic is also like pulling teeth for me.So it may not have made any difference at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, I was not a victim of New Math.
(I've only heard of it by reading old Peanuts comics.
)Symbolic logic is not a mystery to me, either.
Arithmetic is also like pulling teeth for me.So it may not have made any difference at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617214</id>
	<title>Re:good teacher</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269509820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a teacher that tough up in 5 grades EVERYTHING the next 6 grades would teach. Better smarter and so it would stick.</p><p>So teachers ability is the key here-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a teacher that tough up in 5 grades EVERYTHING the next 6 grades would teach .
Better smarter and so it would stick.So teachers ability is the key here-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a teacher that tough up in 5 grades EVERYTHING the next 6 grades would teach.
Better smarter and so it would stick.So teachers ability is the key here-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618862</id>
	<title>Here's a more effective treatment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269517260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.budster.net/videos/south-park-adhd.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.budster.net/videos/south-park-adhd.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.budster.net/videos/south-park-adhd.htm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617294</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269510120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It either changes from generation to generation, or region to region. We didn't have preschool or kindergarted, where they learn basic shpes now. First grade they taught counting and telling time, second grade addition and subtraction, third grade multiplication, fourth grade division. Fifthe grade I bought a slide rule and taught myself to use it, and used it to cheat at math. The dumb teachers all thought "oh, he knows how to use a slide rule, he must be smart."</p><p>They did a piss poor job of teaching, too -- I didn't know you couldn't divide by zero until I grew up and got a computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It either changes from generation to generation , or region to region .
We did n't have preschool or kindergarted , where they learn basic shpes now .
First grade they taught counting and telling time , second grade addition and subtraction , third grade multiplication , fourth grade division .
Fifthe grade I bought a slide rule and taught myself to use it , and used it to cheat at math .
The dumb teachers all thought " oh , he knows how to use a slide rule , he must be smart .
" They did a piss poor job of teaching , too -- I did n't know you could n't divide by zero until I grew up and got a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It either changes from generation to generation, or region to region.
We didn't have preschool or kindergarted, where they learn basic shpes now.
First grade they taught counting and telling time, second grade addition and subtraction, third grade multiplication, fourth grade division.
Fifthe grade I bought a slide rule and taught myself to use it, and used it to cheat at math.
The dumb teachers all thought "oh, he knows how to use a slide rule, he must be smart.
"They did a piss poor job of teaching, too -- I didn't know you couldn't divide by zero until I grew up and got a computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618704</id>
	<title>what's right, what's wrong?</title>
	<author>johncadengo</author>
	<datestamp>1269516420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of those questions where everyone offers up a thousand answers. The diversity of the comments in slashdot alone are a testament to just how unsure we are about how to teach our kids math.</p><p>I am a math major. I love math. I started learning at a young age, but I don't remember a single thing school taught me. All the math I know my dad taught me, and by the time I got old enough, I taught myself. I had no understanding of what I was doing until I read the books for myself and worked out the proofs on my own.</p><p>Also, I say the following because it is funny, not because I believe it true.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Professor Peter Gray, a developmental psychologist and researcher at Boston College...</p></div><p>A psychologist <i>would</i> suggest teaching less math. He probably doesn't even know calculus beyond statistics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of those questions where everyone offers up a thousand answers .
The diversity of the comments in slashdot alone are a testament to just how unsure we are about how to teach our kids math.I am a math major .
I love math .
I started learning at a young age , but I do n't remember a single thing school taught me .
All the math I know my dad taught me , and by the time I got old enough , I taught myself .
I had no understanding of what I was doing until I read the books for myself and worked out the proofs on my own.Also , I say the following because it is funny , not because I believe it true.Professor Peter Gray , a developmental psychologist and researcher at Boston College...A psychologist would suggest teaching less math .
He probably does n't even know calculus beyond statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of those questions where everyone offers up a thousand answers.
The diversity of the comments in slashdot alone are a testament to just how unsure we are about how to teach our kids math.I am a math major.
I love math.
I started learning at a young age, but I don't remember a single thing school taught me.
All the math I know my dad taught me, and by the time I got old enough, I taught myself.
I had no understanding of what I was doing until I read the books for myself and worked out the proofs on my own.Also, I say the following because it is funny, not because I believe it true.Professor Peter Gray, a developmental psychologist and researcher at Boston College...A psychologist would suggest teaching less math.
He probably doesn't even know calculus beyond statistics.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616424</id>
	<title>Another quote from the famous</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1269550560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Math is hard - Barbie</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Math is hard - Barbie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math is hard - Barbie</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616964</id>
	<title>How long ago was this?</title>
	<author>brokeninside</author>
	<datestamp>1269509100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both of my daughters were started on algebra by 6th grade and geometric proofs by 7th grade. My eldest, a junior in high school, is presently working on calculus.</p><p>The schedule you list sounds quite a bit like what I experienced back in the late seventies/early eighties. But, even then, when I got to high school, I was behind a good deal of the kids from other schools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both of my daughters were started on algebra by 6th grade and geometric proofs by 7th grade .
My eldest , a junior in high school , is presently working on calculus.The schedule you list sounds quite a bit like what I experienced back in the late seventies/early eighties .
But , even then , when I got to high school , I was behind a good deal of the kids from other schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both of my daughters were started on algebra by 6th grade and geometric proofs by 7th grade.
My eldest, a junior in high school, is presently working on calculus.The schedule you list sounds quite a bit like what I experienced back in the late seventies/early eighties.
But, even then, when I got to high school, I was behind a good deal of the kids from other schools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618772</id>
	<title>Same for reading</title>
	<author>SickLittleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1269516840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/research-finds-no-advantage-learning-read-age-five/5/33888" title="voxy.co.nz">Research Finds No Advantage In Learning To Read From Age Five</a> [voxy.co.nz] <br>
<br>
People posting for less/more above need to provide evidence for their opinions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Research Finds No Advantage In Learning To Read From Age Five [ voxy.co.nz ] People posting for less/more above need to provide evidence for their opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Research Finds No Advantage In Learning To Read From Age Five [voxy.co.nz] 

People posting for less/more above need to provide evidence for their opinions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622186</id>
	<title>Other news from 1929</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269540360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cigarettes clean your lungs making you healthier and Diabetes known to be caused by the devil.</p><p>Lots of good research to be reused from the 20's....if only to backup your opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cigarettes clean your lungs making you healthier and Diabetes known to be caused by the devil.Lots of good research to be reused from the 20 's....if only to backup your opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cigarettes clean your lungs making you healthier and Diabetes known to be caused by the devil.Lots of good research to be reused from the 20's....if only to backup your opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617768</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1269512160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But he's not really talking about "walking around blind", he mentions concrete skills like measuring. They could still get a feel for concepts without the arithmetic drills that are common in schools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But he 's not really talking about " walking around blind " , he mentions concrete skills like measuring .
They could still get a feel for concepts without the arithmetic drills that are common in schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But he's not really talking about "walking around blind", he mentions concrete skills like measuring.
They could still get a feel for concepts without the arithmetic drills that are common in schools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618872</id>
	<title>Re:Relevance?</title>
	<author>Punto</author>
	<datestamp>1269517320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Too much has changed in the intervening years.</i></p><p>did they invent some new numbers since 1930? or maybe the human brain changed? other than that, what do you mean exactly by "too much" has changed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too much has changed in the intervening years.did they invent some new numbers since 1930 ?
or maybe the human brain changed ?
other than that , what do you mean exactly by " too much " has changed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too much has changed in the intervening years.did they invent some new numbers since 1930?
or maybe the human brain changed?
other than that, what do you mean exactly by "too much" has changed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620044</id>
	<title>They didn't take out "math"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269523440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they left out the latest "new math: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXx2VVSWDMo) That makes it no surprise that someone who hasn't been taught the "new math" for the first few grades can become as befuddled and confused as other students within only a year..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they left out the latest " new math : ( http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = SXx2VVSWDMo ) That makes it no surprise that someone who has n't been taught the " new math " for the first few grades can become as befuddled and confused as other students within only a year. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they left out the latest "new math: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXx2VVSWDMo) That makes it no surprise that someone who hasn't been taught the "new math" for the first few grades can become as befuddled and confused as other students within only a year..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617586</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>bmecoli</author>
	<datestamp>1269511260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We already are using the lowest common denominator enough</p></div><p>The lowest common <i>what</i>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already are using the lowest common denominator enoughThe lowest common what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already are using the lowest common denominator enoughThe lowest common what?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616196</id>
	<title>1 trial is never, ever statistically wrong</title>
	<author>Kashell</author>
	<datestamp>1269549840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And we should always proscribe policy change/medication/jobs/educational opportunity based upon it.<br><br>Always.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And we should always proscribe policy change/medication/jobs/educational opportunity based upon it.Always .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we should always proscribe policy change/medication/jobs/educational opportunity based upon it.Always.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616458</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>RobinEggs</author>
	<datestamp>1269550680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow, boring and dumbed down that there's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>For once, think of the bright children!</p></div><p>
If we don't force kids through things for which they aren't ready, the bright kids - like your friend's child - will stop suffering the endless days of boredom as other kids struggle pointlessly with it. Doing something like this counts as thinking of <i>all</i> children if it works. Get the bright kids some additional tutors, better classes, or some genuinely interesting side projects, don't simply insist that making the regular classroom any less rigorous, even temporarily, will punish the bright kids. Such insistence is exactly why we're here, failing, which is TFA's entire <i>point</i>: there's a hell of a lot more to improving childhood education, including the education of child geniuses, than simply doing more work at a higher level earlier.<br> <br>
Good for Peter Gray, daring to hypothesize the possibility of better results through some mechanism other than simply shoving more work down their throats at a young age.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow , boring and dumbed down that there 's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes.For once , think of the bright children !
If we do n't force kids through things for which they are n't ready , the bright kids - like your friend 's child - will stop suffering the endless days of boredom as other kids struggle pointlessly with it .
Doing something like this counts as thinking of all children if it works .
Get the bright kids some additional tutors , better classes , or some genuinely interesting side projects , do n't simply insist that making the regular classroom any less rigorous , even temporarily , will punish the bright kids .
Such insistence is exactly why we 're here , failing , which is TFA 's entire point : there 's a hell of a lot more to improving childhood education , including the education of child geniuses , than simply doing more work at a higher level earlier .
Good for Peter Gray , daring to hypothesize the possibility of better results through some mechanism other than simply shoving more work down their throats at a young age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow, boring and dumbed down that there's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes.For once, think of the bright children!
If we don't force kids through things for which they aren't ready, the bright kids - like your friend's child - will stop suffering the endless days of boredom as other kids struggle pointlessly with it.
Doing something like this counts as thinking of all children if it works.
Get the bright kids some additional tutors, better classes, or some genuinely interesting side projects, don't simply insist that making the regular classroom any less rigorous, even temporarily, will punish the bright kids.
Such insistence is exactly why we're here, failing, which is TFA's entire point: there's a hell of a lot more to improving childhood education, including the education of child geniuses, than simply doing more work at a higher level earlier.
Good for Peter Gray, daring to hypothesize the possibility of better results through some mechanism other than simply shoving more work down their throats at a young age.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31634218</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>thatblackguy</author>
	<datestamp>1269607200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rote !=wrote<br>Excellent post, I was actually considering whether or not it was a real mistake at the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rote ! = wroteExcellent post , I was actually considering whether or not it was a real mistake at the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rote !=wroteExcellent post, I was actually considering whether or not it was a real mistake at the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31624664</id>
	<title>Early math is MOST important</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1269611220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I regularly talk with and work with people who never use math more complex that what they learned in the 3rd grade. In fact, with the exception of people who use math in their careers, I doubt most people could pass a 4th grade math exam without the use of a calculator. This almost definitely applies directly to shrinks like the guy who wrote the article.<br><br>When first introduced to the concept of a recursive algorithm in the 4th grade when being taught a method of calculating Pi, later in the day, by using the properties of a right triangle I learned from geometry, I derived (accurately) the laws of trigonometry and by applying what I had learned from drawing a circle using LOGO, even taught myself spherical geometry. My son already appears to be advancing through math (he's in 2nd grade) at about twice the rate I ever did.<br><br>If we cut back on teaching basic math theory to children, it may not make any impact later in life to the average person, but it will almost definitely impact the brightest of us by robbing us of a 5 year head start. This would have dramatic negative effects on society overall.<br><br>Using the arguments posed by this person, maybe it would be better to simply keep kids in day care an extra 1-4 years to allow them to mature a bit more before being exposed to academia. Equally, they should delay the children's entry to the real world by an equal number of years. I can make numerous arguments in favor of this, not of the least being that since people are working later in life, it would decrease the competition over many of the jobs out there where people are retiring later and later from without leaving openings for new younger replacements. This would have a tremendous positive impact by decreasing age discrimination from the work place. Also, it would give children a better chance to get through their rebellious stages (early adulthood) before making long term decisions with regards to the future direction of their lives.<br><br>Maybe it would be best to come up with a stronger vocational studies program in the schools for kids who are less likely to use their brains in an intellectual fashion past a certain grade level. If you're going to be a businessman, a shrink, etc... you shouldn't be forced to spend 5 more years than necessary in high school which will serve as little more than a day care service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I regularly talk with and work with people who never use math more complex that what they learned in the 3rd grade .
In fact , with the exception of people who use math in their careers , I doubt most people could pass a 4th grade math exam without the use of a calculator .
This almost definitely applies directly to shrinks like the guy who wrote the article.When first introduced to the concept of a recursive algorithm in the 4th grade when being taught a method of calculating Pi , later in the day , by using the properties of a right triangle I learned from geometry , I derived ( accurately ) the laws of trigonometry and by applying what I had learned from drawing a circle using LOGO , even taught myself spherical geometry .
My son already appears to be advancing through math ( he 's in 2nd grade ) at about twice the rate I ever did.If we cut back on teaching basic math theory to children , it may not make any impact later in life to the average person , but it will almost definitely impact the brightest of us by robbing us of a 5 year head start .
This would have dramatic negative effects on society overall.Using the arguments posed by this person , maybe it would be better to simply keep kids in day care an extra 1-4 years to allow them to mature a bit more before being exposed to academia .
Equally , they should delay the children 's entry to the real world by an equal number of years .
I can make numerous arguments in favor of this , not of the least being that since people are working later in life , it would decrease the competition over many of the jobs out there where people are retiring later and later from without leaving openings for new younger replacements .
This would have a tremendous positive impact by decreasing age discrimination from the work place .
Also , it would give children a better chance to get through their rebellious stages ( early adulthood ) before making long term decisions with regards to the future direction of their lives.Maybe it would be best to come up with a stronger vocational studies program in the schools for kids who are less likely to use their brains in an intellectual fashion past a certain grade level .
If you 're going to be a businessman , a shrink , etc... you should n't be forced to spend 5 more years than necessary in high school which will serve as little more than a day care service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I regularly talk with and work with people who never use math more complex that what they learned in the 3rd grade.
In fact, with the exception of people who use math in their careers, I doubt most people could pass a 4th grade math exam without the use of a calculator.
This almost definitely applies directly to shrinks like the guy who wrote the article.When first introduced to the concept of a recursive algorithm in the 4th grade when being taught a method of calculating Pi, later in the day, by using the properties of a right triangle I learned from geometry, I derived (accurately) the laws of trigonometry and by applying what I had learned from drawing a circle using LOGO, even taught myself spherical geometry.
My son already appears to be advancing through math (he's in 2nd grade) at about twice the rate I ever did.If we cut back on teaching basic math theory to children, it may not make any impact later in life to the average person, but it will almost definitely impact the brightest of us by robbing us of a 5 year head start.
This would have dramatic negative effects on society overall.Using the arguments posed by this person, maybe it would be better to simply keep kids in day care an extra 1-4 years to allow them to mature a bit more before being exposed to academia.
Equally, they should delay the children's entry to the real world by an equal number of years.
I can make numerous arguments in favor of this, not of the least being that since people are working later in life, it would decrease the competition over many of the jobs out there where people are retiring later and later from without leaving openings for new younger replacements.
This would have a tremendous positive impact by decreasing age discrimination from the work place.
Also, it would give children a better chance to get through their rebellious stages (early adulthood) before making long term decisions with regards to the future direction of their lives.Maybe it would be best to come up with a stronger vocational studies program in the schools for kids who are less likely to use their brains in an intellectual fashion past a certain grade level.
If you're going to be a businessman, a shrink, etc... you shouldn't be forced to spend 5 more years than necessary in high school which will serve as little more than a day care service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620782</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Carnildo</author>
	<datestamp>1269528120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can be compressed much further than that.  Studies on adult remedial education programs have shown that, even for people who managed to miss childhood schooling entirely, elementary-school math can be taught in a week, with most people able to learn it in a single day of dedicated instruction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It can be compressed much further than that .
Studies on adult remedial education programs have shown that , even for people who managed to miss childhood schooling entirely , elementary-school math can be taught in a week , with most people able to learn it in a single day of dedicated instruction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can be compressed much further than that.
Studies on adult remedial education programs have shown that, even for people who managed to miss childhood schooling entirely, elementary-school math can be taught in a week, with most people able to learn it in a single day of dedicated instruction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622340</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269543000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell that to the Japanese.</p><p>If America wants to continue "babying" its masses in education just so it can push the socialism agenda and further the control, by all means continue. But don't mask it online with people who know better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell that to the Japanese.If America wants to continue " babying " its masses in education just so it can push the socialism agenda and further the control , by all means continue .
But do n't mask it online with people who know better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell that to the Japanese.If America wants to continue "babying" its masses in education just so it can push the socialism agenda and further the control, by all means continue.
But don't mask it online with people who know better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619026</id>
	<title>Less than surprising</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1269518220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the schools then were as bad as they are now, then if you were in one of the non-advanced tracks (assuming, again, such a thing existed) you got your basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division early on in elementary school.  Maybe you got some of the dreaded "word problems".  Then you went and did the EXACT SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN all the way into high school.  Of course removing most of that made no difference.</p><p>Where I went to school, the advanced track would then go on to pre-algebra (waste of time, just algebra without formal symbolism), algebra (2 years), trig/geometry (pre-calculus), and then Calculus.  I don't think you could cut out all of that and not make a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the schools then were as bad as they are now , then if you were in one of the non-advanced tracks ( assuming , again , such a thing existed ) you got your basic addition , subtraction , multiplication , and division early on in elementary school .
Maybe you got some of the dreaded " word problems " .
Then you went and did the EXACT SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN all the way into high school .
Of course removing most of that made no difference.Where I went to school , the advanced track would then go on to pre-algebra ( waste of time , just algebra without formal symbolism ) , algebra ( 2 years ) , trig/geometry ( pre-calculus ) , and then Calculus .
I do n't think you could cut out all of that and not make a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the schools then were as bad as they are now, then if you were in one of the non-advanced tracks (assuming, again, such a thing existed) you got your basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division early on in elementary school.
Maybe you got some of the dreaded "word problems".
Then you went and did the EXACT SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN all the way into high school.
Of course removing most of that made no difference.Where I went to school, the advanced track would then go on to pre-algebra (waste of time, just algebra without formal symbolism), algebra (2 years), trig/geometry (pre-calculus), and then Calculus.
I don't think you could cut out all of that and not make a difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616558</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269507780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right but when you're wired for math, three years of fractions kinda turns your brain off. I'm still amazed that they thought all of us actually needed that kind of beating. I just memorized to 16ths as that was as "bad" as it got with the homework.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right but when you 're wired for math , three years of fractions kinda turns your brain off .
I 'm still amazed that they thought all of us actually needed that kind of beating .
I just memorized to 16ths as that was as " bad " as it got with the homework .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right but when you're wired for math, three years of fractions kinda turns your brain off.
I'm still amazed that they thought all of us actually needed that kind of beating.
I just memorized to 16ths as that was as "bad" as it got with the homework.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621588</id>
	<title>self starters</title>
	<author>saiha</author>
	<datestamp>1269534420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I loved doing math by the time I was in 5th grade, so that lead me to doing it on my own time. My mom bought me some higher level math books, in fact that was the only "home"work that I have every enjoyed, and it wasn't even from the school.</p><p>I guess my point is that (anecdotally) you can still do math at an earlier age if you choose to, but I do know a lot of people that could not get it till a bit later. I'm talking about algebra+ here, I think pre-8 should know the basics of counting, addition and subtraction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I loved doing math by the time I was in 5th grade , so that lead me to doing it on my own time .
My mom bought me some higher level math books , in fact that was the only " home " work that I have every enjoyed , and it was n't even from the school.I guess my point is that ( anecdotally ) you can still do math at an earlier age if you choose to , but I do know a lot of people that could not get it till a bit later .
I 'm talking about algebra + here , I think pre-8 should know the basics of counting , addition and subtraction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I loved doing math by the time I was in 5th grade, so that lead me to doing it on my own time.
My mom bought me some higher level math books, in fact that was the only "home"work that I have every enjoyed, and it wasn't even from the school.I guess my point is that (anecdotally) you can still do math at an earlier age if you choose to, but I do know a lot of people that could not get it till a bit later.
I'm talking about algebra+ here, I think pre-8 should know the basics of counting, addition and subtraction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617602</id>
	<title>Re:What about "parts of speech"</title>
	<author>jpate</author>
	<datestamp>1269511320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only basic linguistics would be taught properly. <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497" title="chronicle.com" rel="nofollow">This article</a> [chronicle.com] is a sort of linguistics version of the "mathematicians lament" that's floating around these here comments. Syntax and morphology are incredibly interesting, but in k-12 education (in the US anyway) it largely becomes a series of excuses for red marks to appear on student papers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only basic linguistics would be taught properly .
This article [ chronicle.com ] is a sort of linguistics version of the " mathematicians lament " that 's floating around these here comments .
Syntax and morphology are incredibly interesting , but in k-12 education ( in the US anyway ) it largely becomes a series of excuses for red marks to appear on student papers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only basic linguistics would be taught properly.
This article [chronicle.com] is a sort of linguistics version of the "mathematicians lament" that's floating around these here comments.
Syntax and morphology are incredibly interesting, but in k-12 education (in the US anyway) it largely becomes a series of excuses for red marks to appear on student papers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617118</id>
	<title>Troll much?</title>
	<author>Ornlu</author>
	<datestamp>1269509520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we tag the article as flamebait?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we tag the article as flamebait ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we tag the article as flamebait?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even more interesting is that the way we count is completely unnatural. Research with both small children and isolated Amazon tribes indicates that our natural inclination is to count logarithmically, but we train our kids away from this shortly after they learn to talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more interesting is that the way we count is completely unnatural .
Research with both small children and isolated Amazon tribes indicates that our natural inclination is to count logarithmically , but we train our kids away from this shortly after they learn to talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more interesting is that the way we count is completely unnatural.
Research with both small children and isolated Amazon tribes indicates that our natural inclination is to count logarithmically, but we train our kids away from this shortly after they learn to talk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616848</id>
	<title>Re:most people arent wired for math</title>
	<author>WeirdJohn</author>
	<datestamp>1269508860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.  Most people are wired for maths, because they can talk and read.  Broca's region is heavily involved in processing language, maths and music.  Most people can handle language and appreciate music.</p><p>Can most people handle, let alone appreciate the theory of algebraic structures, tensor mechanics and multi-variate statistics? No.  But in 30 years of working in maths education it's only those with profound issues that can't handle manipulating linear expressions, arithmetic, elementary geometry and mensuration.  I'd go on to say that most people can handle the calculus of a single variable.  But they have to be taught well, by someone who doesn't make it look hard, because it shouldn't be hard, maths is supposed to make sense, and what makes sense is easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
Most people are wired for maths , because they can talk and read .
Broca 's region is heavily involved in processing language , maths and music .
Most people can handle language and appreciate music.Can most people handle , let alone appreciate the theory of algebraic structures , tensor mechanics and multi-variate statistics ?
No. But in 30 years of working in maths education it 's only those with profound issues that ca n't handle manipulating linear expressions , arithmetic , elementary geometry and mensuration .
I 'd go on to say that most people can handle the calculus of a single variable .
But they have to be taught well , by someone who does n't make it look hard , because it should n't be hard , maths is supposed to make sense , and what makes sense is easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
Most people are wired for maths, because they can talk and read.
Broca's region is heavily involved in processing language, maths and music.
Most people can handle language and appreciate music.Can most people handle, let alone appreciate the theory of algebraic structures, tensor mechanics and multi-variate statistics?
No.  But in 30 years of working in maths education it's only those with profound issues that can't handle manipulating linear expressions, arithmetic, elementary geometry and mensuration.
I'd go on to say that most people can handle the calculus of a single variable.
But they have to be taught well, by someone who doesn't make it look hard, because it shouldn't be hard, maths is supposed to make sense, and what makes sense is easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616646</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You saw a fraction by grade 6? Algebra in grade 8? No wonder the US school system is so fucked - with low expectations like that, there is no way to do anything but scrape the bottom of the barrel. One of my best memories in Math class was when we derived various proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem - in friggin 6th grade. And I was certainly not one of the Math-heads in my class.</p><p>So in that sense, I'd agree with you - kids in American schools have got to be bored to tears.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You saw a fraction by grade 6 ?
Algebra in grade 8 ?
No wonder the US school system is so fucked - with low expectations like that , there is no way to do anything but scrape the bottom of the barrel .
One of my best memories in Math class was when we derived various proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem - in friggin 6th grade .
And I was certainly not one of the Math-heads in my class.So in that sense , I 'd agree with you - kids in American schools have got to be bored to tears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You saw a fraction by grade 6?
Algebra in grade 8?
No wonder the US school system is so fucked - with low expectations like that, there is no way to do anything but scrape the bottom of the barrel.
One of my best memories in Math class was when we derived various proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem - in friggin 6th grade.
And I was certainly not one of the Math-heads in my class.So in that sense, I'd agree with you - kids in American schools have got to be bored to tears.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616792</id>
	<title>Re:Relevance?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269508680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Unless they are going to re-create the study today, I don't believe the conclusions can be held as valid. Too much has changed in the intervening years.<br></i><br>Children haven't changed, teenagers haven't changed, adults haven't changed, and geezers haven't changed. People in general have changed, but they haven't, either -- it's only the meaningless trivia, and technology, that changes from generation to generation.</p><p>Some kids are ready for calculus at age 8, some aren't ready to learn to read until they're ten. And every time they think they've found a better way to teach something that's been sucessfully taught for hundreds of years they screw up an entire generation. With mine it was the "new math", with my kids it was "invented spelling".</p><p>The most important thing is getting teachers who can get kids interested in what they're teaching. Nothing is a better motivator than curiosity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they are going to re-create the study today , I do n't believe the conclusions can be held as valid .
Too much has changed in the intervening years.Children have n't changed , teenagers have n't changed , adults have n't changed , and geezers have n't changed .
People in general have changed , but they have n't , either -- it 's only the meaningless trivia , and technology , that changes from generation to generation.Some kids are ready for calculus at age 8 , some are n't ready to learn to read until they 're ten .
And every time they think they 've found a better way to teach something that 's been sucessfully taught for hundreds of years they screw up an entire generation .
With mine it was the " new math " , with my kids it was " invented spelling " .The most important thing is getting teachers who can get kids interested in what they 're teaching .
Nothing is a better motivator than curiosity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they are going to re-create the study today, I don't believe the conclusions can be held as valid.
Too much has changed in the intervening years.Children haven't changed, teenagers haven't changed, adults haven't changed, and geezers haven't changed.
People in general have changed, but they haven't, either -- it's only the meaningless trivia, and technology, that changes from generation to generation.Some kids are ready for calculus at age 8, some aren't ready to learn to read until they're ten.
And every time they think they've found a better way to teach something that's been sucessfully taught for hundreds of years they screw up an entire generation.
With mine it was the "new math", with my kids it was "invented spelling".The most important thing is getting teachers who can get kids interested in what they're teaching.
Nothing is a better motivator than curiosity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616394</id>
	<title>Kids cant be Kids anymore.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont remember having 2 hours of Homework a night in the Second Grade.  Yet it seems that Kids are getting MORE and MORE homework.  They have no time for anything else nowadays.</p><p>Its sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont remember having 2 hours of Homework a night in the Second Grade .
Yet it seems that Kids are getting MORE and MORE homework .
They have no time for anything else nowadays.Its sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont remember having 2 hours of Homework a night in the Second Grade.
Yet it seems that Kids are getting MORE and MORE homework.
They have no time for anything else nowadays.Its sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618830</id>
	<title>I am a product of BC schools</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1269517080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From grade 6 onwards, I got a GPA between 3.4 and 4.0 in BC schools, and have a couple of degrees from BC public colleges, in addition to my post-grad work at the UW here in Seattle WA.</p><p>Having seen the disastrous attempt to have less formal math in WA schools, and comparing it to my much more stringent schooling in BC - we used to make fun of Grade 13 grads from Ontario since they were less capable of Math than we British Columbian Grade 12 seniors - I must strongly disagree with this professor.</p><p>By the way, I seriously doubt Boston is in BC. Last time I checked it was nearer to where I was in Grades 1-5 in Pennsylvania, which is to say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Massachusets (or MA).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From grade 6 onwards , I got a GPA between 3.4 and 4.0 in BC schools , and have a couple of degrees from BC public colleges , in addition to my post-grad work at the UW here in Seattle WA.Having seen the disastrous attempt to have less formal math in WA schools , and comparing it to my much more stringent schooling in BC - we used to make fun of Grade 13 grads from Ontario since they were less capable of Math than we British Columbian Grade 12 seniors - I must strongly disagree with this professor.By the way , I seriously doubt Boston is in BC .
Last time I checked it was nearer to where I was in Grades 1-5 in Pennsylvania , which is to say ... Massachusets ( or MA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From grade 6 onwards, I got a GPA between 3.4 and 4.0 in BC schools, and have a couple of degrees from BC public colleges, in addition to my post-grad work at the UW here in Seattle WA.Having seen the disastrous attempt to have less formal math in WA schools, and comparing it to my much more stringent schooling in BC - we used to make fun of Grade 13 grads from Ontario since they were less capable of Math than we British Columbian Grade 12 seniors - I must strongly disagree with this professor.By the way, I seriously doubt Boston is in BC.
Last time I checked it was nearer to where I was in Grades 1-5 in Pennsylvania, which is to say ... Massachusets (or MA).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617170</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269509700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.  This study is wrong.  My parents rigorously went through arithmetic flash cards with both myself and my younger brother on a daily basis all through grade school.  And they stayed on us constantly to complete our homework on top of that.  While I have always loved Mathematics, eventually earning a degree in Pure and Applied Mathematics and I work at a national research laboratory in the US, my brother ended up struggling with Mathematics the entire time and never pursued a degree in a Mathematics or physical science field.  This study simply needs more rigorous peer review and additional common sense studies to disprove it.  Each person is unique and some people will naturally excel in Mathematics and others will not.  Those who will naturally excel need to be given the information and resources they need as earlier in life as possible.</p><p>I believe the bigger problem, at least in the US, is that the teachers here are simply not qualified to teach students intellectually difficult subjects.  And the parents here feel that homework is bad and that their kids should never have to study outside of school.  Those two factors together lead to a society where intellectually difficult subjects are simply never taught to students when it matters.  For example, the rise in Creationism here is a direct result of a lack of proper mathematics and science education at school and at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
This study is wrong .
My parents rigorously went through arithmetic flash cards with both myself and my younger brother on a daily basis all through grade school .
And they stayed on us constantly to complete our homework on top of that .
While I have always loved Mathematics , eventually earning a degree in Pure and Applied Mathematics and I work at a national research laboratory in the US , my brother ended up struggling with Mathematics the entire time and never pursued a degree in a Mathematics or physical science field .
This study simply needs more rigorous peer review and additional common sense studies to disprove it .
Each person is unique and some people will naturally excel in Mathematics and others will not .
Those who will naturally excel need to be given the information and resources they need as earlier in life as possible.I believe the bigger problem , at least in the US , is that the teachers here are simply not qualified to teach students intellectually difficult subjects .
And the parents here feel that homework is bad and that their kids should never have to study outside of school .
Those two factors together lead to a society where intellectually difficult subjects are simply never taught to students when it matters .
For example , the rise in Creationism here is a direct result of a lack of proper mathematics and science education at school and at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
This study is wrong.
My parents rigorously went through arithmetic flash cards with both myself and my younger brother on a daily basis all through grade school.
And they stayed on us constantly to complete our homework on top of that.
While I have always loved Mathematics, eventually earning a degree in Pure and Applied Mathematics and I work at a national research laboratory in the US, my brother ended up struggling with Mathematics the entire time and never pursued a degree in a Mathematics or physical science field.
This study simply needs more rigorous peer review and additional common sense studies to disprove it.
Each person is unique and some people will naturally excel in Mathematics and others will not.
Those who will naturally excel need to be given the information and resources they need as earlier in life as possible.I believe the bigger problem, at least in the US, is that the teachers here are simply not qualified to teach students intellectually difficult subjects.
And the parents here feel that homework is bad and that their kids should never have to study outside of school.
Those two factors together lead to a society where intellectually difficult subjects are simply never taught to students when it matters.
For example, the rise in Creationism here is a direct result of a lack of proper mathematics and science education at school and at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619870</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't need math...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269522420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You math may be strong but your comprehension is obviously poor, Professor Peter Gray is right children are not able to take on math until around age 9, prior to that there is no evaluation just recollection of pre-memorized results. Which is memory not math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You math may be strong but your comprehension is obviously poor , Professor Peter Gray is right children are not able to take on math until around age 9 , prior to that there is no evaluation just recollection of pre-memorized results .
Which is memory not math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You math may be strong but your comprehension is obviously poor, Professor Peter Gray is right children are not able to take on math until around age 9, prior to that there is no evaluation just recollection of pre-memorized results.
Which is memory not math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616462</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>GreatAntibob</author>
	<datestamp>1269550680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The notion that set theory should be more prominent in elementary mathematics education was one of the ideas behind "New Math" in the 60s/70s.</p><p>New Math didn't work for a few reasons.  Teachers and parents weren't familiar with the concepts and had difficulty teaching students about set theory.  It was also more difficult to address why and how set theory (and other New Math ideas) related to the real world. And the level of abstraction necessary for teaching the concepts was beyond several students. There were several cases of middle school children unable to handle multiplication (even if they could explain the commutative property and sort of how to work in other number bases).</p><p>Children may be able to handle the concept more easily, but they certainly won't see how it relates to the real world and will end up being unable to balance their checkbooks. Basically, going back and trying the same failed idea (but with a spiffy new name and adjusted philosophical underpinning) is probably not a good thing.</p><p>Maybe some of the rote nature of arithmetic can be reduced, but it's almost certainly necessary.  Elementary school education is about developing the basis for more advanced education as well as giving the kids the basic skills necessary to function (barely) as adults. Besides, most CS profs I know were thinking in terms of educating high functioning CS majors.  That's going to be very different from the real world - where most students will never need (or want) much of the formalism of set theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The notion that set theory should be more prominent in elementary mathematics education was one of the ideas behind " New Math " in the 60s/70s.New Math did n't work for a few reasons .
Teachers and parents were n't familiar with the concepts and had difficulty teaching students about set theory .
It was also more difficult to address why and how set theory ( and other New Math ideas ) related to the real world .
And the level of abstraction necessary for teaching the concepts was beyond several students .
There were several cases of middle school children unable to handle multiplication ( even if they could explain the commutative property and sort of how to work in other number bases ) .Children may be able to handle the concept more easily , but they certainly wo n't see how it relates to the real world and will end up being unable to balance their checkbooks .
Basically , going back and trying the same failed idea ( but with a spiffy new name and adjusted philosophical underpinning ) is probably not a good thing.Maybe some of the rote nature of arithmetic can be reduced , but it 's almost certainly necessary .
Elementary school education is about developing the basis for more advanced education as well as giving the kids the basic skills necessary to function ( barely ) as adults .
Besides , most CS profs I know were thinking in terms of educating high functioning CS majors .
That 's going to be very different from the real world - where most students will never need ( or want ) much of the formalism of set theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The notion that set theory should be more prominent in elementary mathematics education was one of the ideas behind "New Math" in the 60s/70s.New Math didn't work for a few reasons.
Teachers and parents weren't familiar with the concepts and had difficulty teaching students about set theory.
It was also more difficult to address why and how set theory (and other New Math ideas) related to the real world.
And the level of abstraction necessary for teaching the concepts was beyond several students.
There were several cases of middle school children unable to handle multiplication (even if they could explain the commutative property and sort of how to work in other number bases).Children may be able to handle the concept more easily, but they certainly won't see how it relates to the real world and will end up being unable to balance their checkbooks.
Basically, going back and trying the same failed idea (but with a spiffy new name and adjusted philosophical underpinning) is probably not a good thing.Maybe some of the rote nature of arithmetic can be reduced, but it's almost certainly necessary.
Elementary school education is about developing the basis for more advanced education as well as giving the kids the basic skills necessary to function (barely) as adults.
Besides, most CS profs I know were thinking in terms of educating high functioning CS majors.
That's going to be very different from the real world - where most students will never need (or want) much of the formalism of set theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620838</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Kashell</author>
	<datestamp>1269528420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not trying to one-up you here, but in my school (Georgia, USA) we started learning algebra in 5th grade. In 12th grade I was doing Calculus.<br><br>From my perspective, I think (in America) it's the middle schools and high schools that fail to challenge students enough. I would have done more math in high school, but Calculus was as high as it went.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not trying to one-up you here , but in my school ( Georgia , USA ) we started learning algebra in 5th grade .
In 12th grade I was doing Calculus.From my perspective , I think ( in America ) it 's the middle schools and high schools that fail to challenge students enough .
I would have done more math in high school , but Calculus was as high as it went .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not trying to one-up you here, but in my school (Georgia, USA) we started learning algebra in 5th grade.
In 12th grade I was doing Calculus.From my perspective, I think (in America) it's the middle schools and high schools that fail to challenge students enough.
I would have done more math in high school, but Calculus was as high as it went.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617408</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return. We already are using the lowest common denominator enough, if we keep on this way you won't learn anything. I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow, boring and dumbed down that there's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes.</p><p>For once, <i>think of the bright children!</i></p> </div><p>tough call,  I ended up getting a Masters degree in CS from a top 25 university,  I went the engineering route and took quite a bit of math.  early in school I was held back several times for being bad at math.  senior year of high school I had the highest math SAT.  turns out my skill isnt in basic math but mathmatical reasonsing.</p><p>my vote is there is no formula,  everyone is different.  any blanket statements can be proven wrong</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return .
We already are using the lowest common denominator enough , if we keep on this way you wo n't learn anything .
I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow , boring and dumbed down that there 's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes.For once , think of the bright children !
tough call , I ended up getting a Masters degree in CS from a top 25 university , I went the engineering route and took quite a bit of math .
early in school I was held back several times for being bad at math .
senior year of high school I had the highest math SAT .
turns out my skill isnt in basic math but mathmatical reasonsing.my vote is there is no formula , everyone is different .
any blanket statements can be proven wrong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can say that reducing math further than it already is would dumb down school beyond the point of non-return.
We already are using the lowest common denominator enough, if we keep on this way you won't learn anything.
I know someone whose child needs to get book from home during school because the teaching is so slow, boring and dumbed down that there's no point to listening when she grasped everything in the first five minutes.For once, think of the bright children!
tough call,  I ended up getting a Masters degree in CS from a top 25 university,  I went the engineering route and took quite a bit of math.
early in school I was held back several times for being bad at math.
senior year of high school I had the highest math SAT.
turns out my skill isnt in basic math but mathmatical reasonsing.my vote is there is no formula,  everyone is different.
any blanket statements can be proven wrong
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31634606</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't need math...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269609660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You and that prooooofessor are idiots. Look at the world developing while our kids are stupid!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You and that prooooofessor are idiots .
Look at the world developing while our kids are stupid !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You and that prooooofessor are idiots.
Look at the world developing while our kids are stupid!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616842</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So is it that children don't do well learning math early, which goes against everything else we know about how the human brain learns...</p></div><p>Really? I was under the impression children weren't so great with abstract concepts... (Not to mention that in math, they must be understood both abstractly and logically.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is it that children do n't do well learning math early , which goes against everything else we know about how the human brain learns...Really ?
I was under the impression children were n't so great with abstract concepts... ( Not to mention that in math , they must be understood both abstractly and logically .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is it that children don't do well learning math early, which goes against everything else we know about how the human brain learns...Really?
I was under the impression children weren't so great with abstract concepts... (Not to mention that in math, they must be understood both abstractly and logically.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31627244</id>
	<title>Re:less FORMAL math, maybe</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1269622260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to wholeheartedly agree with this, even as I posted another comment about compulsory school being bad for most kids in many ways. With my own child, since and early age, and following some of John Holt's suggestions, and those of other "unschoolers", I've been making numbers part of our every day existence, counting things we handle and so on. As a computer programmer, I point out recursion whenever we see it as nested items (like tow trucks towing tow trucks, or cups inside cups). I agree that parents need to have an awareness of this and can contribute very much (in a non-forced off-hand way). Another point Holt makes is to see that something like 2 + 2 = 4 is essentially the same "fact" as 4 = 2 = 2 and 2 * 2 = 4 and 4 / 2 = 2, something not taught or understood in many schools' approach to math education, where different operations are taught in different years. Also, there are a lot of resources now on the internet to learn math in fun way or at your own pace. For younger kids, here is one:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.poissonrouge.com/" title="poissonrouge.com">http://www.poissonrouge.com/</a> [poissonrouge.com]<br>For older kids, another:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.khanacademy.org/" title="khanacademy.org">http://www.khanacademy.org/</a> [khanacademy.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to wholeheartedly agree with this , even as I posted another comment about compulsory school being bad for most kids in many ways .
With my own child , since and early age , and following some of John Holt 's suggestions , and those of other " unschoolers " , I 've been making numbers part of our every day existence , counting things we handle and so on .
As a computer programmer , I point out recursion whenever we see it as nested items ( like tow trucks towing tow trucks , or cups inside cups ) .
I agree that parents need to have an awareness of this and can contribute very much ( in a non-forced off-hand way ) .
Another point Holt makes is to see that something like 2 + 2 = 4 is essentially the same " fact " as 4 = 2 = 2 and 2 * 2 = 4 and 4 / 2 = 2 , something not taught or understood in many schools ' approach to math education , where different operations are taught in different years .
Also , there are a lot of resources now on the internet to learn math in fun way or at your own pace .
For younger kids , here is one :     http : //www.poissonrouge.com/ [ poissonrouge.com ] For older kids , another :     http : //www.khanacademy.org/ [ khanacademy.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to wholeheartedly agree with this, even as I posted another comment about compulsory school being bad for most kids in many ways.
With my own child, since and early age, and following some of John Holt's suggestions, and those of other "unschoolers", I've been making numbers part of our every day existence, counting things we handle and so on.
As a computer programmer, I point out recursion whenever we see it as nested items (like tow trucks towing tow trucks, or cups inside cups).
I agree that parents need to have an awareness of this and can contribute very much (in a non-forced off-hand way).
Another point Holt makes is to see that something like 2 + 2 = 4 is essentially the same "fact" as 4 = 2 = 2 and 2 * 2 = 4 and 4 / 2 = 2, something not taught or understood in many schools' approach to math education, where different operations are taught in different years.
Also, there are a lot of resources now on the internet to learn math in fun way or at your own pace.
For younger kids, here is one:
    http://www.poissonrouge.com/ [poissonrouge.com]For older kids, another:
    http://www.khanacademy.org/ [khanacademy.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31624624</id>
	<title>Makes sense</title>
	<author>gravis777</author>
	<datestamp>1269610920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, I say that instead of removing math completely from the curriculum, you need to reduce the amount they do in younger years. The problem is not that the brains are not wired for it, but rather suffer from burnout. I can attribute to this point from first hand experience - I was always really good in math when we handled it for 20-30 minutes a day. However, my sophomore year of high school, we went to block scheduling, and suddenly we were in a single class for 90 minutes a day. I went from an A student to a C student my sophomore year, to failing math my junior year. Retaking the class back on a normal schedule, I aced it, but my senior year I had calculus and calculus-based physics back to back, for three hours a day of math. Talk about burn out! C in Physics and a curtesy D in Calculus! Funny thing is, I knew the material, and could explain it to the teachers. It was litterally burnout from too much math. Actually, after that year, I actually started performing worse on basic math and algebra than I performed before that year. I can tell you, it is litterally a mental block. I am not sure if areas of the brain can shut down from overuse or something, but there is deffinately a connection between having too much math and my current inability to do anything other than basic stuff. In fact, what is really weird is I can remember formulas and what they are for, and can explain to you how to find the slope of a line and all that, and I can even walk someone through it, but I find that if I try to do it myself, suddenly the numbers no longer make sense. This was a subject I aced.</p><p>The point I am trying to make? Don't take math out of the younger levels, reduce the amount of it (or actually any subject). Give the brain a chance to rest. We always hear that the brain is like a muscle, and you have to work it out. Well, just like a muscle, overuse could probably damage it. This is where the educational system is flawed. We do what we can to stuff every bit of knowledge into someone's brain, then wonder why people have trouble retaining information. In fact, it seems that if a child complains they are overloaded, we tell them they are lazy or have no motivation.</p><p>Anyways, I am not saying this professor's ideas are right or wrong, but I think his studies are on the right track. What just amazes me is that people spend years, or even decades, studying stuff that the average person (in this case, the average student) could probably tell you straight up - in this case, I'm overloaded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I say that instead of removing math completely from the curriculum , you need to reduce the amount they do in younger years .
The problem is not that the brains are not wired for it , but rather suffer from burnout .
I can attribute to this point from first hand experience - I was always really good in math when we handled it for 20-30 minutes a day .
However , my sophomore year of high school , we went to block scheduling , and suddenly we were in a single class for 90 minutes a day .
I went from an A student to a C student my sophomore year , to failing math my junior year .
Retaking the class back on a normal schedule , I aced it , but my senior year I had calculus and calculus-based physics back to back , for three hours a day of math .
Talk about burn out !
C in Physics and a curtesy D in Calculus !
Funny thing is , I knew the material , and could explain it to the teachers .
It was litterally burnout from too much math .
Actually , after that year , I actually started performing worse on basic math and algebra than I performed before that year .
I can tell you , it is litterally a mental block .
I am not sure if areas of the brain can shut down from overuse or something , but there is deffinately a connection between having too much math and my current inability to do anything other than basic stuff .
In fact , what is really weird is I can remember formulas and what they are for , and can explain to you how to find the slope of a line and all that , and I can even walk someone through it , but I find that if I try to do it myself , suddenly the numbers no longer make sense .
This was a subject I aced.The point I am trying to make ?
Do n't take math out of the younger levels , reduce the amount of it ( or actually any subject ) .
Give the brain a chance to rest .
We always hear that the brain is like a muscle , and you have to work it out .
Well , just like a muscle , overuse could probably damage it .
This is where the educational system is flawed .
We do what we can to stuff every bit of knowledge into someone 's brain , then wonder why people have trouble retaining information .
In fact , it seems that if a child complains they are overloaded , we tell them they are lazy or have no motivation.Anyways , I am not saying this professor 's ideas are right or wrong , but I think his studies are on the right track .
What just amazes me is that people spend years , or even decades , studying stuff that the average person ( in this case , the average student ) could probably tell you straight up - in this case , I 'm overloaded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I say that instead of removing math completely from the curriculum, you need to reduce the amount they do in younger years.
The problem is not that the brains are not wired for it, but rather suffer from burnout.
I can attribute to this point from first hand experience - I was always really good in math when we handled it for 20-30 minutes a day.
However, my sophomore year of high school, we went to block scheduling, and suddenly we were in a single class for 90 minutes a day.
I went from an A student to a C student my sophomore year, to failing math my junior year.
Retaking the class back on a normal schedule, I aced it, but my senior year I had calculus and calculus-based physics back to back, for three hours a day of math.
Talk about burn out!
C in Physics and a curtesy D in Calculus!
Funny thing is, I knew the material, and could explain it to the teachers.
It was litterally burnout from too much math.
Actually, after that year, I actually started performing worse on basic math and algebra than I performed before that year.
I can tell you, it is litterally a mental block.
I am not sure if areas of the brain can shut down from overuse or something, but there is deffinately a connection between having too much math and my current inability to do anything other than basic stuff.
In fact, what is really weird is I can remember formulas and what they are for, and can explain to you how to find the slope of a line and all that, and I can even walk someone through it, but I find that if I try to do it myself, suddenly the numbers no longer make sense.
This was a subject I aced.The point I am trying to make?
Don't take math out of the younger levels, reduce the amount of it (or actually any subject).
Give the brain a chance to rest.
We always hear that the brain is like a muscle, and you have to work it out.
Well, just like a muscle, overuse could probably damage it.
This is where the educational system is flawed.
We do what we can to stuff every bit of knowledge into someone's brain, then wonder why people have trouble retaining information.
In fact, it seems that if a child complains they are overloaded, we tell them they are lazy or have no motivation.Anyways, I am not saying this professor's ideas are right or wrong, but I think his studies are on the right track.
What just amazes me is that people spend years, or even decades, studying stuff that the average person (in this case, the average student) could probably tell you straight up - in this case, I'm overloaded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31751594</id>
	<title>Re:There is more than one BC in the world...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270581840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe in your neck of the woods, Yank.  For me, I get British Columbia tourism, followed by the government of British Columbia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe in your neck of the woods , Yank .
For me , I get British Columbia tourism , followed by the government of British Columbia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe in your neck of the woods, Yank.
For me, I get British Columbia tourism, followed by the government of British Columbia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616866</id>
	<title>What sort of Math?</title>
	<author>davevr</author>
	<datestamp>1269508860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a lot of different skills that count broadly as math. <p>
There is counting.  Recognizing quantities (by sight or by touch).  Arithmetic (+, -, *, / ).  Recognizing shapes.  Finding unknowns.  Mapping concrete items to abstract concepts (A A A = 3 As).  Using variables.  Algebra, Geometry, etc, etc. These are different skills.  I am sure we have all met children who can tell you that "6+9=15" but if you asked them "if mommy gives you 6 cookies and daddy gives you 9, how my do you have?" would be stumped.</p><p>
 It sounds from the article that they dd not eliminate all maths, just abstract symbol manipulation, like "3+4=7". </p><p>
It is pretty well established by people like Piaget that there are certain windows in childhood.  During those times, the mind can easily absorb certain concepts that before or after those times they either cannot or all or can only with great dificulty or other exceptional circumstances.  </p><p>
The most widely accepted window is the window for early language learning, where beyond a certain age you will likely never be truly multi-lingual - you will always have a first language and zero or more secondary ones.  However, there are several others.  Mother-bonding happens within days of birth.  Arithmetic sense (the ability to count, recognize quantities and relations) is one of those that is also quite young - 4-6 or something if I recall.  There is a similar window for social behavior.  There is also evidence that topology is such a window.</p><p>
Ironically, despite the western obsession with early reading, there is no evidence that there is any window for reading.  People who learn to read later in life - even 40's and beyond - can learn to read with little trouble and quickly become indistinguishable from early readers in terms of reading speed and comprehension.  In fact, there is no evidence at all that early reading has any positive effect.</p><p>
There are already schools that emphasize non-academic ways of learning.  For example, in the Waldorf schools, children are not exposed to ANY academics at all - not even letter shapes or counting - until they are 7.  Then the academic load builds slowly up, with more emphasis on outdoor play, spoken language and song, and craft-making than on book learning or lecturing.  Despite this, most of these students have standard tests as high or higher than students from other private school that place more emphasis on academics.</p><p>
My personal opinion (as someone with lots of kids in school) is that our current education system puts too much stuff in kids heads that they cannot process because it is not relevant to their daily experience.  It is better for kids - especially young kids, under 10 or so - to play outside, engage in imaginative play, and to develop deep emotional connections with people around them than to learn to read or memorize multiplication tables.  Academics can come later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of different skills that count broadly as math .
There is counting .
Recognizing quantities ( by sight or by touch ) .
Arithmetic ( + , - , * , / ) .
Recognizing shapes .
Finding unknowns .
Mapping concrete items to abstract concepts ( A A A = 3 As ) .
Using variables .
Algebra , Geometry , etc , etc .
These are different skills .
I am sure we have all met children who can tell you that " 6 + 9 = 15 " but if you asked them " if mommy gives you 6 cookies and daddy gives you 9 , how my do you have ?
" would be stumped .
It sounds from the article that they dd not eliminate all maths , just abstract symbol manipulation , like " 3 + 4 = 7 " .
It is pretty well established by people like Piaget that there are certain windows in childhood .
During those times , the mind can easily absorb certain concepts that before or after those times they either can not or all or can only with great dificulty or other exceptional circumstances .
The most widely accepted window is the window for early language learning , where beyond a certain age you will likely never be truly multi-lingual - you will always have a first language and zero or more secondary ones .
However , there are several others .
Mother-bonding happens within days of birth .
Arithmetic sense ( the ability to count , recognize quantities and relations ) is one of those that is also quite young - 4-6 or something if I recall .
There is a similar window for social behavior .
There is also evidence that topology is such a window .
Ironically , despite the western obsession with early reading , there is no evidence that there is any window for reading .
People who learn to read later in life - even 40 's and beyond - can learn to read with little trouble and quickly become indistinguishable from early readers in terms of reading speed and comprehension .
In fact , there is no evidence at all that early reading has any positive effect .
There are already schools that emphasize non-academic ways of learning .
For example , in the Waldorf schools , children are not exposed to ANY academics at all - not even letter shapes or counting - until they are 7 .
Then the academic load builds slowly up , with more emphasis on outdoor play , spoken language and song , and craft-making than on book learning or lecturing .
Despite this , most of these students have standard tests as high or higher than students from other private school that place more emphasis on academics .
My personal opinion ( as someone with lots of kids in school ) is that our current education system puts too much stuff in kids heads that they can not process because it is not relevant to their daily experience .
It is better for kids - especially young kids , under 10 or so - to play outside , engage in imaginative play , and to develop deep emotional connections with people around them than to learn to read or memorize multiplication tables .
Academics can come later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of different skills that count broadly as math.
There is counting.
Recognizing quantities (by sight or by touch).
Arithmetic (+, -, *, / ).
Recognizing shapes.
Finding unknowns.
Mapping concrete items to abstract concepts (A A A = 3 As).
Using variables.
Algebra, Geometry, etc, etc.
These are different skills.
I am sure we have all met children who can tell you that "6+9=15" but if you asked them "if mommy gives you 6 cookies and daddy gives you 9, how my do you have?
" would be stumped.
It sounds from the article that they dd not eliminate all maths, just abstract symbol manipulation, like "3+4=7".
It is pretty well established by people like Piaget that there are certain windows in childhood.
During those times, the mind can easily absorb certain concepts that before or after those times they either cannot or all or can only with great dificulty or other exceptional circumstances.
The most widely accepted window is the window for early language learning, where beyond a certain age you will likely never be truly multi-lingual - you will always have a first language and zero or more secondary ones.
However, there are several others.
Mother-bonding happens within days of birth.
Arithmetic sense (the ability to count, recognize quantities and relations) is one of those that is also quite young - 4-6 or something if I recall.
There is a similar window for social behavior.
There is also evidence that topology is such a window.
Ironically, despite the western obsession with early reading, there is no evidence that there is any window for reading.
People who learn to read later in life - even 40's and beyond - can learn to read with little trouble and quickly become indistinguishable from early readers in terms of reading speed and comprehension.
In fact, there is no evidence at all that early reading has any positive effect.
There are already schools that emphasize non-academic ways of learning.
For example, in the Waldorf schools, children are not exposed to ANY academics at all - not even letter shapes or counting - until they are 7.
Then the academic load builds slowly up, with more emphasis on outdoor play, spoken language and song, and craft-making than on book learning or lecturing.
Despite this, most of these students have standard tests as high or higher than students from other private school that place more emphasis on academics.
My personal opinion (as someone with lots of kids in school) is that our current education system puts too much stuff in kids heads that they cannot process because it is not relevant to their daily experience.
It is better for kids - especially young kids, under 10 or so - to play outside, engage in imaginative play, and to develop deep emotional connections with people around them than to learn to read or memorize multiplication tables.
Academics can come later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616944</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>atropa</author>
	<datestamp>1269509100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure where you went to school but I went to public school in Kentucky and I remember quite vividly an early maths curriculum very different from what you seem to recall.  I will include the schools that I attended for what it's worth.</p><p>Goshen Elementary, Goshen, Ky<br>grade 1 - addition, subtraction, shapes, numbers generally under 10, digital time<br>grade 2 - addition, subtraction, 'doubling', 'tripling', analogue time<br>grade 3 - multiplication up to 12x12, 'negative' numbers, perimeters and areas<br>grade 4 - remainder based division up to 144/12, geometric rules of simple shapes<br>grade 5 - review and expand on all the above, prepare for tests</p><p>South Oldham Middle School, Crestwood, Ky<br>grade 6 - review earlier stuff, introduce negative numbers, multiplication of large numbers<br>grade 7 - long division, introduction to exponents, general euclidean geometry<br>grade 8 - algebraic functions, simple trigonometry, exponential growth and decay, compound interest, triangulation and other applications of 6-8, prepare for tests</p><p>Shelby County High School, Shelbyville, Ky<br>grade 9 - euclidean geometry, algebraic functions<br>grade 10 - matrix algebra, simple trigonometry<br>grade 11 and up were AP classes and thus cost money so I did not take them.</p><p>Interestingly enough though, our stories merge perfectly after 9th grade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure where you went to school but I went to public school in Kentucky and I remember quite vividly an early maths curriculum very different from what you seem to recall .
I will include the schools that I attended for what it 's worth.Goshen Elementary , Goshen , Kygrade 1 - addition , subtraction , shapes , numbers generally under 10 , digital timegrade 2 - addition , subtraction , 'doubling ' , 'tripling ' , analogue timegrade 3 - multiplication up to 12x12 , 'negative ' numbers , perimeters and areasgrade 4 - remainder based division up to 144/12 , geometric rules of simple shapesgrade 5 - review and expand on all the above , prepare for testsSouth Oldham Middle School , Crestwood , Kygrade 6 - review earlier stuff , introduce negative numbers , multiplication of large numbersgrade 7 - long division , introduction to exponents , general euclidean geometrygrade 8 - algebraic functions , simple trigonometry , exponential growth and decay , compound interest , triangulation and other applications of 6-8 , prepare for testsShelby County High School , Shelbyville , Kygrade 9 - euclidean geometry , algebraic functionsgrade 10 - matrix algebra , simple trigonometrygrade 11 and up were AP classes and thus cost money so I did not take them.Interestingly enough though , our stories merge perfectly after 9th grade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure where you went to school but I went to public school in Kentucky and I remember quite vividly an early maths curriculum very different from what you seem to recall.
I will include the schools that I attended for what it's worth.Goshen Elementary, Goshen, Kygrade 1 - addition, subtraction, shapes, numbers generally under 10, digital timegrade 2 - addition, subtraction, 'doubling', 'tripling', analogue timegrade 3 - multiplication up to 12x12, 'negative' numbers, perimeters and areasgrade 4 - remainder based division up to 144/12, geometric rules of simple shapesgrade 5 - review and expand on all the above, prepare for testsSouth Oldham Middle School, Crestwood, Kygrade 6 - review earlier stuff, introduce negative numbers, multiplication of large numbersgrade 7 - long division, introduction to exponents, general euclidean geometrygrade 8 - algebraic functions, simple trigonometry, exponential growth and decay, compound interest, triangulation and other applications of 6-8, prepare for testsShelby County High School, Shelbyville, Kygrade 9 - euclidean geometry, algebraic functionsgrade 10 - matrix algebra, simple trigonometrygrade 11 and up were AP classes and thus cost money so I did not take them.Interestingly enough though, our stories merge perfectly after 9th grade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617306</id>
	<title>Completely disagree</title>
	<author>js3</author>
	<datestamp>1269510120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the reasons I didn't like math was because I always felt I was behind. Most math teachers don't "teach". They have you a couple of examples and expect you to figure it out yourself. Problem is most people learn barely enough to get to the next grade, by grade 12 you suddenly realize how much of the fundamentals were missed and you're stuck playing catchup.</p><p>A lot of math is taught too early and at a hurried pace</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the reasons I did n't like math was because I always felt I was behind .
Most math teachers do n't " teach " .
They have you a couple of examples and expect you to figure it out yourself .
Problem is most people learn barely enough to get to the next grade , by grade 12 you suddenly realize how much of the fundamentals were missed and you 're stuck playing catchup.A lot of math is taught too early and at a hurried pace</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the reasons I didn't like math was because I always felt I was behind.
Most math teachers don't "teach".
They have you a couple of examples and expect you to figure it out yourself.
Problem is most people learn barely enough to get to the next grade, by grade 12 you suddenly realize how much of the fundamentals were missed and you're stuck playing catchup.A lot of math is taught too early and at a hurried pace</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618378</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1269514680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The majority of children need that repetition to even recall how to do basic addition, subtraction.</p></div><p>This is bullshit. In my school, we had all four basic arithmetic operations in the first year, and fractions in the third. I do not recall even the dumbest kids being confused by either thing when more advanced stuff (that relied on all those basics) came in next year.</p><p>That was in Russia - and is typical of elementary schools there - but I don't think that it's relevant. Unless, that is, you're willing to argue that American kids are somehow mentally deficient from birth...</p><p>It's all about the expectations you set.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of children need that repetition to even recall how to do basic addition , subtraction.This is bullshit .
In my school , we had all four basic arithmetic operations in the first year , and fractions in the third .
I do not recall even the dumbest kids being confused by either thing when more advanced stuff ( that relied on all those basics ) came in next year.That was in Russia - and is typical of elementary schools there - but I do n't think that it 's relevant .
Unless , that is , you 're willing to argue that American kids are somehow mentally deficient from birth...It 's all about the expectations you set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of children need that repetition to even recall how to do basic addition, subtraction.This is bullshit.
In my school, we had all four basic arithmetic operations in the first year, and fractions in the third.
I do not recall even the dumbest kids being confused by either thing when more advanced stuff (that relied on all those basics) came in next year.That was in Russia - and is typical of elementary schools there - but I don't think that it's relevant.
Unless, that is, you're willing to argue that American kids are somehow mentally deficient from birth...It's all about the expectations you set.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617362</id>
	<title>Exposure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mathematics must be taught in a more engaging way, but I really don't think it matters whether kids do well or not. What matters is that they have had exposure to it. Exposure makes it much easier to grasp the mathematics when they return to it in later years. This is because abstract concepts without prior exposure are just abstract concepts.. scary and hard to wrap the mind around, but abstract concepts with prior exposure come with a level of confidence; the student can think "yeah, I remember something about this..".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mathematics must be taught in a more engaging way , but I really do n't think it matters whether kids do well or not .
What matters is that they have had exposure to it .
Exposure makes it much easier to grasp the mathematics when they return to it in later years .
This is because abstract concepts without prior exposure are just abstract concepts.. scary and hard to wrap the mind around , but abstract concepts with prior exposure come with a level of confidence ; the student can think " yeah , I remember something about this.. " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mathematics must be taught in a more engaging way, but I really don't think it matters whether kids do well or not.
What matters is that they have had exposure to it.
Exposure makes it much easier to grasp the mathematics when they return to it in later years.
This is because abstract concepts without prior exposure are just abstract concepts.. scary and hard to wrap the mind around, but abstract concepts with prior exposure come with a level of confidence; the student can think "yeah, I remember something about this..".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188</id>
	<title>Many other explanations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269549780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are many other explanations: First in the case in question, it may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly. Given how many bad teachers there are out there and how much they turn kids off of math, that wouldn't be at all surprising.  Moreover, while it may be true that many kids aren't wired for mat, the best math students are wired for math at that age or much younger. Those kids need some form of organized input so that they can really take advantage of that ability. If kids can benefit from math instruction we can't say no to them on the off chance that it might  hurt the more slowly developing kids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many other explanations : First in the case in question , it may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly .
Given how many bad teachers there are out there and how much they turn kids off of math , that would n't be at all surprising .
Moreover , while it may be true that many kids are n't wired for mat , the best math students are wired for math at that age or much younger .
Those kids need some form of organized input so that they can really take advantage of that ability .
If kids can benefit from math instruction we ca n't say no to them on the off chance that it might hurt the more slowly developing kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many other explanations: First in the case in question, it may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly.
Given how many bad teachers there are out there and how much they turn kids off of math, that wouldn't be at all surprising.
Moreover, while it may be true that many kids aren't wired for mat, the best math students are wired for math at that age or much younger.
Those kids need some form of organized input so that they can really take advantage of that ability.
If kids can benefit from math instruction we can't say no to them on the off chance that it might  hurt the more slowly developing kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616832</id>
	<title>Failed experiment with grammer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My school district decided NOT to teach grammar and writing. The thinking was that the students would just absorb it from the environment or something.

I didn't learn about conjugating verbs until I took French in high school.

As a Ph.D. student this still haunts me when my adviser has to correct such things in paper submissions. English is her second language...</htmltext>
<tokenext>My school district decided NOT to teach grammar and writing .
The thinking was that the students would just absorb it from the environment or something .
I did n't learn about conjugating verbs until I took French in high school .
As a Ph.D. student this still haunts me when my adviser has to correct such things in paper submissions .
English is her second language.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My school district decided NOT to teach grammar and writing.
The thinking was that the students would just absorb it from the environment or something.
I didn't learn about conjugating verbs until I took French in high school.
As a Ph.D. student this still haunts me when my adviser has to correct such things in paper submissions.
English is her second language...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617042</id>
	<title>Speaking for myself</title>
	<author>shellster\_dude</author>
	<datestamp>1269509280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hated math in 1st grade and basically blew it off even though I was considered well above average in the other areas of study.  I got a BS CS degree in college and I excelled in the math classes.  I only started understanding and enjoying math at a much later date in life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hated math in 1st grade and basically blew it off even though I was considered well above average in the other areas of study .
I got a BS CS degree in college and I excelled in the math classes .
I only started understanding and enjoying math at a much later date in life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hated math in 1st grade and basically blew it off even though I was considered well above average in the other areas of study.
I got a BS CS degree in college and I excelled in the math classes.
I only started understanding and enjoying math at a much later date in life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618388</id>
	<title>Re:less FORMAL math, maybe</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1269514740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fortunately she's a girl, so you haven't doomed her to a life without sex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately she 's a girl , so you have n't doomed her to a life without sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately she's a girl, so you haven't doomed her to a life without sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617640</id>
	<title>Re:What about "parts of speech"</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1269511560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a shame, though, to waste that joke on people who can't so much as differentiate between "your" and "you're."</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a shame , though , to waste that joke on people who ca n't so much as differentiate between " your " and " you 're .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a shame, though, to waste that joke on people who can't so much as differentiate between "your" and "you're.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616582</id>
	<title>this guy probably doesn't even like math</title>
	<author>vsigma</author>
	<datestamp>1269507900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>himself, and just pushing along stuff that rectifies his ideas...</p><p>Let's take this another way then - if he is SOOOoooooo right - that there ought to be less math - explain how the kids from practically every other country on the planet knows more about it than ours at the equivalent age frame!?</p><p>As a current high school teacher - I can tell you one thing - if our expectations of kids weren't sooo low at that same age frame - we'd turn out higher quality students with greater understanding, than just bodies that can regurgitate material!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rant off</p><p>My other beef with education? In general (And yes, I *AM* stereotyping now!) most teachers that teach elementary students are also the same folks that have never liked math in the first place - or never really LEARNED it!!!  How can you instill a drive to like something in someone else when you don't in the first place?!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>himself , and just pushing along stuff that rectifies his ideas...Let 's take this another way then - if he is SOOOoooooo right - that there ought to be less math - explain how the kids from practically every other country on the planet knows more about it than ours at the equivalent age frame !
? As a current high school teacher - I can tell you one thing - if our expectations of kids were n't sooo low at that same age frame - we 'd turn out higher quality students with greater understanding , than just bodies that can regurgitate material !
/rant offMy other beef with education ?
In general ( And yes , I * AM * stereotyping now !
) most teachers that teach elementary students are also the same folks that have never liked math in the first place - or never really LEARNED it ! ! !
How can you instill a drive to like something in someone else when you do n't in the first place ? ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>himself, and just pushing along stuff that rectifies his ideas...Let's take this another way then - if he is SOOOoooooo right - that there ought to be less math - explain how the kids from practically every other country on the planet knows more about it than ours at the equivalent age frame!
?As a current high school teacher - I can tell you one thing - if our expectations of kids weren't sooo low at that same age frame - we'd turn out higher quality students with greater understanding, than just bodies that can regurgitate material!
/rant offMy other beef with education?
In general (And yes, I *AM* stereotyping now!
) most teachers that teach elementary students are also the same folks that have never liked math in the first place - or never really LEARNED it!!!
How can you instill a drive to like something in someone else when you don't in the first place?!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618988</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269518100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps PG is implying that left without early math instruction, we develop an experiential basis for dealing with mathy things that's sufficient for our younger years, and that translates well into formal math concepts at a later date. I wonder if the ancient Maya held base-20 classes in the jungle? Or did the new initiates learn by just watching the old priest-astronomer-scribes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps PG is implying that left without early math instruction , we develop an experiential basis for dealing with mathy things that 's sufficient for our younger years , and that translates well into formal math concepts at a later date .
I wonder if the ancient Maya held base-20 classes in the jungle ?
Or did the new initiates learn by just watching the old priest-astronomer-scribes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps PG is implying that left without early math instruction, we develop an experiential basis for dealing with mathy things that's sufficient for our younger years, and that translates well into formal math concepts at a later date.
I wonder if the ancient Maya held base-20 classes in the jungle?
Or did the new initiates learn by just watching the old priest-astronomer-scribes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618304</id>
	<title>Formal math?</title>
	<author>siwelwerd</author>
	<datestamp>1269514380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'Formal math'?  Please.  Kids are taught arithmetic and rote memorization.  Then, in high school, they learn how to follow some algorithms and do harder computations.  None of this has anything to do with formal math or any sort of thinking, and it's no wonder they think it's boring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Formal math ' ?
Please. Kids are taught arithmetic and rote memorization .
Then , in high school , they learn how to follow some algorithms and do harder computations .
None of this has anything to do with formal math or any sort of thinking , and it 's no wonder they think it 's boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Formal math'?
Please.  Kids are taught arithmetic and rote memorization.
Then, in high school, they learn how to follow some algorithms and do harder computations.
None of this has anything to do with formal math or any sort of thinking, and it's no wonder they think it's boring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617918</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1269512760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There are many other explanations: First in the case in question, it may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly."</p><p>Uh, that IS one of the explanations from the FA. The bottom two whole paragraphs on page 1 are devoted to recent research on that issue.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In an article published in 2005, Patricia Clark Kenschaft, a professor of mathematics at Montclair State University, described her experiences of going into elementary schools and talking with teachers about math. In one visit to a K-6 elementary school in New Jersey she discovered that not a single teacher, out of the fifty that she met with, knew how to find the area of a rectangle.[2]</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" There are many other explanations : First in the case in question , it may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly .
" Uh , that IS one of the explanations from the FA .
The bottom two whole paragraphs on page 1 are devoted to recent research on that issue.In an article published in 2005 , Patricia Clark Kenschaft , a professor of mathematics at Montclair State University , described her experiences of going into elementary schools and talking with teachers about math .
In one visit to a K-6 elementary school in New Jersey she discovered that not a single teacher , out of the fifty that she met with , knew how to find the area of a rectangle .
[ 2 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There are many other explanations: First in the case in question, it may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly.
"Uh, that IS one of the explanations from the FA.
The bottom two whole paragraphs on page 1 are devoted to recent research on that issue.In an article published in 2005, Patricia Clark Kenschaft, a professor of mathematics at Montclair State University, described her experiences of going into elementary schools and talking with teachers about math.
In one visit to a K-6 elementary school in New Jersey she discovered that not a single teacher, out of the fifty that she met with, knew how to find the area of a rectangle.
[2]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619696</id>
	<title>Re:less FORMAL math, maybe</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1269521640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a smart, but not gifted, 2nd grade son and he and I used to enjoy doing similar math puzzles. Unfortunately I really think it taught him to expect more from math than the school was prepared to deliver, and led to a great deal of frustration for him with the teacher in class. The school is pretty good for above-grade readers, just a few slip ups when the kids get books from the school library with too-mature themes for their grade level. But when it comes to math, you must be in lockstep with the curriculum. If the 3rd grade teacher is better I might try again, but for now I'm giving it a rest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a smart , but not gifted , 2nd grade son and he and I used to enjoy doing similar math puzzles .
Unfortunately I really think it taught him to expect more from math than the school was prepared to deliver , and led to a great deal of frustration for him with the teacher in class .
The school is pretty good for above-grade readers , just a few slip ups when the kids get books from the school library with too-mature themes for their grade level .
But when it comes to math , you must be in lockstep with the curriculum .
If the 3rd grade teacher is better I might try again , but for now I 'm giving it a rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a smart, but not gifted, 2nd grade son and he and I used to enjoy doing similar math puzzles.
Unfortunately I really think it taught him to expect more from math than the school was prepared to deliver, and led to a great deal of frustration for him with the teacher in class.
The school is pretty good for above-grade readers, just a few slip ups when the kids get books from the school library with too-mature themes for their grade level.
But when it comes to math, you must be in lockstep with the curriculum.
If the 3rd grade teacher is better I might try again, but for now I'm giving it a rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>Cassini2</author>
	<datestamp>1269507720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly.</p></div></blockquote><p>I tend to agree.  The overwhelming majority of elementary school teachers are neither math nor science majors.  It is quite likely the teachers don't understand the reasons for the math theory.  They just know it should be taught.  As such, they are not likely to be using approaches that relate the theory in ways that people (kids) would understand it.  <b>It is humbling to have a PhD in Engineering, and not be able to understand Grade 6 math homework.</b>  If I can't understand the lessons they are trying to teach with regards to digits and digit placement, then what chance do the Grade 6 kids have?

</p><p>On another occasion, while in first year Algebra, I vividly remember suddenly understanding key concepts from Grade 7 math.  For instance, why does one care that numbers have the distributive, associative, and commutative properties? that can be named and explained? The knowledge is not helpful until vector and matrix math is covered.  At that point, data types exist where the associative and commutative properties may or may not apply.

</p><p> <b>I'm just not sure what is the point of introducing concepts to children, without the ability to explain the reasons for the concepts.</b>  Why teach math, with no text book?  Why focus so much on obscure terminology, to the point that no one understands why you are even asking a question?  Math is about understanding why things happen.  Not wrote answers to naming conventions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly.I tend to agree .
The overwhelming majority of elementary school teachers are neither math nor science majors .
It is quite likely the teachers do n't understand the reasons for the math theory .
They just know it should be taught .
As such , they are not likely to be using approaches that relate the theory in ways that people ( kids ) would understand it .
It is humbling to have a PhD in Engineering , and not be able to understand Grade 6 math homework .
If I ca n't understand the lessons they are trying to teach with regards to digits and digit placement , then what chance do the Grade 6 kids have ?
On another occasion , while in first year Algebra , I vividly remember suddenly understanding key concepts from Grade 7 math .
For instance , why does one care that numbers have the distributive , associative , and commutative properties ?
that can be named and explained ?
The knowledge is not helpful until vector and matrix math is covered .
At that point , data types exist where the associative and commutative properties may or may not apply .
I 'm just not sure what is the point of introducing concepts to children , without the ability to explain the reasons for the concepts .
Why teach math , with no text book ?
Why focus so much on obscure terminology , to the point that no one understands why you are even asking a question ?
Math is about understanding why things happen .
Not wrote answers to naming conventions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly.I tend to agree.
The overwhelming majority of elementary school teachers are neither math nor science majors.
It is quite likely the teachers don't understand the reasons for the math theory.
They just know it should be taught.
As such, they are not likely to be using approaches that relate the theory in ways that people (kids) would understand it.
It is humbling to have a PhD in Engineering, and not be able to understand Grade 6 math homework.
If I can't understand the lessons they are trying to teach with regards to digits and digit placement, then what chance do the Grade 6 kids have?
On another occasion, while in first year Algebra, I vividly remember suddenly understanding key concepts from Grade 7 math.
For instance, why does one care that numbers have the distributive, associative, and commutative properties?
that can be named and explained?
The knowledge is not helpful until vector and matrix math is covered.
At that point, data types exist where the associative and commutative properties may or may not apply.
I'm just not sure what is the point of introducing concepts to children, without the ability to explain the reasons for the concepts.
Why teach math, with no text book?
Why focus so much on obscure terminology, to the point that no one understands why you are even asking a question?
Math is about understanding why things happen.
Not wrote answers to naming conventions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617894</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't need math...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269512640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How's the PhD in psych working out for you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's the PhD in psych working out for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's the PhD in psych working out for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616698</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia</title>
	<author>comrade.putin</author>
	<datestamp>1269508320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't bore you. Instead, by grade 2 you're doing multiplication, by grade 6 you do algebra and geometry, by grade 8 you deal with complex formulas that take you two pages to solve.<br>Then I came to America. High school was total boredom. At first, I had straight As, but I was extremely bored, causing me to find other ways to occupy my mind, like pot. I started skipping, and ultimately failing at everything I was good at. Yes, I could've done the work, but I didn't simply out of boredom. I didn't even have to spend time learning anything. I knew it all already.<br>It was a complete waste of 4 years of my life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't bore you .
Instead , by grade 2 you 're doing multiplication , by grade 6 you do algebra and geometry , by grade 8 you deal with complex formulas that take you two pages to solve.Then I came to America .
High school was total boredom .
At first , I had straight As , but I was extremely bored , causing me to find other ways to occupy my mind , like pot .
I started skipping , and ultimately failing at everything I was good at .
Yes , I could 've done the work , but I did n't simply out of boredom .
I did n't even have to spend time learning anything .
I knew it all already.It was a complete waste of 4 years of my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't bore you.
Instead, by grade 2 you're doing multiplication, by grade 6 you do algebra and geometry, by grade 8 you deal with complex formulas that take you two pages to solve.Then I came to America.
High school was total boredom.
At first, I had straight As, but I was extremely bored, causing me to find other ways to occupy my mind, like pot.
I started skipping, and ultimately failing at everything I was good at.
Yes, I could've done the work, but I didn't simply out of boredom.
I didn't even have to spend time learning anything.
I knew it all already.It was a complete waste of 4 years of my life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616986</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269509160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree wholeheartedly.  I learned how to read with my older sister when she was in Kindergarten, and picked up on all the math concepts right away when I got there (1st grade).  They actually wanted to keep me in 1st grade for a second year because, get this, since I understood everything so quickly and had to sit there bored, I behaved like any 6 year old would and goofed off...  They thought I wasn't socially ready for the next grade yet....as if boring me for another year would have helped with that?!?!</p><p>Seriously, think of the bright children.  It shouldn't be a bad thing to be smart in America....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree wholeheartedly .
I learned how to read with my older sister when she was in Kindergarten , and picked up on all the math concepts right away when I got there ( 1st grade ) .
They actually wanted to keep me in 1st grade for a second year because , get this , since I understood everything so quickly and had to sit there bored , I behaved like any 6 year old would and goofed off... They thought I was n't socially ready for the next grade yet....as if boring me for another year would have helped with that ? ! ?
! Seriously , think of the bright children .
It should n't be a bad thing to be smart in America... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree wholeheartedly.
I learned how to read with my older sister when she was in Kindergarten, and picked up on all the math concepts right away when I got there (1st grade).
They actually wanted to keep me in 1st grade for a second year because, get this, since I understood everything so quickly and had to sit there bored, I behaved like any 6 year old would and goofed off...  They thought I wasn't socially ready for the next grade yet....as if boring me for another year would have helped with that?!?
!Seriously, think of the bright children.
It shouldn't be a bad thing to be smart in America....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617234</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>virtualXTC</author>
	<datestamp>1269509940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also as someone who was better than average at math, I found my parents actually taught me everything, and math class was a waist of time until 5th grade.  Therefore, just as actual full-blown focused Science and History classes started in 5th grade (at least in my district), I'd argue math should as be a minor (but not nonexistent) part of education until then as well.<br> <br>

As someone who's mother now teaches 7th grade math (she taught history before I went to college), I can attest the curriculum is not the root cause of the problem, rather the government mandates (such as every child left behind) and standardized tests are tying the hands of teachers into teaching a certain way, thus causing the curriculum to be too rigid and boring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also as someone who was better than average at math , I found my parents actually taught me everything , and math class was a waist of time until 5th grade .
Therefore , just as actual full-blown focused Science and History classes started in 5th grade ( at least in my district ) , I 'd argue math should as be a minor ( but not nonexistent ) part of education until then as well .
As someone who 's mother now teaches 7th grade math ( she taught history before I went to college ) , I can attest the curriculum is not the root cause of the problem , rather the government mandates ( such as every child left behind ) and standardized tests are tying the hands of teachers into teaching a certain way , thus causing the curriculum to be too rigid and boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also as someone who was better than average at math, I found my parents actually taught me everything, and math class was a waist of time until 5th grade.
Therefore, just as actual full-blown focused Science and History classes started in 5th grade (at least in my district), I'd argue math should as be a minor (but not nonexistent) part of education until then as well.
As someone who's mother now teaches 7th grade math (she taught history before I went to college), I can attest the curriculum is not the root cause of the problem, rather the government mandates (such as every child left behind) and standardized tests are tying the hands of teachers into teaching a certain way, thus causing the curriculum to be too rigid and boring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620648</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1269527160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember back in kindergarten, I was playing around with paint and colours. I was making these "groups of dots", and figuring out how many dots there would be if I had all the dots in one group. I think I had 2 red dots, 6 yellow dots, and then 12 orange dots.</p><p>The teacher put me in the corner for not painting sunflowers, and for mixing the red and yellow paint.</p><p>I think it was grade 3 when I was finally taught what multiplication was. By grade 4 I was able to do a page full of questions in those mad minutes, in maybe 30 seconds - mostly limited by the speed that I wrote. It was funny waiting minutes for other people to finish. All the bullies I had to deal with in grade 3 finally stopped picking on me.</p><p>I do wonder where we'd be as a society if we didn't cater to the lowest common denominator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember back in kindergarten , I was playing around with paint and colours .
I was making these " groups of dots " , and figuring out how many dots there would be if I had all the dots in one group .
I think I had 2 red dots , 6 yellow dots , and then 12 orange dots.The teacher put me in the corner for not painting sunflowers , and for mixing the red and yellow paint.I think it was grade 3 when I was finally taught what multiplication was .
By grade 4 I was able to do a page full of questions in those mad minutes , in maybe 30 seconds - mostly limited by the speed that I wrote .
It was funny waiting minutes for other people to finish .
All the bullies I had to deal with in grade 3 finally stopped picking on me.I do wonder where we 'd be as a society if we did n't cater to the lowest common denominator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember back in kindergarten, I was playing around with paint and colours.
I was making these "groups of dots", and figuring out how many dots there would be if I had all the dots in one group.
I think I had 2 red dots, 6 yellow dots, and then 12 orange dots.The teacher put me in the corner for not painting sunflowers, and for mixing the red and yellow paint.I think it was grade 3 when I was finally taught what multiplication was.
By grade 4 I was able to do a page full of questions in those mad minutes, in maybe 30 seconds - mostly limited by the speed that I wrote.
It was funny waiting minutes for other people to finish.
All the bullies I had to deal with in grade 3 finally stopped picking on me.I do wonder where we'd be as a society if we didn't cater to the lowest common denominator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621148</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1269530880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>I'm just not sure what is the point of introducing concepts to children, without the ability to explain the reasons for the concepts.  Why teach math, with no text book? Why focus so much on obscure terminology, to the point that no one understands why you are even asking a question? Math is about understanding why things happen. Not wrote answers to naming conventions.<br></i></p><p>Because the curriculum calls for it, and the people teaching it have no clue about the concepts, so they merely teach the rote.  No, that's not a GOOD answer to why it's done, but that's essentially the reason why it happens.  Our education system feeds on itself, and the problems perpetuate themselves.  How many people that actually WERE interested in math actually become elementary school teachers?  Some, of course.  But I'll bet those people interested in math are going to either become HS or college math teachers, software developers, scientists, or engineers.  Elementary school teachers are likely going to be some of the people LEAST interested and knowledgeable about math.  You're average cashier at the grocery like knows more math than your average elementary school teacher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just not sure what is the point of introducing concepts to children , without the ability to explain the reasons for the concepts .
Why teach math , with no text book ?
Why focus so much on obscure terminology , to the point that no one understands why you are even asking a question ?
Math is about understanding why things happen .
Not wrote answers to naming conventions.Because the curriculum calls for it , and the people teaching it have no clue about the concepts , so they merely teach the rote .
No , that 's not a GOOD answer to why it 's done , but that 's essentially the reason why it happens .
Our education system feeds on itself , and the problems perpetuate themselves .
How many people that actually WERE interested in math actually become elementary school teachers ?
Some , of course .
But I 'll bet those people interested in math are going to either become HS or college math teachers , software developers , scientists , or engineers .
Elementary school teachers are likely going to be some of the people LEAST interested and knowledgeable about math .
You 're average cashier at the grocery like knows more math than your average elementary school teacher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just not sure what is the point of introducing concepts to children, without the ability to explain the reasons for the concepts.
Why teach math, with no text book?
Why focus so much on obscure terminology, to the point that no one understands why you are even asking a question?
Math is about understanding why things happen.
Not wrote answers to naming conventions.Because the curriculum calls for it, and the people teaching it have no clue about the concepts, so they merely teach the rote.
No, that's not a GOOD answer to why it's done, but that's essentially the reason why it happens.
Our education system feeds on itself, and the problems perpetuate themselves.
How many people that actually WERE interested in math actually become elementary school teachers?
Some, of course.
But I'll bet those people interested in math are going to either become HS or college math teachers, software developers, scientists, or engineers.
Elementary school teachers are likely going to be some of the people LEAST interested and knowledgeable about math.
You're average cashier at the grocery like knows more math than your average elementary school teacher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618452</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1269515040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>would not it make more sense to start explaining mathematics not from numbers but from ideas themselves and start with this idea:</p><p>a closed, self consistent set of rules can be used to create an imaginary world.</p><p>Then explain what we mean by closed, by set by self consistent and by rules.</p><p>Then start with very very small examples.</p><p>Imagine a world in a glass bubble, populated only by a preset number mosquitoes and the number does not change.<br>Imagine a glass bubble filled with mosquitoes.  They fly around randomly. That is the closed set of items.<br>Imagine that in this world there is only one rule: no more than one mosquito can occupy the same space at the same time.<br>Imagine that there are 2 things you can do in this bubble: divide the bubble into 2 or more smaller sub-bubbles and you can add mosquitoes.</p><p>Ok, so question: does the number of mosquitoes in the bubble change when they move around?  If you divide the bubble into 2 equal sub-bubbles, the total number of mosquitoes is the number in sub-bubble A added to the total number of mosquitoes in the sub-bubble B and it is equal to the number of mosquitoes in sub-bubble B added to the number of them in sub-bubble A.</p><p>One can come up with an abstract language, similar in constructs to our Math, that is simpler than Math.   I am not a mathematician, but I think explaining mathematics should include the explanation of the notion that mathematics is a language that is created as an idea, it does not necessarily correspond to any reality that we observe, it can exist only as an idea as long as a few principles apply (closed set, self consistent, minimum number of predefined operations) and that manipulating this information according to the predefined rules is what we understand as mathematics.</p><p>Prove that if the bubble is divided into 2 sub-bubbles, the total number of mosquitoes in both sub-bubbles is the same as the total number of mosquitoes in the original undivided bubble.</p><p>Prove that the shortest distance between 2 mosquitoes is a straight line.</p><p>Prove that a it only takes 3 mosquitoes to define a plane.</p><p>Prove that 0=0, 1=1, 0+1=1+0, 1+1=1+1=2.</p><p>Given a fixed number of mosquitoes in the bubble and after arbitrarily dividing the bubble into 2 sub-bubbles, find how many mosquitoes are in sub-bubble A, if there are a given number of mosquitoes in sub-bubble B.</p><p>Given a fixed number (1, 2, 3 for example) of sub-bubbles that are a 2-dimensional slice of the bubble and a fixed number of sub-bubbles that have 3 dimensions and a sub-bubble that has some specified number of mosquitoes (a constant) and knowing that the number of mosquitoes in all of the 2-dimensional sub-bubbles added with the number of mosquitoes in all of the 3-dimensional sub-bubbles is equal to the number of mosquitoes in the sub-bubble with the constant number of them , figure out how many mosquitoes are in one of the 2 dimensional sub-bubble, if you cannot, don't provide the exact number, provide a range.</p><p>Should not math start this way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>would not it make more sense to start explaining mathematics not from numbers but from ideas themselves and start with this idea : a closed , self consistent set of rules can be used to create an imaginary world.Then explain what we mean by closed , by set by self consistent and by rules.Then start with very very small examples.Imagine a world in a glass bubble , populated only by a preset number mosquitoes and the number does not change.Imagine a glass bubble filled with mosquitoes .
They fly around randomly .
That is the closed set of items.Imagine that in this world there is only one rule : no more than one mosquito can occupy the same space at the same time.Imagine that there are 2 things you can do in this bubble : divide the bubble into 2 or more smaller sub-bubbles and you can add mosquitoes.Ok , so question : does the number of mosquitoes in the bubble change when they move around ?
If you divide the bubble into 2 equal sub-bubbles , the total number of mosquitoes is the number in sub-bubble A added to the total number of mosquitoes in the sub-bubble B and it is equal to the number of mosquitoes in sub-bubble B added to the number of them in sub-bubble A.One can come up with an abstract language , similar in constructs to our Math , that is simpler than Math .
I am not a mathematician , but I think explaining mathematics should include the explanation of the notion that mathematics is a language that is created as an idea , it does not necessarily correspond to any reality that we observe , it can exist only as an idea as long as a few principles apply ( closed set , self consistent , minimum number of predefined operations ) and that manipulating this information according to the predefined rules is what we understand as mathematics.Prove that if the bubble is divided into 2 sub-bubbles , the total number of mosquitoes in both sub-bubbles is the same as the total number of mosquitoes in the original undivided bubble.Prove that the shortest distance between 2 mosquitoes is a straight line.Prove that a it only takes 3 mosquitoes to define a plane.Prove that 0 = 0 , 1 = 1 , 0 + 1 = 1 + 0 , 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 = 2.Given a fixed number of mosquitoes in the bubble and after arbitrarily dividing the bubble into 2 sub-bubbles , find how many mosquitoes are in sub-bubble A , if there are a given number of mosquitoes in sub-bubble B.Given a fixed number ( 1 , 2 , 3 for example ) of sub-bubbles that are a 2-dimensional slice of the bubble and a fixed number of sub-bubbles that have 3 dimensions and a sub-bubble that has some specified number of mosquitoes ( a constant ) and knowing that the number of mosquitoes in all of the 2-dimensional sub-bubbles added with the number of mosquitoes in all of the 3-dimensional sub-bubbles is equal to the number of mosquitoes in the sub-bubble with the constant number of them , figure out how many mosquitoes are in one of the 2 dimensional sub-bubble , if you can not , do n't provide the exact number , provide a range.Should not math start this way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>would not it make more sense to start explaining mathematics not from numbers but from ideas themselves and start with this idea:a closed, self consistent set of rules can be used to create an imaginary world.Then explain what we mean by closed, by set by self consistent and by rules.Then start with very very small examples.Imagine a world in a glass bubble, populated only by a preset number mosquitoes and the number does not change.Imagine a glass bubble filled with mosquitoes.
They fly around randomly.
That is the closed set of items.Imagine that in this world there is only one rule: no more than one mosquito can occupy the same space at the same time.Imagine that there are 2 things you can do in this bubble: divide the bubble into 2 or more smaller sub-bubbles and you can add mosquitoes.Ok, so question: does the number of mosquitoes in the bubble change when they move around?
If you divide the bubble into 2 equal sub-bubbles, the total number of mosquitoes is the number in sub-bubble A added to the total number of mosquitoes in the sub-bubble B and it is equal to the number of mosquitoes in sub-bubble B added to the number of them in sub-bubble A.One can come up with an abstract language, similar in constructs to our Math, that is simpler than Math.
I am not a mathematician, but I think explaining mathematics should include the explanation of the notion that mathematics is a language that is created as an idea, it does not necessarily correspond to any reality that we observe, it can exist only as an idea as long as a few principles apply (closed set, self consistent, minimum number of predefined operations) and that manipulating this information according to the predefined rules is what we understand as mathematics.Prove that if the bubble is divided into 2 sub-bubbles, the total number of mosquitoes in both sub-bubbles is the same as the total number of mosquitoes in the original undivided bubble.Prove that the shortest distance between 2 mosquitoes is a straight line.Prove that a it only takes 3 mosquitoes to define a plane.Prove that 0=0, 1=1, 0+1=1+0, 1+1=1+1=2.Given a fixed number of mosquitoes in the bubble and after arbitrarily dividing the bubble into 2 sub-bubbles, find how many mosquitoes are in sub-bubble A, if there are a given number of mosquitoes in sub-bubble B.Given a fixed number (1, 2, 3 for example) of sub-bubbles that are a 2-dimensional slice of the bubble and a fixed number of sub-bubbles that have 3 dimensions and a sub-bubble that has some specified number of mosquitoes (a constant) and knowing that the number of mosquitoes in all of the 2-dimensional sub-bubbles added with the number of mosquitoes in all of the 3-dimensional sub-bubbles is equal to the number of mosquitoes in the sub-bubble with the constant number of them , figure out how many mosquitoes are in one of the 2 dimensional sub-bubble, if you cannot, don't provide the exact number, provide a range.Should not math start this way?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619478</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1269520560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I honestly don't know how the US expects to maintain an adequate presences in STEM if the basic mathematics curriculum is so deficient. The notion of an able student of 18 completing 12 years of formal education without being able to differentiate seems very odd to me.</p></div></blockquote><p>The able students generally do indeed complete 12 years of formal education knowing how to differentiate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly do n't know how the US expects to maintain an adequate presences in STEM if the basic mathematics curriculum is so deficient .
The notion of an able student of 18 completing 12 years of formal education without being able to differentiate seems very odd to me.The able students generally do indeed complete 12 years of formal education knowing how to differentiate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I honestly don't know how the US expects to maintain an adequate presences in STEM if the basic mathematics curriculum is so deficient.
The notion of an able student of 18 completing 12 years of formal education without being able to differentiate seems very odd to me.The able students generally do indeed complete 12 years of formal education knowing how to differentiate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619464</id>
	<title>Re:There is more than one BC in the world...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269520500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is also more than one UT . . . what is your point? Boston College is the top Google search result for "BC." Also, the BC of comparable Google renown is the Canadian province British Columbia, which isn't exactly a university. After that Bakersfield College.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also more than one UT .
. .
what is your point ?
Boston College is the top Google search result for " BC .
" Also , the BC of comparable Google renown is the Canadian province British Columbia , which is n't exactly a university .
After that Bakersfield College .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also more than one UT .
. .
what is your point?
Boston College is the top Google search result for "BC.
" Also, the BC of comparable Google renown is the Canadian province British Columbia, which isn't exactly a university.
After that Bakersfield College.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619722</id>
	<title>I totally disagree...</title>
	<author>playcat</author>
	<datestamp>1269521700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...with just one year of math under their belts, the poor students did as well or better than students from better schools by the end of the sixth grade year..."

This is just plain old statistical data being misused and misinterpreted. At least, even if it's right, it's being used in a wrong way... Poor students might have spent more time learning hard in order to get better lives, while students from better schools (again, statistically speaking) were leading better and richer lives, paying less attention to boring stuff like math and more stuff to some more interesting subjects...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...with just one year of math under their belts , the poor students did as well or better than students from better schools by the end of the sixth grade year... " This is just plain old statistical data being misused and misinterpreted .
At least , even if it 's right , it 's being used in a wrong way... Poor students might have spent more time learning hard in order to get better lives , while students from better schools ( again , statistically speaking ) were leading better and richer lives , paying less attention to boring stuff like math and more stuff to some more interesting subjects.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...with just one year of math under their belts, the poor students did as well or better than students from better schools by the end of the sixth grade year..."

This is just plain old statistical data being misused and misinterpreted.
At least, even if it's right, it's being used in a wrong way... Poor students might have spent more time learning hard in order to get better lives, while students from better schools (again, statistically speaking) were leading better and richer lives, paying less attention to boring stuff like math and more stuff to some more interesting subjects...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617990</id>
	<title>Re:Relevance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269513060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From what I've seen, school administrators (principals up to and including district supers) are very good at latching on to (possibly useful) fads in pedagogy, but very bad at actually implementing <i>entire</i> programs; they'll go on about how important this is, and how the teachers must follow its principles, then direct them to do things contrary to it either because they don't actually understand it or because those parts are too scary.  A couple years later they'll pick some other program to get excited about and it'll start all over.</p><p>Most of them also have a damn poor understanding of the scientific process, which might explain some of the above nonsense.</p></div><p>Sounds just like the IT industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen , school administrators ( principals up to and including district supers ) are very good at latching on to ( possibly useful ) fads in pedagogy , but very bad at actually implementing entire programs ; they 'll go on about how important this is , and how the teachers must follow its principles , then direct them to do things contrary to it either because they do n't actually understand it or because those parts are too scary .
A couple years later they 'll pick some other program to get excited about and it 'll start all over.Most of them also have a damn poor understanding of the scientific process , which might explain some of the above nonsense.Sounds just like the IT industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen, school administrators (principals up to and including district supers) are very good at latching on to (possibly useful) fads in pedagogy, but very bad at actually implementing entire programs; they'll go on about how important this is, and how the teachers must follow its principles, then direct them to do things contrary to it either because they don't actually understand it or because those parts are too scary.
A couple years later they'll pick some other program to get excited about and it'll start all over.Most of them also have a damn poor understanding of the scientific process, which might explain some of the above nonsense.Sounds just like the IT industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224</id>
	<title>Set Theory</title>
	<author>Extremus</author>
	<datestamp>1269549900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>During my undergrad in CS, a professor told us that children can manage set theory more naturally than arithmetic. In his view, set theory should be more prominent in children education. He said that during a course of categories (the meta-theory of set theory).</htmltext>
<tokenext>During my undergrad in CS , a professor told us that children can manage set theory more naturally than arithmetic .
In his view , set theory should be more prominent in children education .
He said that during a course of categories ( the meta-theory of set theory ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During my undergrad in CS, a professor told us that children can manage set theory more naturally than arithmetic.
In his view, set theory should be more prominent in children education.
He said that during a course of categories (the meta-theory of set theory).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31646614</id>
	<title>Re:Relevance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269783240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a lifer in college, going on my 5th year in grad school I've come to the conclusion that the old adage needs an update.</p><p>Those who can't do, teach.<br>Those who can't teach, administrate.<br>Those who can't administrate, teach the teachers.</p><p>The most imbecilic morons on campus bar none are in the education department researching the endless combinations of experiential and experimental education.  They out bullshit anybody and can drone on for hours without stating anything besides the obvious fact that education is more effective when you use a variety of methodologies in covering the same information.</p><p>These are the people who champion anything but the status quo in a bid to elicit the massive grants that are being thrown about for education reform.  Many of them end up running their own private Utopian; in the worse sense of the word, educational experiments anywhere they can convince a few dozen parents that they can turn any child into an educational dynamo if they just do x, y and z and the government allows charter schools.  Almost none of these people have done anything more than the bare minimum of teaching to obtain their degree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a lifer in college , going on my 5th year in grad school I 've come to the conclusion that the old adage needs an update.Those who ca n't do , teach.Those who ca n't teach , administrate.Those who ca n't administrate , teach the teachers.The most imbecilic morons on campus bar none are in the education department researching the endless combinations of experiential and experimental education .
They out bullshit anybody and can drone on for hours without stating anything besides the obvious fact that education is more effective when you use a variety of methodologies in covering the same information.These are the people who champion anything but the status quo in a bid to elicit the massive grants that are being thrown about for education reform .
Many of them end up running their own private Utopian ; in the worse sense of the word , educational experiments anywhere they can convince a few dozen parents that they can turn any child into an educational dynamo if they just do x , y and z and the government allows charter schools .
Almost none of these people have done anything more than the bare minimum of teaching to obtain their degree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a lifer in college, going on my 5th year in grad school I've come to the conclusion that the old adage needs an update.Those who can't do, teach.Those who can't teach, administrate.Those who can't administrate, teach the teachers.The most imbecilic morons on campus bar none are in the education department researching the endless combinations of experiential and experimental education.
They out bullshit anybody and can drone on for hours without stating anything besides the obvious fact that education is more effective when you use a variety of methodologies in covering the same information.These are the people who champion anything but the status quo in a bid to elicit the massive grants that are being thrown about for education reform.
Many of them end up running their own private Utopian; in the worse sense of the word, educational experiments anywhere they can convince a few dozen parents that they can turn any child into an educational dynamo if they just do x, y and z and the government allows charter schools.
Almost none of these people have done anything more than the bare minimum of teaching to obtain their degree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617330</id>
	<title>No disadvantage to learning later</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About 25 years ago, I got a tutoring job with a homeschooling family I knew. One of the boys in the family, Tommy, had a very rare medical condition. He was 13 years old. Without going into detail, the most severe effect of the condition was a loss of memory. He had forgotten everything he had ever learned. He was at Kindergarten level or below in reading and math (and everything else). I worked for them as a live-in tutor for two or three days a week. I started working with him with Kindergarten-level materials, advancing through grade levels as fast as he was able to. Before the school year was over, he was at 8th-grade level in reading and math.<br>Older children who have not learned anything -- as long as they and/or their teachers haven't decided that they are incapable of learning! -- can very quickly advance up to their grade level and be no different from other kids their age who spent most of their childhood studying.<br>So I have to agree completely with those findings: children who start learning later are at no disadvantage at all after learning the material.<br>There is only one valid reason for children to start their education at a young age: so the other kids won't think they're stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About 25 years ago , I got a tutoring job with a homeschooling family I knew .
One of the boys in the family , Tommy , had a very rare medical condition .
He was 13 years old .
Without going into detail , the most severe effect of the condition was a loss of memory .
He had forgotten everything he had ever learned .
He was at Kindergarten level or below in reading and math ( and everything else ) .
I worked for them as a live-in tutor for two or three days a week .
I started working with him with Kindergarten-level materials , advancing through grade levels as fast as he was able to .
Before the school year was over , he was at 8th-grade level in reading and math.Older children who have not learned anything -- as long as they and/or their teachers have n't decided that they are incapable of learning !
-- can very quickly advance up to their grade level and be no different from other kids their age who spent most of their childhood studying.So I have to agree completely with those findings : children who start learning later are at no disadvantage at all after learning the material.There is only one valid reason for children to start their education at a young age : so the other kids wo n't think they 're stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About 25 years ago, I got a tutoring job with a homeschooling family I knew.
One of the boys in the family, Tommy, had a very rare medical condition.
He was 13 years old.
Without going into detail, the most severe effect of the condition was a loss of memory.
He had forgotten everything he had ever learned.
He was at Kindergarten level or below in reading and math (and everything else).
I worked for them as a live-in tutor for two or three days a week.
I started working with him with Kindergarten-level materials, advancing through grade levels as fast as he was able to.
Before the school year was over, he was at 8th-grade level in reading and math.Older children who have not learned anything -- as long as they and/or their teachers haven't decided that they are incapable of learning!
-- can very quickly advance up to their grade level and be no different from other kids their age who spent most of their childhood studying.So I have to agree completely with those findings: children who start learning later are at no disadvantage at all after learning the material.There is only one valid reason for children to start their education at a young age: so the other kids won't think they're stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31627384</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1269622920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly. </i></p><p>Heh, that reminds me how in the 5th grade the teacher told us that 1 m^2 has the same area as 100 cm^2.  I spent 5 minutes trying to convince her otherwise, and finally had to draw her a picture, at which point she finally understood.  And then asked me not to correct her in class.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly .
Heh , that reminds me how in the 5th grade the teacher told us that 1 m ^ 2 has the same area as 100 cm ^ 2 .
I spent 5 minutes trying to convince her otherwise , and finally had to draw her a picture , at which point she finally understood .
And then asked me not to correct her in class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it may very well have been that the math teaching was so bad in that particular case that no teaching worked better than teaching math badly.
Heh, that reminds me how in the 5th grade the teacher told us that 1 m^2 has the same area as 100 cm^2.
I spent 5 minutes trying to convince her otherwise, and finally had to draw her a picture, at which point she finally understood.
And then asked me not to correct her in class.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619732</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>zenyu</author>
	<datestamp>1269521760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>grade 1 -- addition/subtraction, multiplication tables<br>grade 2 -- addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, identifying simple series (+-*/)<br>grade 3 -- algebra, translating problems into algebra and identifying more complex series<br>grades 5-7 -- addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, identifying simple series.<br>grade 8 -- algebra again, yawn.<br>grade 9 -- calc, trig, geometry.<br>grade 14 -- calc 2 &amp; 3 (complex numbers, Lagrange, etc.), Linear Algebra, (&amp; Algorithms, Complexity, Logic)<br>grade 15 -- Probability<br>grad school -- Algorithms &amp; Complexity again, yawn</p><p>Now I did pick up math other places, mostly in computer and engineering classes. But all the excitement was in grades 1-3, 9 and 15, the times when I was actually learning enough to keep the material interesting.</p><p>Kids have no problem learning early, but the whole repetition thing that teachers go on about is bunk. You never have to be taught the same thing twice. Using the skills is different, when I took signals and systems I dusted off the calc book and reread some stuff and I then understood the material more deeply. But that was in the context of learning something new and hence was satisfying, being forced to do the same exact thing over and over again only teaches how to focus anger onto your tormentor.</p><p>My vote would be to teach arithmetic and algebra in grades 1-3, then just teach the simple sciences in grades 4-6 to re-enforce that math. Then teach real number Calculus and Probability in 7th grade, follow up with sciences that use that math in 8th &amp; 9th grade. For kids interested in it, teach the practice of math in 9th-12th grade as well as advanced math courses by paying community college tuition for them.</p><p>PS The sciences need to be taught by science teachers, I cringe every time I recall science classes taught before 7th grade. T: "Which will hit the ground first? This feather or this lead ball?" Me: "We're not in a vacuum, so I'm going to with the lead ball." T: "Well lets see! Well the lead ball hit the ground first this time and that's the wrong result, lets repeat the experiment until we get the right result!" Yes this was one of many errors in her course material, but there are just too many things wrong with repeating an experiment until you get the expected result as a way to practice "science". By the end of the lesson everyone but me saw five lights. *sigh*</p><p>PS2 Yes 1-3 were not in a normal school, but I can't image I would have bothered with math at all had I been taught maths even more slowly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>grade 1 -- addition/subtraction , multiplication tablesgrade 2 -- addition/subtraction , multiplication/division , identifying simple series ( + - * / ) grade 3 -- algebra , translating problems into algebra and identifying more complex seriesgrades 5-7 -- addition/subtraction , multiplication/division , identifying simple series.grade 8 -- algebra again , yawn.grade 9 -- calc , trig , geometry.grade 14 -- calc 2 &amp; 3 ( complex numbers , Lagrange , etc .
) , Linear Algebra , ( &amp; Algorithms , Complexity , Logic ) grade 15 -- Probabilitygrad school -- Algorithms &amp; Complexity again , yawnNow I did pick up math other places , mostly in computer and engineering classes .
But all the excitement was in grades 1-3 , 9 and 15 , the times when I was actually learning enough to keep the material interesting.Kids have no problem learning early , but the whole repetition thing that teachers go on about is bunk .
You never have to be taught the same thing twice .
Using the skills is different , when I took signals and systems I dusted off the calc book and reread some stuff and I then understood the material more deeply .
But that was in the context of learning something new and hence was satisfying , being forced to do the same exact thing over and over again only teaches how to focus anger onto your tormentor.My vote would be to teach arithmetic and algebra in grades 1-3 , then just teach the simple sciences in grades 4-6 to re-enforce that math .
Then teach real number Calculus and Probability in 7th grade , follow up with sciences that use that math in 8th &amp; 9th grade .
For kids interested in it , teach the practice of math in 9th-12th grade as well as advanced math courses by paying community college tuition for them.PS The sciences need to be taught by science teachers , I cringe every time I recall science classes taught before 7th grade .
T : " Which will hit the ground first ?
This feather or this lead ball ?
" Me : " We 're not in a vacuum , so I 'm going to with the lead ball .
" T : " Well lets see !
Well the lead ball hit the ground first this time and that 's the wrong result , lets repeat the experiment until we get the right result !
" Yes this was one of many errors in her course material , but there are just too many things wrong with repeating an experiment until you get the expected result as a way to practice " science " .
By the end of the lesson everyone but me saw five lights .
* sigh * PS2 Yes 1-3 were not in a normal school , but I ca n't image I would have bothered with math at all had I been taught maths even more slowly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>grade 1 -- addition/subtraction, multiplication tablesgrade 2 -- addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, identifying simple series (+-*/)grade 3 -- algebra, translating problems into algebra and identifying more complex seriesgrades 5-7 -- addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, identifying simple series.grade 8 -- algebra again, yawn.grade 9 -- calc, trig, geometry.grade 14 -- calc 2 &amp; 3 (complex numbers, Lagrange, etc.
), Linear Algebra, (&amp; Algorithms, Complexity, Logic)grade 15 -- Probabilitygrad school -- Algorithms &amp; Complexity again, yawnNow I did pick up math other places, mostly in computer and engineering classes.
But all the excitement was in grades 1-3, 9 and 15, the times when I was actually learning enough to keep the material interesting.Kids have no problem learning early, but the whole repetition thing that teachers go on about is bunk.
You never have to be taught the same thing twice.
Using the skills is different, when I took signals and systems I dusted off the calc book and reread some stuff and I then understood the material more deeply.
But that was in the context of learning something new and hence was satisfying, being forced to do the same exact thing over and over again only teaches how to focus anger onto your tormentor.My vote would be to teach arithmetic and algebra in grades 1-3, then just teach the simple sciences in grades 4-6 to re-enforce that math.
Then teach real number Calculus and Probability in 7th grade, follow up with sciences that use that math in 8th &amp; 9th grade.
For kids interested in it, teach the practice of math in 9th-12th grade as well as advanced math courses by paying community college tuition for them.PS The sciences need to be taught by science teachers, I cringe every time I recall science classes taught before 7th grade.
T: "Which will hit the ground first?
This feather or this lead ball?
" Me: "We're not in a vacuum, so I'm going to with the lead ball.
" T: "Well lets see!
Well the lead ball hit the ground first this time and that's the wrong result, lets repeat the experiment until we get the right result!
" Yes this was one of many errors in her course material, but there are just too many things wrong with repeating an experiment until you get the expected result as a way to practice "science".
By the end of the lesson everyone but me saw five lights.
*sigh*PS2 Yes 1-3 were not in a normal school, but I can't image I would have bothered with math at all had I been taught maths even more slowly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616736</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>S77IM</author>
	<datestamp>1269508440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  When I was in public elementary school ~20 years ago, we learned fractions in 3rd grade, and decimals and negative numbers in 4th.  By 7th grade we had algebraic formulas.  This was the highest-level math class but it wasn't super-advanced (basically the top 25\% math students -- it wasn't some top 1\% magnet school or anything).</p><p>Has math education really gotten dumbed down so much in the intervening years?  Granted the early math had a ton of memorization of times tables and I hated that part, but that will always be there.</p><p>
&nbsp; -- 77IM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
When I was in public elementary school ~ 20 years ago , we learned fractions in 3rd grade , and decimals and negative numbers in 4th .
By 7th grade we had algebraic formulas .
This was the highest-level math class but it was n't super-advanced ( basically the top 25 \ % math students -- it was n't some top 1 \ % magnet school or anything ) .Has math education really gotten dumbed down so much in the intervening years ?
Granted the early math had a ton of memorization of times tables and I hated that part , but that will always be there .
  -- 77IM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
When I was in public elementary school ~20 years ago, we learned fractions in 3rd grade, and decimals and negative numbers in 4th.
By 7th grade we had algebraic formulas.
This was the highest-level math class but it wasn't super-advanced (basically the top 25\% math students -- it wasn't some top 1\% magnet school or anything).Has math education really gotten dumbed down so much in the intervening years?
Granted the early math had a ton of memorization of times tables and I hated that part, but that will always be there.
  -- 77IM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617252</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Garble Snarky</author>
	<datestamp>1269510000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know anything about teaching young children, but I know that learning frequently requires repeated exposure. One of my graduate professors likes to chant this. Part of this may be because young children simply need the concepts explained repeatedly. Just a suggestion, I don't actually know what I'm talking about here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know anything about teaching young children , but I know that learning frequently requires repeated exposure .
One of my graduate professors likes to chant this .
Part of this may be because young children simply need the concepts explained repeatedly .
Just a suggestion , I do n't actually know what I 'm talking about here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know anything about teaching young children, but I know that learning frequently requires repeated exposure.
One of my graduate professors likes to chant this.
Part of this may be because young children simply need the concepts explained repeatedly.
Just a suggestion, I don't actually know what I'm talking about here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616348</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>lennier1</author>
	<datestamp>1269550260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So there's a mythical math month?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So there 's a mythical math month ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So there's a mythical math month?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616488</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>flitty</author>
	<datestamp>1269550740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We already are using the lowest common denominator enough,</p></div></blockquote><p>

Aaaand you just confused all of these kids.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already are using the lowest common denominator enough , Aaaand you just confused all of these kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already are using the lowest common denominator enough,

Aaaand you just confused all of these kids.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616746</id>
	<title>Less boring nor less math</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1269508500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can only get good at anything by practice and it is best to take advantage of their brains while they're still absorbing anything and everything. Schools just need to make it more interesting and fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can only get good at anything by practice and it is best to take advantage of their brains while they 're still absorbing anything and everything .
Schools just need to make it more interesting and fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can only get good at anything by practice and it is best to take advantage of their brains while they're still absorbing anything and everything.
Schools just need to make it more interesting and fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620252</id>
	<title>Math is but a language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269524640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not an educator, much less a math teacher, but I noticed a wide spread lack of perspective about the nature of math.</p><p>My argument is that math and "language" are one and the same: both are aimed at conveying certain thoughts and ideas, have "alphabet" and operations etc. One of them specializes and refines certain aspects of "language" to better serve some functions within its own domain better than the other.<br>Most kids seem to have no particular problem with "language" because the "language" taught is not abstract, it relates quite well to their everyday experience. Math teaching on the other hand, is rather abstract right from the start. I will not be surprised if a good number of teachers themselves can't explain why -1 x -1 is +1, so how can we expect them to teach abstractions to children?</p><p>Most people I know who are good at math also happen to be good at language. I am not saying anything about their vocabulary or sentence construction skills. I am focusing on the skill with which they present an argument and prove it or disprove it, as the case may be, in either math or non-math subject. This observation of mine only enforced my thinking that, at the core, both math and "language" are one and the same, and they can be taught that way, and more importantly, they should be only be taught that way.</p><p>If math were to be taught like it were a "language" with connections to real world experiences kids tend to have, I think a lot of math phobia will simply disappear.</p><p>I think there is no need for a "no math" technique but a great need for teaching "how to teach math".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not an educator , much less a math teacher , but I noticed a wide spread lack of perspective about the nature of math.My argument is that math and " language " are one and the same : both are aimed at conveying certain thoughts and ideas , have " alphabet " and operations etc .
One of them specializes and refines certain aspects of " language " to better serve some functions within its own domain better than the other.Most kids seem to have no particular problem with " language " because the " language " taught is not abstract , it relates quite well to their everyday experience .
Math teaching on the other hand , is rather abstract right from the start .
I will not be surprised if a good number of teachers themselves ca n't explain why -1 x -1 is + 1 , so how can we expect them to teach abstractions to children ? Most people I know who are good at math also happen to be good at language .
I am not saying anything about their vocabulary or sentence construction skills .
I am focusing on the skill with which they present an argument and prove it or disprove it , as the case may be , in either math or non-math subject .
This observation of mine only enforced my thinking that , at the core , both math and " language " are one and the same , and they can be taught that way , and more importantly , they should be only be taught that way.If math were to be taught like it were a " language " with connections to real world experiences kids tend to have , I think a lot of math phobia will simply disappear.I think there is no need for a " no math " technique but a great need for teaching " how to teach math " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not an educator, much less a math teacher, but I noticed a wide spread lack of perspective about the nature of math.My argument is that math and "language" are one and the same: both are aimed at conveying certain thoughts and ideas, have "alphabet" and operations etc.
One of them specializes and refines certain aspects of "language" to better serve some functions within its own domain better than the other.Most kids seem to have no particular problem with "language" because the "language" taught is not abstract, it relates quite well to their everyday experience.
Math teaching on the other hand, is rather abstract right from the start.
I will not be surprised if a good number of teachers themselves can't explain why -1 x -1 is +1, so how can we expect them to teach abstractions to children?Most people I know who are good at math also happen to be good at language.
I am not saying anything about their vocabulary or sentence construction skills.
I am focusing on the skill with which they present an argument and prove it or disprove it, as the case may be, in either math or non-math subject.
This observation of mine only enforced my thinking that, at the core, both math and "language" are one and the same, and they can be taught that way, and more importantly, they should be only be taught that way.If math were to be taught like it were a "language" with connections to real world experiences kids tend to have, I think a lot of math phobia will simply disappear.I think there is no need for a "no math" technique but a great need for teaching "how to teach math".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619678</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269521580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello, I'm a victim of New Math.</p><p>Symbolic logic is a total mystery to me.  I've failed every logic course I've ever been in.</p><p>I know my numbers, but arithmetic on pen and paper still sucks.  I hate it with a passion.  Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture.  Thank god for calculators.</p><p>What's changed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , I 'm a victim of New Math.Symbolic logic is a total mystery to me .
I 've failed every logic course I 've ever been in.I know my numbers , but arithmetic on pen and paper still sucks .
I hate it with a passion .
Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture .
Thank god for calculators.What 's changed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, I'm a victim of New Math.Symbolic logic is a total mystery to me.
I've failed every logic course I've ever been in.I know my numbers, but arithmetic on pen and paper still sucks.
I hate it with a passion.
Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture.
Thank god for calculators.What's changed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616824</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1269508800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that's a related problem of being completely unwilling to separate out different levels of achievement at early grades. It really seems sometimes that if you moved kids around properly you'd have half of the class doing calculus by 7th grade, when the rest could then start worrying about arithmetic, which is about all they'll ever need to know anyway.</p><p>Some people just don't seemed to be wired right for math, yet we insist on forcing it on them in the most boring way possible just on the outside chance that it might suddenly take and they can go on to become engineers, instead of businessmen or teachers or whatever-the-hell they actually want to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's a related problem of being completely unwilling to separate out different levels of achievement at early grades .
It really seems sometimes that if you moved kids around properly you 'd have half of the class doing calculus by 7th grade , when the rest could then start worrying about arithmetic , which is about all they 'll ever need to know anyway.Some people just do n't seemed to be wired right for math , yet we insist on forcing it on them in the most boring way possible just on the outside chance that it might suddenly take and they can go on to become engineers , instead of businessmen or teachers or whatever-the-hell they actually want to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's a related problem of being completely unwilling to separate out different levels of achievement at early grades.
It really seems sometimes that if you moved kids around properly you'd have half of the class doing calculus by 7th grade, when the rest could then start worrying about arithmetic, which is about all they'll ever need to know anyway.Some people just don't seemed to be wired right for math, yet we insist on forcing it on them in the most boring way possible just on the outside chance that it might suddenly take and they can go on to become engineers, instead of businessmen or teachers or whatever-the-hell they actually want to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616934</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269509040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For once, <i>think of the bright children!</i></p> </div><p>"Of course we could make things more challenging, Lisa, but then the stupider children would be in here complaining, furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation." - Principal Skinner</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For once , think of the bright children !
" Of course we could make things more challenging , Lisa , but then the stupider children would be in here complaining , furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation .
" - Principal Skinner</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For once, think of the bright children!
"Of course we could make things more challenging, Lisa, but then the stupider children would be in here complaining, furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation.
" - Principal Skinner
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619280</id>
	<title>Math in elementary school</title>
	<author>galadriel</author>
	<datestamp>1269519540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a BS in physics; I think that math is FUN.</p><p>I despised mathematics until 8th grade because it was endless repetition of arithmetic.  It wasn't learning, it was "do these exercises and be quiet for a while."  It certainly wasn't thinking of any kind.</p><p>Did I really need a whole year to learn addition and subtraction?  Another whole year to learn multiplication?  Another to learn long division, and one more to learn fractions?  No, not to learn how to do them, certainly not.  No one needs that much time, unless they're totally incapable of learning the concept in the first place.</p><p>And if I really needed all that time to learn arithmetic, then why could they teach me each new concept in algebra, geometry, calculus in just one or two <i>lectures</i>?</p><p>Elementary school math was mind-numbing, and I can see why so many people are so entirely turned off on math that--by the time it really IS math--they have a mental block so solid it can't be overcome.  (Especially when their first exposures to real math are through teachers that teach by further memorization, instead of teaching the concepts--but that's a different rant.)</p><p>I wholeheartedly support forgetting about math until, say, 5th or 6th grade...and teaching all of arithmetic in one year, if that.  And then MOVING ON to real math.  The way it's currently done is pretty much designed to make kids hate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a BS in physics ; I think that math is FUN.I despised mathematics until 8th grade because it was endless repetition of arithmetic .
It was n't learning , it was " do these exercises and be quiet for a while .
" It certainly was n't thinking of any kind.Did I really need a whole year to learn addition and subtraction ?
Another whole year to learn multiplication ?
Another to learn long division , and one more to learn fractions ?
No , not to learn how to do them , certainly not .
No one needs that much time , unless they 're totally incapable of learning the concept in the first place.And if I really needed all that time to learn arithmetic , then why could they teach me each new concept in algebra , geometry , calculus in just one or two lectures ? Elementary school math was mind-numbing , and I can see why so many people are so entirely turned off on math that--by the time it really IS math--they have a mental block so solid it ca n't be overcome .
( Especially when their first exposures to real math are through teachers that teach by further memorization , instead of teaching the concepts--but that 's a different rant .
) I wholeheartedly support forgetting about math until , say , 5th or 6th grade...and teaching all of arithmetic in one year , if that .
And then MOVING ON to real math .
The way it 's currently done is pretty much designed to make kids hate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a BS in physics; I think that math is FUN.I despised mathematics until 8th grade because it was endless repetition of arithmetic.
It wasn't learning, it was "do these exercises and be quiet for a while.
"  It certainly wasn't thinking of any kind.Did I really need a whole year to learn addition and subtraction?
Another whole year to learn multiplication?
Another to learn long division, and one more to learn fractions?
No, not to learn how to do them, certainly not.
No one needs that much time, unless they're totally incapable of learning the concept in the first place.And if I really needed all that time to learn arithmetic, then why could they teach me each new concept in algebra, geometry, calculus in just one or two lectures?Elementary school math was mind-numbing, and I can see why so many people are so entirely turned off on math that--by the time it really IS math--they have a mental block so solid it can't be overcome.
(Especially when their first exposures to real math are through teachers that teach by further memorization, instead of teaching the concepts--but that's a different rant.
)I wholeheartedly support forgetting about math until, say, 5th or 6th grade...and teaching all of arithmetic in one year, if that.
And then MOVING ON to real math.
The way it's currently done is pretty much designed to make kids hate it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621308</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1269532260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>However, arithmetic with pencil and paper is like pulling teeth for me. I hate it with a passion. Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture. Thank Glub for calculators.<br></i><br>A friend of mine hated long division with a passion in grade school.  He had a computer, and knew how to program however.  He wrote up a basic program to do all the long division for him.  You had to "show your work" of course to prove you didn't just use a calculator, so he wrote the logic to do that as well.  He told me he wondered if he was cheating or not, but figured that if he could write a program to show all the work, he'd mastered the concepts.</p><p>So the point being, pencil and paper arithmetic is stupid, and nobody actually does it.  If you're ever forced to do a lot of math without a calculator, you'd be smarter to just learn some shortcuts to do it in your head.  Square roots for instance can be estimated if you know some logarithms.  Knowing the tedious mechanical process for something is largely useless unless you understand how it actually works.  I've seen a lot of idiots go through their whole lives just understanding the surface of things, but never digging any deeper.  A shallow understanding is merely that, shallow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , arithmetic with pencil and paper is like pulling teeth for me .
I hate it with a passion .
Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture .
Thank Glub for calculators.A friend of mine hated long division with a passion in grade school .
He had a computer , and knew how to program however .
He wrote up a basic program to do all the long division for him .
You had to " show your work " of course to prove you did n't just use a calculator , so he wrote the logic to do that as well .
He told me he wondered if he was cheating or not , but figured that if he could write a program to show all the work , he 'd mastered the concepts.So the point being , pencil and paper arithmetic is stupid , and nobody actually does it .
If you 're ever forced to do a lot of math without a calculator , you 'd be smarter to just learn some shortcuts to do it in your head .
Square roots for instance can be estimated if you know some logarithms .
Knowing the tedious mechanical process for something is largely useless unless you understand how it actually works .
I 've seen a lot of idiots go through their whole lives just understanding the surface of things , but never digging any deeper .
A shallow understanding is merely that , shallow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, arithmetic with pencil and paper is like pulling teeth for me.
I hate it with a passion.
Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture.
Thank Glub for calculators.A friend of mine hated long division with a passion in grade school.
He had a computer, and knew how to program however.
He wrote up a basic program to do all the long division for him.
You had to "show your work" of course to prove you didn't just use a calculator, so he wrote the logic to do that as well.
He told me he wondered if he was cheating or not, but figured that if he could write a program to show all the work, he'd mastered the concepts.So the point being, pencil and paper arithmetic is stupid, and nobody actually does it.
If you're ever forced to do a lot of math without a calculator, you'd be smarter to just learn some shortcuts to do it in your head.
Square roots for instance can be estimated if you know some logarithms.
Knowing the tedious mechanical process for something is largely useless unless you understand how it actually works.
I've seen a lot of idiots go through their whole lives just understanding the surface of things, but never digging any deeper.
A shallow understanding is merely that, shallow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617886</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269512640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, just yesterday my toddler counted out the following: "Three, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Achoo, Asix, Aseven, Yay"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , just yesterday my toddler counted out the following : " Three , Six , Seven , Eight , Nine , Ten , Eleven , Achoo , Asix , Aseven , Yay "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, just yesterday my toddler counted out the following: "Three, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Achoo, Asix, Aseven, Yay"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618272</id>
	<title>Lots of waisted time</title>
	<author>cowdung</author>
	<datestamp>1269514260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's my own personal experience.</p><p>Beginning when my daughter was 3, I would play "classroom" with her. I taught her letters, later at 4 I taught her how to count and add little drawings of things to make totals. By the time she was 4.5 she could add and subtract simple numbers with symbols.</p><p>But all this was done with MAX 10 sessions of one on one 10-30 games.</p><p>Then my daughter went to preschool, kindergarten, first grade, and only in second grade did she start learning new things. (Boy they teach sooooo slowly in school and so innefficiently!!)</p><p>I don't think the idea this man had is totally crazy. It probably makes sense. Arithmetic is poorly taught (I think we can agree on that).</p><p>The real purpose of Arithmetic (and math in general) is to describe (model) things precisely. So students should be taught how to do that. First with language, later with symbolic math tools. But they must never lose site of the real purpose.</p><p>Too many students wonder "what is this good for". Math is presented very abstractly. And the algorithms of addition, subtraction, division, square root are presented by example (so the students have to guess the algorithm).. instead they should be taught how to think.</p><p>The "recitation" in the article seems to promote thinking as opposed to mechanistic thinking. So the idea is not totally kookie!</p><p>(I'll try it on my 2 year old.. and let you guys know how it went)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my own personal experience.Beginning when my daughter was 3 , I would play " classroom " with her .
I taught her letters , later at 4 I taught her how to count and add little drawings of things to make totals .
By the time she was 4.5 she could add and subtract simple numbers with symbols.But all this was done with MAX 10 sessions of one on one 10-30 games.Then my daughter went to preschool , kindergarten , first grade , and only in second grade did she start learning new things .
( Boy they teach sooooo slowly in school and so innefficiently ! !
) I do n't think the idea this man had is totally crazy .
It probably makes sense .
Arithmetic is poorly taught ( I think we can agree on that ) .The real purpose of Arithmetic ( and math in general ) is to describe ( model ) things precisely .
So students should be taught how to do that .
First with language , later with symbolic math tools .
But they must never lose site of the real purpose.Too many students wonder " what is this good for " .
Math is presented very abstractly .
And the algorithms of addition , subtraction , division , square root are presented by example ( so the students have to guess the algorithm ) .. instead they should be taught how to think.The " recitation " in the article seems to promote thinking as opposed to mechanistic thinking .
So the idea is not totally kookie !
( I 'll try it on my 2 year old.. and let you guys know how it went )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my own personal experience.Beginning when my daughter was 3, I would play "classroom" with her.
I taught her letters, later at 4 I taught her how to count and add little drawings of things to make totals.
By the time she was 4.5 she could add and subtract simple numbers with symbols.But all this was done with MAX 10 sessions of one on one 10-30 games.Then my daughter went to preschool, kindergarten, first grade, and only in second grade did she start learning new things.
(Boy they teach sooooo slowly in school and so innefficiently!!
)I don't think the idea this man had is totally crazy.
It probably makes sense.
Arithmetic is poorly taught (I think we can agree on that).The real purpose of Arithmetic (and math in general) is to describe (model) things precisely.
So students should be taught how to do that.
First with language, later with symbolic math tools.
But they must never lose site of the real purpose.Too many students wonder "what is this good for".
Math is presented very abstractly.
And the algorithms of addition, subtraction, division, square root are presented by example (so the students have to guess the algorithm).. instead they should be taught how to think.The "recitation" in the article seems to promote thinking as opposed to mechanistic thinking.
So the idea is not totally kookie!
(I'll try it on my 2 year old.. and let you guys know how it went)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616426</id>
	<title>Some basic arithmetic skills is still OK to teach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but probably can hold on with algebra till the 6th grade or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but probably can hold on with algebra till the 6th grade or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but probably can hold on with algebra till the 6th grade or so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618602</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269515880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>It is humbling to have a PhD in Engineering, and not be able to understand Grade 6 <i>spelling</i>.</b></p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>Not wrote answers to naming conventions.</p></div><p>It's 'rote' not 'wrote', fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is humbling to have a PhD in Engineering , and not be able to understand Grade 6 spelling .
Not wrote answers to naming conventions.It 's 'rote ' not 'wrote ' , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It is humbling to have a PhD in Engineering, and not be able to understand Grade 6 spelling.
Not wrote answers to naming conventions.It's 'rote' not 'wrote', fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617564</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269511200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are totally right. I actually went to a private elementary school where we were supposedly a few grade levels above the public school in math (I think we started fractions in 4th grade), and yet every year, we just kept being taught the same damn things over and over! Is there REALLY a need to still be teaching addition and subtraction in 3rd and 4th grade???  And we would have to sit in class doing the same kinds of stupid math problems over and over again, and then take more of them home for homework.<br>It wasn't just math class though. Other classes like history and science were largely the same way. You just keep learning the same stuff, but each year you might go into a bit more detail, or cover slightly different aspects of the same things. Oh, and don't get me started on spanish. I can't remember how many years we spent learning numbers, colors, and family members.</p><p>I'd wager that at least 75\% of the things learned in elementary school are a complete waste of time, because you are just being trained to forget and relearn the same things over and over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are totally right .
I actually went to a private elementary school where we were supposedly a few grade levels above the public school in math ( I think we started fractions in 4th grade ) , and yet every year , we just kept being taught the same damn things over and over !
Is there REALLY a need to still be teaching addition and subtraction in 3rd and 4th grade ? ? ?
And we would have to sit in class doing the same kinds of stupid math problems over and over again , and then take more of them home for homework.It was n't just math class though .
Other classes like history and science were largely the same way .
You just keep learning the same stuff , but each year you might go into a bit more detail , or cover slightly different aspects of the same things .
Oh , and do n't get me started on spanish .
I ca n't remember how many years we spent learning numbers , colors , and family members.I 'd wager that at least 75 \ % of the things learned in elementary school are a complete waste of time , because you are just being trained to forget and relearn the same things over and over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are totally right.
I actually went to a private elementary school where we were supposedly a few grade levels above the public school in math (I think we started fractions in 4th grade), and yet every year, we just kept being taught the same damn things over and over!
Is there REALLY a need to still be teaching addition and subtraction in 3rd and 4th grade???
And we would have to sit in class doing the same kinds of stupid math problems over and over again, and then take more of them home for homework.It wasn't just math class though.
Other classes like history and science were largely the same way.
You just keep learning the same stuff, but each year you might go into a bit more detail, or cover slightly different aspects of the same things.
Oh, and don't get me started on spanish.
I can't remember how many years we spent learning numbers, colors, and family members.I'd wager that at least 75\% of the things learned in elementary school are a complete waste of time, because you are just being trained to forget and relearn the same things over and over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622348</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>LongearedBat</author>
	<datestamp>1269543060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My girlfriend (yes, I have one) has worked with small kids for ten years.<br>
<br>
About literacy, she says that if kids start too early, before their brains are ready for literacy, they struggle to learn and develop mental blocks against literacy.  In the longterm this slows down their uptake of further litercy skills.  But if you wait 'til the kids are around 7, then they usually catch up and surpass the kids who start early.  It seems the professor is saying the same thing about math skills.<br>
<br>
Starting later is not the same as dumbing down.  If starting later means kids will learn better and faster, then perhaps the curriculum can be improved instead.<br>
<br>
Of course, not all kids are the same, and some devolop earlier, like you.  But that also means you weren't the average kid.  Kids like that could be moved up a year or be put in a "smart class".</htmltext>
<tokenext>My girlfriend ( yes , I have one ) has worked with small kids for ten years .
About literacy , she says that if kids start too early , before their brains are ready for literacy , they struggle to learn and develop mental blocks against literacy .
In the longterm this slows down their uptake of further litercy skills .
But if you wait 'til the kids are around 7 , then they usually catch up and surpass the kids who start early .
It seems the professor is saying the same thing about math skills .
Starting later is not the same as dumbing down .
If starting later means kids will learn better and faster , then perhaps the curriculum can be improved instead .
Of course , not all kids are the same , and some devolop earlier , like you .
But that also means you were n't the average kid .
Kids like that could be moved up a year or be put in a " smart class " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My girlfriend (yes, I have one) has worked with small kids for ten years.
About literacy, she says that if kids start too early, before their brains are ready for literacy, they struggle to learn and develop mental blocks against literacy.
In the longterm this slows down their uptake of further litercy skills.
But if you wait 'til the kids are around 7, then they usually catch up and surpass the kids who start early.
It seems the professor is saying the same thing about math skills.
Starting later is not the same as dumbing down.
If starting later means kids will learn better and faster, then perhaps the curriculum can be improved instead.
Of course, not all kids are the same, and some devolop earlier, like you.
But that also means you weren't the average kid.
Kids like that could be moved up a year or be put in a "smart class".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619064</id>
	<title>Re:Because Math sucks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269518400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever seen math?  Have you ever been asked to solve a math problem?  Or is it ritual computation and rote memorization that sucks?</p><p>I do think kids should suck it up and memorize the multiplication tables, but other than that most of what is taught as "math" is both useless and not what mathematicians do.</p><p>Math is about noticing an interesting pattern and saying "wow - is that always true?  If so, why?"  Learning how to determine whether something is true is the most useful skill you can learn.  Coming up with an elegant proof that something is true is like a ray of light from the heavens: "it's all so clear to me now".  Actual drugs are released by your body, as a building feeling of stress suddenly vanishes.</p><p>But instead we teach kids to add fractions.  No wonder people think they hate math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever seen math ?
Have you ever been asked to solve a math problem ?
Or is it ritual computation and rote memorization that sucks ? I do think kids should suck it up and memorize the multiplication tables , but other than that most of what is taught as " math " is both useless and not what mathematicians do.Math is about noticing an interesting pattern and saying " wow - is that always true ?
If so , why ?
" Learning how to determine whether something is true is the most useful skill you can learn .
Coming up with an elegant proof that something is true is like a ray of light from the heavens : " it 's all so clear to me now " .
Actual drugs are released by your body , as a building feeling of stress suddenly vanishes.But instead we teach kids to add fractions .
No wonder people think they hate math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever seen math?
Have you ever been asked to solve a math problem?
Or is it ritual computation and rote memorization that sucks?I do think kids should suck it up and memorize the multiplication tables, but other than that most of what is taught as "math" is both useless and not what mathematicians do.Math is about noticing an interesting pattern and saying "wow - is that always true?
If so, why?
"  Learning how to determine whether something is true is the most useful skill you can learn.
Coming up with an elegant proof that something is true is like a ray of light from the heavens: "it's all so clear to me now".
Actual drugs are released by your body, as a building feeling of stress suddenly vanishes.But instead we teach kids to add fractions.
No wonder people think they hate math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618458</id>
	<title>Re:less FORMAL math, maybe</title>
	<author>Coryoth</author>
	<datestamp>1269515100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ever since my daughter was able to speak, I've been playing games and doing things that help to "feel" math, not just know math facts.</p></div><p>I expect that will advance her mathematics no end. Quite some time ago I wrote about <a href="http://jedidiah.stuff.gen.nz/wp/?page\_id=16" title="stuff.gen.nz">the difference between mathematics and <i>facts about mathematics</i> </a> [stuff.gen.nz]: the former is important, the latter is largely all that gets taught. It's like teaching history by simply making kids do nothing memorise names and dates -- sure they can regurgitate facts well, but they have no idea what any of it means, and hence have little chance dealing with history as a more advanced subject later (and yes, I know that history is indeed taught this badly in many places). Unfortunately it takes someone who actually has a feel for and deeper understanding of mathematics to do more than mindlessly teach rote facts from a textbook, and the sort of people who have that understanding are not the sort of people who tend to go in for elementary school teaching.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since my daughter was able to speak , I 've been playing games and doing things that help to " feel " math , not just know math facts.I expect that will advance her mathematics no end .
Quite some time ago I wrote about the difference between mathematics and facts about mathematics [ stuff.gen.nz ] : the former is important , the latter is largely all that gets taught .
It 's like teaching history by simply making kids do nothing memorise names and dates -- sure they can regurgitate facts well , but they have no idea what any of it means , and hence have little chance dealing with history as a more advanced subject later ( and yes , I know that history is indeed taught this badly in many places ) .
Unfortunately it takes someone who actually has a feel for and deeper understanding of mathematics to do more than mindlessly teach rote facts from a textbook , and the sort of people who have that understanding are not the sort of people who tend to go in for elementary school teaching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since my daughter was able to speak, I've been playing games and doing things that help to "feel" math, not just know math facts.I expect that will advance her mathematics no end.
Quite some time ago I wrote about the difference between mathematics and facts about mathematics  [stuff.gen.nz]: the former is important, the latter is largely all that gets taught.
It's like teaching history by simply making kids do nothing memorise names and dates -- sure they can regurgitate facts well, but they have no idea what any of it means, and hence have little chance dealing with history as a more advanced subject later (and yes, I know that history is indeed taught this badly in many places).
Unfortunately it takes someone who actually has a feel for and deeper understanding of mathematics to do more than mindlessly teach rote facts from a textbook, and the sort of people who have that understanding are not the sort of people who tend to go in for elementary school teaching.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619350</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking for myself</title>
	<author>galadriel</author>
	<datestamp>1269519900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because there isn't anything TO understand in arithmetic.  It's just mindless drill.  Kids (heck, people, not just kids) who would do well in mathematics are turned off by mindless repetition for the sake of repetition.</p><p>One of the delights of a computer is the ability to automate mindless repetition...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because there is n't anything TO understand in arithmetic .
It 's just mindless drill .
Kids ( heck , people , not just kids ) who would do well in mathematics are turned off by mindless repetition for the sake of repetition.One of the delights of a computer is the ability to automate mindless repetition.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because there isn't anything TO understand in arithmetic.
It's just mindless drill.
Kids (heck, people, not just kids) who would do well in mathematics are turned off by mindless repetition for the sake of repetition.One of the delights of a computer is the ability to automate mindless repetition...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31633210</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>mdielmann</author>
	<datestamp>1269601200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Moreover, while it may be true that many kids aren't wired for mat, the best math students are wired for math at that age or much younger.</p></div><p>First, given that they've discovered that a dog can determine the most efficient point to enter the water to get a ball (calculus), who's to say <b>we all</b> aren't wired to do math well?  Which brings me to my supposition:  Perhaps the reason teaching math at a later age worked just as well was because most kids' brains were sufficiently developed at that point that it was simple to introduce them to concepts their brain was fully capable of handling, rather than trying to force them to figure something out that was developmentally beyond them, thus forcing them to rely on rote and memorization without true understanding to complete the course.<br>As an analogy, imagine trying to teach a baby to walk early.  Sure, you could do try, and you might even succeed.  But it would be a lot of work for the baby, he probably wouldn't like it, and it would be a huge pain for you.  But would that child be any better at walking than any of his peers by the time he was 3 years old?  Probably not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moreover , while it may be true that many kids are n't wired for mat , the best math students are wired for math at that age or much younger.First , given that they 've discovered that a dog can determine the most efficient point to enter the water to get a ball ( calculus ) , who 's to say we all are n't wired to do math well ?
Which brings me to my supposition : Perhaps the reason teaching math at a later age worked just as well was because most kids ' brains were sufficiently developed at that point that it was simple to introduce them to concepts their brain was fully capable of handling , rather than trying to force them to figure something out that was developmentally beyond them , thus forcing them to rely on rote and memorization without true understanding to complete the course.As an analogy , imagine trying to teach a baby to walk early .
Sure , you could do try , and you might even succeed .
But it would be a lot of work for the baby , he probably would n't like it , and it would be a huge pain for you .
But would that child be any better at walking than any of his peers by the time he was 3 years old ?
Probably not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moreover, while it may be true that many kids aren't wired for mat, the best math students are wired for math at that age or much younger.First, given that they've discovered that a dog can determine the most efficient point to enter the water to get a ball (calculus), who's to say we all aren't wired to do math well?
Which brings me to my supposition:  Perhaps the reason teaching math at a later age worked just as well was because most kids' brains were sufficiently developed at that point that it was simple to introduce them to concepts their brain was fully capable of handling, rather than trying to force them to figure something out that was developmentally beyond them, thus forcing them to rely on rote and memorization without true understanding to complete the course.As an analogy, imagine trying to teach a baby to walk early.
Sure, you could do try, and you might even succeed.
But it would be a lot of work for the baby, he probably wouldn't like it, and it would be a huge pain for you.
But would that child be any better at walking than any of his peers by the time he was 3 years old?
Probably not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618784</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269516900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We already are using the lowest common denominator enough<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Since it appears we're being math Nazis here, can I just add that I'm sick of the term "lowest common denominator"?  You might as well just say "1", since that's what the <i>lowest</i> common denominator always is.</p><p>Though for the record, I approve of this study...  Kids' brains radically change around the 6th grade, to the extent that all the stuff you've been trying to pound into them for the previous six years suddenly makes sense, assuming they haven't been completely turned off on math already.  I learned more math in the last 12 weeks of 8th grade than I did in the previous 7 years, and I was actually <i>good</i> at math.</p><p>There are all kinds of valuable skills and useful bits of knowledge you can teach younger kids.  Pushing too much math theory too early just takes up time you could be spending teaching them things they're actually ready to learn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already are using the lowest common denominator enough ...Since it appears we 're being math Nazis here , can I just add that I 'm sick of the term " lowest common denominator " ?
You might as well just say " 1 " , since that 's what the lowest common denominator always is.Though for the record , I approve of this study... Kids ' brains radically change around the 6th grade , to the extent that all the stuff you 've been trying to pound into them for the previous six years suddenly makes sense , assuming they have n't been completely turned off on math already .
I learned more math in the last 12 weeks of 8th grade than I did in the previous 7 years , and I was actually good at math.There are all kinds of valuable skills and useful bits of knowledge you can teach younger kids .
Pushing too much math theory too early just takes up time you could be spending teaching them things they 're actually ready to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already are using the lowest common denominator enough ...Since it appears we're being math Nazis here, can I just add that I'm sick of the term "lowest common denominator"?
You might as well just say "1", since that's what the lowest common denominator always is.Though for the record, I approve of this study...  Kids' brains radically change around the 6th grade, to the extent that all the stuff you've been trying to pound into them for the previous six years suddenly makes sense, assuming they haven't been completely turned off on math already.
I learned more math in the last 12 weeks of 8th grade than I did in the previous 7 years, and I was actually good at math.There are all kinds of valuable skills and useful bits of knowledge you can teach younger kids.
Pushing too much math theory too early just takes up time you could be spending teaching them things they're actually ready to learn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616762</id>
	<title>Math is an Experiment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Young children should experiment with math just like any other language. That's how I learned math at an early age. We teach reading without parsing sentences or describing paragraph structure. For example, it's easy to see multiplication as five beans by 4 beans, and extrapolate the theory from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Young children should experiment with math just like any other language .
That 's how I learned math at an early age .
We teach reading without parsing sentences or describing paragraph structure .
For example , it 's easy to see multiplication as five beans by 4 beans , and extrapolate the theory from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Young children should experiment with math just like any other language.
That's how I learned math at an early age.
We teach reading without parsing sentences or describing paragraph structure.
For example, it's easy to see multiplication as five beans by 4 beans, and extrapolate the theory from there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616138</id>
	<title>I didn't need math...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269549660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I graduated high school at 18 with no math, and I turned out fine.  Next year, when I turn 16, I'll be able to drive, finally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I graduated high school at 18 with no math , and I turned out fine .
Next year , when I turn 16 , I 'll be able to drive , finally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I graduated high school at 18 with no math, and I turned out fine.
Next year, when I turn 16, I'll be able to drive, finally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620442</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1269525840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I look back to my time at primary school (elementary for Americans), I always thought that we were doing the same thing over and over each year. Every school year started with set theory, which always covered unions, intersections, supersets and subsets. Then we'd move on to addition and subtraction, with the numbers gradually getting bigger. The first couple of years ended there, after that we'd move on to multiplication, and then a couple of years later division.  By the end of primary school, we might have started looking at basic statistical concepts like mean, median, mode, or maybe that came later. We may have also started solving basic algebra equations with one unknown that wasn't after the equals sign, like 2 + x = 5.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if a 10 year old with no formal mathematical background could cover all that in a year, provided that their natural curiosity had been provided for until then and numbers (and probably at least addition and subtraction of small numbers) weren't an entirely foreign concept.  In fact they might do better, as up until then they'd be used to doing everything in their head, and won't have been taught at an early age to use paper to add or subtract numbers bigger than 10.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I look back to my time at primary school ( elementary for Americans ) , I always thought that we were doing the same thing over and over each year .
Every school year started with set theory , which always covered unions , intersections , supersets and subsets .
Then we 'd move on to addition and subtraction , with the numbers gradually getting bigger .
The first couple of years ended there , after that we 'd move on to multiplication , and then a couple of years later division .
By the end of primary school , we might have started looking at basic statistical concepts like mean , median , mode , or maybe that came later .
We may have also started solving basic algebra equations with one unknown that was n't after the equals sign , like 2 + x = 5 .
I would n't be at all surprised if a 10 year old with no formal mathematical background could cover all that in a year , provided that their natural curiosity had been provided for until then and numbers ( and probably at least addition and subtraction of small numbers ) were n't an entirely foreign concept .
In fact they might do better , as up until then they 'd be used to doing everything in their head , and wo n't have been taught at an early age to use paper to add or subtract numbers bigger than 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I look back to my time at primary school (elementary for Americans), I always thought that we were doing the same thing over and over each year.
Every school year started with set theory, which always covered unions, intersections, supersets and subsets.
Then we'd move on to addition and subtraction, with the numbers gradually getting bigger.
The first couple of years ended there, after that we'd move on to multiplication, and then a couple of years later division.
By the end of primary school, we might have started looking at basic statistical concepts like mean, median, mode, or maybe that came later.
We may have also started solving basic algebra equations with one unknown that wasn't after the equals sign, like 2 + x = 5.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a 10 year old with no formal mathematical background could cover all that in a year, provided that their natural curiosity had been provided for until then and numbers (and probably at least addition and subtraction of small numbers) weren't an entirely foreign concept.
In fact they might do better, as up until then they'd be used to doing everything in their head, and won't have been taught at an early age to use paper to add or subtract numbers bigger than 10.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616592</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>boppacesagain08</author>
	<datestamp>1269507900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The majority of children need that repetition to even recall how to do basic addition, subtraction.  Do you know how many children struggle with basic arithmetic all through elementary school.  In my school district at least, there was a tiered system that seemed to work very well.  You were in an essentially randomized teacher's classroom in elementary school (out of 3 classes per grade).  Then you were split into high, medium, and low groups, and actually switched teachers for math section, even in elementary school.  Within each of these groups, there were 3-4 subtiers each with 5-8 students, except for the highest of the high, where they pretty much just sit you down with an algebra book and tell you to go to town.</p><p>As long as teachers make this sort of differentiation among students, they are all getting (in the teacher's judgement at least) the exact subject matter / practice time that they need.</p><p>I don't think your suggestion that only some students see a fraction by grade 6 is necessarily valid.  There were 8 students in my middle school class of about 300 that had a teacher shipped in from the high school to teach Algebra 1 in 6th grade, whereas there were other students that had a specialized two-year Freshman-Sophomore Algrebra 1 curriculum.</p><p>I don't know when / where you were in school, but at least in Missouri (a region not exactly known for pushing education bounds), differentiation is pretty common, in math / reading.  Science / history are another subject (pardon the pun).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of children need that repetition to even recall how to do basic addition , subtraction .
Do you know how many children struggle with basic arithmetic all through elementary school .
In my school district at least , there was a tiered system that seemed to work very well .
You were in an essentially randomized teacher 's classroom in elementary school ( out of 3 classes per grade ) .
Then you were split into high , medium , and low groups , and actually switched teachers for math section , even in elementary school .
Within each of these groups , there were 3-4 subtiers each with 5-8 students , except for the highest of the high , where they pretty much just sit you down with an algebra book and tell you to go to town.As long as teachers make this sort of differentiation among students , they are all getting ( in the teacher 's judgement at least ) the exact subject matter / practice time that they need.I do n't think your suggestion that only some students see a fraction by grade 6 is necessarily valid .
There were 8 students in my middle school class of about 300 that had a teacher shipped in from the high school to teach Algebra 1 in 6th grade , whereas there were other students that had a specialized two-year Freshman-Sophomore Algrebra 1 curriculum.I do n't know when / where you were in school , but at least in Missouri ( a region not exactly known for pushing education bounds ) , differentiation is pretty common , in math / reading .
Science / history are another subject ( pardon the pun ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of children need that repetition to even recall how to do basic addition, subtraction.
Do you know how many children struggle with basic arithmetic all through elementary school.
In my school district at least, there was a tiered system that seemed to work very well.
You were in an essentially randomized teacher's classroom in elementary school (out of 3 classes per grade).
Then you were split into high, medium, and low groups, and actually switched teachers for math section, even in elementary school.
Within each of these groups, there were 3-4 subtiers each with 5-8 students, except for the highest of the high, where they pretty much just sit you down with an algebra book and tell you to go to town.As long as teachers make this sort of differentiation among students, they are all getting (in the teacher's judgement at least) the exact subject matter / practice time that they need.I don't think your suggestion that only some students see a fraction by grade 6 is necessarily valid.
There were 8 students in my middle school class of about 300 that had a teacher shipped in from the high school to teach Algebra 1 in 6th grade, whereas there were other students that had a specialized two-year Freshman-Sophomore Algrebra 1 curriculum.I don't know when / where you were in school, but at least in Missouri (a region not exactly known for pushing education bounds), differentiation is pretty common, in math / reading.
Science / history are another subject (pardon the pun).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620350</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269525240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless, of course, you are Congress counting the deficit, in which case we return to the natural, logarithmic way of counting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless , of course , you are Congress counting the deficit , in which case we return to the natural , logarithmic way of counting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless, of course, you are Congress counting the deficit, in which case we return to the natural, logarithmic way of counting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618052</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1269513360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is this "lowest common denominator" of which you speak?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this " lowest common denominator " of which you speak ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this "lowest common denominator" of which you speak?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616272</id>
	<title>Because Math sucks...</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1269550080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Math sucks.  For the kids that are not skilled with it, like myself, math is painful.  For the kids that are more adept, waiting for the kids like me to catch up is painful.</p><p>More maturity means more coping ability for things that suck.</p><p>It's simple, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Math sucks .
For the kids that are not skilled with it , like myself , math is painful .
For the kids that are more adept , waiting for the kids like me to catch up is painful.More maturity means more coping ability for things that suck.It 's simple , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math sucks.
For the kids that are not skilled with it, like myself, math is painful.
For the kids that are more adept, waiting for the kids like me to catch up is painful.More maturity means more coping ability for things that suck.It's simple, really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616636</id>
	<title>A teacher's perspective</title>
	<author>WeirdJohn</author>
	<datestamp>1269508080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there is some merit in the Professor's claims, but there has to be caution.  Students need to be able to estimate measures, use measuring instruments, read clocks and handle money, all before age 10.  These aspects of maths are suited to activity based learning, and can easily be embedded in other subjects.</p><p>But what of the kids who have the right brains to cope with more formal material earlier?  What of the kids who cannot understand concepts such as zero or fractions without a more formal approach?  What about how the retention of number facts is higher if we can get kids to engage with drill and memorisation of tables at early stages rather than later?  How do we prevent the kids developing their own unusual understandings of fundamental concepts, because they have found a need in real life, and then we have to unwind their thinking later, because their constructed strategies only work in special cases?</p><p>I appreciate a lot of the results in maths education research.  But there has to be great caution before we reject those practices that have worked for between 100 and 2000 years in favour of ideas that one or two research projects support.  Is everything we do in classes effective?  Certainly not.  But until we can get class sizes down, better resourcing, attract more mathematicians to the teaching profession and get more individualised strategies working in the classroom we better be careful not to break what we know does work to some extent for the majority of students, even if it's not working optimally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there is some merit in the Professor 's claims , but there has to be caution .
Students need to be able to estimate measures , use measuring instruments , read clocks and handle money , all before age 10 .
These aspects of maths are suited to activity based learning , and can easily be embedded in other subjects.But what of the kids who have the right brains to cope with more formal material earlier ?
What of the kids who can not understand concepts such as zero or fractions without a more formal approach ?
What about how the retention of number facts is higher if we can get kids to engage with drill and memorisation of tables at early stages rather than later ?
How do we prevent the kids developing their own unusual understandings of fundamental concepts , because they have found a need in real life , and then we have to unwind their thinking later , because their constructed strategies only work in special cases ? I appreciate a lot of the results in maths education research .
But there has to be great caution before we reject those practices that have worked for between 100 and 2000 years in favour of ideas that one or two research projects support .
Is everything we do in classes effective ?
Certainly not .
But until we can get class sizes down , better resourcing , attract more mathematicians to the teaching profession and get more individualised strategies working in the classroom we better be careful not to break what we know does work to some extent for the majority of students , even if it 's not working optimally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there is some merit in the Professor's claims, but there has to be caution.
Students need to be able to estimate measures, use measuring instruments, read clocks and handle money, all before age 10.
These aspects of maths are suited to activity based learning, and can easily be embedded in other subjects.But what of the kids who have the right brains to cope with more formal material earlier?
What of the kids who cannot understand concepts such as zero or fractions without a more formal approach?
What about how the retention of number facts is higher if we can get kids to engage with drill and memorisation of tables at early stages rather than later?
How do we prevent the kids developing their own unusual understandings of fundamental concepts, because they have found a need in real life, and then we have to unwind their thinking later, because their constructed strategies only work in special cases?I appreciate a lot of the results in maths education research.
But there has to be great caution before we reject those practices that have worked for between 100 and 2000 years in favour of ideas that one or two research projects support.
Is everything we do in classes effective?
Certainly not.
But until we can get class sizes down, better resourcing, attract more mathematicians to the teaching profession and get more individualised strategies working in the classroom we better be careful not to break what we know does work to some extent for the majority of students, even if it's not working optimally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618632</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>meridoc</author>
	<datestamp>1269516000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's two primary reasons that math curriculum is dumbed down in the US: 1. the students who didn't get it the previous year but were "socially-promoted" anyway, and the teacher has to compensate; 2. the parents who see their kids not getting it and/or are afraid of their kids' homework and demand that all of the hard math be taken away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's two primary reasons that math curriculum is dumbed down in the US : 1. the students who did n't get it the previous year but were " socially-promoted " anyway , and the teacher has to compensate ; 2. the parents who see their kids not getting it and/or are afraid of their kids ' homework and demand that all of the hard math be taken away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's two primary reasons that math curriculum is dumbed down in the US: 1. the students who didn't get it the previous year but were "socially-promoted" anyway, and the teacher has to compensate; 2. the parents who see their kids not getting it and/or are afraid of their kids' homework and demand that all of the hard math be taken away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616702</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1269508320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think they're saying that kids don't or can't learn math early, it's that kids don't or can't learn math early the way that we try to teach it to them.  I think what they're getting at isn't so much "no math in schools" as it is that math should be a small but significant part of every other subject.</p><p>It's possible that they're right.  We know that responsible decision making is nearly impossible for most prepubescents, which is basically logical thinking, which is the basis of mathematics.  Trying over and over again to cram a subject down kids' throat that they can't understand is bound to cause problems with that subject later, and lots of research has shown that math especially is subject to the "I'm bad at math" belief leading directly to the "I'm bad at math" reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think they 're saying that kids do n't or ca n't learn math early , it 's that kids do n't or ca n't learn math early the way that we try to teach it to them .
I think what they 're getting at is n't so much " no math in schools " as it is that math should be a small but significant part of every other subject.It 's possible that they 're right .
We know that responsible decision making is nearly impossible for most prepubescents , which is basically logical thinking , which is the basis of mathematics .
Trying over and over again to cram a subject down kids ' throat that they ca n't understand is bound to cause problems with that subject later , and lots of research has shown that math especially is subject to the " I 'm bad at math " belief leading directly to the " I 'm bad at math " reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think they're saying that kids don't or can't learn math early, it's that kids don't or can't learn math early the way that we try to teach it to them.
I think what they're getting at isn't so much "no math in schools" as it is that math should be a small but significant part of every other subject.It's possible that they're right.
We know that responsible decision making is nearly impossible for most prepubescents, which is basically logical thinking, which is the basis of mathematics.
Trying over and over again to cram a subject down kids' throat that they can't understand is bound to cause problems with that subject later, and lots of research has shown that math especially is subject to the "I'm bad at math" belief leading directly to the "I'm bad at math" reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619554</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1269520860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wound up at the same place, but only after an intense high school math curriculum and remedial tutoring to fix the "wrong algebra" I was taught in grammar school (Catholic).</p><p>But US schools are required to teach to national standards tests which are designed to keep the population under-educated and easy to control.  The humans aren't inherently dumber than in Ireland, though the system apparently is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wound up at the same place , but only after an intense high school math curriculum and remedial tutoring to fix the " wrong algebra " I was taught in grammar school ( Catholic ) .But US schools are required to teach to national standards tests which are designed to keep the population under-educated and easy to control .
The humans are n't inherently dumber than in Ireland , though the system apparently is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wound up at the same place, but only after an intense high school math curriculum and remedial tutoring to fix the "wrong algebra" I was taught in grammar school (Catholic).But US schools are required to teach to national standards tests which are designed to keep the population under-educated and easy to control.
The humans aren't inherently dumber than in Ireland, though the system apparently is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616200</id>
	<title>Many kids hate math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269549840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you delay math instruction then children could become emotionally invested in school and enjoy it.</p><p>Then you spring it on them once they're comfortable.  Far better than having someone know for the rest of their life that they "suck at math'" because they weren't ready for it in 3rd grade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you delay math instruction then children could become emotionally invested in school and enjoy it.Then you spring it on them once they 're comfortable .
Far better than having someone know for the rest of their life that they " suck at math ' " because they were n't ready for it in 3rd grade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you delay math instruction then children could become emotionally invested in school and enjoy it.Then you spring it on them once they're comfortable.
Far better than having someone know for the rest of their life that they "suck at math'" because they weren't ready for it in 3rd grade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616296</id>
	<title>No no no NO!</title>
	<author>Normal Dan</author>
	<datestamp>1269550140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't take math away.  When I was a young man (preschool) I had a babysitter who tought me how to multiply using beans.  It was a very easy concept for me to learn at the time.  No, I couldn't pronounce 'multiplication', but the concept itself made perfect sense.  It wasn't until I got to at least the first grade before anyone tried to formally teach me.  You are likely teaching kids math in the wrong way.  Don't make kids to twice as much math.  Don't take math away.  Instead, try different teaching tactics.  If I can learn multiplication in a few minutes from my babysitter, surly it can't be that hard for kids to pick up at a young age.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't take math away .
When I was a young man ( preschool ) I had a babysitter who tought me how to multiply using beans .
It was a very easy concept for me to learn at the time .
No , I could n't pronounce 'multiplication ' , but the concept itself made perfect sense .
It was n't until I got to at least the first grade before anyone tried to formally teach me .
You are likely teaching kids math in the wrong way .
Do n't make kids to twice as much math .
Do n't take math away .
Instead , try different teaching tactics .
If I can learn multiplication in a few minutes from my babysitter , surly it ca n't be that hard for kids to pick up at a young age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't take math away.
When I was a young man (preschool) I had a babysitter who tought me how to multiply using beans.
It was a very easy concept for me to learn at the time.
No, I couldn't pronounce 'multiplication', but the concept itself made perfect sense.
It wasn't until I got to at least the first grade before anyone tried to formally teach me.
You are likely teaching kids math in the wrong way.
Don't make kids to twice as much math.
Don't take math away.
Instead, try different teaching tactics.
If I can learn multiplication in a few minutes from my babysitter, surly it can't be that hard for kids to pick up at a young age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617536</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>registrar</author>
	<datestamp>1269511080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong.  English language uses numbers in a logarithmic way.  The conventions "teen" "dozen" "hundred" "thousand" "thirteen hundred" and a myriad others illustrate how deeply logarithmic approximations are embedded into our language of numbers.  We automatically use an extra digit of precision for numbers starting with 1.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
English language uses numbers in a logarithmic way .
The conventions " teen " " dozen " " hundred " " thousand " " thirteen hundred " and a myriad others illustrate how deeply logarithmic approximations are embedded into our language of numbers .
We automatically use an extra digit of precision for numbers starting with 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
English language uses numbers in a logarithmic way.
The conventions "teen" "dozen" "hundred" "thousand" "thirteen hundred" and a myriad others illustrate how deeply logarithmic approximations are embedded into our language of numbers.
We automatically use an extra digit of precision for numbers starting with 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617948</id>
	<title>But not blind...</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1269512880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well I can buy, that young brains are not always best suited for specific tasks, but it seems contrary to conventional wisdom to remove math till the 6th grade. I can't imagine walking around blind in that respect till I was 12 or so.</p></div><p>Except that if you read the article, you'll notice that kids <i>aren't</i> blind about math without our formal instructions methods. Gray notes that young children have a natural affinity for the counting and value of objects at young ages... "real world math understanding", if you will... and that formal drill and theory actually retards this natural understanding. Note that in the New Hampshire experiment, the poor kids still had a better grasp of how common math works in the real world than did the formally trained kids from better schools... and this was <i>before</i> their formal math schooling in sixth grade.</p><p>He thinks that what we're doing to kids at those ages now is somewhat analogous to teaching a monkey to stack bottle caps in ascending order. The monkey may get it right through rote drilling, but has no concept whatsoever of what the exercise means. There are undoubtedly gifted children that pick up theory naturally, but at that age, they're far in the minority.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I can buy , that young brains are not always best suited for specific tasks , but it seems contrary to conventional wisdom to remove math till the 6th grade .
I ca n't imagine walking around blind in that respect till I was 12 or so.Except that if you read the article , you 'll notice that kids are n't blind about math without our formal instructions methods .
Gray notes that young children have a natural affinity for the counting and value of objects at young ages... " real world math understanding " , if you will... and that formal drill and theory actually retards this natural understanding .
Note that in the New Hampshire experiment , the poor kids still had a better grasp of how common math works in the real world than did the formally trained kids from better schools... and this was before their formal math schooling in sixth grade.He thinks that what we 're doing to kids at those ages now is somewhat analogous to teaching a monkey to stack bottle caps in ascending order .
The monkey may get it right through rote drilling , but has no concept whatsoever of what the exercise means .
There are undoubtedly gifted children that pick up theory naturally , but at that age , they 're far in the minority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I can buy, that young brains are not always best suited for specific tasks, but it seems contrary to conventional wisdom to remove math till the 6th grade.
I can't imagine walking around blind in that respect till I was 12 or so.Except that if you read the article, you'll notice that kids aren't blind about math without our formal instructions methods.
Gray notes that young children have a natural affinity for the counting and value of objects at young ages... "real world math understanding", if you will... and that formal drill and theory actually retards this natural understanding.
Note that in the New Hampshire experiment, the poor kids still had a better grasp of how common math works in the real world than did the formally trained kids from better schools... and this was before their formal math schooling in sixth grade.He thinks that what we're doing to kids at those ages now is somewhat analogous to teaching a monkey to stack bottle caps in ascending order.
The monkey may get it right through rote drilling, but has no concept whatsoever of what the exercise means.
There are undoubtedly gifted children that pick up theory naturally, but at that age, they're far in the minority.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617718</id>
	<title>Is everyone an idiot?</title>
	<author>Carrot007</author>
	<datestamp>1269511920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no that was not asking for an answer.</p><p>When will people stop saying that X is the answer?</p><p>Life aint like that.</p><p>X is good for some, Y for others. Even Q is good for some weirdos.</p><p>There is no one best way, everyone is different, what is good for one is bad for another.</p><p>Everything needs to be tailored to the individual.</p><p>The end.</p><p>Thank you for paying attention.</p><p>(sorry, think this just irked me, I liked maths and not much else when young, I also like proper maths, not where they tried to dress it up with silly stories to help me relate ane make it easier, that just madfe it harder, just fucking get to the point fool)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no that was not asking for an answer.When will people stop saying that X is the answer ? Life aint like that.X is good for some , Y for others .
Even Q is good for some weirdos.There is no one best way , everyone is different , what is good for one is bad for another.Everything needs to be tailored to the individual.The end.Thank you for paying attention .
( sorry , think this just irked me , I liked maths and not much else when young , I also like proper maths , not where they tried to dress it up with silly stories to help me relate ane make it easier , that just madfe it harder , just fucking get to the point fool )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no that was not asking for an answer.When will people stop saying that X is the answer?Life aint like that.X is good for some, Y for others.
Even Q is good for some weirdos.There is no one best way, everyone is different, what is good for one is bad for another.Everything needs to be tailored to the individual.The end.Thank you for paying attention.
(sorry, think this just irked me, I liked maths and not much else when young, I also like proper maths, not where they tried to dress it up with silly stories to help me relate ane make it easier, that just madfe it harder, just fucking get to the point fool)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292</id>
	<title>less FORMAL math, maybe</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1269550140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever since my daughter was able to speak, I've been playing games and doing things that help to "feel" math, not just know math facts.  How many bumps on a lego brick?  Can you estimate a pile of pennies?  She's dabbled with pi, exponents and binary.  It's great to hear a third grader explaining "non-negative integers" to a visiting playmate, but sad to hear the playmate struggle with something like that simple concept.   (No wonder most cultures invented "zero" so recently.)  Now we're having fun with prime numbers, and getting into factorization.  She's dinking around with Python a little bit, but it's mostly the typing skills that hold her back.  Numeracy is a lot more than facts, and at this age you have to play to learn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since my daughter was able to speak , I 've been playing games and doing things that help to " feel " math , not just know math facts .
How many bumps on a lego brick ?
Can you estimate a pile of pennies ?
She 's dabbled with pi , exponents and binary .
It 's great to hear a third grader explaining " non-negative integers " to a visiting playmate , but sad to hear the playmate struggle with something like that simple concept .
( No wonder most cultures invented " zero " so recently .
) Now we 're having fun with prime numbers , and getting into factorization .
She 's dinking around with Python a little bit , but it 's mostly the typing skills that hold her back .
Numeracy is a lot more than facts , and at this age you have to play to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since my daughter was able to speak, I've been playing games and doing things that help to "feel" math, not just know math facts.
How many bumps on a lego brick?
Can you estimate a pile of pennies?
She's dabbled with pi, exponents and binary.
It's great to hear a third grader explaining "non-negative integers" to a visiting playmate, but sad to hear the playmate struggle with something like that simple concept.
(No wonder most cultures invented "zero" so recently.
)  Now we're having fun with prime numbers, and getting into factorization.
She's dinking around with Python a little bit, but it's mostly the typing skills that hold her back.
Numeracy is a lot more than facts, and at this age you have to play to learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617106</id>
	<title>Yeah, right...</title>
	<author>pastafazou</author>
	<datestamp>1269509460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the "professor" should try studying asian school systems, instead of school systems from last century.  Why are Korean/Chinese/Japanese kids doing North American grade 5 math in grade 1?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the " professor " should try studying asian school systems , instead of school systems from last century .
Why are Korean/Chinese/Japanese kids doing North American grade 5 math in grade 1 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the "professor" should try studying asian school systems, instead of school systems from last century.
Why are Korean/Chinese/Japanese kids doing North American grade 5 math in grade 1?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618108</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1269513600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>grade 1-3 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes (passed off as geometry)<br>grade 4-6 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes, might see a fraction by grade 6<br>grade 6-8 - all of the above, fractions, simple geometry.</p><p>Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra.</p></div></blockquote><p>Having read this, it doesn't surprise me that the students who took no mathematics were able to catch up so fast. You hardly did anything at all.</p><p>OK, attempting to jury rigging the K-12 system around the one over here (Ireland), this is how I remember things going(My memory is fuzzy and I wasn't keeping a record at the time. But I think this is fairly representative.).</p><p>grades -1,0 - naming numbers 1-10, possibly some teens. Very basic addition. Shapes.<br>grades 1-2 - General addition, subtraction. Introduction of base number system, unit, tens, hundreds, etc. (Fractions?) Multiplication. Times table, perhaps basic geometry.<br>grades 3-4 - More times tables. Fractions I presume. Division. Decimals. Long division. More geometry.<br>grades 5-6 - More decimals. More long division. More geometry(Pi gets badly introduced here). (square roots?). Word problems.</p><p>grade 7 - Basic algebra. Exponents. Co-ordinate geometry. Set Theory. Euclidean Geometry. Polynomial Long Division. Simultaneous linear equations.<br>grades 8-9 -  Functions. Basic Trigonometry. Quadratic equations. Basic Statistics. Logarithms. Even more Euclidean Geometry. (Differentiation?)</p><p>grades (10)-11-12 - Complex numbers. Coordinate Trigonometry. Vectors. Differential Calculus. Integration. Binomial Expansions. Probability. More statistics. Matrices.</p><p>And my understanding is that what I is somewhat less than that done in the English GCSEs, and apparently pales in comparision to the mathematics curricula in Russia and post Soviet states. I honestly don't know how the US expects to maintain an adequate presences in STEM if the basic mathematics curriculum is so deficient. The notion of an able student of 18 completing 12 years of formal education without being able to differentiate seems very odd to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>grade 1-3 - addition , subtraction , basic shapes ( passed off as geometry ) grade 4-6 - addition , subtraction , basic shapes , might see a fraction by grade 6grade 6-8 - all of the above , fractions , simple geometry.Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra.Having read this , it does n't surprise me that the students who took no mathematics were able to catch up so fast .
You hardly did anything at all.OK , attempting to jury rigging the K-12 system around the one over here ( Ireland ) , this is how I remember things going ( My memory is fuzzy and I was n't keeping a record at the time .
But I think this is fairly representative .
) .grades -1,0 - naming numbers 1-10 , possibly some teens .
Very basic addition .
Shapes.grades 1-2 - General addition , subtraction .
Introduction of base number system , unit , tens , hundreds , etc .
( Fractions ? ) Multiplication .
Times table , perhaps basic geometry.grades 3-4 - More times tables .
Fractions I presume .
Division. Decimals .
Long division .
More geometry.grades 5-6 - More decimals .
More long division .
More geometry ( Pi gets badly introduced here ) .
( square roots ? ) .
Word problems.grade 7 - Basic algebra .
Exponents. Co-ordinate geometry .
Set Theory .
Euclidean Geometry .
Polynomial Long Division .
Simultaneous linear equations.grades 8-9 - Functions .
Basic Trigonometry .
Quadratic equations .
Basic Statistics .
Logarithms. Even more Euclidean Geometry .
( Differentiation ? ) grades ( 10 ) -11-12 - Complex numbers .
Coordinate Trigonometry .
Vectors. Differential Calculus .
Integration. Binomial Expansions .
Probability. More statistics .
Matrices.And my understanding is that what I is somewhat less than that done in the English GCSEs , and apparently pales in comparision to the mathematics curricula in Russia and post Soviet states .
I honestly do n't know how the US expects to maintain an adequate presences in STEM if the basic mathematics curriculum is so deficient .
The notion of an able student of 18 completing 12 years of formal education without being able to differentiate seems very odd to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>grade 1-3 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes (passed off as geometry)grade 4-6 - addition, subtraction, basic shapes, might see a fraction by grade 6grade 6-8 - all of the above, fractions, simple geometry.Then in grade 8-9 where they start to introduce simple algebra.Having read this, it doesn't surprise me that the students who took no mathematics were able to catch up so fast.
You hardly did anything at all.OK, attempting to jury rigging the K-12 system around the one over here (Ireland), this is how I remember things going(My memory is fuzzy and I wasn't keeping a record at the time.
But I think this is fairly representative.
).grades -1,0 - naming numbers 1-10, possibly some teens.
Very basic addition.
Shapes.grades 1-2 - General addition, subtraction.
Introduction of base number system, unit, tens, hundreds, etc.
(Fractions?) Multiplication.
Times table, perhaps basic geometry.grades 3-4 - More times tables.
Fractions I presume.
Division. Decimals.
Long division.
More geometry.grades 5-6 - More decimals.
More long division.
More geometry(Pi gets badly introduced here).
(square roots?).
Word problems.grade 7 - Basic algebra.
Exponents. Co-ordinate geometry.
Set Theory.
Euclidean Geometry.
Polynomial Long Division.
Simultaneous linear equations.grades 8-9 -  Functions.
Basic Trigonometry.
Quadratic equations.
Basic Statistics.
Logarithms. Even more Euclidean Geometry.
(Differentiation?)grades (10)-11-12 - Complex numbers.
Coordinate Trigonometry.
Vectors. Differential Calculus.
Integration. Binomial Expansions.
Probability. More statistics.
Matrices.And my understanding is that what I is somewhat less than that done in the English GCSEs, and apparently pales in comparision to the mathematics curricula in Russia and post Soviet states.
I honestly don't know how the US expects to maintain an adequate presences in STEM if the basic mathematics curriculum is so deficient.
The notion of an able student of 18 completing 12 years of formal education without being able to differentiate seems very odd to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616382</id>
	<title>Instructor quality</title>
	<author>ciaohound</author>
	<datestamp>1269550440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really a surprise, if the math instruction that you eliminate is poor to begin with.  From the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>The school that Kenschaft visited happened to be in a very poor district, with mostly African American kids, so at first she figured that the worst teachers must have been assigned to that school, and she theorized that this was why African Americans do even more poorly than white Americans on math tests. But then she went into some schools in wealthy districts, with mostly white kids, and found that the mathematics knowledge of teachers there was equally pathetic.</p></div></blockquote><p>Finding good math teachers is a challenge, in my experience.  In the US, most elementary teachers are not really "math" teachers, and mathematicians aren't necessarily good teachers.  My four-year-old son attended a Montessori preschool and I was amazed at the math that they were teaching him -- amazingly good.  I believe it conferred numeracy that will serve him well for the rest of his life.  Full disclosure:  I teach high school math.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really a surprise , if the math instruction that you eliminate is poor to begin with .
From the article : The school that Kenschaft visited happened to be in a very poor district , with mostly African American kids , so at first she figured that the worst teachers must have been assigned to that school , and she theorized that this was why African Americans do even more poorly than white Americans on math tests .
But then she went into some schools in wealthy districts , with mostly white kids , and found that the mathematics knowledge of teachers there was equally pathetic.Finding good math teachers is a challenge , in my experience .
In the US , most elementary teachers are not really " math " teachers , and mathematicians are n't necessarily good teachers .
My four-year-old son attended a Montessori preschool and I was amazed at the math that they were teaching him -- amazingly good .
I believe it conferred numeracy that will serve him well for the rest of his life .
Full disclosure : I teach high school math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really a surprise, if the math instruction that you eliminate is poor to begin with.
From the article:The school that Kenschaft visited happened to be in a very poor district, with mostly African American kids, so at first she figured that the worst teachers must have been assigned to that school, and she theorized that this was why African Americans do even more poorly than white Americans on math tests.
But then she went into some schools in wealthy districts, with mostly white kids, and found that the mathematics knowledge of teachers there was equally pathetic.Finding good math teachers is a challenge, in my experience.
In the US, most elementary teachers are not really "math" teachers, and mathematicians aren't necessarily good teachers.
My four-year-old son attended a Montessori preschool and I was amazed at the math that they were teaching him -- amazingly good.
I believe it conferred numeracy that will serve him well for the rest of his life.
Full disclosure:  I teach high school math.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616816</id>
	<title>Lockhart's Lament</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf</p><p>Bad math teaching is epidemic.  Very few primary and secondary math teachers are actually mathematicians, and most of them don't even know *what math is*.  They don't teach math, they teach a curricularithmetic</p><p>Is it any surprise they are utterly incapable of teaching it in an interesting way?  Entire generations of students are being turned off of math by these bad teachers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdfBad math teaching is epidemic .
Very few primary and secondary math teachers are actually mathematicians , and most of them do n't even know * what math is * .
They do n't teach math , they teach a curricularithmeticIs it any surprise they are utterly incapable of teaching it in an interesting way ?
Entire generations of students are being turned off of math by these bad teachers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdfBad math teaching is epidemic.
Very few primary and secondary math teachers are actually mathematicians, and most of them don't even know *what math is*.
They don't teach math, they teach a curricularithmeticIs it any surprise they are utterly incapable of teaching it in an interesting way?
Entire generations of students are being turned off of math by these bad teachers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31627632</id>
	<title>The USA is no good at Math anyhow!</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1269623760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets face it-  how can a country be any good at math, when it has been shown time and again, that fully 50\% of their population have IQs of under 100 !  <br>
THIS is an established fact!<br>
You want "citations, please?"  Well, I got lots of 'em!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets face it- how can a country be any good at math , when it has been shown time and again , that fully 50 \ % of their population have IQs of under 100 !
THIS is an established fact !
You want " citations , please ?
" Well , I got lots of 'em !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets face it-  how can a country be any good at math, when it has been shown time and again, that fully 50\% of their population have IQs of under 100 !
THIS is an established fact!
You want "citations, please?
"  Well, I got lots of 'em!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616926</id>
	<title>Multiplication?</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1269509040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're probably wrong...mostly because you forgot multiplication and division.  Here was my actual school curriculum through "High School" (in that, while I was in HS, I was taking courses through a local University math program.)</p><p>1) Counting.  Numbers.<br>2) Simple Addition/subtraction<br>3) Regrouping/ simple multiplication<br>4) Fractions/2 digit multiplication<br>5) Multidigit division with remainders<br>6) Pre-algebra<br>7) Algebra 1/2<br>8) Geometry / Trigonometry<br>9) Statistics / Pre-calc<br>10) Calculus A/B<br>11) Calculus C/Differential Equations</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're probably wrong...mostly because you forgot multiplication and division .
Here was my actual school curriculum through " High School " ( in that , while I was in HS , I was taking courses through a local University math program .
) 1 ) Counting .
Numbers.2 ) Simple Addition/subtraction3 ) Regrouping/ simple multiplication4 ) Fractions/2 digit multiplication5 ) Multidigit division with remainders6 ) Pre-algebra7 ) Algebra 1/28 ) Geometry / Trigonometry9 ) Statistics / Pre-calc10 ) Calculus A/B11 ) Calculus C/Differential Equations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're probably wrong...mostly because you forgot multiplication and division.
Here was my actual school curriculum through "High School" (in that, while I was in HS, I was taking courses through a local University math program.
)1) Counting.
Numbers.2) Simple Addition/subtraction3) Regrouping/ simple multiplication4) Fractions/2 digit multiplication5) Multidigit division with remainders6) Pre-algebra7) Algebra 1/28) Geometry / Trigonometry9) Statistics / Pre-calc10) Calculus A/B11) Calculus C/Differential Equations</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616856</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>Dan Ost</author>
	<datestamp>1269508860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way I remember it:<br>Kindergarten and grade 1: simple counting, basic shapes<br>grade 2: addition and subtraction<br>grade 3-4: multiplication and long division with remainder<br>grade 5-6: decimals, fractions, and pre-pre-algebra<br>grade 7: pre-algebra (manipulating equations to solve for a variable)<br>grade 8: algebra (formal proofs)<br>grade 9-12: geometry, algebra II, statistics, trigonometry, and pre-calc (limits and basic derivatives)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I remember it : Kindergarten and grade 1 : simple counting , basic shapesgrade 2 : addition and subtractiongrade 3-4 : multiplication and long division with remaindergrade 5-6 : decimals , fractions , and pre-pre-algebragrade 7 : pre-algebra ( manipulating equations to solve for a variable ) grade 8 : algebra ( formal proofs ) grade 9-12 : geometry , algebra II , statistics , trigonometry , and pre-calc ( limits and basic derivatives )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I remember it:Kindergarten and grade 1: simple counting, basic shapesgrade 2: addition and subtractiongrade 3-4: multiplication and long division with remaindergrade 5-6: decimals, fractions, and pre-pre-algebragrade 7: pre-algebra (manipulating equations to solve for a variable)grade 8: algebra (formal proofs)grade 9-12: geometry, algebra II, statistics, trigonometry, and pre-calc (limits and basic derivatives)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31624110</id>
	<title>The elementary school math curriculum is TERRIBLE.</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1269606960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The elementary school math curriculum, at least in the US, is worse than useless.  In the first place, it teaches precious little actual math.  It does cover the concepts of defined order, addition, place value, and multiplication.  Occasionally they throw in a short unit that covers some other stuff (like, say, the names of simple geometric shapes), but that's over in a couple of weeks and then you're back to the grindstone studying multi-column multiplication again.<br><br>The worse problem, though, is what the curriculum teaches inadvertently.  Specifically, it teaches kids to *hate* anything that's called "math", for the rest of their lives.<br><br>Here, kids, here's a three-page worksheet that makes you repeat the same four or five steps over and over and over again.  You'll be bored by the third problem on the first page, but please make sure you finish the whole thing.  Tomorrow we'll give you another one just like it.  We'll be practicing this *particular* set of four or five steps over and over again like this for four or five months, and then we'll move on to another very similar set of four or five steps.  Next year you'll go through both of them again for several months each.  Isn't that exciting?<br><br>Give me a stack of six gradeschool math books, one for each grade starting with kindergarten, and let me tear out the pages that serve no useful purpose.  I'll give you back about nine months' worth of mediocre curriculum, maybe twelve months tops.  The rest is pointless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The elementary school math curriculum , at least in the US , is worse than useless .
In the first place , it teaches precious little actual math .
It does cover the concepts of defined order , addition , place value , and multiplication .
Occasionally they throw in a short unit that covers some other stuff ( like , say , the names of simple geometric shapes ) , but that 's over in a couple of weeks and then you 're back to the grindstone studying multi-column multiplication again.The worse problem , though , is what the curriculum teaches inadvertently .
Specifically , it teaches kids to * hate * anything that 's called " math " , for the rest of their lives.Here , kids , here 's a three-page worksheet that makes you repeat the same four or five steps over and over and over again .
You 'll be bored by the third problem on the first page , but please make sure you finish the whole thing .
Tomorrow we 'll give you another one just like it .
We 'll be practicing this * particular * set of four or five steps over and over again like this for four or five months , and then we 'll move on to another very similar set of four or five steps .
Next year you 'll go through both of them again for several months each .
Is n't that exciting ? Give me a stack of six gradeschool math books , one for each grade starting with kindergarten , and let me tear out the pages that serve no useful purpose .
I 'll give you back about nine months ' worth of mediocre curriculum , maybe twelve months tops .
The rest is pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The elementary school math curriculum, at least in the US, is worse than useless.
In the first place, it teaches precious little actual math.
It does cover the concepts of defined order, addition, place value, and multiplication.
Occasionally they throw in a short unit that covers some other stuff (like, say, the names of simple geometric shapes), but that's over in a couple of weeks and then you're back to the grindstone studying multi-column multiplication again.The worse problem, though, is what the curriculum teaches inadvertently.
Specifically, it teaches kids to *hate* anything that's called "math", for the rest of their lives.Here, kids, here's a three-page worksheet that makes you repeat the same four or five steps over and over and over again.
You'll be bored by the third problem on the first page, but please make sure you finish the whole thing.
Tomorrow we'll give you another one just like it.
We'll be practicing this *particular* set of four or five steps over and over again like this for four or five months, and then we'll move on to another very similar set of four or five steps.
Next year you'll go through both of them again for several months each.
Isn't that exciting?Give me a stack of six gradeschool math books, one for each grade starting with kindergarten, and let me tear out the pages that serve no useful purpose.
I'll give you back about nine months' worth of mediocre curriculum, maybe twelve months tops.
The rest is pointless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621320</id>
	<title>Piaget's 4th Stage of Cognitive Development</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1269532320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy in TFA is a developmental psychologist. He's saying a little, but not much, more than Jean Piaget, the patron saint of "child" psychology. Piaget <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean\_Piaget" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean\_Piaget</a> [wikipedia.org] posited there are 4 stages to cognitive development. The 4th stage ('formal') starts at age 11 to 13 (or adolescence depending on who you read) and is when the mind acquires the ability to abstract, hypothesize and deduce. Both these guys are right, before this kids can play around with numbers and can be taught to jump through hoops that appear as if they're understanding abstract maths, but they can't really. There are concrete maths they can learn, essentially a single equation at a time using +, -, * and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. A kid can help mom making cakes by getting out two eggs until she says 'I think I'll make two cakes' and the kid gets two eggs and two eggs. The 'three R's' remain intact, as long as the third is 'rithmatic and not that poorly conceived and terribly executed attempt to teach arithmetic by using algebra as the vehicle, known as "new math". You can make kids do stuff (hell, you can make chickens play basketball, right Dr. Skinner?), but you can't make them understand stuff until they're able, so you might as well make better use of the time than to try.</p><p>Had he not been so taken with observing so many different things and not theorizing too in depth about most of them, a contemporary of Piaget's who also used his own children as his "lab", came to some of the same conclusions and would probably have done far more. Unfortunately, when it came time for him to make his mark, those around him saw to it that he penned his treatise on evolution rather than developmental psychology. Though not particularly directly related, at least Darwin got to make him mark on psychology by being credited for the essential ideas which got built up into evolutionary psychology. Darwin did in fact note that his children could use but could not understand certain abstract concepts before a certain age, years before Piaget observed and wrote on the same thing. They said these about 120 and 80 years respectively before the guy in TFA said pretty much the same with the additional "so stop it". Brave man. I wonder if the parents of any school children know where he lives? They're the ones that won't be convinced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy in TFA is a developmental psychologist .
He 's saying a little , but not much , more than Jean Piaget , the patron saint of " child " psychology .
Piaget http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean \ _Piaget [ wikipedia.org ] posited there are 4 stages to cognitive development .
The 4th stage ( 'formal ' ) starts at age 11 to 13 ( or adolescence depending on who you read ) and is when the mind acquires the ability to abstract , hypothesize and deduce .
Both these guys are right , before this kids can play around with numbers and can be taught to jump through hoops that appear as if they 're understanding abstract maths , but they ca n't really .
There are concrete maths they can learn , essentially a single equation at a time using + , - , * and / .
A kid can help mom making cakes by getting out two eggs until she says 'I think I 'll make two cakes ' and the kid gets two eggs and two eggs .
The 'three R 's ' remain intact , as long as the third is 'rithmatic and not that poorly conceived and terribly executed attempt to teach arithmetic by using algebra as the vehicle , known as " new math " .
You can make kids do stuff ( hell , you can make chickens play basketball , right Dr .
Skinner ? ) , but you ca n't make them understand stuff until they 're able , so you might as well make better use of the time than to try.Had he not been so taken with observing so many different things and not theorizing too in depth about most of them , a contemporary of Piaget 's who also used his own children as his " lab " , came to some of the same conclusions and would probably have done far more .
Unfortunately , when it came time for him to make his mark , those around him saw to it that he penned his treatise on evolution rather than developmental psychology .
Though not particularly directly related , at least Darwin got to make him mark on psychology by being credited for the essential ideas which got built up into evolutionary psychology .
Darwin did in fact note that his children could use but could not understand certain abstract concepts before a certain age , years before Piaget observed and wrote on the same thing .
They said these about 120 and 80 years respectively before the guy in TFA said pretty much the same with the additional " so stop it " .
Brave man .
I wonder if the parents of any school children know where he lives ?
They 're the ones that wo n't be convinced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy in TFA is a developmental psychologist.
He's saying a little, but not much, more than Jean Piaget, the patron saint of "child" psychology.
Piaget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean\_Piaget [wikipedia.org] posited there are 4 stages to cognitive development.
The 4th stage ('formal') starts at age 11 to 13 (or adolescence depending on who you read) and is when the mind acquires the ability to abstract, hypothesize and deduce.
Both these guys are right, before this kids can play around with numbers and can be taught to jump through hoops that appear as if they're understanding abstract maths, but they can't really.
There are concrete maths they can learn, essentially a single equation at a time using +, -, * and /.
A kid can help mom making cakes by getting out two eggs until she says 'I think I'll make two cakes' and the kid gets two eggs and two eggs.
The 'three R's' remain intact, as long as the third is 'rithmatic and not that poorly conceived and terribly executed attempt to teach arithmetic by using algebra as the vehicle, known as "new math".
You can make kids do stuff (hell, you can make chickens play basketball, right Dr.
Skinner?), but you can't make them understand stuff until they're able, so you might as well make better use of the time than to try.Had he not been so taken with observing so many different things and not theorizing too in depth about most of them, a contemporary of Piaget's who also used his own children as his "lab", came to some of the same conclusions and would probably have done far more.
Unfortunately, when it came time for him to make his mark, those around him saw to it that he penned his treatise on evolution rather than developmental psychology.
Though not particularly directly related, at least Darwin got to make him mark on psychology by being credited for the essential ideas which got built up into evolutionary psychology.
Darwin did in fact note that his children could use but could not understand certain abstract concepts before a certain age, years before Piaget observed and wrote on the same thing.
They said these about 120 and 80 years respectively before the guy in TFA said pretty much the same with the additional "so stop it".
Brave man.
I wonder if the parents of any school children know where he lives?
They're the ones that won't be convinced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616310</id>
	<title>How about informal math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where you turn up for class wearing whatever you like, whenever you like.</p><p>BTW where I come from, the subject "Mathematics" was abreviated as "Maths" (since it is plural.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where you turn up for class wearing whatever you like , whenever you like.BTW where I come from , the subject " Mathematics " was abreviated as " Maths " ( since it is plural .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where you turn up for class wearing whatever you like, whenever you like.BTW where I come from, the subject "Mathematics" was abreviated as "Maths" (since it is plural.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618932</id>
	<title>So what's this guy's IQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269517680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, really smart people don't go into psychology. They just don't. I can look at the 40-yr old psychologists (including profs) I know now and remember how they were doing back in high school and college. Stars they most definitely were not - at any subject.<br>So I always find it a little unconvincing when a psychology prof waxes eloquent about how math should be taught. Since they never particularly understood the field themselves, why exactly should I buy their theories? Is it because they subsequently spent several years taking the very easiest courses the university had to offer? Or is it because they get fame and fortune by saying something controversial, even if it's utter BS. I'm a professional mathematician. My 6 year old daughter is now getting pretty comfortable with algebra. I'd lay a wager she'll be outperforming this dude's kids in 20 years time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , really smart people do n't go into psychology .
They just do n't .
I can look at the 40-yr old psychologists ( including profs ) I know now and remember how they were doing back in high school and college .
Stars they most definitely were not - at any subject.So I always find it a little unconvincing when a psychology prof waxes eloquent about how math should be taught .
Since they never particularly understood the field themselves , why exactly should I buy their theories ?
Is it because they subsequently spent several years taking the very easiest courses the university had to offer ?
Or is it because they get fame and fortune by saying something controversial , even if it 's utter BS .
I 'm a professional mathematician .
My 6 year old daughter is now getting pretty comfortable with algebra .
I 'd lay a wager she 'll be outperforming this dude 's kids in 20 years time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, really smart people don't go into psychology.
They just don't.
I can look at the 40-yr old psychologists (including profs) I know now and remember how they were doing back in high school and college.
Stars they most definitely were not - at any subject.So I always find it a little unconvincing when a psychology prof waxes eloquent about how math should be taught.
Since they never particularly understood the field themselves, why exactly should I buy their theories?
Is it because they subsequently spent several years taking the very easiest courses the university had to offer?
Or is it because they get fame and fortune by saying something controversial, even if it's utter BS.
I'm a professional mathematician.
My 6 year old daughter is now getting pretty comfortable with algebra.
I'd lay a wager she'll be outperforming this dude's kids in 20 years time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616720</id>
	<title>Re:Instructor quality</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1269508380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the issue is one of supply and demand.</p><p>If you're good at math you have access to lots of fields that pay really well (engineering, science, and even applied stuff like accounting).  Those who go into teaching are probably those who really love teaching.  Since there are so few, the good ones tend to end up at the secondary level.  Plus, at the primary levels teachers tend to be generalists anyway.</p><p>There is also seems to be a correlation between skills in math/science/etc and personality, which probably also leads many in these fields to avoid teaching.</p><p>Mix in kids who don't really want to be there, and you have very little incentive for anybody to go into this field.</p><p>If you do moderately well in the sciences in college and take the right courses you could probably get secondary certification in chemistry, biology, and physics.  I suspect you could easily have guaranteed employment for life that way - assuming that you're willing to live with a mediocre paycheck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the issue is one of supply and demand.If you 're good at math you have access to lots of fields that pay really well ( engineering , science , and even applied stuff like accounting ) .
Those who go into teaching are probably those who really love teaching .
Since there are so few , the good ones tend to end up at the secondary level .
Plus , at the primary levels teachers tend to be generalists anyway.There is also seems to be a correlation between skills in math/science/etc and personality , which probably also leads many in these fields to avoid teaching.Mix in kids who do n't really want to be there , and you have very little incentive for anybody to go into this field.If you do moderately well in the sciences in college and take the right courses you could probably get secondary certification in chemistry , biology , and physics .
I suspect you could easily have guaranteed employment for life that way - assuming that you 're willing to live with a mediocre paycheck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the issue is one of supply and demand.If you're good at math you have access to lots of fields that pay really well (engineering, science, and even applied stuff like accounting).
Those who go into teaching are probably those who really love teaching.
Since there are so few, the good ones tend to end up at the secondary level.
Plus, at the primary levels teachers tend to be generalists anyway.There is also seems to be a correlation between skills in math/science/etc and personality, which probably also leads many in these fields to avoid teaching.Mix in kids who don't really want to be there, and you have very little incentive for anybody to go into this field.If you do moderately well in the sciences in college and take the right courses you could probably get secondary certification in chemistry, biology, and physics.
I suspect you could easily have guaranteed employment for life that way - assuming that you're willing to live with a mediocre paycheck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616508</id>
	<title>Watch those conclusions.</title>
	<author>Tangentc</author>
	<datestamp>1269507600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The data is very interesting, but I wouldn't take from this that we should teach the math later, but rather that we should just teach it differently.</p><p>TFA says that the kids have a hard time applying the skills learned in elementary school math to real-life situations, which makes sense. Math is abstract and the ability to apply abstract concepts to real life situations is a learned one; which is something a lot of people have a hard time with through adulthood. However, I also know that the algebra taught to me in high school and that some of my friends didn't learn until college is middle school equivalent curriculum in most other first world countries (I'm from the U.S.). These other countries seem to be doing just fine teaching more advanced math earlier on, which suggests to me that we're probably doing it wrong rather than too early.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The data is very interesting , but I would n't take from this that we should teach the math later , but rather that we should just teach it differently.TFA says that the kids have a hard time applying the skills learned in elementary school math to real-life situations , which makes sense .
Math is abstract and the ability to apply abstract concepts to real life situations is a learned one ; which is something a lot of people have a hard time with through adulthood .
However , I also know that the algebra taught to me in high school and that some of my friends did n't learn until college is middle school equivalent curriculum in most other first world countries ( I 'm from the U.S. ) .
These other countries seem to be doing just fine teaching more advanced math earlier on , which suggests to me that we 're probably doing it wrong rather than too early .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The data is very interesting, but I wouldn't take from this that we should teach the math later, but rather that we should just teach it differently.TFA says that the kids have a hard time applying the skills learned in elementary school math to real-life situations, which makes sense.
Math is abstract and the ability to apply abstract concepts to real life situations is a learned one; which is something a lot of people have a hard time with through adulthood.
However, I also know that the algebra taught to me in high school and that some of my friends didn't learn until college is middle school equivalent curriculum in most other first world countries (I'm from the U.S.).
These other countries seem to be doing just fine teaching more advanced math earlier on, which suggests to me that we're probably doing it wrong rather than too early.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31634248</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>thatblackguy</author>
	<datestamp>1269607380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goddamnit, now what? Perhaps brain paths are formed the way you make them and you could train kids to do some things out of the total number of things you can teach.</p><p>It's like choosing an RPG class but with life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goddamnit , now what ?
Perhaps brain paths are formed the way you make them and you could train kids to do some things out of the total number of things you can teach.It 's like choosing an RPG class but with life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goddamnit, now what?
Perhaps brain paths are formed the way you make them and you could train kids to do some things out of the total number of things you can teach.It's like choosing an RPG class but with life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617556</id>
	<title>Re:Or could it be the way they're taught</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1269511140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My experience:
<ul>
<li>Grade 1 - Basic addition and subtraction</li><li>Grade 2 - More complicated addition and subtraction, basic fractions.</li><li>Grade 3 - Basic mult. and div. More complicated fractions.</li><li>Grade 4 - Geometry, long division, some pseudo algebra work.</li><li>Grade 5 - Review the basics, basically do nothing.</li><li>Grade 6 - Memorization of the mult. tables and do more nothing.</li></ul><p>
The interesting thing is grades 1-4 were in a school district in the poor part of town, 5-6 were in an middle class suburb (tract homes and no trees as far as the eye could see). I think if I hadn't changed schools I probably would have been better prepared for algebra as in the 'burbs there was no "show your work" until 8th grade(Intermediate Algebra) or so (and that was only my teacher, he was right bastard about it).
<br> <br>
So yeah, definitely the curriculum/teachers can be blamed. Looking back now, I see a real difference between the two, school in the suburbs was much, much easier than it should have been. A lot is due to the fact that in the burbs, all kids are winners and no ones a loser, so ratchet that bar down some more. I didn't really get anything out of high school until I went to an "alternative" school (conveniently located in the not so-well-off part of town) where the teachers weren't just checking boxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience : Grade 1 - Basic addition and subtractionGrade 2 - More complicated addition and subtraction , basic fractions.Grade 3 - Basic mult .
and div .
More complicated fractions.Grade 4 - Geometry , long division , some pseudo algebra work.Grade 5 - Review the basics , basically do nothing.Grade 6 - Memorization of the mult .
tables and do more nothing .
The interesting thing is grades 1-4 were in a school district in the poor part of town , 5-6 were in an middle class suburb ( tract homes and no trees as far as the eye could see ) .
I think if I had n't changed schools I probably would have been better prepared for algebra as in the 'burbs there was no " show your work " until 8th grade ( Intermediate Algebra ) or so ( and that was only my teacher , he was right bastard about it ) .
So yeah , definitely the curriculum/teachers can be blamed .
Looking back now , I see a real difference between the two , school in the suburbs was much , much easier than it should have been .
A lot is due to the fact that in the burbs , all kids are winners and no ones a loser , so ratchet that bar down some more .
I did n't really get anything out of high school until I went to an " alternative " school ( conveniently located in the not so-well-off part of town ) where the teachers were n't just checking boxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience:

Grade 1 - Basic addition and subtractionGrade 2 - More complicated addition and subtraction, basic fractions.Grade 3 - Basic mult.
and div.
More complicated fractions.Grade 4 - Geometry, long division, some pseudo algebra work.Grade 5 - Review the basics, basically do nothing.Grade 6 - Memorization of the mult.
tables and do more nothing.
The interesting thing is grades 1-4 were in a school district in the poor part of town, 5-6 were in an middle class suburb (tract homes and no trees as far as the eye could see).
I think if I hadn't changed schools I probably would have been better prepared for algebra as in the 'burbs there was no "show your work" until 8th grade(Intermediate Algebra) or so (and that was only my teacher, he was right bastard about it).
So yeah, definitely the curriculum/teachers can be blamed.
Looking back now, I see a real difference between the two, school in the suburbs was much, much easier than it should have been.
A lot is due to the fact that in the burbs, all kids are winners and no ones a loser, so ratchet that bar down some more.
I didn't really get anything out of high school until I went to an "alternative" school (conveniently located in the not so-well-off part of town) where the teachers weren't just checking boxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616334</id>
	<title>Re:What about "parts of speech"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being a common error, I think it's important to learn about participles so you don't end up dangling them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being a common error , I think it 's important to learn about participles so you do n't end up dangling them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being a common error, I think it's important to learn about participles so you don't end up dangling them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621420</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1269533340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Even more interesting is that the way we count is completely unnatural. Research with both small children and isolated Amazon tribes indicates that our natural inclination is to count logarithmically<br></i><br>I think what you meant to say is that without exposure to numbers, people count logarithmically.  Calling it "natural" leads to some rather strange ideas.  People associate "natural" with "good", "how it should be" or "pure".</p><p>I actually don't know what "natural" means, other than some arbitrary word people throw at something they like in an attempt to distinguish it from something they don't like.  People seem to forget that Anthrax, crude oil, asbestos, bufo-toxin, and the AIDS virus all come from nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more interesting is that the way we count is completely unnatural .
Research with both small children and isolated Amazon tribes indicates that our natural inclination is to count logarithmicallyI think what you meant to say is that without exposure to numbers , people count logarithmically .
Calling it " natural " leads to some rather strange ideas .
People associate " natural " with " good " , " how it should be " or " pure " .I actually do n't know what " natural " means , other than some arbitrary word people throw at something they like in an attempt to distinguish it from something they do n't like .
People seem to forget that Anthrax , crude oil , asbestos , bufo-toxin , and the AIDS virus all come from nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more interesting is that the way we count is completely unnatural.
Research with both small children and isolated Amazon tribes indicates that our natural inclination is to count logarithmicallyI think what you meant to say is that without exposure to numbers, people count logarithmically.
Calling it "natural" leads to some rather strange ideas.
People associate "natural" with "good", "how it should be" or "pure".I actually don't know what "natural" means, other than some arbitrary word people throw at something they like in an attempt to distinguish it from something they don't like.
People seem to forget that Anthrax, crude oil, asbestos, bufo-toxin, and the AIDS virus all come from nature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616244</id>
	<title>Maybe the teaching is just that bad...</title>
	<author>RabidRabb1t</author>
	<datestamp>1269549960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the parents were simply better at teaching their students math.  I remember back in elementary school when they tried to teach us "new math" through these misguided methods that were extremely unhelpful and confused many students.  My parents taught me how to divide the real way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the parents were simply better at teaching their students math .
I remember back in elementary school when they tried to teach us " new math " through these misguided methods that were extremely unhelpful and confused many students .
My parents taught me how to divide the real way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the parents were simply better at teaching their students math.
I remember back in elementary school when they tried to teach us "new math" through these misguided methods that were extremely unhelpful and confused many students.
My parents taught me how to divide the real way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618436</id>
	<title>Would work for me...</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1269514980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In 7th and 8th grade I could not learn algebra.  No matter how I tried it just didn't work.  When I hit college I managed to squeak by on testing out of algebra and while I took calculus I learned my missing algebra really quick and did quite well in calculus.<br>
<br>
shrug...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 7th and 8th grade I could not learn algebra .
No matter how I tried it just did n't work .
When I hit college I managed to squeak by on testing out of algebra and while I took calculus I learned my missing algebra really quick and did quite well in calculus .
shrug.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 7th and 8th grade I could not learn algebra.
No matter how I tried it just didn't work.
When I hit college I managed to squeak by on testing out of algebra and while I took calculus I learned my missing algebra really quick and did quite well in calculus.
shrug...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617350</id>
	<title>You missed the point.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed the point.</p><p>Its not a question of teaching math vs not teaching math.  Its <em> <b>when</b> </em> to begin teaching math.</p><p>Earlier is not necessarily better.  This is bucking the current trend (prenatal music, flash cards for toddlers, etc) but is still worth considering.  Perhaps certain subjects should be focused on at certain grade levels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed the point.Its not a question of teaching math vs not teaching math .
Its when to begin teaching math.Earlier is not necessarily better .
This is bucking the current trend ( prenatal music , flash cards for toddlers , etc ) but is still worth considering .
Perhaps certain subjects should be focused on at certain grade levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed the point.Its not a question of teaching math vs not teaching math.
Its  when  to begin teaching math.Earlier is not necessarily better.
This is bucking the current trend (prenatal music, flash cards for toddlers, etc) but is still worth considering.
Perhaps certain subjects should be focused on at certain grade levels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617964</id>
	<title>Re:Many other explanations</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1269512940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"It is humbling to have a PhD in Engineering, and not be able to understand Grade 6 math homework."
</p><p>
Says the civil engineer.  Pah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is humbling to have a PhD in Engineering , and not be able to understand Grade 6 math homework .
" Says the civil engineer .
Pah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"It is humbling to have a PhD in Engineering, and not be able to understand Grade 6 math homework.
"

Says the civil engineer.
Pah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31624374</id>
	<title>When Rather Than What</title>
	<author>silvermand</author>
	<datestamp>1269609120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a highschool math/physics teacher and I deal with students on a daily basis who have no idea how to deal with fractions, percentages, how to represent a situation algebraically or how to solve an algebraic equation. The prerequisite to my physics course is to have passed Algebra I and Geometry with an average of 80\%.

After reading, I'm under the impression that the study does not suggest removal of math from school altogether, but merely removing it from the earlier curriculum (1st - 5th grade). I'm not entirely sure what the equivalency is here in the US, but this much I do know: more complex math concepts keep getting pushed down into the lower grade levels. The average 5th-grader does not have the capacity to do algebra. That needs to go... as well as all of this "lattice multiplication" business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a highschool math/physics teacher and I deal with students on a daily basis who have no idea how to deal with fractions , percentages , how to represent a situation algebraically or how to solve an algebraic equation .
The prerequisite to my physics course is to have passed Algebra I and Geometry with an average of 80 \ % .
After reading , I 'm under the impression that the study does not suggest removal of math from school altogether , but merely removing it from the earlier curriculum ( 1st - 5th grade ) .
I 'm not entirely sure what the equivalency is here in the US , but this much I do know : more complex math concepts keep getting pushed down into the lower grade levels .
The average 5th-grader does not have the capacity to do algebra .
That needs to go... as well as all of this " lattice multiplication " business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a highschool math/physics teacher and I deal with students on a daily basis who have no idea how to deal with fractions, percentages, how to represent a situation algebraically or how to solve an algebraic equation.
The prerequisite to my physics course is to have passed Algebra I and Geometry with an average of 80\%.
After reading, I'm under the impression that the study does not suggest removal of math from school altogether, but merely removing it from the earlier curriculum (1st - 5th grade).
I'm not entirely sure what the equivalency is here in the US, but this much I do know: more complex math concepts keep getting pushed down into the lower grade levels.
The average 5th-grader does not have the capacity to do algebra.
That needs to go... as well as all of this "lattice multiplication" business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616932</id>
	<title>Re:sixth grade?</title>
	<author>quantumplacet</author>
	<datestamp>1269509040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was learn</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Solving for X, and Solving for X and Y with 2 or more equations.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p> I was not in honers classes.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Take Bags of balls mark some as 'X'</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Find out home many balls are in X and in Y</p> </div><p>i definitely think your school system should be the model for all others...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was learnSolving for X , and Solving for X and Y with 2 or more equations .
I was not in honers classes.Take Bags of balls mark some as 'X'Find out home many balls are in X and in Y i definitely think your school system should be the model for all others.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was learnSolving for X, and Solving for X and Y with 2 or more equations.
I was not in honers classes.Take Bags of balls mark some as 'X'Find out home many balls are in X and in Y i definitely think your school system should be the model for all others...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616344</id>
	<title>It's all in the approach . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was horrible at math until I got a teacher who tried something new - she told me to work my way through the book at my own pace and let her know when I was done - I finished high school algebra in a few weeks, after getting D's in (almost) every previous math class.  Not everyone will thrive in that scenario, but the point is that it's all in the approach - a few weeks of effective education can be more valuable than years of ineffective droning in front of a blackboard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was horrible at math until I got a teacher who tried something new - she told me to work my way through the book at my own pace and let her know when I was done - I finished high school algebra in a few weeks , after getting D 's in ( almost ) every previous math class .
Not everyone will thrive in that scenario , but the point is that it 's all in the approach - a few weeks of effective education can be more valuable than years of ineffective droning in front of a blackboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was horrible at math until I got a teacher who tried something new - she told me to work my way through the book at my own pace and let her know when I was done - I finished high school algebra in a few weeks, after getting D's in (almost) every previous math class.
Not everyone will thrive in that scenario, but the point is that it's all in the approach - a few weeks of effective education can be more valuable than years of ineffective droning in front of a blackboard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622072</id>
	<title>Jokes aside, this is old news</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1269538920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has to to with "developmental appropriateness", a well-established educational concept that is ignored by the list-of-things-you-must-know-in-grade-X school of thought.</p><p>In essence, when the kid is developmentally ready to learn math (their brains grow to become wired for it), they'll learn it quickly, but until then, you're wasting everybody's time forcing them to learn math.</p><p>The Sudbury school model follows this and they have plenty of students proceed to college and beyond.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury\_school" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury\_school</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has to to with " developmental appropriateness " , a well-established educational concept that is ignored by the list-of-things-you-must-know-in-grade-X school of thought.In essence , when the kid is developmentally ready to learn math ( their brains grow to become wired for it ) , they 'll learn it quickly , but until then , you 're wasting everybody 's time forcing them to learn math.The Sudbury school model follows this and they have plenty of students proceed to college and beyond.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury \ _school [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has to to with "developmental appropriateness", a well-established educational concept that is ignored by the list-of-things-you-must-know-in-grade-X school of thought.In essence, when the kid is developmentally ready to learn math (their brains grow to become wired for it), they'll learn it quickly, but until then, you're wasting everybody's time forcing them to learn math.The Sudbury school model follows this and they have plenty of students proceed to college and beyond.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury\_school [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619512</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1269520680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>lowest common denominator</p></div></blockquote><p>What's that?  They didn't teach us math.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lowest common denominatorWhat 's that ?
They did n't teach us math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lowest common denominatorWhat's that?
They didn't teach us math.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616162</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Dyinobal</author>
	<datestamp>1269549720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I can buy, that young brains are not always best suited for specific tasks, but it seems contrary to conventional wisdom to remove math till the 6th grade. I can't imagine walking around blind in that respect till I was 12 or so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I can buy , that young brains are not always best suited for specific tasks , but it seems contrary to conventional wisdom to remove math till the 6th grade .
I ca n't imagine walking around blind in that respect till I was 12 or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I can buy, that young brains are not always best suited for specific tasks, but it seems contrary to conventional wisdom to remove math till the 6th grade.
I can't imagine walking around blind in that respect till I was 12 or so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616598</id>
	<title>Experiment doesn't apply</title>
	<author>Taxman415a</author>
	<datestamp>1269507960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So an experiment done in 1929 when we knew almost nothing about math education applies how? There is too much different between now and then for the experiment to be meaningful. And further, the summary is poor. The article is a little better and refers to only arithmetic being taught in the early grades in 1929 and taking that out not having much impact on students ability to pick up the ability to reason with arithmetic later on. That should make sense. If the older curriculum doesn't focus on teaching students how to reason with the skills and concepts they know, they won't be able to reason well with them.<br> <br>
Fast forward to today and there is a huge volume of research and understanding about how students learn mathematics and successful ways to help students learn to reason and apply what they are learning to useful situations. It does not follow that eliminating Math from the early grades now is the way to go. Professor Grey should stick to subjects he knows, and apparently that's not Math education.<br> <br>

Where he is dead on is that, on the whole, elementary teachers know far too little about math or how to teach it. Very little is successfully making it from teacher education programs about how to properly teach mathematics. Basically those that choose to teach elementary school are the ones that hate math, are afraid of it, or can't do it. That's not true in all cases, but it's true in such a vast majority that it is a significant source of the problem for why our country isn't farther ahead in mathematics. That still doesn't mean take the math out of elementary school. It just means that the standards should be drastically raised for what elementary teachers should know and be able to do with mathematics. In short, the solution is to teach elementary teachers more math and more about how to teach math. The problem is that teacher education programs have a perverse incentive to make their programs easier to keep their numbers up to make more money, and math is the roadblock for many of their candidates. The result is no higher math requirements unless all teacher education programs are forced to have them. We should make sure the state requirements force them to have them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So an experiment done in 1929 when we knew almost nothing about math education applies how ?
There is too much different between now and then for the experiment to be meaningful .
And further , the summary is poor .
The article is a little better and refers to only arithmetic being taught in the early grades in 1929 and taking that out not having much impact on students ability to pick up the ability to reason with arithmetic later on .
That should make sense .
If the older curriculum does n't focus on teaching students how to reason with the skills and concepts they know , they wo n't be able to reason well with them .
Fast forward to today and there is a huge volume of research and understanding about how students learn mathematics and successful ways to help students learn to reason and apply what they are learning to useful situations .
It does not follow that eliminating Math from the early grades now is the way to go .
Professor Grey should stick to subjects he knows , and apparently that 's not Math education .
Where he is dead on is that , on the whole , elementary teachers know far too little about math or how to teach it .
Very little is successfully making it from teacher education programs about how to properly teach mathematics .
Basically those that choose to teach elementary school are the ones that hate math , are afraid of it , or ca n't do it .
That 's not true in all cases , but it 's true in such a vast majority that it is a significant source of the problem for why our country is n't farther ahead in mathematics .
That still does n't mean take the math out of elementary school .
It just means that the standards should be drastically raised for what elementary teachers should know and be able to do with mathematics .
In short , the solution is to teach elementary teachers more math and more about how to teach math .
The problem is that teacher education programs have a perverse incentive to make their programs easier to keep their numbers up to make more money , and math is the roadblock for many of their candidates .
The result is no higher math requirements unless all teacher education programs are forced to have them .
We should make sure the state requirements force them to have them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So an experiment done in 1929 when we knew almost nothing about math education applies how?
There is too much different between now and then for the experiment to be meaningful.
And further, the summary is poor.
The article is a little better and refers to only arithmetic being taught in the early grades in 1929 and taking that out not having much impact on students ability to pick up the ability to reason with arithmetic later on.
That should make sense.
If the older curriculum doesn't focus on teaching students how to reason with the skills and concepts they know, they won't be able to reason well with them.
Fast forward to today and there is a huge volume of research and understanding about how students learn mathematics and successful ways to help students learn to reason and apply what they are learning to useful situations.
It does not follow that eliminating Math from the early grades now is the way to go.
Professor Grey should stick to subjects he knows, and apparently that's not Math education.
Where he is dead on is that, on the whole, elementary teachers know far too little about math or how to teach it.
Very little is successfully making it from teacher education programs about how to properly teach mathematics.
Basically those that choose to teach elementary school are the ones that hate math, are afraid of it, or can't do it.
That's not true in all cases, but it's true in such a vast majority that it is a significant source of the problem for why our country isn't farther ahead in mathematics.
That still doesn't mean take the math out of elementary school.
It just means that the standards should be drastically raised for what elementary teachers should know and be able to do with mathematics.
In short, the solution is to teach elementary teachers more math and more about how to teach math.
The problem is that teacher education programs have a perverse incentive to make their programs easier to keep their numbers up to make more money, and math is the roadblock for many of their candidates.
The result is no higher math requirements unless all teacher education programs are forced to have them.
We should make sure the state requirements force them to have them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617656</id>
	<title>Classical Education</title>
	<author>ka9dgx</author>
	<datestamp>1269511620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The classical education of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium\_(education)" title="wikipedia.org">Trivium</a> [wikipedia.org] is probably a much better fit for educating humans, as opposed to the factory farming methods of the 20th Century. It far better fits the developmental stages as they occur. I suspect as we move away from the need for uniform but low quality graduates, and try to get competitive intellectually in the world, the focus will naturally shift back to this superior form of education.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The classical education of the Trivium [ wikipedia.org ] is probably a much better fit for educating humans , as opposed to the factory farming methods of the 20th Century .
It far better fits the developmental stages as they occur .
I suspect as we move away from the need for uniform but low quality graduates , and try to get competitive intellectually in the world , the focus will naturally shift back to this superior form of education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The classical education of the Trivium [wikipedia.org] is probably a much better fit for educating humans, as opposed to the factory farming methods of the 20th Century.
It far better fits the developmental stages as they occur.
I suspect as we move away from the need for uniform but low quality graduates, and try to get competitive intellectually in the world, the focus will naturally shift back to this superior form of education.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616676</id>
	<title>Try this in India and China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is a great idea that should be tried in India and China for a couple of decades.  No math instruction allowed in those countries until the age of 14, because this will really help their economies develop.  Eventually it will even open up opportunities in American colleges.  For Americans, that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a great idea that should be tried in India and China for a couple of decades .
No math instruction allowed in those countries until the age of 14 , because this will really help their economies develop .
Eventually it will even open up opportunities in American colleges .
For Americans , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a great idea that should be tried in India and China for a couple of decades.
No math instruction allowed in those countries until the age of 14, because this will really help their economies develop.
Eventually it will even open up opportunities in American colleges.
For Americans, that is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616514</id>
	<title>How many Psychologist does it take...</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1269507660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Q: How many Psychologist does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Don't ask until you're seven.

Bad joke.

I guess all the time reading "Principia Mathematica" to my six year old has been a big waste of time. He was really looking forward to page 456 were we get to actually add numbers though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Q : How many Psychologist does it take to screw in a light bulb ?
A : Do n't ask until you 're seven .
Bad joke .
I guess all the time reading " Principia Mathematica " to my six year old has been a big waste of time .
He was really looking forward to page 456 were we get to actually add numbers though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q: How many Psychologist does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Don't ask until you're seven.
Bad joke.
I guess all the time reading "Principia Mathematica" to my six year old has been a big waste of time.
He was really looking forward to page 456 were we get to actually add numbers though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500</id>
	<title>Re:Set Theory</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1269507600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello.  I was a victim of New Math.</p><p>New Math presented me with set theory in elementary school.</p><p>Symbolic logic is not a mystery to me.  Indeed, I aced a logic course where over half the people dropped it like a hot rock in the first week.</p><p>However, arithmetic with pencil and paper is like pulling teeth for me.  I hate it with a passion. Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture. Thank Glub for calculators.</p><p>So yes, your professor is entirely correct.  Teaching set theory preps students for boolean algebra and all that happy nonsense.  There are trade-offs, though.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello .
I was a victim of New Math.New Math presented me with set theory in elementary school.Symbolic logic is not a mystery to me .
Indeed , I aced a logic course where over half the people dropped it like a hot rock in the first week.However , arithmetic with pencil and paper is like pulling teeth for me .
I hate it with a passion .
Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture .
Thank Glub for calculators.So yes , your professor is entirely correct .
Teaching set theory preps students for boolean algebra and all that happy nonsense .
There are trade-offs , though.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello.
I was a victim of New Math.New Math presented me with set theory in elementary school.Symbolic logic is not a mystery to me.
Indeed, I aced a logic course where over half the people dropped it like a hot rock in the first week.However, arithmetic with pencil and paper is like pulling teeth for me.
I hate it with a passion.
Learning how to do square roots in 7'th grade by pencil and paper was torture.
Thank Glub for calculators.So yes, your professor is entirely correct.
Teaching set theory preps students for boolean algebra and all that happy nonsense.
There are trade-offs, though.--BMO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616354</id>
	<title>sixth grade?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fifth Grade I was learn pre-algebra in public school. Solving for X, and Solving for X and Y with 2 or more equations. I was not in honers classes.This was the basic math work for that grade.
<p> They used scales to teach us. Take Bags of balls mark some as 'X', and some bags as 'Y'. Find out home many balls are in X and in Y. Got the idea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fifth Grade I was learn pre-algebra in public school .
Solving for X , and Solving for X and Y with 2 or more equations .
I was not in honers classes.This was the basic math work for that grade .
They used scales to teach us .
Take Bags of balls mark some as 'X ' , and some bags as 'Y' .
Find out home many balls are in X and in Y. Got the idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fifth Grade I was learn pre-algebra in public school.
Solving for X, and Solving for X and Y with 2 or more equations.
I was not in honers classes.This was the basic math work for that grade.
They used scales to teach us.
Take Bags of balls mark some as 'X', and some bags as 'Y'.
Find out home many balls are in X and in Y. Got the idea?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618190</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was better than average...</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1269513960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I think the reality is that they spend 4-5 years teaching kids something that they could learn in 1, rather than the kids not being able to learn earlier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I think the reality is that they spend 4-5 years teaching kids something that they could learn in 1 , rather than the kids not being able to learn earlier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I think the reality is that they spend 4-5 years teaching kids something that they could learn in 1, rather than the kids not being able to learn earlier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618228</id>
	<title>Re:most people arent wired for math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269514080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm, It couldn't possibly be that Poofessor Peter Gray is "wrong", could it? I mean damn, if you wear the title "professor", you're pretty much infallable. Teaching at one of the too many colleges in Boston<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,just kinda clenches the deal. Why don't we all bow down and trip over each other trying to adapt civilization to the edicts of these "Gods of intellect" whenever they profess some new found "wisdom". We would all be so much better off if we would only respond to " findings" in a more cooperative, worshipful way everytime they "find" some new hidden "truth". We are so far behind the curve from not going green, living communally,letting the children teach themselves, instituting Democrats as the one true party, and of course paying tenured professors much much more that civilization probably won't last another 10 years. But, it's not too late, if we would only recognize the "hippy" as the species "homo superior" , elect Hillary Clinton as permanent president and commit our lives to sending our children to college for 25 years each, then we may just have a chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm , It could n't possibly be that Poofessor Peter Gray is " wrong " , could it ?
I mean damn , if you wear the title " professor " , you 're pretty much infallable .
Teaching at one of the too many colleges in Boston ,just kinda clenches the deal .
Why do n't we all bow down and trip over each other trying to adapt civilization to the edicts of these " Gods of intellect " whenever they profess some new found " wisdom " .
We would all be so much better off if we would only respond to " findings " in a more cooperative , worshipful way everytime they " find " some new hidden " truth " .
We are so far behind the curve from not going green , living communally,letting the children teach themselves , instituting Democrats as the one true party , and of course paying tenured professors much much more that civilization probably wo n't last another 10 years .
But , it 's not too late , if we would only recognize the " hippy " as the species " homo superior " , elect Hillary Clinton as permanent president and commit our lives to sending our children to college for 25 years each , then we may just have a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm, It couldn't possibly be that Poofessor Peter Gray is "wrong", could it?
I mean damn, if you wear the title "professor", you're pretty much infallable.
Teaching at one of the too many colleges in Boston ,just kinda clenches the deal.
Why don't we all bow down and trip over each other trying to adapt civilization to the edicts of these "Gods of intellect" whenever they profess some new found "wisdom".
We would all be so much better off if we would only respond to " findings" in a more cooperative, worshipful way everytime they "find" some new hidden "truth".
We are so far behind the curve from not going green, living communally,letting the children teach themselves, instituting Democrats as the one true party, and of course paying tenured professors much much more that civilization probably won't last another 10 years.
But, it's not too late, if we would only recognize the "hippy" as the species "homo superior" , elect Hillary Clinton as permanent president and commit our lives to sending our children to college for 25 years each, then we may just have a chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616090</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31627384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31634248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31633210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31751594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31627244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31646614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31634218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31634606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1755231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618378
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31634218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31633210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31627384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31634606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31627244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31646614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31634248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617874
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31622348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31620648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31621136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31617350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1755231.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31616510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31619464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31751594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1755231.31618768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
