Stupid things they now teach in schools.

[Dreamstalker]

The math program (IMP) that I was shuffled into in high school was the opposite. I remember being told off for the right answers...because the work I showed didn't match up with what the teacher workbook said it should be (either it wasn't complicated enough--I got the right answer and can still explain what I did, that's not good enough?--or the answer they wanted was incorrect). That program was heavy on group work; usually my input was ignored in favor of what the rest of my group thought was 'faster' (which usually turned out to be wrong).

[bex1218]

X+1=3
-1 -1
X+1-1=3-1
X=2

But that is too much for little kids.

[lordlundar]

I was about to put down that an algebraic formula would prove it but algebra isn't usually taught until middle school or close to so expecting to use a more advance math lesson to teach an entry level one is counter productive.

[sophie]

The state we're in has one of the worse education systems, they're notorious for wrong information and under qualified teachers who went to diploma mill "colleges". It's a public school only the teacher has a book the kids just get worksheets. The examples I gave came from the 3rd and 1st grade this year.

[Racket_Man]

A few gems from my stepdaughters school


And they're not allowed to wear black tights, apparently it's a gang sign.

OK??????? is there a local gang whose "colors" include black???? that is the ONLY reason I can think of.


you have to remember that these days ANYTHING wearable from clothes to jewelry to hats to the actual color of said items to just giving someone the plain ol' vanillia middle finger are ALL gang-related.

[KitterCat]

Are you in WV?

[mathnerd]

I'm assuming the 3 + 1 thing is for a younger grade. In this case, "show your work" would involve something like drawing dots or boxes and counting. So you'd have:

3 ***
+1 *
______
4 ****

Or something like that. That's the one thing on this list I don't find unreasonable.

As for my favorite WTF moment in a textbook, that one comes from a college history text. The quote was:

"The Constitution of the United States of America was written with a bias towards the Republican Party".

Brownies for whomever can tell me what's wrong with this statement.

[Kheldarson]

As for my favorite WTF moment in a textbook, that one comes from a college history text. The quote was:

"The Constitution of the United States of America was written with a bias towards the Republican Party".

Brownies for whomever can tell me what's wrong with this statement.

Oh! Oh! I know this one!

There was no Republican party until the Civil War.

I can has brownie now?

[mathnerd]

Oh! Oh! I know this one!

There was no Republican party until the Civil War.

I can has brownie now?

Coming right up!

[Kheldarson]

Coming right up!

Yay! That makes up for having to explain it to a college student... and explain that the Republicans were the abolitionists, not the Democrats >.<

[s_stabeler]

the amusing thing was that the Founders actually hated all political parties. they thought it spoiled the entire point of Congress. ( basically, the Founders envisaged Congress as each representative deciding on their own if they liked an individual piece of legislation. It makes for fairly weak governments, but that isn't always a bad thing)

[mikoyan29]

As for my favorite WTF moment in a textbook, that one comes from a college history text. The quote was:

"The Constitution of the United States of America was written with a bias towards the Republican Party".

Brownies for whomever can tell me what's wrong with this statement.

If it was a mistake, I can buy it as we have a Republican government. If it wasn't a mistake, then how the hell did that make it past the editors?

[mathnerd]

If it was a mistake, I can buy it as we have a Republican government. If it wasn't a mistake, then how the hell did that make it past the editors?

Addressing only the issue of why it was so wrong: The Republican Party didn't exist until shortly before the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln, who was the first Republican president, started his political career as a Whig. In the decade or so before the Civil War, the Whigs gradually fell out of power and eventually dissolved as a political party entirely, while the Republicans rose up to take their place in the two (primary) party system.

The Constitution was adopted in 1787. I'm not sure of the exact date it was written, but it took several years to ratify and adopt it from the time it was completed as a document. It was written to replace the Articles of Confederation (1777), the first federal level governing documents of the United States, which was put into place shortly after the end of the Revolutionary War. The Civil War took place from 1861-1865.

Another important note is that the two primary parties in the US have switched roles since the 1960's. It was the members of the Democrat party who fought to keep slavery alive in the south, while Lincoln's Republicans were abolitionists. It was the Democrats who fought to keep Jim Crow in place while the Republican lawmakers forced integration. Sometime between the 1960's and 1980's the two parties switched roles in regards to social justice issues.

In short, the statement is wrong because not only did the party not exist at the time of the writing of the document, and the party itself has drastically changed it's platform since its inception.

[powerboy]

The math program (IMP) that I was shuffled into in high school was the opposite. I remember being told off for the right answers...because the work I showed didn't match up with what the teacher workbook said it should be (either it wasn't complicated enough--I got the right answer and can still explain what I did, that's not good enough?--or the answer they wanted was incorrect).

That is one reason that math and I don't get along. I get the answer right, but couldn't show how I did, or if it was shown, it wasn't the right way

[Anthony K. S.]

"The Constitution of the United States of America was written with a bias towards the Republican Party".

It would be difficult for me to judge this statement without knowing the context of it, mainly because I don't know which Republican Party it's referring to.

The modern day Republican Party was formed by anti-slavery activists in 1854.

However, the Democratic-Republican Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791.

Admittedly, that was still a few years after the Constitution was adopted, but I imagine that the ideologies Jefferson espoused existed for a good while before that.

Jefferson's party was commonly referred to as the "Republican Party" at the time, although they're seldom called that today. Usually, they're referred to as either the "Democratic-Republican Party" or the "Jeffersonian Republicans."

Now, whether or not the Constitution could be said to be biased in favor of Jefferson's ideals, I don't really know. His party supported states' rights and argued for a narrow interpretation of the powers granted to the federal government.

You could say that they enjoyed a good run. The Democratic-Republicans controlled Congress, the Presidency, and a majority of the states from 1801 until 1824, when the party, ideologically split and lacking a strong center, broke apart.

The party split into two factions, one of which became the modern day Democratic Party, and the other eventually gave rise to the Whig Party.