The "part I know" stuff shows up later in the test (Question 5) in a much clearer context. It looks to me as if this is a phrasing that schools are expected to teach. That said, the test doesn't seem to me to be written at a first grade level
Question 5 is not "clearer context", because it tells you the total is 9. I know 9, so why did the kid lose a mark for not writing "4" under "part I know"? The kid got the final answer, the unknown part, correct. The kid knows the maths, but lost the mark because of language that, whether taught or not, is inherently ambiguous and confusing. In fact, the questions the kid got right are enough to tell me that he/she is good at maths, and the words are just confusing him/her, which isn't supposed to be the point of using word problems with elementary pupils. Words are supposed to keep a problem concrete and hence comprehensible. If the words increase the complexity of the problem rather than decreasing it, that's a whole new world of problems.
1) What's another good title for this story? a) The sun b) Timmy goes to the park c) Rain and sun d) Timmy takes a nap 2) Why did Timmy put on dry socks? a) Because Timmy was home b) Because his socks were wet c) Because he was sleepy d) Because Timmy wanted to go back to the park So question #1 is asking for an opinion, and question #2 is asking about something that's not mentioned in the story. After my kid missed both questions, I asked the teacher why, and her answer was that the questions are introducing higher learning. Higher learning? An opinion is higher learning? Asking questions that are full of assumptions not mentioned in the story, is higher learning?
I think I see what they've done here. This sort of question typically appears in tests aimed at identifying stages of cognitive development, the sort of tests used to diagnose learning difficulties, or as data for scientific papers on child development. These are supposed to tell us when children are ready for more abstract tasks based on more sophisticated modes of thought.
This sort of test is not the sort of thing you should be giving a grade for, though, because at its root, it's not a taught skill. Either a child is at that stage where (question 1) they see the whole story in terms of the "big picture" (hence correct answer) or they are still too immature and fixate on one of the events (wrong answer). Either they're at the stage where their brain reflects on other people's actions and reasons about their motivation (correct answer) or they're still at that stage where they have no concept of it (and the wrong answer is given).
TLDR: they're testing cognitive development, which cannot be taught. Idiots.
He didn't RTFA. Neither did you. I wish more people did.
This is not just a "crappy test". It's a crappy test written to crappy guidelines produced by a crappy, rushed process.
I don't see the Common Core standards as the problem, this is just a poorly written test made by people who were not the authors of Common Core. Unless I misunderstand, Common Core simply defines what skills a student should be proficient at by the end of school years. It doesn't define these test questions, Pearson Education did.
The principle of "common core" isn't a problem, but the implementation certainly is. If you RTFA, you'll see a host of general criticisms raised by an experienced and highly regarded school principle about the rushed and unacademic approach taken in defining these principles. In particular, note:
If you read Commissioner John King’s Powerpoint slide 18,
They broke down the skills quantitatively, with apparently no regard to the stages of children's cognitive development.
The bit about "word problems" in the standard has led to a sort of pedagogical inversion: traditionally, the goal of words in initial numeracy has been to make the questions easier by making them into something the child understands, rather than juggling with abstract figures. However, the Pearson test is now using the maths to test the children's ability to understand the words, rather than using the words to test the children's maths. It's wrong, but it follows from the Common Core, so the CC has to carry some of the blame.
It's the responsibility of the writer to make his meaning clear. If one of the world's biggest educational publishers misinterprets you, it's probably your fault.
He says his name's reality impaired...
But no-one knows he really is a (bum-bum) plastic man.
The umbilical chord clamp: Teach people they can just leave the baby attached to the placenta till it dries out, or tie it of with string or anything else they have at hand before cutting the chord.
AIUI, there is a notable risk of the baby being deprived of oxygen due to blood being diverted to the placenta, not to mention the fact that the plancenta is fragile and presents a vulnerable spot which could result in bleeding out. For the peak of the evolutionary ladder, us humans are pretty defective animals. (Although I think the traditional way of dealing with this was just to tie a knot in the cord itself by hand.)
I think the real advantage of 3D printing here is the simple nightmare of logistics. How many different little medical bits and bobs are there? Are you going to ship a huge load of everything you might need to wherever the doctors are attending? Probably not.
So what's the options? At the moment you either tie up your helicopters on courier duty to get the goods where they're needed on demand, or the operation's going to have to wait until the next delivery is due, or you're going to have to send a car out on a long journey... if the road's intact.
3D printing may be slow, but if it's quicker than the alternative, that's good enough.
But it's not a long-term solution -- the future of disaster relief is clearly unmanned drones. While a full-sized chopper is too expensive and valuable a resource to tie up on small jobs, a fleet of autonomous GPS-guided polycopters will be able to redistribute specialist supplies quickly and efficiently, and will circumvent the operational difficulties of a 3D printer. Soon the most important item in a relief-worker's kit bag will be a beacon to mark the designated "helipad".
I never backed anything on kickstarter yet, but from the secondary information i got, i always thought that you get your money back if the project fails. Am i under a false assumption?
You're right -- the terms and conditions of Kickstarter state that you must give out all the promised rewards, and as most of the rewards tiers for Star Citizen include access to the game, they have to ship something. The problem is, what constitutes a game? Are the claimed features all contractually binding? Would there be any legal comeback if Star Citizen was released as simply an old-school Elite clone with a slightly fancier flight interface made with CryEngine and featuring all the starship types included in the Kickstarter tiers? Probably not. But there's the further problem of the non-Kickstarter backing to deal with, because they solicited further funds independently of KS, so the contractual conditions are a bit murkier.
The specific document is the articlee
But the article only exists because unscrupulous individuals were profiting off others' ignorance, and the guys who make the game should have written such a guide earlier to protect the majority of their customers from being exploited by a minority.
So when you donate money to charity through a middleman and he takes a sizeable portion of your money, it's ok?
It's not necessarily OK, but it's definitely standard practice, more's the pity.