I hear ya, Piper. I've had similar experiences with my own children. The best I can figure is that the "new math" is a response to the generalization that more students are visual learners and so require as many operations as possible to be illustrated, as opposed to mentally calculated. I almost always have to read through their lessons to be of any help, and sometimes even that doesn't work so well.

To answer your question, the Common Core is a grand scheme, devised by some of the wealthiest Americans (most notably those who made their fortunes from high tech), to devalue the booming market in high tech careers, cleverly disguised as a means of adapting our education curriculum to the needs of the modern era. How did I reach that conclusion? Read on if you care, and consider yourself warned if not.

On the surface, I agree that our education system needs to adapt to the changing world. What I question, however, is whether it's wise to put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak, which is what the Common Core does by placing strict emphasis on math and science, while phasing out things like arts and humanities.

The big themes of today are technology, natural resources, and climate change. Careers that work in those fields tend to require a strong background in math and science (or, at least, that's what the thinking behind the Common Core has decided). At present, there is a shortage of qualified professionals, particularly in high tech. As a result, those who have the skills command relatively high salaries. I should point out that this is a fantastic example of free market Capitalism working according to theory.

Of course, something we all know about corporations is that they exist solely to maximize profits, and paying high salaries does not advance that agenda as effectively as paying lower salaries. The way to get to lower salaries is to devalue the skillset, which is best accomplished by creating a surplus of qualified resources. That, in my opinion, is what the Common Core aims to achieve. If high school students can be taught a lot of the essential skills for tech jobs, they will be qualified for entry level positions immediately upon graduating, where at present, most such positions require a Bachelor of Science degree, or at least some investment in vocational training. High school graduates command less pay than college graduates, so if a college degree is no longer required, companies will be able to pay lower wages for what are well-paid jobs today. In theory, a standard like Common Core should produce more career ready tech workers among high school graduates, so it stands to reason that is what technology corporations (who have earned a lot of "free speech") would seek to enact.

Of course, there is significant societal value in educating children so they will be best prepared for the world in which they will be working, and that's not lost on me. However, I question that the Common Core is the best way to achieve that goal, for the following reasons:

1. It assumes that all people think the same way and can be taught to do anything, which is inherently false. Indeed, the sort of minds naturally inclined toward careers in engineering or software development, for example, are among the least common.
2. Even if every student did have the mental makeup to be a technologist or scientist, training them all as such would deny them any opportunity to realize their own, unique talents, which in turn would prevent a lot of great ideas and new possibilities from being explored. Not good for a country whose strength has always been innovation and is becoming increasingly reliant on the same.
3. Filling high tech and engineering jobs with people who aren't naturally inclined to those careers will produce a lot of sub-standard or uninspired work, which translates to higher costs from rework and negates the perceived value of the change.
4. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want to live in a world that doesn't encourage talented people to do what they're good at. A sometimes not so sweet life is a lot better with good music, fine food, fine art, or an occasional, philosophical concersation to help wash it down once in a while.

Instead of taking the Common Core approach, I would favor something more like the European model, where kids are evaluated around middle school age to find their strengths. From that point further, their studies become more and more like on the job training, so by the time they graduate, they're ready for some sort of career that should lend itself well to their strengths.

If tech companies need more qualified young people, perhaps they should invest in programs that select qualified high school students to take classes on subjects like engineering and development in lieu of some standard high school curriculum and participate in mentorships, etc. To recoup their investment, they could place graduates from the program into jobs, on a probationary basis and at a slightly lower pay grade, with the reward for good performance being a full-time, full-salaried position at the end of the probationary period. This way, companies could also have a hand in designing the course curricula, to ensure that students learn skills on which they place the highest value. From my perspective, that allows tech companies (or really any company) to teach the right people the right skills at the right time, which seems to be a constant struggle today, particularly in the field of technology. It also doesn't prevent other personality types from realizing their full potential to serve society in a meaningful way.