Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I cannot confirm or deny that the exact word "scary" is officially used, yet the video I watched a few months back had someone(i.e. a teacher) saying that word or something very similar. If not, it was a word indicating that odd numbers and anything over single digits were disturbing in some fashion when compared to a comforting number like 10 .
As I said, I am not knowledgeable enough about the exact curriculum of CC. I do know a liberal teacher who lives down the road(voted Obama twice) is against it. The example I gave of Jeb Bush (R-FL) being for it shows just how different people view it.
Of course Jeb Bush was pro CC. His foundation Excellence in Education, raked in tens of millions of dollars to promote it.
This is what a first grader is supposed to be able to explain:
In fact, in first grade students are to learn all these ways to add and subtract:
"CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.C.6
Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13)."
At that age such bewildering legerdemain will not produce quantitative thinkers. It will convince students that they are failures. All this is part of the plan to "fundamentally change America".
What, exactly, is wrong with that approach? It's exactly how people do basic arithmetic in real life.
What, exactly, is wrong with that approach? It's exactly how people do basic arithmetic in real life.
That messes them up when they get into the bigger numbers and also subtraction, especially when you have to borrow from the next column.
Because they never really memorized 8+6 they now have several hoops to jump to get to 14.
Now they "borrowed" from the other ones place. They then get confused when you borrow from the tens place to do subtraction so when they borrow they add to the number but not as a borrowed 10.
And then they try to do the same with fractions....1/8 + 1/6 becomes 1/7 + 1/7 and they think it's ok because they "just borrowed".
And then when they get to Algebra and tack on some variable, exponents and logs to that number and they are totally lost without calculators.
Your foundation math is addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Those that just memorize them and skip the extra steps fare much better in the later grades when math becomes more difficult.
I do Math tutoring (math remediation for those failing) from grades 3-8. The same pattern emerges for these kids..they do not know their foundational math and cannot do any of the higher level math.
I'm against it because that's how I learn naturally and I'm in a huge minority. Why are you making "normal" kids learn how to do things the hard way when they are perfectly capable of learning it the EASY way??!! Total waste of time.
Looking at the history I have to strongly disagree with the thought that this is a Federal initiative.
In fact great care was taken to keep it out of Federal hands. There was a Federal role perhaps but a negative one. The NCLB basically incentiveized the states to adopt weakened standards. Very high goals in NCLB but you could get there easiest by dumbing down the standard. Otherwise though it was a State initiative. Sure there are some other players like Gates. What else do you do with multiple billions if not try and fix things?
The objections raised seem to deal primarily with implemention, particularly testing. I would think that a different issue. You still need a standard.
And I strongly differ that CT should have a different standard than NV. If there is more money perhaps I find no fault in CT enriching the basics. But the basics ought to be consistent. And they were probably closer before NCLB made it desirable to cheat.
So I would think if Common Core is not right we should fix Common Core. I expect what will happen is we will have a set of states deselect Common Core and then institute a standard that is at least 98% Common Core. Then we will have a gradually erosion of the standard as States try to look better without effort or spending money. And that is what is enabled
I'm conservative, a former engineer and now a math and science teacher. I'm against it because I know what's in it. While it represents raising the bar for the school my dd attends, I'd have to lower the bar where I teach. I shouldn't have to lower the bar. It specifically excludes material that I consider higher level material. I HAVE to cut about 20% of my material if we adopt it.
Personally, I don't think it's rigorous enough. I don't think it goes deep enough. They have cut material because they think all we have to do is teach less to teach deeper. The problem with this is teaching a subject like chemistry is a lot like strip mining. You're not going deep if you don't go wide because the walls are going to cave in. They have cut concepts where I really see the lights go on. For example, I teach Hess's law the long way and then lead my students through discovering the short way. When they discover it, they always cry foul and ask "Why didn't you teach us this in the first place?" and I ask them "Would you have understood it if I had?" and they agree with me that they would not have understood it if I'd only taught the short way. Under common core they don't even teach the short way. Actual calculations using formation energies are not allowed. They're supposed to know it conceptually. This is like saying a student doesn't actually need to add numbers. They just need to know addition conceptually.
I don't like it because it's just another layer of dummying down our schools. While I support the idea of teaching less each year to go deeper you have to do it right. You have to vertically align the curriculum so the foundation material is there to go deep. You can't build a wall on quicksand no matter how nice your bricks look.
I actually agree with the idea of a common core. I just don't like what they came up with AND if you're going to have a common core you NEED common exit exams to insure it is being taught. We have teachers at my school who boast that they don't teach half of the curriculum but they are never called on this because there is no common exit exam. THEY write the exit exam themselves and all they have to do is write one kids pass. What good is a common core if you don't have a common assessment to make sure it's being taught? I can tell you what will happen here. We'll adopt the common core and teachers will go on teaching what they always have because no one checks to see what is really being taught. I was appalled when my dd took HONORS chemistry at her high school. I teach more chemistry in my consumer chemistry class (the book we use for consumer chemistry is the same book my dd's school uses for HONORS chemistry). I do not want to know what they teach in their consumer chemistry class. NONE of this matters without common exit exams. When all kids have to pass the same final to pass the class you'll have a chance of all kids being taught the same material to the same depth.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 01-04-2015 at 06:41 PM..
So I would think if Common Core is not right we should fix Common Core. I expect what will happen is we will have a set of states deselect Common Core and then institute a standard that is at least 98% Common Core. Then we will have a gradually erosion of the standard as States try to look better without effort or spending money. And that is what is enabled
Let's reverse the question, what problem(s) is CC trying to solve? Does CC fix that problem(s)? Does it even apply to the problem(s)?
Let's say your car has a shake when you drive it. CC assumes the engine is bad and totally replaces the engine. But perhaps all it needed were new spark plugs. And, here's the catch, the real reason your car was shaking was it had a flat tire.
There you have it: CC is a bad implementation of a poor solution to the wrong problem.
Billy can read. See Billy read. Read, Billy, read.
Debbie can read. See Debbie read. Read, Debbie, read.
Johnny can't read. Why can't Johnny read? Johnny must feel bad because he can't read.
Let's make Johnny feel good.
It must be the school's fault. Bad schools, bad.
It must be the teacher's fault. Bad teachers, bad.
It must be societies fault. Bad society, bad.
No, Johnny can't read because Johnny doesn't care if he can read. His parents don't care if he can read. How does CC fix that problem?
(Substitute math, science, whatever your subject of choice. And, yes, I know there are some folks who have true disabilities. I'm not talking about them.)
Let's reverse the question, what problem(s) is CC trying to solve? Does CC fix that problem(s)? Does it even apply to the problem(s)?
Let's say your car has a shake when you drive it. CC assumes the engine is bad and totally replaces the engine. But perhaps all it needed were new spark plugs. And, here's the catch, the real reason your car was shaking was it had a flat tire.
There you have it: CC is a bad implementation of a poor solution to the wrong problem.
Billy can read. See Billy read. Read, Billy, read.
Debbie can read. See Debbie read. Read, Debbie, read.
Johnny can't read. Why can't Johnny read? Johnny must feel bad because he can't read.
Let's make Johnny feel good.
It must be the school's fault. Bad schools, bad.
It must be the teacher's fault. Bad teachers, bad.
It must be societies fault. Bad society, bad.
No, Johnny can't read because Johnny doesn't care if he can read. His parents don't care if he can read. How does CC fix that problem?
(Substitute math, science, whatever your subject of choice. And, yes, I know there are some folks who have true disabilities. I'm not talking about them.)
American students are middle of the road, if that in global standings.
So a tougher curriculum was invented.
BUT..we had NCLB which supposedly called for tougher standards already and not one single school in the US would have made the NCLB mandate of 100% pass their state tests in 2014.
Schools jumped on the CC bandwagon because NCLB was going to destroy their kingdoms in 2014.
Don't forget..if they didn't move over to CC then they had to go with the NCLB mandate of 100% passing.
Let's reverse the question, what problem(s) is CC trying to solve? Does CC fix that problem(s)? Does it even apply to the problem(s)?
Let's say your car has a shake when you drive it. CC assumes the engine is bad and totally replaces the engine. But perhaps all it needed were new spark plugs. And, here's the catch, the real reason your car was shaking was it had a flat tire.
There you have it: CC is a bad implementation of a poor solution to the wrong problem.
Billy can read. See Billy read. Read, Billy, read.
Debbie can read. See Debbie read. Read, Debbie, read.
Johnny can't read. Why can't Johnny read? Johnny must feel bad because he can't read.
Let's make Johnny feel good.
It must be the school's fault. Bad schools, bad.
It must be the teacher's fault. Bad teachers, bad.
It must be societies fault. Bad society, bad.
No, Johnny can't read because Johnny doesn't care if he can read. His parents don't care if he can read. How does CC fix that problem?
(Substitute math, science, whatever your subject of choice. And, yes, I know there are some folks who have true disabilities. I'm not talking about them.)
This is why I don't want to dummy down to the common core. I teach the kids who want to learn because it's good for them AND Johnny. Johnny gets exposed to more even though he just sits there like a bump. I think he picks some up through osmosis, lol. I taught at a charter school for two years and passing scores on the science tests jumped 41% (and dropped back to where they were when I left so I'm pretty sure this was due to bar raising). I raised the bar and the kids complained but when they realized I wasn't changing it the top rose to the challenge and I swear they dragged the bottom up with them. When you raise the bar, kids rise to the challenge. We really need to stop playing education limbo. It's not good for anyone. Johnny is doing worse than ever.
My school has test retakes to help out the Johnny's only it's backfiring. Now Johnny cares even less about tests. It's common to have 1/3 of the class failing now. Lowering the bar doesn't work. If you give Johnny an inch, he'll take a mile. Dh used to be in management and he was fond of saying that 95% of getting someone to do something is just expecting to.
Well we'll have to wait and see if we make the top 10 of the next PISA since CC will raise the bar for all.
Raise the bar yet no child can be left behind. That is an oxymoron in itself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
