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.
Common Core deals with very little of practical value especially with regard to math. You ought to read the article I posted from Professor Ratner in The Wall Street Journal.
For those of you who think Common Core is a good thing, ask yourself why prestigious private schools such as Phillips Academy, Sidwell Friends School (the school the President's children attend), and Lakeside School (the school Bill Gates' children attend) have not implemented it? In fact, do a search on their Web sites and try to find any reference to implementing Common Core; I was unable to find any. The following is stated on the official Common Core Web site: "The standards were informed by the best in the country, the highest international standards, and evidence and expertise about educational outcomes." If Common Core is the panacea to our nation's education problems, it seems those pushing these standards would want their own children to have their education based on them.
Common Core deals with very little of practical value especially with regard to math.
Have you read the standards? What specific standards have "little practical value" that were put in that weren't in there before? What have you seen in a child's problem-solving process that has gotten worse with these standards? What real-life things were taken out of the standards that we had?
The new standards make me teach students how to compare data sets by creating a spreadsheet, plotting data points, finding the correlation coefficient using Microsoft Excel/Google Docs, create a line of best fit for that data, and make predictions based on the data (CCSS standard: HSS.ID.B.6 through 9). Not only are they having to calculate all of this, they have to speak about what all these numbers mean in the context of their data. Fantastic real-life application, none of which was a previous standard.
Exponential functions are now in the Algebra curriculum. I get to teach students how to calculate interest, and compare interest vs a linear situation, understanding that an exponential function will always pass a linear function (HSF.LE.A.1 through 3). This prepares them for finance better than anything in the previous standards.
My students get to work with problems that they would see in physics, as quadratic word problems dealing with gravity. Quadratic word problems were a standard before, but they were weak and all the state test questions were "Johnny throws a ball up modeled by this easily factorable equation, when will it hit the floor?" Common Core now extends their mathematics and says "So you set the equation equal to zero and factored? Great! How else could you have done it (completing the square to solve for the vertex)?" (HSF.IF.C.8) They need to know what the coefficients mean in a quadratic function in a real-world situation. For example, if the tennis ball's height was represented by the equation -16x^2+24x+6, what does the 24 mean in the context of the problem? What is the 6 talking about? (HSF.IF.B.4)
I just wanted to make sure that the hate is well directed. You seem to be hating on the standards which I disagree with, however if you wanted to hate on the 4 weeks that I lose in May due to the assessment of the standards because each classroom doesn't have a Chromebook cart, or the fact that teachers are asked to implement and teach all these new standards even though the textbooks they are given are all aligned to the old standards, then I'm on your team!
But the standards? They're fantastic. I've actually read them (and the old), taught them (and the old), and definitely see the difference in the quality of the student they produce (vs the old). All I've lost responsibility for is rational expressions, which had no real-life application, and I've gained so many real-world problem solving standards that help a student in physics/higher level math.
Have you read the standards? What specific standards have "little practical value" that were put in that weren't in there before? What have you seen in a child's problem-solving process that has gotten worse with these standards? What real-life things were taken out of the standards that we had?
The new standards make me teach students how to compare data sets by creating a spreadsheet, plotting data points, finding the correlation coefficient using Microsoft Excel/Google Docs, create a line of best fit for that data, and make predictions based on the data (CCSS standard: HSS.ID.B.6 through 9). Not only are they having to calculate all of this, they have to speak about what all these numbers mean in the context of their data. Fantastic real-life application, none of which was a previous standard.
Exponential functions are now in the Algebra curriculum. I get to teach students how to calculate interest, and compare interest vs a linear situation, understanding that an exponential function will always pass a linear function (HSF.LE.A.1 through 3). This prepares them for finance better than anything in the previous standards.
My students get to work with problems that they would see in physics, as quadratic word problems dealing with gravity. Quadratic word problems were a standard before, but they were weak and all the state test questions were "Johnny throws a ball up modeled by this easily factorable equation, when will it hit the floor?" Common Core now extends their mathematics and says "So you set the equation equal to zero and factored? Great! How else could you have done it (completing the square to solve for the vertex)?" (HSF.IF.C.8) They need to know what the coefficients mean in a quadratic function in a real-world situation. For example, if the tennis ball's height was represented by the equation -16x^2+24x+6, what does the 24 mean in the context of the problem? What is the 6 talking about? (HSF.IF.B.4)
I just wanted to make sure that the hate is well directed. You seem to be hating on the standards which I disagree with, however if you wanted to hate on the 4 weeks that I lose in May due to the assessment of the standards because each classroom doesn't have a Chromebook cart, or the fact that teachers are asked to implement and teach all these new standards even though the textbooks they are given are all aligned to the old standards, then I'm on your team!
But the standards? They're fantastic. I've actually read them (and the old), taught them (and the old), and definitely see the difference in the quality of the student they produce (vs the old). All I've lost responsibility for is rational expressions, which had no real-life application, and I've gained so many real-world problem solving standards that help a student in physics/higher level math.
It appears you are dealing with the high school standards and not the elementary school standards. I have read the standards that would be applicable for third, fourth, and fifth grade since that is where my kids are with math at this time. Consistent with what Professor Ratner observed in her op-ed piece which I cited earlier in this thread, there are things which simply are nonsensical in these standards such as having to usual "visual fraction models" when doing fraction computations (see Grade 5 Number & Operations - Fractions, Grade 5 » Number & Operations—Fractions | Common Core State Standards Initiative). In addition, I have seen several examples of skills being listed as fourth and fifth grade skills in the Common Core standards which are skills I have taught my children from Saxon Math Grade 3 which was published in 1994. Specific examples include Grade 5 Operations & Algebraic Thinking, Grade 5 » Operations & Algebraic Thinking | Common Core State Standards Initiative, and Grade 4, Geometry, Grade 4 » Geometry | Common Core State Standards Initiative. While the high school standards may have value, those of us with younger children see elementary standards which are often convoluted and also watered down relative to what was being taught not too long ago. It is my opinion that these standards for the elementary students make math seem more incomprehensible, and I do not see that as a good thing when it seems society is trying to emphasize the importance of developing math and science skills. I have chosen to use pre-Common Core math curricula with my children, and from a skills perspective, my kids are ahead of where they are supposed to be with regard to the Common Core standards.
Massachusetts, where I came from and ranked #1 in public education, is using CC. I actually feel better about CCSD, being on it's third year on CC. Teachers need time to transition. Two more years I think they will be very efficient.
The math homework, I help my son with, forces different solution processes from different angles on the same problem types. I like that.
If he has a problem with a homework, it is tied to a specific section and number of CC. We can then look up Khan videos based on those CC reference points.
Ratner is not widely accepted. She is basically accused of taking an elitist approach that would be nice for the colleges but do little for the majority of students. A number of her points are refuted by the mathematicians she quotes.
I am quite sure there are areas in the Common Core that need revision. But the process is well under way and shows no indication that it needs a massive redo or that something better is close at hand.
It appears you are dealing with the high school standards and not the elementary school standards. I have read the standards that would be applicable for third, fourth, and fifth grade since that is where my kids are with math at this time. Consistent with what Professor Ratner observed in her op-ed piece which I cited earlier in this thread, there are things which simply are nonsensical in these standards such as having to usual "visual fraction models" when doing fraction computations (see Grade 5 Number & Operations - Fractions, Grade 5 » Number & Operations—Fractions | Common Core State Standards Initiative). In addition, I have seen several examples of skills being listed as fourth and fifth grade skills in the Common Core standards which are skills I have taught my children from Saxon Math Grade 3 which was published in 1994. Specific examples include Grade 5 Operations & Algebraic Thinking, Grade 5 » Operations & Algebraic Thinking | Common Core State Standards Initiative, and Grade 4, Geometry, Grade 4 » Geometry | Common Core State Standards Initiative. While the high school standards may have value, those of us with younger children see elementary standards which are often convoluted and also watered down relative to what was being taught not too long ago. It is my opinion that these standards for the elementary students make math seem more incomprehensible, and I do not see that as a good thing when it seems society is trying to emphasize the importance of developing math and science skills. I have chosen to use pre-Common Core math curricula with my children, and from a skills perspective, my kids are ahead of where they are supposed to be with regard to the Common Core standards.
Your children are likely ahead because they have a parent who is knowledgeable about mathematics and working with them on a daily basis. Thank you for doing such.
So I finally got an example (yay!) of something you don't like in the new common core standards; citing that visual fraction models are "nonsensical". Except...
Old Nevada content standard:
5.1.5.2.1 Add and subtract fractions with like denominators using models, drawings, and numbers.
5.1.5.2.2 Compare fractions with unlike denominators using models and drawings, and by finding common denominators.
5.1.5.2.3 Identify, model, and compare improper fractions and mixed numbers
New common core standard:
5.NF.A.2
Solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions referring to the same whole, including cases of unlike denominators, e.g., by using visual fraction models or equations to represent the problem. Use benchmark fractions and number sense of fractions to estimate mentally and assess the reasonableness of answers. For example, recognize an incorrect result 2/5 + 1/2 = 3/7, by observing that 3/7 < 1/2.
So it's not like Common Core "invented" this and it was uniquely introduced into the curriculum and shoved down the students throat to learn it this way. It's been a standard.
In fact, you made the comment earlier that "it is utter nonsense to force every child to learn how to solve a problem the same way." The Common Core standard has the conjunction OR written in it, meaning visual models OR equations could be used, while the old standard has the conjunction AND, meaning I as an educator would be responsible for all of the methods. In this example, Common Core actually gives the teacher more freedom in their curriculum, as well as extending the concept to word problems. This is a step in the right direction from what we had, not backwards.
I am unable to evaluate the other two things you linked because they are domains not content standards. There's several standards within those domains, which specifically didn't you like?
Your children are likely ahead because they have a parent who is knowledgeable about mathematics and working with them on a daily basis. Thank you for doing such.
So I finally got an example (yay!) of something you don't like in the new common core standards; citing that visual fraction models are "nonsensical". Except...
Old Nevada content standard:
5.1.5.2.1 Add and subtract fractions with like denominators using models, drawings, and numbers.
5.1.5.2.2 Compare fractions with unlike denominators using models and drawings, and by finding common denominators.
5.1.5.2.3 Identify, model, and compare improper fractions and mixed numbers
New common core standard:
5.NF.A.2
Solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions referring to the same whole, including cases of unlike denominators, e.g., by using visual fraction models or equations to represent the problem. Use benchmark fractions and number sense of fractions to estimate mentally and assess the reasonableness of answers. For example, recognize an incorrect result 2/5 + 1/2 = 3/7, by observing that 3/7 < 1/2.
So it's not like Common Core "invented" this and it was uniquely introduced into the curriculum and shoved down the students throat to learn it this way. It's been a standard.
In fact, you made the comment earlier that "it is utter nonsense to force every child to learn how to solve a problem the same way." The Common Core standard has the conjunction OR written in it, meaning visual models OR equations could be used, while the old standard has the conjunction AND, meaning I as an educator would be responsible for all of the methods. In this example, Common Core actually gives the teacher more freedom in their curriculum, as well as extending the concept to word problems. This is a step in the right direction from what we had, not backwards.
I am unable to evaluate the other two things you linked because they are domains not content standards. There's several standards within those domains, which specifically didn't you like?
It appears you misread what I wrote. The other two areas were cited as examples where it appears the Common Core standards establish goals for fourth and fifth graders which used to be goals for third graders back in the 1990s. Once again, I am simply basing this off of the Saxon Math 3 curriculum I have used with my children. If one of the stated attributes of the Common Core is academic rigor, I fail to see how pushing back goals is consistent with that.
Ratner is not widely accepted. She is basically accused of taking an elitist approach that would be nice for the colleges but do little for the majority of students. A number of her points are refuted by the mathematicians she quotes.
I am quite sure there are areas in the Common Core that need revision. But the process is well under way and shows no indication that it needs a massive redo or that something better is close at hand.
First, please provide specific evidence to support the following statements: "Ratner is not widely accepted. She is basically accused of taking an elitist approach that would be nice for the colleges but do little for the majority of students." Second, please provide the specific details which led you to the following conclusion: "But the process is well under way and shows no indication that it needs a massive redo or that something better is close at hand." Do you have any children currently being educated in a school which utilizes the Common Core state standards? What is your response to the fact that elite prep schools such as Phillips Academy, Sidwell Friends School, and Lakeside School do not adapt their curricula to the Common Core?
Common Core deals with very little of practical value especially with regard to math. You ought to read the article I posted from Professor Ratner in The Wall Street Journal.
For those of you who think Common Core is a good thing, ask yourself why prestigious private schools such as Phillips Academy, Sidwell Friends School (the school the President's children attend), and Lakeside School (the school Bill Gates' children attend) have not implemented it? In fact, do a search on their Web sites and try to find any reference to implementing Common Core; I was unable to find any. The following is stated on the official Common Core Web site: "The standards were informed by the best in the country, the highest international standards, and evidence and expertise about educational outcomes." If Common Core is the panacea to our nation's education problems, it seems those pushing these standards would want their own children to have their education based on them.
AMEN! Those pushing this want to keep a portion of the U.S. Population ignorant and under their control!
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.
