Common Core.... someone please explain

[Lolsmum]

First, I'm not sure that everyone needs to "get it" at a level that will carry them through to calculus or other higher math. That's a level of competency that relatively few people need even in our modern, post-industrial economy and yet we act like it is a national tragedy that not every student will go on to calculus by age 18. Second, I'm not sure that common core is really helping more kids get it. (And yes, to the defenders, this is an implementation issue). Because one of the key points of the common core math standards is to be able to explain one's reasoning and critique the reasoning of others beginning in kindergarten, math has become much more literacy-based than it ever was in the past. If you aren't good at reading and writing, even in early elem where some variation in ability is normal, you won't be good in math... the one subject that has historically been the refuge of bright kids who struggled with written language for whatever reason. We're creating a very one-size-fits-all model of education - recommended course sequences for selective college admissions as the new HS graduation requirements, crowding out technical and vocational education in the name of college prep for all, a math curriculum that hinges on language skills, leaving no refuge for those kids who are good at math and bad at English (which describes many of the engineers and computer science guys I know), etc. But what happens to the kids who don't fit that mold?

But what about the large number of students over the years who haven't been able to "get it" well enough to use basic math skills in their day to day lives? The adults who never learned and therefore do not understand how compound interest works and run up incredible levels of debt on credit cards? The adults who truly cannot add up their grocery totals to even a roughest image and have to put back purchases until the total is something they can afford? These people are definitely real, and in many cases it comes down to a lack of understanding. I tutored kids in high school who had never really grasped what multiplication was. No wonder they couldn't double a recipe, let alone work out harder problems.

As for the language skills, I think that's a total red herring. Kids who get math nearly always get the language skills needed to explain the math. Having greater English skills has not historically been particularly helpful with word problems when the math skills aren't there. Allowing children to view math as something that doesn't need any language skills might explain why so many engineers and computer science guys get away with not demonstrating any language skills, but any engineer or computer person who understands what they themselves are doing is capable of explaining it, though sometimes not to the lay person.

 

[Colleen27]

Show me a CC lesson that requires a K student to do that requires them to have a firm grasp on language skills that is unreasonable? Yes math does require some written explanation(based on grade), but I have not seen anything change in my 2nd graders math in the last 2 years since CC roll out that is require him to much more proficient with language skills than when my dd was in that grade. I would bet almost anything if you do post a lesson, I can find one that is appropriate and acceptable to match that standard. Again, I think that is all implementation. You don't have to fit a mold anymore now than before CC...at least in my experience over the last 2 years with my kids and in our district.

I agree that it is all about implementation. However, when the standard includes language like ""construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others" (a direct quote from the kindergarten standard in Michigan) and elaborate that they "justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others", it certainly encourages curriculum developers to add a great deal of written language work to the math books. In a classroom of 30+ students (yes, even in K) attempting to measure these dimensions of the standard out loud is considered too time consuming and/or chaotic for the realities of our classroom situation. And that led to the acceptance of curriculum that demands multi-sentence written responses as early as K or 1st grade. So in effect common core is becoming just another layer of inequality in education - the better schools with smaller classes more budgetary freedom are doing a better job of implementing the new standards, while struggling districts are buying boxed curriculum that often doesn't present the new material in an accessible fashion.

But what about the large number of students over the years who haven't been able to "get it" well enough to use basic math skills in their day to day lives? The adults who never learned and therefore do not understand how compound interest works and run up incredible levels of debt on credit cards? The adults who truly cannot add up their grocery totals to even a roughest image and have to put back purchases until the total is something they can afford? These people are definitely real, and in many cases it comes down to a lack of understanding. I tutored kids in high school who had never really grasped what multiplication was. No wonder they couldn't double a recipe, let alone work out harder problems.

As for the language skills, I think that's a total red herring. Kids who get math nearly always get the language skills needed to explain the math. Having greater English skills has not historically been particularly helpful with word problems when the math skills aren't there. Allowing children to view math as something that doesn't need any language skills might explain why so many engineers and computer science guys get away with not demonstrating any language skills, but any engineer or computer person who understands what they themselves are doing is capable of explaining it, though sometimes not to the lay person.

And yet those engineers and computer science guys do "get away" with it, don't they? They do well for themselves even without the ability to write out, step by step in a grammatically correct fashion, the way they solve each problem. That's my point. Half the men in my family are dyslexic and most went into technical fields. My father worked in design for GM, my grandfather in industrial robotics, etc. But these are men who would have failed the math being given to my son, where this:

...1
.. 19
.+22
..___
...41

isn't a correct answer unless you can explain, in proper sentences, how you arrived at the answer (italics are carrying notation, ignore the dots they're just placeholders to line things up). The correct answer is...

To add 19 and 22, I first subtracted 1 from 22 and added it to 19 in order to make 20. I then added 20 and 20 to get 40, then added the leftover 1 to get the final answer of 41.

Now, explain to me how giving that assignment, with perhaps 4-6 such problems on a page, isn't turning off 1st and 2nd graders who struggle with either the mechanics of writing, the skills of written literacy, or both.

I agree something needs to be done to address the issue of students making it through school without basic math skills. I just don't think making all of math class word problems and essay questions is the solution. If you look at math curriculums in nations that outperform us, they aren't writing out multi-sentence responses to basic addition problems. They are, however, practicing math facts from a variety of angles until students achieve real mastery, and they're not letting kids learn things once and then forget them the way we do (congratulations, you've mastered arithmetic... now you can use a calculator for the rest of your math classes and never perform another mental calculation!).

ETA: I also think the credit card point speaks to an entirely different issue - not that people don't understand compound interest, but that they don't accurately align their standard of living to their earning potential, borrow to have things now rather than waiting until they can afford them, often with the best intentions of paying off that credit card with next week's paycheck/next quarter's bonus/next year's tax return, but by then have other things they need or want and put off paying on the debt. It is a behavioral issue, not a math issue.

 

[Lolsmum]

I agree that it is all about implementation. However, when the standard includes language like ""construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others" (a direct quote from the kindergarten standard in Michigan) and elaborate that they "justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others", it certainly encourages curriculum developers to add a great deal of written language work to the math books. In a classroom of 30+ students (yes, even in K) attempting to measure these dimensions of the standard out loud is considered too time consuming and/or chaotic for the realities of our classroom situation. And that led to the acceptance of curriculum that demands multi-sentence written responses as early as K or 1st grade. So in effect common core is becoming just another layer of inequality in education - the better schools with smaller classes more budgetary freedom are doing a better job of implementing the new standards, while struggling districts are buying boxed curriculum that often doesn't present the new material in an accessible fashion.



And yet those engineers and computer science guys do "get away" with it, don't they? They do well for themselves even without the ability to write out, step by step in a grammatically correct fashion, the way they solve each problem. That's my point. Half the men in my family are dyslexic and most went into technical fields. My father worked in design for GM, my grandfather in industrial robotics, etc. But these are men who would have failed the math being given to my son, where this:

...1
.. 19
.+22
..___
...41

isn't a correct answer unless you can explain, in proper sentences, how you arrived at the answer (italics are carrying notation, ignore the dots they're just placeholders to line things up). The correct answer is...

To add 19 and 22, I first subtracted 1 from 22 and added it to 19 in order to make 20. I then added 20 and 20 to get 40, then added the leftover 1 to get the final answer of 41.

Now, explain to me how giving that assignment, with perhaps 4-6 such problems on a page, isn't turning off 1st and 2nd graders who struggle with either the mechanics of writing, the skills of written literacy, or both.

I agree something needs to be done to address the issue of students making it through school without basic math skills. I just don't think making all of math class word problems and essay questions is the solution. If you look at math curriculums in nations that outperform us, they aren't writing out multi-sentence responses to basic addition problems. They are, however, practicing math facts from a variety of angles until students achieve real mastery, and they're not letting kids learn things once and then forget them the way we do (congratulations, you've mastered arithmetic... now you can use a calculator for the rest of your math classes and never perform another mental calculation!).

ETA: I also think the credit card point speaks to an entirely different issue - not that people don't understand compound interest, but that they don't accurately align their standard of living to their earning potential, borrow to have things now rather than waiting until they can afford them, often with the best intentions of paying off that credit card with next week's paycheck/next quarter's bonus/next year's tax return, but by then have other things they need or want and put off paying on the debt. It is a behavioral issue, not a math issue.

You missed my point on the engineers and programmers. They may be unable to explain to a lay person what they are doing, but they generally are able to explain to those with a common language. I come from a long line of math-types and am also married to a man who does as well. Requiring some ability to actually explain isn't a terrible thing, and will be helpful to those students in the long run. Even the most brilliant mathematician needs to be able to explain their work to someone else or it's worthless.

Meeting the standards, which is what Common Core is, does not require writing out long essays. My kids meet similar standards verbally, by doing group work in class. They "construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others" in the discussions with their group, or in whole class discussions, and in doing so they "justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others". If asked, they could write it out but they aren't asked to do so over and over and over. That's a teaching issue, not a standards issue. I can tell you my 7 year old could think of at least 3 ways to approach your problem and explain them all. With that simple of an example, some kids can simply do it in their head, but the traditional method of add 2 to 9, carry the 1 (a phrase I have seen countless kids confused by since I was a kid), then add 1, 1 and 2 to put a 4 in the 10s place truly isn't the easiest solution for mental arithmetic for most. Teach them to make up the nearest 10 (taking 1 from 22 and making the 19 into 20) then add the resulting numbers (20 + 21) actually makes the mental math easier.

Yes, behavioural issues do play into debt, but so does a total failure to understand how much credit can (and often does) cost. I have seen many people with shaky math skills choose to put money into savings before paying off a high interest loan or credit card, not grasping that the end result is a lot less money in their pocket.

You said, "They are, however, practicing math facts from a variety of angles until students achieve real mastery". A variety of angles. That is exactly what the common core standards ask for and exactly what your example is doing. Rather than the single traditional method most of us were taught, this method and others are also taught. As to calculators, that is largely up to the teacher. I am fairly old school there, coming from the era in which calculators weren't allowed for most tests, including the SAT.

 

[jodifla]

You missed my point on the engineers and programmers. They may be unable to explain to a lay person what they are doing, but they generally are able to explain to those with a common language. I come from a long line of math-types and am also married to a man who does as well. Requiring some ability to actually explain isn't a terrible thing, and will be helpful to those students in the long run. Even the most brilliant mathematician needs to be able to explain their work to someone else or it's worthless.

Meeting the standards, which is what Common Core is, does not require writing out long essays. My kids meet similar standards verbally, by doing group work in class. They "construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others" in the discussions with their group, or in whole class discussions, and in doing so they "justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others". If asked, they could write it out but they aren't asked to do so over and over and over. That's a teaching issue, not a standards issue. I can tell you my 7 year old could think of at least 3 ways to approach your problem and explain them all. With that simple of an example, some kids can simply do it in their head, but the traditional method of add 2 to 9, carry the 1 (a phrase I have seen countless kids confused by since I was a kid), then add 1, 1 and 2 to put a 4 in the 10s place truly isn't the easiest solution for mental arithmetic for most. Teach them to make up the nearest 10 (taking 1 from 22 and making the 19 into 20) then add the resulting numbers (20 + 21) actually makes the mental math easier.

Yes, behavioural issues do play into debt, but so does a total failure to understand how much credit can (and often does) cost. I have seen many people with shaky math skills choose to put money into savings before paying off a high interest loan or credit card, not grasping that the end result is a lot less money in their pocket.

You said, "They are, however, practicing math facts from a variety of angles until students achieve real mastery". A variety of angles. That is exactly what the common core standards ask for and exactly what your example is doing. Rather than the single traditional method most of us were taught, this method and others are also taught. As to calculators, that is largely up to the teacher. I am fairly old school there, coming from the era in which calculators weren't allowed for most tests, including the SAT.

Many kids with language disabilities are also not verbal enough to have these conversations, even though they understand and know the work. CC is a epic failure for them.

 

[nugov2]

Many kids with language disabilities are also not verbal enough to have these conversations, even though they understand and know the work. CC is a epic failure for them.

Those kids are on an IEP and are given modified lessons based on their specific needs.

Again many of the added language components. ..especially in the younger grades can be shown by drawing a picture. Even in my sons 2nd grade class the language component of math is minimal. Nothing that is unreasonable for all levels and kids with IEPs will get accommodations so they are successful as well. If cc is an epic failure then they have parents who don't understand their child's legal rights and a school who needs to be careful for violating procedure. Any child with a language disability should be on an IEP and without it school is an epic fail no matter what the standards are.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

When it comes to Math, language just slows you down. 1+1=2, because it just does. It's an absolute, a definition. From the above example, 19 + 22 = 30 + 11 to me. Why should I have to explain how you would get to 40, then add one. That would just slow me down. If a person gets the concept and answer in lower grades, there is no reason to make them do a problem three different ways and write out in words how they arrived at an answer. Move on to new concepts; teach more quickly while their brains are like sponges.

Now, if someone can't do Math, the language intervention might help, but for Math brains it's a waste of time and, I believe, detrimental to STEM learning. Look at Asian students as an example. They do not learn Math through language, and they are leaps and bounds ahead of U.S. kids when it comes to Math(through high school, at least).

 

[kamik86]

To give an example of someone that would have hated math taught this way.

My sister had reading issues as a kid. She was never diagnosed with anything. Not sure if there is a name for her issues or not.

However she understood all her math concepts. She could do any problem that was written in numbers. However if you gave her a word problem on paper she would have no idea. If you read her the word problem she could explain to you exactly what to do without any issues.


Me I would have been ok with this new explaining what you did thing under 1 condition... I didn't get a teacher that took off points when I spelled things wrong. I can explain what I'm doing, I can do math, I cannot spell. I am much better now then as a child and of course spell check is my friend, but as a kid I would have been so frustrated when I was losing points in math because I couldn't spell multiplication correctly! I already hated that I was losing points in history and most of my other classes for this reason.

Years I got teachers that were ok as long as they could tell what I meant I did just fine

 

[Lolsmum]

When it comes to Math, language just slows you down. 1+1=2, because it just does. It's an absolute, a definition. From the above example, 19 + 22 = 30 + 11 to me. Why should I have to explain how you would get to 40, then add one. That would just slow me down. If a person gets the concept and answer in lower grades, there is no reason to make them do a problem three different ways and write out in words how they arrived at an answer. Move on to new concepts; teach more quickly while their brains are like sponges.

Now, if someone can't do Math, the language intervention might help, but for Math brains it's a waste of time and, I believe, detrimental to STEM learning. Look at Asian students as an example. They do not learning Math through language, and they are leaps and bounds ahead of U.S. kids when it comes to Math(through high school, at least).

I think you have just clearly stated why this should be one method that is used in teaching math.

I also think the persistent belief in "math brains" and "language brains" is detrimental to not just the children who are learning but to society as a whole. Most of us are capable of handling math through high school and language both. Letting kids slip through the cracks on math early can have a major impact on future careers. Many STEM careers require communication in addition to math, so learning how to explain math in a clear way is hardly detrimental. My husband is an actuary, an extremely math-based career. He still needs to be able to communicate his work to clients who are not particularly strong in math skills. Obviously he's not communicating 19 + 22=41, but practice early on is not a bad idea.

As to the Asian countries not using math through language, I'd like some references for that. Much of what I have read lately seems to point in the opposite direction, but I will admit that's mostly blogs and similar content.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

I think you have just clearly stated why this should be one method that is used in teaching math.

I also think the persistent belief in "math brains" and "language brains" is detrimental to not just the children who are learning but to society as a whole. Most of us are capable of handling math through high school and language both. Letting kids slip through the cracks on math early can have a major impact on future careers. Many STEM careers require communication in addition to math, so learning how to explain math in a clear way is hardly detrimental. My husband is an actuary, an extremely math-based career. He still needs to be able to communicate his work to clients who are not particularly strong in math skills. Obviously he's not communicating 19 + 22=41, but practice early on is not a bad idea.

As to the Asian countries not using math through language, I'd like some references for that. Much of what I have read lately seems to point in the opposite direction, but I will admit that's mostly blogs and similar content.

Your husband has to explain the practice of his profession with a broad brush, not in minute detail. He probably knows the in depth statistical analysis and why one statistical curve was more appropriate for the data than another or what analyses were used to create his reference tables and materials, but he doesn't communicate that to a client, maybe a boss (who understands Math), but not a client- and I bet his language classes were separate from his Math classes.

I'm not saying that language is useless. There are a few of those stereotypical dudes who can program anything but not make eye contact around, I guess, but having them write out "in words" addition or multiplication problems won't change that (I'm not sure it should be changed, honestly).

Let the kids who are good at Math and programming progress, without getting bogged down with busy work. Use the Math as Language problems to help kids that don't understand the math concepts.

You know, you could take it the other way, as well. Divide sentence structure into a math equation. Give pronouns, independent clauses, dependent clauses, adjectives, etc. number values and ask kids to build sentences and paragraphs that equal certain values. I don't think that would be useful for every child, either, and it just might stifle creativity.

 

[Lolsmum]

Your husband has to explain the practice of his profession with a broad brush, not in minute detail. He probably knows the in depth statistical analysis and why one statistical curve was more appropriate for the data than another or what analyses were used to create his reference tables and materials, but he doesn't communicate that to a client, maybe a boss (who understands Math), but not a client- and I bet his language classes were separate from his Math classes. I'm not saying that language is useless. There are a few of those stereotypical dudes who can program anything but not make eye contact around, I guess, but having them write out "in words" addition or multiplication problems won't change that (I'm not sure it should be changed, honestly). Let the kids who are good at Math and programming progress, without getting bogged down with busy work. Use the Math as Language problems to help kids that don't understand the math concepts. You know, you could take it the other way, as well. Divide sentence structure into a math equation. Give pronouns, independent clauses, dependent clauses, adjectives, etc. number values and ask kids to build sentences and paragraphs that equal certain values. I don't think that would be useful for every child, either, and it just might stifle creativity.

Do you feel the same way about other subjects? Let the kids who get reading easily move on and maybe work on teaching the others to a lower level? Not everyone needs to be able to read and write?

I do not understand the problem with using a few different approaches to teach arithmetic. For those who do get it, yes, it is going to be a certain amount of busywork and potential boredom, but the same could be said of just about any subject. I remember a whole heck of a lot of busywork in math the traditional way too. I didn't need to do worksheet after worksheet or all the even questions from page whatever of the textbook to get the concepts. Others needed the practice, so those who got the concepts quickly just had to suck it up and do the work too.

I assume you do understand that the basic problem with your language as math on a regular basis is that generally there is no single correct answer to an English question, unlike a math question.

 

[nugov2]

Do you feel the same way about other subjects? Let the kids who get reading easily move on and maybe work on teaching the others to a lower level? Not everyone needs to be able to read and write?

I do not understand the problem with using a few different approaches to teach arithmetic. For those who do get it, yes, it is going to be a certain amount of busywork and potential boredom, but the same could be said of just about any subject. I remember a whole heck of a lot of busywork in math the traditional way too. I didn't need to do worksheet after worksheet or all the even questions from page whatever of the textbook to get the concepts. Others needed the practice, so those who got the concepts quickly just had to suck it up and do the work too.

I assume you do understand that the basic problem with your language as math on a regular basis is that generally there is no single correct answer to an English question, unlike a math question.

There is absolutely no problem with teaching different methods and CC doesn't require you to eliminate doing that. It is just the schools that bought curriculum in a box programs to avoid writing their own curriculum that are only teaching one method and for some strange reason cannot even handle a simple pinterest search to find multiple lessons for multiple learners all while meeting the CC standards. Our district still teaches with many different methods to reach all styles of learning. That is a district/teacher choice to not do that and it is a disgrace.

 

[jahber]

There is absolutely no problem with teaching different methods and CC doesn't require you to eliminate doing that. It is just the schools that bought curriculum in a box programs to avoid writing their own curriculum that are only teaching one method and for some strange reason cannot even handle a simple pinterest search to find multiple lessons for multiple learners all while meeting the CC standards. Our district still teaches with many different methods to reach all styles of learning. That is a district/teacher choice to not do that and it is a disgrace.

Yes, the problem comes when teachers require students to use the one way being taught to complete a problem. If that one way doesn't click with a kid, they are out of luck. A friend showed me her son's math homework using partial quotients to solve a long division problem. It was bizarre. I can't even begin to imagine how it was easier than the standard long division algorithm. Fortunately, the teacher allowed them to use whatever method worked for the child.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

Do you feel the same way about other subjects? Let the kids who get reading easily move on and maybe work on teaching the others to a lower level? Not everyone needs to be able to read and write?

Absolutely, kids who learn to read more quickly should be allowed to progress! Why would they be limited to reading "Dick and Jane" over and over in different ways if they can read "Charlotte's Web?" And kids should not be made to teach other kids unless they want to do so. They are in school to learn, not to teach, and kids do not have the maturity and patience to do the same job as adults. I always hated being put in that position as a child. If the teacher couldn't reach someone, why would another sixth grader be able to do so?

 

[Colleen27]

You missed my point on the engineers and programmers. They may be unable to explain to a lay person what they are doing, but they generally are able to explain to those with a common language. I come from a long line of math-types and am also married to a man who does as well. Requiring some ability to actually explain isn't a terrible thing, and will be helpful to those students in the long run. Even the most brilliant mathematician needs to be able to explain their work to someone else or it's worthless.

Meeting the standards, which is what Common Core is, does not require writing out long essays. My kids meet similar standards verbally, by doing group work in class. They "construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others" in the discussions with their group, or in whole class discussions, and in doing so they "justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others". If asked, they could write it out but they aren't asked to do so over and over and over. That's a teaching issue, not a standards issue. I can tell you my 7 year old could think of at least 3 ways to approach your problem and explain them all. With that simple of an example, some kids can simply do it in their head, but the traditional method of add 2 to 9, carry the 1 (a phrase I have seen countless kids confused by since I was a kid), then add 1, 1 and 2 to put a 4 in the 10s place truly isn't the easiest solution for mental arithmetic for most. Teach them to make up the nearest 10 (taking 1 from 22 and making the 19 into 20) then add the resulting numbers (20 + 21) actually makes the mental math easier.

Yes, behavioural issues do play into debt, but so does a total failure to understand how much credit can (and often does) cost. I have seen many people with shaky math skills choose to put money into savings before paying off a high interest loan or credit card, not grasping that the end result is a lot less money in their pocket.

You said, "They are, however, practicing math facts from a variety of angles until students achieve real mastery". A variety of angles. That is exactly what the common core standards ask for and exactly what your example is doing. Rather than the single traditional method most of us were taught, this method and others are also taught. As to calculators, that is largely up to the teacher. I am fairly old school there, coming from the era in which calculators weren't allowed for most tests, including the SAT.

I guess the question is when the ability to explain needs to be learned. A lot of the "geek" types i know in tech fields struggled with language arts early on and clung to math because it was the subject area that they "got". Yes, they eventually did have to learn LA skills and no one is saying that should change. But in the meantime, when they were struggling to learn the skills they needed in English class (and really every other subject area, because the report/research paper is introduced very early on in science and social studies) they had math as a subject where they felt competent and confident. Common core, at least as I've seen it, strips that away from students who are struggling with language in early elem; now they're just "stupid" across the board because even in the subject they grasp they can't explain that grasp in ways that satisfy the curriculum.

Perhaps a better common core curriculum wouldn't pose the same issues. Perhaps smaller classes where that work can be done verbally instead of on paper would solve the problem. But in our district, where class sizes are rising every year, we're in the process of closing our 3rd school in the 5 years I've lived here, and our district curriculum coordinator is also a full time principal and counselor, that's just not going to happen. And that is a reality of common core - it forces cash-strapped schools already struggling to deal with the fallout of plummeting property values/tax revenues to purchase or design new curriculum at a time when they can least afford to do so.

 

[Lolsmum]

Absolutely, kids who learn to read more quickly should be allowed to progress! Why would they be limited to reading "Dick and Jane" over and over in different ways if they can read "Charlotte's Web?" And kids should not be made to teach other kids unless they want to do so. They are in school to learn, not to teach, and kids do not have the maturity and patience to do the same job as adults. I always hated being put in that position as a child. If the teacher couldn't reach someone, why would another sixth grader be able to do so?

Where are we talking about kids being made to teach other kids? Being able to discuss a topic and defend their position is hardly teaching. However, being made to break something down well enough to teach it to someone else is actually an excellent tool for understanding it yourself.

As to moving on with reading, I meant moving on altogether and leaving the bottom half of the class to struggle and catch up if they somehow can, probably never learning the skill. Individual reading? Of course move at your own pace. Class as a whole? Make sure the basics are attained by everyone, or at least the vast majority. My kids both read well above their age level. Their school teaches largely phonics based reading. Both of them have sat through phonics lessons long after they could read those letters/letter combinations. It has reinforced their reading, not held them back. Then there is the whole issue of comprehension versus actual reading. If a child is capable of telling you all the words in "Charlotte's Web" but is only able to understand the story of Dick and Jane, then no, they should not move on yet.


Being able to add 12 + 7 in their head does not mean a child is ready to move past addition any more than being able to say the words in the book means they need to move on in reading. Comprehension matters. Teaching more than one method, and requiring the child that learn them all before, at an older age, sticking to just one, will increase comprehension and generally help them to do more math in the future.

 

[Lolsmum]

I guess the question is when the ability to explain needs to be learned. A lot of the "geek" types i know in tech fields struggled with language arts early on and clung to math because it was the subject area that they "got". Yes, they eventually did have to learn LA skills and no one is saying that should change. But in the meantime, when they were struggling to learn the skills they needed in English class (and really every other subject area, because the report/research paper is introduced very early on in science and social studies) they had math as a subject where they felt competent and confident. Common core, at least as I've seen it, strips that away from students who are struggling with language in early elem; now they're just "stupid" across the board because even in the subject they grasp they can't explain that grasp in ways that satisfy the curriculum. Perhaps a better common core curriculum wouldn't pose the same issues. Perhaps smaller classes where that work can be done verbally instead of on paper would solve the problem. But in our district, where class sizes are rising every year, we're in the process of closing our 3rd school in the 5 years I've lived here, and our district curriculum coordinator is also a full time principal and counselor, that's just not going to happen. And that is a reality of common core - it forces cash-strapped schools already struggling to deal with the fallout of plummeting property values/tax revenues to purchase or design new curriculum at a time when they can least afford to do so.

Smaller classes? How large are most of these classes? Our reception class, the equivalent to kindergarten though one year younger, has 31 children this year. 25 to 30 is the norm at our school. With only one class year having less than 25. They are all taught the same way. It comes down to teaching methods as much as curriculum. Common Core is neither of those. It is standards to be met. How those standards are met is decided at more local levels. There have been recent changes in the national curriculum here and our teachers are also facing developing new lessons and meeting new standards, but at least at our schools the changes are not happening in such a way that recess is eliminated and classes are spending more time doing worksheets and busywork.

I think separating math from language in a way almost no other subject is is a mistake. Bringing the two together more can actually help those who are better at language but poor at math increase their math skills and those who are poor at language but better at math become more confident in theirs. It all depends on how it is taught, again not a standards issue. If it is asking too much for a child to explain how they did a problem in elementary school, I do wonder how on earth those same kids will handle geometric proofs in high school in order to progress beyond geometry.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

Where are we talking about kids being made to teach other kids?

You brought that up. I thought it was a little out of context, too.

As to moving on with reading, I meant moving on altogether and leaving the bottom half of the class to struggle and catch up if they somehow can, probably never learning the skill.

I had no idea that's what you "meant." Sometimes language does not serve to illuminate even a thought. Why do you think it would illuminate a Math idea?

Teaching more than one method, and requiring the child that learn them all before, at an older age, sticking to just one, will increase comprehension and generally help them to do more math in the future.

I have no idea what you meant by that, therefore, I will move on.

I've seen this theory of language intervention in Math serve as a stumbling block, a deterrent. If you want to believe it's helpful, I hope you are not directly impacting the lives of many "Math" kids. If you are, you are doing them a disservice. Best of luck.

 

[DopeyDame]

Absolutely, kids who learn to read more quickly should be allowed to progress! Why would they be limited to reading "Dick and Jane" over and over in different ways if they can read "Charlotte's Web?" And kids should not be made to teach other kids unless they want to do so. They are in school to learn, not to teach, and kids do not have the maturity and patience to do the same job as adults. I always hated being put in that position as a child. If the teacher couldn't reach someone, why would another sixth grader be able to do so?

Amen! Of course kids should be allowed to actually progress. You know, to actually LEARN something at school every day (or at least most days). How sad that we think it's OK for a child to sit in school day after day and not learn something new.
(And this works both ways. For a kid who is significantly behind, sitting in a class over their head will just as surely lead to not learning as a kid who already knows the material.)

 

[Colleen27]

Smaller classes? How large are most of these classes? Our reception class, the equivalent to kindergarten though one year younger, has 31 children this year. 25 to 30 is the norm at our school. With only one class year having less than 25. They are all taught the same way. It comes down to teaching methods as much as curriculum. Common Core is neither of those. It is standards to be met. How those standards are met is decided at more local levels. There have been recent changes in the national curriculum here and our teachers are also facing developing new lessons and meeting new standards, but at least at our schools the changes are not happening in such a way that recess is eliminated and classes are spending more time doing worksheets and busywork.

I think separating math from language in a way almost no other subject is is a mistake. Bringing the two together more can actually help those who are better at language but poor at math increase their math skills and those who are poor at language but better at math become more confident in theirs. It all depends on how it is taught, again not a standards issue. If it is asking too much for a child to explain how they did a problem in elementary school, I do wonder how on earth those same kids will handle geometric proofs in high school in order to progress beyond geometry.

Right now, early elem classes are 30-35. To me that is huge and class size is often used to justify lack of oral and group learning along with lack of differentiation for above and below average students who don't have an IEP and reliance on mountains of worksheets and daily homework to "measure" learning. To put it in context, when my 10th grader was in K he was in a class of 16 with a teacher and a teacher's aide. When my 8th grader was in K, it was a class of 24 with a teacher and a teacher's aide. If we'd sent my 1st grader to the public K it would have been to a class of 33 with just a teacher, the aides having been laid off over the last few years.

I agree that language-based math offers an improvement for those who struggle with math but excel in language arts (and being one of those people, I certainly see the value in that). However, what about those kids who struggle with language arts? I haven't seen it offer any improvement to them. It just undermines their confidence in their math ability and by extension their overall intelligence because they're getting marked wrong for correct solutions presented in incorrect language or method. Why can't they be allowed to excel in the black-and-white world of math while receiving the support they need to catch up in their language arts classes? We don't demand that English lessons include math concepts to reinforce lessons across the curriculum; where is the sense in demanding that math lessons include English concepts?

As to geometric proofs, those don't require good grammar, spelling, or punctuation. My son excels in math now that he's reached the stage of proofing formulas (he's in geometry now). It was the stage of "answer this story problem in a complete sentence and explain how you arrived at your answer" that made him want to throw in the towel.

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

I am pretty sure it was designed to just make everyone feel stupid.