Common Core.... someone please explain

[jrmasm]

If you're memorizing how to do it in fewer steps without understanding why, you're wasting your time. This isn't a new concept in education. It's how I learned to teach in college 15 years ago. It's forcing kids to use critical thinking skills. Memorizing algorithms is useless in a world of calculators.

How on earth did we learn math before graphing calculators?

 

[Kellykins1218]

If you're memorizing how to do it in fewer steps without understanding why, you're wasting your time. This isn't a new concept in education. It's how I learned to teach in college 15 years ago. It's forcing kids to use critical thinking skills. Memorizing algorithms is useless in a world of calculators.

Funny, we learned how to do it the easy way & NEVER used a calculator in math class...EVER. Common Core is stupid and a waste of time.

 

[alicat8]

Funny, we learned how to do it the easy way & NEVER used a calculator in math class...EVER. Common Core is stupid and a waste of time.

That's a great attitude toward math literacy...should be really great for the future of our scientists and engineers...

 

[alicat8]

And if you don't want your kids to learn MORE and BETTER than the way you learned, I seriously hope you're in the minority.

 

[jrmasm]

That's a great attitude toward math literacy...should be really great for the future of our scientists and engineers...

You said something is a waste of time because you can just use a calculator. I find that to be an appalling attitude.

One of my huge frustrations with math curriculum as it is being taught at my youngest daughter's school is the lack of focus on basics, the building blocks they need to progress.

What is a waste of time is using a calculator for anything before you know how to solve a problem without a calculator.

 

[alicat8]

You said something is a waste of time because you can just use a calculator. I find that to be an appalling attitude.

One of my huge frustrations with math curriculum as it is being taught at my youngest daughter's school is the lack of focus on basics, the building blocks they need to progress.

What is a waste of time is using a calculator for anything before you know how to solve a problem without a calculator.

No, I said it's a waste of time if you don't understand why. Common core doesn't cut out the basics, it expands on them so they're not mindless. Someone may be doing it wrong.

 

[jodifla]

No, I said it's a waste of time if you don't understand why. Common core doesn't cut out the basics, it expands on them so they're not mindless. Someone may be doing it wrong.

Common Core makes the simplest math confusing, so kids are learning to hate math -- and school -- in Kindergarten.

These "standards" are not used anywhere nor are they vetted. They are a colossal joke and this generation of kids is going to suffer because of it.

Just ask the high-schoolers of Kentucky. After 3 years of Common Core GoobledyGook math, only 35 percent were deemed proficient.

 

[jrmasm]

No, I said it's a waste of time if you don't understand why. Common core doesn't cut out the basics, it expands on them so they're not mindless. Someone may be doing it wrong.

Did you read what I said? I was very careful in my wording. Current curriculum as taught in the school my daughter attends..... It doesn't teach basic stepping stone math and is so ridiculously convoluted that you couldn't find the why with a map, a spotlight and neon sign.

 

[alicat8]

Common Core makes the simplest math confusing, so kids are learning to hate math -- and school -- in Kindergarten.

These "standards" are not used anywhere nor are they vetted. They are a colossal joke and this generation of kids is going to suffer because of it.

Just ask the high-schoolers of Kentucky. After 3 years of Common Core GoobledyGook math, only 35 percent were deemed proficient.

Sounds like Kentucky's problem, because like I said, we've been teaching this way the whole time I've been teaching and never had an issue. I have several teacher friends all over the place, all over the grades-no issues.

...And did you read what I said? I said maybe someone is doing it wrong. We teach all the basics along with the concepts. It's not common core's fault if your teachers are unqualified to teach it. Time for your state to step up their certification standards.

 

[sam_gordon]

Common Core makes the simplest math confusing, so kids are learning to hate math -- and school -- in Kindergarten.

These "standards" are not used anywhere nor are they vetted. They are a colossal joke and this generation of kids is going to suffer because of it.

Just ask the high-schoolers of Kentucky. After 3 years of Common Core GoobledyGook math, only 35 percent were deemed proficient.

You got a source for that 35%? I posted about Ky's latest test results up thread, and the far majority of schools were above 50%, with many above 75%.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using DISBoards

 

[jrmasm]

Sounds like Kentucky's problem, because like I said, we've been teaching this way the whole time I've been teaching and never had an issue. I have several teacher friends all over the place, all over the grades-no issues. ...And did you read what I said? I said maybe someone is doing it wrong. We teach all the basics along with the concepts. It's not common core's fault if your teachers are unqualified to teach it. Time for your state to step up their certification standards.

Unfortunately the teachers are teaching the curriculum as provided by the district and the curriculum is crap. The books have the label Common Core so I have to believe the curriculum meets C.C. standards.

My eldest was 4 15 years ago. She attended the same school as her younger sister and the curriculum was much more traditional when she was in elementary school. Her grasp of math concepts in 5th grade (current age of younger daughter) was significantly more advanced than her sister's is now. It's horrifying. Youngest is doing fine by the school's standards but only because I've busted my butt to fill In the massive gaps left after she 'masters' a unit.

 

[sam_gordon]

Sounds like Kentucky's problem, because like I said, we've been teaching this way the whole time I've been teaching and never had an issue. I have several teacher friends all over the place, all over the grades-no issues.

...And did you read what I said? I said maybe someone is doing it wrong. We teach all the basics along with the concepts. It's not common core's fault if your teachers are unqualified to teach it. Time for your state to step up their certification standards.

Jodifla has stated she thinks schools that are "succeeding" with CC are in a "bubble" and it's only a matter of time before that bubble bursts.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using DISBoards

 

[jrmasm]

You got a source for that 35%? I posted about Ky's latest test results up thread, and the far majority of schools were above 50%, with many above 75%. Sent from my Kindle Fire using DISBoards

What were their test results before CC? I am asking seriously because those doesn't sound like very good results.

 

[alicat8]

Unfortunately the teachers are teaching the curriculum as provided by the district and the curriculum is crap. The books have the label Common Core so I have to believe the curriculum meets C.C. standards.

My eldest was 4 15 years ago. She attended the same school as her younger sister and the curriculum was much more traditional when she was in elementary school. Her grasp of math concepts in 5th grade (current age of younger daughter) was significantly more advanced than her sister's is now. It's horrifying. Youngest is doing fine by the school's standards but only because I've busted my butt to fill In the massive gaps left after she 'masters' a unit.

The programs that were sold to school districts are also not the curriculum. The curriculum is not the standards. They are 3 different things. Most of those programs were rushed into print last year and have tons of errors. My district wrote our own curriculum based on cc and had committees of teachers and administrators plan lessons and find appropriate materials. You can't blame cc for districts' failures in implementing it.

 

[jrmasm]

The programs that were sold to school districts are also not the curriculum. The curriculum is not the standards. They are 3 different things. Most of those programs were rushed into print last year and have tons of errors. My district wrote our own curriculum based on cc and had committees of teachers and administrators plan lessons and find appropriate materials. You can't blame cc for districts' failures in implementing it.

The books that are used to teach the curriculum are the same books and and the same methods the have been used since my youngest daughter was in 1st grade. The only difference this year is the new additional label on the book. Is there any reason I should not believe the methods espoused by the books do not strive to meet CC standards?

 

[alicat8]

Well if they haven't changed at all in however many years, then I would assume they aren't. The program we've been using for 10 years also wrote "common core" on its new covers, but our committee decided it was barely changed and wasn't aligned (main difference being what topics are taught in which grades, which cc has actually simplified for us. I used to teach multiplication and division, fractions to 2nd graders. Now it's 3rd). So it is entirely possible for them to put "common core" on their covers and not adequately address it.

This is where my issues with cc come in-with the companies making bank off of their new programs and tests, many of which suck big time. (My grown up opinion) They were rushed into publication and sold to desperate districts. Not the fault of the standards, which I think are perfectly reasonable. Plus, like I said before, the standards are standards, not methods of instruction. The programs can be designed to meet the standards, but I don't think most of them are ready yet. Need strong teachers to overcome that in the mean time.

 

[teacherlisa1978]

Well if they haven't changed at all in however many years, then I would assume they aren't. The program we've been using for 10 years also wrote "common core" on its new covers, but our committee decided it was barely changed and wasn't aligned (main difference being what topics are taught in which grades, which cc has actually simplified for us. I used to teach multiplication and division, fractions to 2nd graders. Now it's 3rd). So it is entirely possible for them to put "common core" on their covers and not adequately address it. This is where my issues with cc come in-with the companies making bank off of their new programs and tests, many of which suck big time. (My grown up opinion) They were rushed into publication and sold to desperate districts. Not the fault of the standards, which I think are perfectly reasonable. Plus, like I said before, the standards are standards, not methods of instruction. The programs can be designed to meet the standards, but I don't think most of them are ready yet. Need strong teachers to overcome that in the mean time.

Yes! I completely agree! You can't just trust that something matches the Common Core just because it has a label on the front that says so. And teacher training is crucial.

 

[sam_gordon]

What were their test results before CC? I am asking seriously because those doesn't sound like very good results.

I honestly don't know. I didn't get interested in keeping track of the test scores until all the bruhaha over CC cropped up.

But I don't think you can compare pre-CC test scores with post-CC test scores. IMO, the tests have changed enough (more difficult) so you're not comparing apples to apples. To use a sports analogy, if a college football program goes 11-1 in Div III then moves to Div II and goes 2-10 does that mean it's a failure?

The key, IMO, is whether scores have improved through three years. In Kentucky, they have.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Unfortunately the teachers are teaching the curriculum as provided by the district and the curriculum is crap.

Some districts let their teachers write their own curriculum.

 

[Colleen27]

If you're memorizing how to do it in fewer steps without understanding why, you're wasting your time. This isn't a new concept in education. It's how I learned to teach in college 15 years ago. It's forcing kids to use critical thinking skills. Memorizing algorithms is useless in a world of calculators.

I don't understand the need for a "next big thing" when teaching 10 + 12 or 5 x 5, or why when a new method is introduced the old way is suddenly wrong/unacceptable even though both lead to the correct solution.

The only people I see benefiting from Common Core (and the last "new math" push, and the inevitable next one) are the companies who get to sell new books every few years instead of the "old days" when schools would update science and history books but use math and ELA materials until they began to fall apart. It seems to me more of an extension of the college books game, where a change in a few infographics from year to year is enough to keep students on the $200 new-book treadmill because the current edition is rarely available used, than genuine improvements on instructional method.