Common Core.... someone please explain

[Lolsmum]

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.

Our class sizes are fairly comparable. The only reason they are generally between 25 and 30 rather than 30 and 35 is the physical size of the classrooms.

I don't think the arguments you are presenting about this making kids who are good at math want to throw in the towel sound any different to the ones I saw presented years ago, and the ones I actually tried on the teachers myself, about showing the work behind math problems, even the very simple ones. I hated having to show my work, but honestly as the math got harder being forced to do it all along was of benefit. Your son may have been very frustrated in the past but doing that work might be a part of why he is excelling in geometry now. As to whether it undermines the kids who are good at math but poor at language, I would like to see some evidence of that. The exact effect on a single child or group of children in a single class, school or district isn't what I'm talking about here, simply because those effects are at least as likely to be down to specific teaching methods or the chosen curriculum. I don't see that the standards themselves do undermine the math-loving kids while providing them no benefit.

Language is more than just English classes. It is how every subject, math included, is communicated. We have created artificial distinctions between subjects that are not nearly as clearly distinct as we act. Lose out on math and science will become increasingly difficult, particularly physics and chemistry. Being unable to write effectively will hurt in all of the other subjects. Except in rare situations, a child who can learn to write out the equations for math could also learn to write it in English sentences and the insistence that doing so "isn't math" is likely the biggest barrier. A child who cannot at least verbally explain the method used likely does not have a clear understanding of the generalised method but only the specific case of that problem. A child who can add 1 to a number but cannot yet add 2 does not understand addition generally, but only the specific case of adding 1.

Funnily enough, my son had math homework this week (they cover 2 topics in homework each week, more in depth than the equivalent I did growing up). He had to show what he had learned from his mistakes in a math test they took in class last week. He chose to cover perimeter and area of rectilinear quadrilaterals (yes, he honestly used those words!). He did so both in concrete examples of a square and a rectangle he drew on graph paper then worked out the perimeter and area for each of them. He also wrote, in sentences, the rule for finding the perimeter of both a square and a rectangle and the rule for finding the area of each. Because he has always been expected to explain his math, he didn't consider that difficult. If it matters, his other topic was researching some of the Egyptian gods and goddesses.

 

[Lolsmum]

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

I did not state kids should be made to teach other kids. I did quote previously quoted standards that kids should justify the method of problem solving chosen and pointed out one method our school uses is doing this in classroom discussions and small group work. I wouldn't call that teaching the other kids any more than any other group work though.

Agreed, sometimes language does not illuminate a thought. Of course, lack of language almost never does so. If you believe math is best taught and assessed without language, I would love to see that in action. I think the number of children who would actually learn math without language is a tiny fraction of those who are learning it now.

You did not understand, so rather the attempt to clarify you choose to move on. Interesting. Perhaps I can clarify it somewhat. Students are now being taught multiple approaches to solving a particular problem and being asked to demonstrate understanding of those approaches. Ideally, by presenting the topic in multiple ways, all of the students are more able to thoroughly understand it. Take multiplication, for example. Many students one first learning it do not really understand it. They memorise the times table but multiplication has little to no concrete meaning. Some children will understand immediately that multiplication is a form of quickly adding but many will not. Using multiple approaches to multiplication gives the children a better understanding than the single approach of the traditional method. Historically, multiplication has been done in different ways in different cultures. The answer is always the same, so who is to say our traditional method is best?

Again, you are conflating teaching method, curriculum and standards. The standards ask that the child demonstrate an actual understanding of the problem solving method by being able to explain it. How that is done is down to curriculum and teaching methods. The standards nowhere insist that all students repeatedly write out page after page of sentences explaining the method and be marked down for missed spelling and punctuation. Therefore those particular criticisms of common core are not valid.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

You said this about kids teaching other kids:

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..

You also posted this, which absolutely makes zero sense to me. The only reason I feel the need to point it out is the total irony of the point you are trying to make vs. the reality of your confusing language:

We have created artificial distinctions between subjects that are not nearly as clearly destination as we act. Lose out on math and science will become increasingly difficult, particularly physics and chemistry.

Math is its own language. If you ask someone with a Math brain why they did one step before another, they may not know, or it just makes sense to them. If you are not Math-brained, you will never understand. As I compute Math problems, I don't think about it in words but in numbers, angles, answers. I don't think you will ever understand.

 

[BCDisneyFanatic]

Math is its own language. If you ask someone with a Math brain why they did one step before another, they may not know, or it just makes sense to them. If you are not Math-brained, you will never understand. As I compute Math problems, I don't think about it in words but in numbers, angles, answers. I don't think you will ever understand.

Math may be its own language, but the best scientists and mathematicians with a true understanding of the material they are studying are able to translate that language into layman's terms. We are selling 'math-brained' students short by not teaching them to develop those translating skills.

Perhaps if your math-brained colleagues had teachers with higher expectations in school, they would now be able to better describe their processes and methods in not only numbers, angles, and answers, but in words and clear step-by-step explanations.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

Math may be its own language, but the best scientists and mathematicians with a true understanding of the material they are studying are able to translate that language into layman's terms. We are selling 'math-brained' students short by not teaching them to develop those translating skills.

Perhaps if your math-brained colleagues had teachers with higher expectations in school, they would now be able to better describe their processes and methods in not only numbers, angles, and answers, but in words and clear step-by-step explanations.

I don't think it's necessarily true that the "best" problem solvers are great explainers. Do you have some evidence of that? My best car mechanics wouldn't necessarily have been able to explain to me how they fixed my car in terms anyone could understand.

I've seen Kindergarten kids who could do third grade Math, but there was no way they could write out in words what they did, and there was no usefulness in writing it out. They could whiz through the Math problems in half an hour, but it would have taken all day to write the words. Their small muscle coordination just wasn't there. Why hold back their Math development for some silly Common Core requirement? Pointless.

 

[BCDisneyFanatic]

I've seen Kindergarten kids who could do third grade Math, but there was no way they could write out in words what they did, and there was no usefulness in writing it out. They could whiz through the Math problems in half an hour, but it would have taken all day to write the words. Their small muscle coordination just wasn't there. Why hold back their Math development for some silly Common Core requirement? Pointless.

There is a difference between mathematics and arithmetic, and often those we call 'math-brained' kids are really only skilled at the latter. If you are good at arithmetic, you can solve any problem that's thrown at you...you get the rules, although you don't necessarily understand why you are applying them. Mathematics, however, is the study of number concepts and how they are related, and requires a deeper understanding of WHY you are following a particular series of steps to get to the right answer. A student who is good at 'math' (not just arithmetic) understands WHY you follow those steps and can therefore explain why they use them.

A person who's memorized all the dates and names of major historical events may have a good knowledge of history, but unless they have an understanding of the context of those events they really shouldn't be getting an A in history. Why should it be any different in math?


And while I agree that there probably isn't a lot of value in having students writing all the steps of a math problem out in words every single time (especially since arithmetic IS important, and that usually requires a fair amount of drilling to master), I do see the value in having students being able to demonstrate an understanding of those steps in a multitude of ways (mathematically, orally, and in writing).

 

[Lolsmum]

You said this about kids teaching other kids:



You also posted this, which absolutely makes zero sense to me. The only reason I feel the need to point it out is the total irony of the point you are trying to make vs. the reality of your confusing language:



Math is its own language. If you ask someone with a Math brain why they did one step before another, they may not know, or it just makes sense to them. If you are not Math-brained, you will never understand. As I compute Math problems, I don't think about it in words but in numbers, angles, answers. I don't think you will ever understand.

Ok, I will grant you poor grammar in that sentence (illness getting the better of me): "Let the kids who get reading easily move on and maybe work on teaching the others to a lower level?" How about: Move the class ahead to meet the needs of those who find reading easy and the teacher can maybe work on bringing the rest of the kids up to some lower level? That seems to me to be the equivalent of your suggestions on math. Don't bring in many options and push the children to understand them all, just go with what the top of the class finds easy and don't worry if you leave the rest behind.

Kids who are great spellers still have to do the easy words, even in a spelling bee. Kids who are great at arithmetic (not really math in general, as a previous poster pointed out) still have to do the easy problems and show the work.


Math may be a language (in a sense at least) but children in elementary and through high school are far from fluent in it. I have a child who is very good at math, with a clear feeling for numbers and solving arithmetic problems. He's still an 8 year old and would not grasp calculus let alone higher math without a lot more instruction.

You might want to not make assumptions about other posters' abilities. As a kid, I taught myself multiplication and division before I was 5. I had a real feel for numbers too. Math was always my easy subject, right up until calculus in 11th grade. Not that calc was impossible or anything, just that it was the first time I had to work at all in math. I hated having to show my work. I hated writing out multiple proofs in geometry. Once was enough! As I got older though, I really began to appreciate the teachers who forced me to work in steps in a logical order, showing my work. Otherwise it's virtually impossible to find the mistake when you go wrong. To me, you are describing an "arithmetic brain", not a "math brain". I chose to head into sciences over pure math in college, but I got far enough in math that working out arithmetic problems was no longer the primary goal.

The stereotype of the "math brain" who just can't communicate what they do has been brought up over and over, but it's just that, a stereotype who rarely exists in reality. Most people who are good at math know why they do the steps they do in a certain order and can explain it to someone else. They might not be able to explain it to someone who doesn't share the same basic knowledge, but can to someone who does. It's the same for programmers. My mother is a total math brain type and worked as a programmer her whole career, starting back when it was all punch cards and mainframes that took up whole rooms. She couldn't have explained it to me as a kid, and possibly not now, but had no difficulty at all explaining it to her fellow programmers.

That's not a characteristic that only the "math brains" have, by the way. Many people have difficulty explaining their specialist subject to those who do not share their specialist knowledge.

 

[Lolsmum]

I don't think it's necessarily true that the "best" problem solvers are great explainers. Do you have some evidence of that? My best car mechanics wouldn't necessarily have been able to explain to me how they fixed my car in terms anyone could understand.

Honestly, there may be some absolutely amazing mathematicians out there who are incapable of explaining their work even to fellow mathematicians, but no one knows about them and their brilliance is going unrecognised. The mathematicians who are currently contributing to the body of knowledge are all capable of explaining their work to others at some level.

I would not necessarily expect my mechanic to be able to explain to me, a person with little knowledge, how he fixed my car, but I would expect him to be able to explain it to another mechanic.

I would not expect a 3rd grader to be able to explain how to do a 3rd grade math problem to a 5 year old, but he or she should be able to explain it to the math teacher.

I've seen Kindergarten kids who could do third grade Math, but there was no way they could write out in words what they did, and there was no usefulness in writing it out. They could whiz through the Math problems in half an hour, but it would have taken all day to write the words. Their small muscle coordination just wasn't there. Why hold back their Math development for some silly Common Core requirement? Pointless.

Common core does not require that kindergarteners write out 3rd grade math problems in words. It requires that they meet the kindergarten standards and even those don't require that they write out sentence after sentence. I do not see why you keep insisting that this is a Common Core requirement. It's up to the school how they handle children who are advanced in math.

 

[TAX GUY]

Still confused.


Did we not have standards before? We were taught, often times multiple ways (at least I was) and until we understood and had the grasp of what was taught, we could not be moved forward? For me, it continues to "look" like this is only a new way to teach old tricks. But, if you don't perform it the new way, you don't get it (and you can't use the old traditional methods).

I'm all for ADDING or INTRODUCING new methods but not to eliminate the old methods? I get that not ONE way will click with everyone so why change it to only the new way? Incorporate new ideas and methods with the old.

I still don't get the "its standards" since I thought we had them before. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... then it must be duck. To me, it looks like a new method to REPLACE what we've always had before.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

Common core does not require that kindergarteners write out 3rd grade math problems in words. It requires that they meet the kindergarten standards and even those don't require that they write out sentence after sentence. I do not see why you keep insisting that this is a Common Core requirement. It's up to the school how they handle children who are advanced in math.

Third grade common core requires kids to write out Math problems in words. Kindergarten kids using a third grade common core Math curriculum are required to do the same. I guess schools could make accommodations and just skip that requirement for younger kids. I've always told the kids just to skip writing out how you did it. If they can say "Seven plus two is nine," that's equivalent to writing, "I took seven trucks and put them with two cars to make nine vehicles."

I don't know why you keep insisting that it's great to incorporate English lessons into Math, but no Math should be incorporated into English lessons.

I just don't agree with you. Other people don't agree with you. You might be right, and we might be wrong, or you might be wrong. See, that's a logic question.

IMO, too many English majors and too few Math and Science teachers had input into Common Core

 

[ez]

I havent read this whole thread but just wanted to add my two cents. My son is significantly affected by autism he is currently in a third grade gen ed class. he is doing so great but having to explain his math answers is something he will never be able to do. I saw a paper the other day where he got a 50%. He got the equations right but couldnt explain them. I had to laugh out loud when I was reading his explanations. This is a great math problem. This is another really good math problem etc etc. I am really upset right now because I know they want to take him out of the gen ed english and math, all because he might not be able to pass these stupid tests at the end of the year.

 

[BCDisneyFanatic]

Third grade common core requires kids to write out Math problems in words. Kindergarten kids using a third grade common core Math curriculum are required to do the same. I guess schools could make accommodations and just skip that requirement for younger kids. I've always told the kids just to skip writing out how you did it. If they can say "Seven plus two is nine," that's equivalent to writing, "I took seven trucks and put them with two cars to make nine vehicles."

You are doing your child a disservice. Seven plus two is nine does not show a real understanding of problem-solving (assuming it's a word problem). A lot of students look at a word problem, see two numbers, and then add them together because that's what they are 'supposed' to do, not because they've really understood why they are adding them together, and therefore they are not learning how to apply these mathematical skills to everyday life or more abstract math concepts for that matter.

A student will get very few marks on a physics lab on uniform motion if they say "The slope is equal to the top number divided by the bottom number". Instead, they need to be able to explain that the slope of the line formed when displacement is plotted against time is equal to the change in displacement divided by the change in time, which in turn represents the constant velocity of the object. Articulating this information takes practice, and that practice needs to start in early grades and developed, just like arithmetic skills.

I don't know why you keep insisting that it's great to incorporate English lessons into Math, but no Math should be incorporated into English lessons.

I just don't agree with you. Other people don't agree with you. You might be right, and we might be wrong, or you might be wrong. See, that's a logic question.

IMO, too many English majors and too few Math and Science teachers had input into Common Core

I agree with her. I have a bachelors in engineering, a masters in science, a graduate diploma in science and math education, and have taught math and physics for ten years.

I'm as math-brained as they come, but my job as a teacher has forced me to really develop my ability to communicate science and math concepts. I've also come to realize that I cheated myself in high school and university BECAUSE I was so good in math. I could learn the algorithms for solving problems with ease and consistency, so I never really had to understand why I was using those algorithms. By now having to explain those concepts, I've developed a much richer and deeper understanding of those math skills I always just kind of took for granted.

 

[Lolsmum]

Still confused.


Did we not have standards before? We were taught, often times multiple ways (at least I was) and until we understood and had the grasp of what was taught, we could not be moved forward? For me, it continues to "look" like this is only a new way to teach old tricks. But, if you don't perform it the new way, you don't get it (and you can't use the old traditional methods).

I'm all for ADDING or INTRODUCING new methods but not to eliminate the old methods? I get that not ONE way will click with everyone so why change it to only the new way? Incorporate new ideas and methods with the old.

I still don't get the "its standards" since I thought we had them before. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... then it must be duck. To me, it looks like a new method to REPLACE what we've always had before.

Of course there were standards before, but they varied widely from state to state. This is a single set of standards most states have agreed to use. Please try reading the actual standards before criticising them. Not once do they say "do not teach the traditional method". They do not say "write out in full English sentences how to do each problem".

The curriculum and methods used to reach those standards is down to districts, schools and even individual teachers.

A couple of quotes from the Common Core site:

"Standards define what students should understand and be able to do."

"These Standards do not dictate curriculum or teaching methods. For example, just because topic A appears before topic B in the standards for a given grade, it does not necessarily mean that topic A must be taught before topic B. A teacher might prefer to teach topic B before topic A, or might choose to highlight connections by teaching topic A and topic B at the same time. Or, a teacher might prefer to teach a topic of his or her own choosing that leads, as a byproduct, to students reaching the standards for topics A and B."

The standards themselves have been cherry picked and misquoted here in this thread to imply impossible standards.

Example: Colleen27 said, "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."

The actual standard, from the Common Core site, is one that applies over all grades:

CCSS.Math.Practice.MP3 Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.

Mathematically proficient students understand and use stated assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose. Mathematically proficient students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies. Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.

Note the different expectations for elementary and older students above.



It's interesting that the math standards are the only ones being discussed here, and most places. I think that is actually because it is easier for those who disagree with Common Core to point to something using a method different to the traditional one most adults know and call it absurd. English/language standards are much harder to do this with.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

You are doing your child a disservice. Seven plus two is nine does not show a real understanding of problem-solving (assuming it's a word problem). A lot of students look at a word problem, see two numbers, and then add them together because that's what they are 'supposed' to do, not because they've really understood why they are adding them together, and therefore they are not learning how to apply these mathematical skills to everyday life or more abstract math concepts for that matter.

A student will get very few marks on a physics lab on uniform motion if they say "The slope is equal to the top number divided by the bottom number". Instead, they need to be able to explain that the slope of the line formed when displacement is plotted against time is equal to the change in displacement divided by the change in time, which in turn represents the constant velocity of the object. Articulating this information takes practice, and that practice needs to start in early grades and developed, just like arithmetic skills.



I agree with her. I have a bachelors in engineering, a masters in science, a graduate diploma in science and math education, and have taught math and physics for ten years.

I'm as math-brained as they come, but my job as a teacher has forced me to really develop my ability to communicate science and math concepts. I've also come to realize that I cheated myself in high school and university BECAUSE I was so good in math. I could learn the algorithms for solving problems with ease and consistency, so I never really had to understand why I was using those algorithms. By now having to explain those concepts, I've developed a much richer and deeper understanding of those math skills I always just kind of took for granted.

I won't go into my bonafides(lol), but I've also taught at the elementary and middle school level, and I don't agree with you or your friend. Forced writing is detrimental to the progression of mathematical learning in grade school. As the gap widens between the Asians and the U.S. under Common Core, we will see that is the case.

Why do you and your verbose buddy believe that writing should be forced into Math and not that Math should be kept separate from English lessons?

Finally, seven and two are nine! There is no deeper meaning, no philosophical undercurrent to that statement. If you knew your theorems, you would not have said otherwise.

Honestly, I had no strong feelings against Common Core before this thread, but I'm starting to understand why some so strongly oppose it.

 

[kamik86]

What accommodations are made for say dyslexia with common core? I mentioned above a sister that could only do her math word problems if someone read her the problem. She couldn't read it and get the write answer. I have known many children that could TELL me how they did a problem. However they would have a very hard time writing it. Should they be told they are bad at math (what bad grades translate to for young kids) because they have trouble writing?

Or should a teacher recongize they are good at math and give them help where they really need it. The ability to write. While grading their math skills based on ability to do math.

 

[TAX GUY]

Of course there were standards before, but they varied widely from state to state. This is a single set of standards most states have agreed to use. Please try reading the actual standards before criticising them. Not once do they say "do not teach the traditional method". They do not say "write out in full English sentences how to do each problem".

The curriculum and methods used to reach those standards is down to districts, schools and even individual teachers.

A couple of quotes from the Common Core site:

"Standards define what students should understand and be able to do."

"These Standards do not dictate curriculum or teaching methods. For example, just because topic A appears before topic B in the standards for a given grade, it does not necessarily mean that topic A must be taught before topic B. A teacher might prefer to teach topic B before topic A, or might choose to highlight connections by teaching topic A and topic B at the same time. Or, a teacher might prefer to teach a topic of his or her own choosing that leads, as a byproduct, to students reaching the standards for topics A and B."

The standards themselves have been cherry picked and misquoted here in this thread to imply impossible standards.

Example: Colleen27 said, "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."

The actual standard, from the Common Core site, is one that applies over all grades:



Note the different expectations for elementary and older students above.



It's interesting that the math standards are the only ones being discussed here, and most places. I think that is actually because it is easier for those who disagree with Common Core to point to something using a method different to the traditional one most adults know and call it absurd. English/language standards are much harder to do this with.

So, to adopt a new set of standards, that not ALL states are doing, will now get everyone to understand the same things, from state to state? Even though the old methods did the exact same thing? Would it make more sense to actually have a standard curriculum for ALL to use so then there's no doubt everyone is "on the same page", from state to state? Why force what appears to be odd practices to get to the same place we all have to get to? Again, as I've said before, I was taught several ways to do similar math problems. Some methods were easier than others. With what is being taught now (only based on a few examples that I've seen on line and locally) seems to be from way out in left field. If it is in fact an alternate way to think through the question then great, but when it comes across as an extremely long and difficult process, why limit it to only thinking that way? If a child can explain HOW they got to the answer, right or wrong, then why say that's not how we're doing it?

If one can not simply say 7+2 is 9 because I had 7 trucks and I then put 2 cars with them so I now have 9. To say that's wrong, is.... well, wrong! Instead, going the route of having 7 trucks that each have 4 wheels will be a total one hundred pounds of rubber and then removing the added weight of the steel rims now reduces the area needed to occupy that area. With the introduction of 8 more wheels you should now be able to see that there are 36 wheels (knowing that 10 vehicles would be 40 wheels less the rims) so 40 - 4 is 36 or 9 vehicles.

 

[nugov2]

Still confused.


Did we not have standards before? We were taught, often times multiple ways (at least I was) and until we understood and had the grasp of what was taught, we could not be moved forward? For me, it continues to "look" like this is only a new way to teach old tricks. But, if you don't perform it the new way, you don't get it (and you can't use the old traditional methods).

I'm all for ADDING or INTRODUCING new methods but not to eliminate the old methods? I get that not ONE way will click with everyone so why change it to only the new way? Incorporate new ideas and methods with the old.

I still don't get the "its standards" since I thought we had them before. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... then it must be duck. To me, it looks like a new method to REPLACE what we've always had before.

Again, if you read ALL the posts there are districts who are still teaching the so called "old methods" while mixing in some new and meeting the CC standards. You just choose to focus on only the posters who say their district isn't and like all things the complainers are usually the loudest. Since you don't have any skin in the game..ie your kid is in private school...I don't see how you can even criticize CC. You don't know how it is taught in your district and it could be great. Latching on to only the poor examples doesn't mean it is a failure or bad.

Like I have posted over and over, this change brings to light the serious problems in our educational system. Poor administrators and teacher seem to be running rampant in our country and it isn't just because of finances. I can honestly say that our district didn't have to spend big money to sit down and write their own curriculum. I guarantee the districts buying this crappy curriculum in the box spent more than ours did doing the work themselves. It was a TEAM of teachers, parents and administrators. It took several years, b/c we didn't hide our head in the sand hoping it would go away from the time this was announced. It is free to brainstorm and write a curriculum. It does cost to buy new materials, but the non fiction text and other items are probably what was spent by the schools buy all the new worksheet busy work and books b/c they didn't want to spend the time doing it themselves. They are using what we had and slowly every year adding things the find necessary. We have teachers checking out nonfiction kits from the Library to help supplement when needed and then they write grants to our district foundation every year to get what they find they really need. We have parents who volunteer just to write grants to big corporations both local and national and that is something those who have problems with CC should volunteer to do. Help your school make it better and stop only complaining. There are tons of ways to help raise money for schools that don't involve selling wrapping paper.

 

[nugov2]

Third grade common core requires kids to write out Math problems in words. Kindergarten kids using a third grade common core Math curriculum are required to do the same. I guess schools could make accommodations and just skip that requirement for younger kids. I've always told the kids just to skip writing out how you did it. If they can say "Seven plus two is nine," that's equivalent to writing, "I took seven trucks and put them with two cars to make nine vehicles."

I don't know why you keep insisting that it's great to incorporate English lessons into Math, but no Math should be incorporated into English lessons.

I just don't agree with you. Other people don't agree with you. You might be right, and we might be wrong, or you might be wrong. See, that's a logic question.

IMO, too many English majors and too few Math and Science teachers had input into Common Core

Your K students are using the 3rd grade standards...and it is CC fault they are doing poorly???

When they are asking a K, 1st and even 2nd to show their work in writing it is by using a picture not by writing a thesis on the answer.

Go to pinterest and search CC K math lessons and you will see some amazing lessons. It is all free to sign up for pinterest for those cash strapped districts:

http://www.pinterest.com/teaching4real/kindergarten-common-core/

http://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=common core math for kindergarten

 

[TAX GUY]

Again, if you read ALL the posts there are districts who are still teaching the so called "old methods" while mixing in some new and meeting the CC standards. You just choose to focus on only the posters who say their district isn't and like all things the complainers are usually the loudest. Since you don't have any skin in the game..ie your kid is in private school...I don't see how you can even criticize CC. You don't know how it is taught in your district and it could be great. Latching on to only the poor examples doesn't mean it is a failure or bad.

I have read all the posts here... and several early one made sense HOWEVER where I live, many of those examples do NOT apply. I in fact DO have skin in this game. Should you go back and read many of MY posts you'll see I'm trying to better understand CC because we are/were considering sending our son to our local public school. I also am involved in my local community sports and talk to many other parents that have similar aged children in our public school. One of which is the chair of the school committee. ALL of them have nothing good to say about how CC is being implemented in MY local public school. So by all means, go ahead and tell me how great it is on your district, which has ZERO impact on me. Maybe I should latch onto all the positive posts here and base that on my district?

Let me add, I came here and on line to better understand CC to see if its only a problem for me locally or if it's nationwide. So far, for me, based on local and national feedback, there seems to be more bad than good.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

I havent read this whole thread but just wanted to add my two cents. My son is significantly affected by autism he is currently in a third grade gen ed class. he is doing so great but having to explain his math answers is something he will never be able to do. I saw a paper the other day where he got a 50%. He got the equations right but couldnt explain them. I had to laugh out loud when I was reading his explanations. This is a great math problem. This is another really good math problem etc etc. I am really upset right now because I know they want to take him out of the gen ed english and math, all because he might not be able to pass these stupid tests at the end of the year.

That's just not right.