Is this math problem 3rd grade appropriate?

[castleview]

Some of which were used before the Common Core was rolled out, right? Those previous latest and greatests were what I was referring to when I said that I thought you had been disappointed with math curriculum in the past.

I am still really confused as to whether you are upset about the standards (the Common Core) or the curriculum your district has selected to teach them. Can you clarify?

The district has to use a curriculum in line with the Common Core. The previous versions were loose variations created by a coordinator who moved into a position on the state's CC rollout committee. But with each curriculum, teachers have had no say.

 

[nugov2]

I've been reading the "Common Core is evil" threads with interest. I don't believe I've seen anyone who dislikes it point to any one of the actual standards and explain what is wrong with it (and I even linked to the standards web site itself in one post). Perhaps I missed it. Mostly, I've seen complainers who do not seem to be able to differentiate between CC standards and their district's curriculum. Or, if they are called out on that, they resort to blaming "big business" for the poor quality curriculum that their district wrote or purchased instead of giving even a single example of a CC standard that they are opposed to.

FTR, I haven't yet decided my opinion on CC. I do think that there are some very good parts of it, though.

This is what frustrates me. I am like you, it is new and only time will tell. It has been implemented in my district very well and anything I have read here or online comes down to district implementation.

I will offer one last tip for those who dislike it. I mentioned our district spent a year on each subject. They used administrators, teacher and actually did include parent input. That is one of our districts main push...parent involvement. There are parent advisory boards for technology and curriculum. They used parent input while developing our districts new gifted program as well. I think this is key....they always say it takes village and we really are a village of active and involved parents. It does make it easier that our administrators value and appreciate our input though. I do think a group of passionate parents with a plan can make a difference though. Just because it is working now, come up with ways to make it work and speak out at every board meeting until your cause grows and they take your seriously. If the program is that bad that your district is implementing then other parents must feel the same.

 

[Hrhpd]

This doesn't make a lot of sense. What school district would get rid of a popular curriculum that all the kids were doing well in?

(Not that most districts don't do bizarre things.)

Growing up 40 years ago, we always had multiple math curriculums. That offered everybody the chance to find the right math fit.

It wasn't just math, Core Knowledge was used for everything.

A small, but very vocal set of jealous parents went to the school board and made a case that having two curriculum in the same school caused divisiveness between the students. (It didn't) But they were able to convince the board that although there was a waiting list to get into the core knowledge curriculum, that it was better to have everybody doing the same thing.

It was really a shame because kids learn differently and this gave parents a choice of what fit their kid the best.

99% of the parents and kids worked together and both sets embraced their choices without hard feelings for the other set.

FWIW, most of the kids of both curriculum ended up successful as the highschool had a 98% college acceptance rate with (year of my kid's graduation) over 2 million in scholarship money offered.

 

[jodifla]

I've been reading the "Common Core is evil" threads with interest. I don't believe I've seen anyone who dislikes it point to any one of the actual standards and explain what is wrong with it (and I even linked to the standards web site itself in one post). Perhaps I missed it. Mostly, I've seen complainers who do not seem to be able to differentiate between CC standards and their district's curriculum. Or, if they are called out on that, they resort to blaming "big business" for the poor quality curriculum that their district wrote or purchased instead of giving even a single example of a CC standard that they are opposed to.

FTR, I haven't yet decided my opinion on CC. I do think that there are some very good parts of it, though.

To me, it's the supporters of the standards who can't see the difference. It really doesn't matter what the standards are, because there are a handful of curriculum companies writing the lousy textbooks geared to the standards.

Also, while the standards people like to post seem "reasonable" the underpinnings of them are not. What I don't see in the standards everyone likes to tout as so reasonable is that all of a sudden your 5th grader needs to read at a 7th grade level literally overnight. That 6th grade topics are being shoved down to 1st grade. That younger kids who are concrete thinkers are being asked to think abstractly, when it is not even developmentally appropriate.

Special Education kids will be tested for hours and hours at grade level -- even if they are in remedial classes and have NEVER been taught grade level curriculum. The are expected to sit there and take tests they can't even read.

The other thing is: Most teachers haven't remotely internalized this radicalized way of teaching. They don't know what they are doing, so they can't teach it well.

 

[castleview]

I think the fact that the PP's son has been exposed to so many different curriculums in such a short period is proof of incompetent leadership in your district and the true problem behind why the students are not able to excel. It is districts like yours causing major problems with the academic success of our country. They cut and run and then cut and run every year with a new "magic bullet" curriculum that will get the students to succeed, but what actually happens is they cannot succeed when the building blocks that should be in place are constantly changing. Again this is a problem at your district though not with any standards. I would be advocating big time for a change at the board meetings because that is unfair to the students to constantly changing things year after year..

We did have lousy leadership for a few years. But you're wrong to blame my district for what's wrong with education. I'm in a high performing state. But even here, we have low performing urban areas that are currently being exploited by education "reformers" who promise to close the achievement gap by bringing up urban test scores even though that means nothing and the poverty that leads to inner city failing schools is being ignored. Theses are the people in line with CC proponents who are signing on with crony educational software companies, turnaround consultants and charter school creators who all are eying up tax dollars. These are the people doing everything they can to make successful schools fail or look like they are failing. The districts are not the ones looking for the magic bullet; they're being forced to take the magic bullet.

ETA: Don't you worry. I'm very involved on the school, they know me well at central office and the former BS artist curriculum coordinator hates my guts (fwiw I went at it with her because she was minimizing standards so everyone was on the same level)

 

[nugov2]

We did have lousy leadership for a few years. But you're wrong to blame my district for what's wrong with education. I'm in a high performing state. But even here, we have low performing urban areas that are currently being exploited by education "reformers" who promise to close the achievement gap be bringing up urban test scores even though that means nothing and the poverty that leads to inner city failing schools is being ignored. Theses are the people in lone with CC proponents who are signing on with crony educational software companies, turnaround consultants and charter school creators who all are eying up tax dollars. These are the people doing everything they can to make successful schools fail or look like they are failing. The districts are not the ones looking for the magic bullet; they're being forced to take the magic bullet.

You stated he has had 3 different programs since K. Nobody is forcing a district to implement that many programs in such a short time. They are obviously not researching and looking for input on what will work for the population of students at your schools. That is a decision made by bad leadership.

I am not blaming your specific school, but the sum of all the schools that implement this cut and run or magic bullet philosophy of teaching. I would agree that CC is a was the problem if 1. If I saw one post that actually pointed out a standard that was the issue and not a districts choice of implementation 2. If the weren't districts doing it right and having success.

If that is possible for some, then isn't it reasonable to think it is possible for all if the right curriculum is implemented to support the standards?

 

[jodifla]

You stated he has had 3 different programs since K. Nobody is forcing a district to implement that many programs in such a short time. They are obviously not researching and looking for input on what will work for the population of students at your schools. That is a decision made by bad leadership.

I am not blaming your specific school, but the sum of all the schools that implement this cut and run or magic bullet philosophy of teaching. I would agree that CC is a was the problem if 1. If I saw one post that actually pointed out a standard that was the issue and not a districts choice of implementation 2. If the weren't districts doing it right and having success.

If that is possible for some, then isn't it reasonable to think it is possible for all if the right curriculum is implemented to support the standards?

70 to 95 percent of kids taking the tests on these Common Core standards failed in the only two states that actually tested kids on the standards. How can that remotely be considered successful?

Everyone else in other states is just guessing they are successful at implementing the standards. They won't know until the end of next school year, or possibly later, as more and more states drag their feet about rolling out the tests.

 

[SmallWorld71]

I've been reading the "Common Core is evil" threads with interest. I don't believe I've seen anyone who dislikes it point to any one of the actual standards and explain what is wrong with it (and I even linked to the standards web site itself in one post). Perhaps I missed it. Mostly, I've seen complainers who do not seem to be able to differentiate between CC standards and their district's curriculum. Or, if they are called out on that, they resort to blaming "big business" for the poor quality curriculum that their district wrote or purchased instead of giving even a single example of a CC standard that they are opposed to.

FTR, I haven't yet decided my opinion on CC. I do think that there are some very good parts of it, though.

I agree on all accounts.

To me, it's the supporters of the standards who can't see the difference. It really doesn't matter what the standards are, because there are a handful of curriculum companies writing the lousy textbooks geared to the standards.

Also, while the standards people like to post seem "reasonable" the underpinnings of them are not. What I don't see in the standards everyone likes to tout as so reasonable is that all of a sudden your 5th grader needs to read at a 7th grade level literally overnight. That 6th grade topics are being shoved down to 1st grade. That younger kids who are concrete thinkers are being asked to think abstractly, when it is not even developmentally appropriate.

Special Education kids will be tested for hours and hours at grade level -- even if they are in remedial classes and have NEVER been taught grade level curriculum. The are expected to sit there and take tests they can't even read.

The other thing is: Most teachers haven't remotely internalized this radicalized way of teaching. They don't know what they are doing, so they can't teach it well.

As a Special Education teacher, I can tell you that I hate all the standardized testing. It rarely shows the progress my students have worked so hard to achieve. But, this problem was around LONG before the Common Core came into existence. I've been seeing my students beaten down by the MCAS since it first came out in 1998? I believe.

IMO - the big problem isn't really the standards. MA has had similar (higher in many cases) standards for many years and when implemented well, the overwhelming majority of students can achieve them. The problems are what is being done when someone can't achieve them: children are made to feel stupid, teacher's jobs/ pay are on the line, schools can be taken over by the state, parents are frustrated etc... To me, the standards are not the problem, it's the high stakes involved in trying to get everyone to achieve them.

 

[nugov2]

70 to 95 percent of kids taking the tests on these Common Core standards failed in the only two states that actually tested kids on the standards. How can that remotely be considered successful?

Everyone else in other states is just guessing they are successful at implementing the standards. They won't know until the end of next school year, or possibly later, as more and more states drag their feet about rolling out the tests.

I am not an advocate of testing at all, but that is not what I have been discussing. I am not supporting the testing of the CC standards. I am discussing the success in our district of implementing the standards through the curriculum they have picked. Our district does not measure success by testing alone(though we have always tested well and are a high ranking district so that gives them the ability to not focus on it). The testing is barely a blip on my kids radar. They have adopted the standards and implemented the curriculum but they have not started the PARCC(I assume that is the test you are talking about). Time will tell what will happen if the majority of students are all failing, but again I am talking specifically about the standards and the curriculum used to implement it. I can only guess that with so many districts failing miserably at implementing a successful curriculum, how could the students possibly pass the test. I guess for our students only time will tell if a successfully program will equal success on that specific test.

 

[nugov2]

I agree on all accounts.



As a Special Education teacher, I can tell you that I hate all the standardized testing. It rarely shows the progress my students have worked so hard to achieve. But, this problem was around LONG before the Common Core came into existence. I've been seeing my students beaten down by the MCAS since it first came out in 1998? I believe.

IMO - the big problem isn't really the standards. MA has had similar (higher in many cases) standards for many years and when implemented well, the overwhelming majority of students can achieve them. The problems are what is being done when someone can't achieve them: children are made to feel stupid, teacher's jobs/ pay are on the line, schools can be taken over by the state, parents are frustrated etc... To me, the standards are not the problem, it's the high stakes involved in trying to get everyone to achieve them.[/QUOTE]

This is something I think everyone can agree on.

 

[Ceila]

To me, it's the supporters of the standards who can't see the difference. It really doesn't matter what the standards are, because there are a handful of curriculum companies writing the lousy textbooks geared to the standards.

No, you are absolutely have to differentiate between the standards and the curriculum. I'm sorry that your district seems to be failing its students, but you can't blame CC when other districts in the country are successfully educating their students with the same standards but better curricula.

Blaming the standards is like blaming a recipe for a bad meal, when the real problem is that you bought spoiled ingredients.

Also, since I have personal experience in this, you should know that not all districts purchase their curricula. My district develops its own, and I wrote the curriculum for one of our subject areas last summer. Your district doesn't have to purchase an inferior product.

Also, while the standards people like to post seem "reasonable" the underpinnings of them are not. What I don't see in the standards everyone likes to tout as so reasonable is that all of a sudden your 5th grader needs to read at a 7th grade level literally overnight. That 6th grade topics are being shoved down to 1st grade. That younger kids who are concrete thinkers are being asked to think abstractly, when it is not even developmentally appropriate.

The reality is that the standards are appropriate for the various ages. I'm sorry your district seems to have not been preparing its students to meet grade-level expectations, but that is the fault of the district, not the standards. And, if the district suddenly expected its students to meet the expectations without providing support during the transition, they, not the standards, are at fault.

And again I ask, please point to a specific standard that supports your argument that 1st graders are bring expected to do 6th grade level work. I'm an educator and a parent, and I've read the standards. There isn't one that I've read that I believe isn't developmentally appropriate.

Special Education kids will be tested for hours and hours at grade level -- even if they are in remedial classes and have NEVER been taught grade level curriculum. The are expected to sit there and take tests they can't even read.

I actually agree that this is an issue. However, it is determined by the state, and has been going on long before Common Core.

The other thing is: Most teachers haven't remotely internalized this radicalized way of teaching. They don't know what they are doing, so they can't teach it well.

In many districts, this isn't a radicalized or new way of teaching. Maybe it is in yours, but it certainly is not in mine. Where we live, students have been taught this way for quite some time, and I've seen them develop excellent problem-solving and critical thinking skills. I think you are looking at this through a very narrow lens and forgetting that, while your district seems to be lacking in many areas, there are other school districts that have been very successful in educating their students using CC and similar standards.

I do think that some of the basics are not emphasized as much as I had growing up, but as a parent it is my job to make sure my children have the foundation they need (i.e., math facts).

Comments in red. And again, FTR, I don't know that CC is the best set of standards out there. I liked what I've read, but I'm sure there are ways to improve it (as is true of anything in life). However, it is ridiculous that posters go on and on about the evils of CC when they clearly have no understanding of what it is or how it is different from their district's curricula.

 

[Colleen27]

Amen!!! It'd be just dreadful for children who have difficulty with reading/writing find some victory in a pure math problem. I think we go too far with the cross-referencing in education. (as a really decent reader/writer student, but mediocre in math, this would have been right up my alley).

Mine too, but as a mom of a kid who is brilliant with pure numbers but struggles with English and writing I've learned to see the other side. I'd have loved the math curriculum I see him struggling with - instead of solving dozens of problems I'd only have to BS my way through a few "explanations" of my "reasoning process". It is like English majors are writing the math curriculum!

I've been reading the "Common Core is evil" threads with interest. I don't believe I've seen anyone who dislikes it point to any one of the actual standards and explain what is wrong with it (and I even linked to the standards web site itself in one post). Perhaps I missed it. Mostly, I've seen complainers who do not seem to be able to differentiate between CC standards and their district's curriculum. Or, if they are called out on that, they resort to blaming "big business" for the poor quality curriculum that their district wrote or purchased instead of giving even a single example of a CC standard that they are opposed to.

FTR, I haven't yet decided my opinion on CC. I do think that there are some very good parts of it, though.

I have cited specific issues - the standards are very explicit in requiring evidence of higher order thinking, explaining one's reasoning, constructing and defending arguments, critiquing the reasoning of others, and other secondary skills on top of the actual solving of problems that all but require extensive writing. Sure, all those things *could* be demonstrated and evaluated by other means - verbally, for example - but the reality of classroom education is a lack of time for such one-on-one evaluation and a need for documentation and testing. So while the standards don't actually say "Solve algebra problems in paragraph form, explaining each step of the reasoning involved" that is the logical consequence of placing a higher emphasis on the "how" rather over the simple ability to solve the problems accurately.

In principle, I like the idea of common core. We should, IMO, have a national set of grade-level standards so that children who move during their school careers can be assured of some continuity (and that should extend to science and social studies as well as math and English). But at the same time, I think the standards as implemented (on the state level as well as the district/curriculum level) disregard/disrespect the fact that students have many different skills and learning styles, blur the lines between subjects so that English is the cornerstone of all academic efforts without which you cannot do well in any area, and marginalize students that in the past would have taken refuge in math and the related sciences but now cannot excel in any subject. And I think going all-in across the board is a terrible idea; children raised with common core from the start of their academic careers may well find it a successful method, but it isn't likely to go over very well for the 4th or 7th or 10th graders who are being thrown into a "spiral" curriculum without benefit of its foundational lessons.

 

[Colleen27]

I do think that some of the basics are not emphasized as much as I had growing up, but as a parent it is my job to make sure my children have the foundation they need (i.e., math facts).

This is another part of the problem as I see it - is a teaching method that requires a level of parental involvement that many students simply do not have really appropriate as a set of statewide or national standards? Isn't this simply a recipe for widening, rather than narrowing, the achievement gap?

 

[Ceila]

I have cited specific issues - the standards are very explicit in requiring evidence of higher order thinking, explaining one's reasoning, constructing and defending arguments, critiquing the reasoning of others, and other secondary skills on top of the actual solving of problems that all but require extensive writing. Sure, all those things *could* be demonstrated and evaluated by other means - verbally, for example - but the reality of classroom education is a lack of time for such one-on-one evaluation and a need for documentation and testing. So while the standards don't actually say "Solve algebra problems in paragraph form, explaining each step of the reasoning involved" that is the logical consequence of placing a higher emphasis on the "how" rather over the simple ability to solve the problems accurately.

To me, requiring students to explain the process is a very important step that was lacking in previous standards. Far too many students in the past could memorize formulas and regurgitate them during an assessment without having any concept of why they were doing it. That isn't comprehension. Being able to articulate one's thought process is not only an effective means of evaluating mastery, but it prepares students for the reality of the world beyond their k-12 education.

 

[Ceila]

This is another part of the problem as I see it - is a teaching method that requires a level of parental involvement that many students simply do not have really appropriate as a set of statewide or national standards? Isn't this simply a recipe for widening, rather than narrowing, the achievement gap?

There are many concepts that I do not expect the schools to have to teach my children. I have no problem with including math facts in that category.

As for the concern about some students not getting this reinforcement at home, I think that, as a nation, we need to stop letting parents off the hook by placing that responsibility on the schools. I think that it is appropriate for schools to help children develop into higher-level thinkers, as that is what the workforce of our future will demand. In order to achieve this, some of the basics that were taken for granted as school-taught will need to be shifted to the home. As a country, we need to do a better job of supporting the parents who struggle, but not by keeping all of the responsibility of learning within school walls. Rather, we need to put in place programs to help parents help their children achieve at a higher level while in school.

ETA: Colleen27, I'm thoroughly enjoying the debate, and I hope you don't take offense to what I've typed. I think this has been a great discourse! I am heading off to bed (need to get up early to teach tomorrow, as usual!).

 

[disykat]

You just hit on the head what's wrong with the curriculum my kid is doing. It's all about prepping for the test with lots of unnecessary steps leaving little to no room to use critical thinking.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you want critical thinking, but not multiple step problems, mental math, or challenging vocabulary that you have to use context clues to figure out?

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

My thoughts are in blue.

To me, it's the supporters of the standards who can't see the difference. It really doesn't matter what the standards are, because there are a handful of curriculum companies writing the lousy textbooks geared to the standards.

Actually, it's not a handful. There are an amazing number of curricular options aligned with the Common Core. School districts can choose a spirally program (Saxon), or a mastery based program (Singapore). They can choose something that's concrete and incremental (Saxon, Touch Math) or something that's more abstract (Investigations). They can choose something language heavy (Everyday Math) or something with lots of support for language development (SRA's Connecting Math Concepts). Many districts have taken advantage of the shift to Common Core to make other shifts. Rather than replacing their Saxon materials with Saxon's newer materials, they might decide to move away from the spiral and adopt Singapore. The result is that many people are confused between the two sets of shifts. You can see this here on the DIS where people have complained both that Common Core is more scripted, and that it's less scripted, or that Common Core is too spiral or not spiral enough. In reality, Common Core is none of these things, because decisons about scripts and spirals are curricular decisions.

Also, while the standards people like to post seem "reasonable" the underpinnings of them are not. What I don't see in the standards everyone likes to tout as so reasonable is that all of a sudden your 5th grader needs to read at a 7th grade level literally overnight.

There's some truth to this, in that the Common Core's approach to text complexity is controversial. There are many different ways to measure the complexity of a text. The methods CC has used when writing "Standard 10" (the one that gives examples of text levels for specific grades) is one that relies heavily on sentence length, and word level attributes. It gives less weight to other ways in which a text can be challenging, such as theme or the number of problems and solution. The result is that some texts are graded as "easier" by Common Core, than they would be if they were leveled according to Fountas and Pinnell.

Another way in which Common Core changes the level of text complexity, is that for most states Common Core is the first time that standards have addressed the complexity of the nonfiction texts that students are reading in the content areas. In the past, it wasn't uncommon for the reading level of science and social studies textbooks to be wildly different from grade level expectations. Common Core addresses this issue head on, which may result in students being given texts that are both more challenging and less challenging than what came before.

In addition to these factors, Common Core does raise the bar for reading level overall, at least relative to old standards and benchmarks in the majority of states. Researchers looking at college readiness in 12th graders found that students who barely hit reading targets were not prepared to do college level work. They then looked backwards from that finding, and reset earlier reading benchmarks so that they better prepared students for college and career.

My last thought on this is that the shift to Common Core shouldn't have been something that happened "overnight" in any district. States and districts have known this shift was coming for several years. Gradually shifting benchmarks, and setting up RTI structures to support kids caught between the old and new benchmarks should have been a priority. If your state or district didn't do that then that is, without a doubt an issue with implementation, not with the standards themselves.

That 6th grade topics are being shoved down to 1st grade.

This is one of those complaints I hear over and over again, that's never matched with a reference to a specific standard. I'd love to see it linked. The standards I happen to know best are the K and 1st grade standards, and I can't think of a single standard in those two grades that could possibly be thought of as "sixth grade". I'd love to see someone point to where I can see what they're seeing on this one.

That younger kids who are concrete thinkers are being asked to think abstractly, when it is not even developmentally appropriate.

Again, I've read these standards many times. I've gone over them with a fine tooth comb creating alignment documents and backwards mapping to create PreKindergarten standards, and I can't point to a standard that can't be taught in a developmentally appropriate manner. At least, in this case, I can tell you some of the things that people point to, in part thanks to a ridiculous video that someone linked with someone ranting about this. In that video the clinical (note: not educational or developmental) psychologist speaking gave some concrete examples. For example, she pointed to this standard

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.K.5 With guidance and support from adults, respond to questions and suggestions from peers and add details to strengthen writing as needed

The speaker, who admitted over and over again that she had no instructional experience imagined that this meant kids sitting around listening to public criticism as though they were in a board room. This made me laugh, because in our school it looks more like teachers pulling up little chairs next to a pair of "writing buddies" and having conversations like this.

Teacher: Joaquin, I can't wait to hear what Zoe wrote, what about you? Zoe, can you read your writing to us?

Zoe: I went to the zoo!

Teacher: The zoo! How wonderful! Didn't she read that well, Joaquin? What should we ask her to do next?

Joaquin: Zoe, can you tell us about your picture.

Zoe: That's me, and my dad, and we're looking at a panda bear.

Joaquin: I like your panda bear. I sawded one when I went to the zoo with my Abuela.

Teacher: I agree! That's a lovely panda bear. You drew his ears so carefully, and I can see his black and white patches. Joaquin, you and I both liked Zoe's panda bear, I wonder if we should ask her to write about the panda bear, what do you think.

Joaquin (nodding): Zoe, could you write about the panda bear?

Zoe: I could, I could write "We saw the panda bear . . . ummmmm"

Joaquin: You could say what he's doing.

Zoe: eat bamboo! We saw the panda bear eat bamboo.

Teacher: What a great plan! Thank you for sharing your story Bye now

Special Education kids will be tested for hours and hours at grade level -- even if they are in remedial classes and have NEVER been taught grade level curriculum. The are expected to sit there and take tests they can't even read.

Again, I think this is a very valid complaint, but not one that's new to CC.

The other thing is: Most teachers haven't remotely internalized this radicalized way of teaching.

CC isn't a a way of teaching at all, and certainly not a "radicalized" one, whatever that means.

They don't know what they are doing, so they can't teach it well.

You're right. One thing that has come out in some districts is that some teachers aren't well enough versed in their content to teach rigorous standards. This is a huge problem, but again it's not one caused by CC. If anything, it's an argument for improved standards, since the adults who can't mentally add or subtract numbers are presumably graduates of American schools

 

[CaliBear]

This board needs a math forum.

 

[castleview]

There are many concepts that I do not expect the schools to have to teach my children. I have no problem with including math facts in that category.

As for the concern about some students not getting this reinforcement at home, I think that, as a nation, we need to stop letting parents off the hook by placing that responsibility on the schools. I think that it is appropriate for schools to help children develop into higher-level thinkers, as that is what the workforce of our future will demand. In order to achieve this, some of the basics that were taken for granted as school-taught will need to be shifted to the home. As a country, we need to do a better job of supporting the parents who struggle, but not by keeping all of the responsibility of learning within school walls. Rather, we need to put in place programs to help parents help their children achieve at a higher level while in school.

ETA: Colleen27, I'm thoroughly enjoying the debate, and I hope you don't take offense to what I've typed. I think this has been a great discourse! I am heading off to bed (need to get up early to teach tomorrow, as usual!).

It sounds like you have no place for kids who are struggling. I have two older daughters who are well ahead in math. Their scores are well above goal and now that they are in middle school, are taking advanced classes 1-2 years ahead of their peers. But by some of your comments, I have not been a good parent because my son is struggling in math. Even though his DRA is a year ahead of where he's expected, your saying "too bad" it's my fault he isn't jiving with the questionable curriculum.

Like a PP who teaches special ed, I'm in the Northeast where the standards have traditionally been higher than national standards. But our problem has been interference by non-educators pushing the legislators for us to comply with NCLB, now RTTT and CC when we didn't need to. While teachers were at work, lobbyists mandated that districts buy things they didn't need, set rubrics for things that weren't necessary and punish schools for so many things out of their hands.

I realize this is rambling. But in the past few years, I have gone from fighting for my older kids to be properly challenged and now I'm fighting for my youngest to be straight forwardly taught. I have basically wanted the teachers to be given the autonomy to do what they know works.

 

[castleview]

You're right. One thing that has come out in some districts is that some teachers aren't well enough versed in their content to teach rigorous standards. This is a huge problem, but again it's not one caused by CC. If anything, it's an argument for improved standards, since the adults who can't mentally add or subtract numbers are presumably graduates of American schools

It's been my experience that most adults can do mental math - though your probably holding it against me that I was thinking about several different things when I posted one particular problem. But as a curriculum writer, you probably know that standards dropped at one time when we decided everyone had to be on the same level…which is impossible. Honestly, those writing curriculum are the only ones doing well with the constant shifts.