New Common Core math curriculum a disaster

[Cindy B]

.

Again, common core is just the standards to be taught but the assessment is very application heavy. I can tell you the sample questions from PARCC don't include multiple choice, but things like "select all that apply." It also has very lengthy questions that can contain many parts.[/QUOTE]



Yes the PARCC sample assessments show that the PARCC will be a very strong challenge. My state has a Model Curriculum (ELA/Math mostly) that emulates PARCC questions. It has excerpts, all that apply and a written component that is challenging. This Model Curriculum has assessments. I gave the mid point 8th grade assessment to my highest level 8th graders (high MAP scores, High state test scores)- they couldn't even read the text! We had to go "down" to a 6th grade level for mastery (80% or higher).

Apparently the PARCC will also have students manipulate using tools- such as shading/turning/flipping (tessalations and the like) for math.

 

[Colleen27]

We could save taxpayers billions upon billions and bring the US back into the #1 spot for education if we abolish the DOE and cut off the federal teat so many school districts are latched onto and comply with simply for the money.

That's what this is all about after all. Money.

It hasn't been about what is best for the children for about 5 decades.

How would it save anyone anything? Do you believe that tax rates would really be recalculated to account for the reduction in education spending? Of course not - the money would just get spent elsewhere. So what we would have, in practice, would be less educational bureaucracy (good) along with less funding for education (bad).

I'm all for restoring local control, but I don't think eliminating the DoE would accomplish that. It would take a sea change in the way we think about education - a reality check, really - along with the death of political correctness. Right now, the biggest enemy of local control is the fact that it isn't okay to acknowledge and cater to the needs of a specific community - college has been deemed the One. Right. Path for all and we're supposed to ignore the fact that many kids in lower/working class families won't go on to college for academic or financial reasons. So we are horrified when we hear about schools that have mechanic and carpentry programs but no AP classes, our state rankings penalize those schools, and we seek to "improve" them by forcing them into the middle/upper class mold of college being a given and childhood extending into one's early/mid 20s.

 

[Tinijocaro]

No time to read the whole thread but keep this in mind. When a district adapts a new math curriculum, often teachers have some input but just as often, they don't.

In my district, teachers had some input, but they did not receive materials until the first week of school. They had no time to prepare to teach a brand new math curriculum! Imagine getting on stage for a performance and having your lines handed to you right before the performance! That is what it feels like to be a teacher.

If the materials had been given out in the spring, the teachers would have had all summer to become familiar with the program, time to meet in groups and sort it all out. They would have gladly given up many hours of their summer to learn the curriculum. Instead, they have to teach it before they have a thorough understanding of it themselves.

My message is, go easy on the teacher, they are doing the best that they can with a curriculum that they may not even have wanted.

 

[DawnM]

Most of these programs don't even stick around 6-7 years.

I started teaching in 1988. In that time, I have seen trends come and go and it seems that every 2-4 years we have a new program to implement.

Something is working? Nope, we can't keep that one! We must be on to the next latest and greatest thing. Something not working? It doesn't matter anyway, it is gone soon enough.

I have heard many educators complain that it takes 6 or 7 years for a new program to be in effect long enough to judge. Makes sense to me. If the program just started, give it a few years before judging.

 

[cheer25mom]

Life involves complex thinking - looking at a problem, and being able to visualize multiple steps is an important skill. Students need to work on this at an early age to get the neurons in the brain wired to think beyond one step and I'm done problems. It's one of the reasons the US is getting left behind! We don't think, we just wait for someone to make an app for us.

We teach genetics (double punnett squares, recessive traits, etc) to our freshmen. We give them 3 quarters of biology their freshman year. I don't know if this year's MCAS results are online yet, but we usually do great.

Most of these school issues would be resolved if more parents started the learning process with their children instead of waiting for the kids to learn all this in school. The brain does most of the important wiring at a very early age (before kindergarten for some processes) so setting the kid down in front of a TV or video game, or handing him the iPhone to keep him busy, doesn't really do too much beneficial wiring.

We used car rides, dinner, play time, laundry time, cleaning time, and even TV time as the perfect time to learn to read, count, think, and problem solve. My kids found learning things in school to be easy and enjoyable, passed all standardized testing with advanced recognition, and continue to be successful.

People constantly say "Oh, your kids are so smart" and I reply "I dedicated my time to teaching them how to think and learn. It made the difference." I don't think I am any smarter than other people, just that I took the time, when they were very young, to get them wired for success. I don't see that happening enough with the students I work with.

You know what, I have a VERY bright kid. 98th or 99th percentile on SATs every year. And I do teach her to think. She makes intuitive leaps sometimes that I marvel at. It bothers me that you are assuming that everyone who has a problem with these tests must be taking the easy way out and not teaching thier kids to work hard and use their intellect.

My point is that asking the average kid to work porblems like this without that backgroud from an early age is a recipe for failure. They haven't been taught how to think in this way before, so sudently asking them to do so with no adjustment period whatsoever is just not fair to the child. It sets them up for failure that is going to stick with them. And, believe it or not, there are kids of average intelligence that simply cannot porcess on the level these tests are asking, backgound in critical thinking or not. THAT is why I think they are not developmentally appropiate. My kid could probably handle it, but she is not where we should be taking the measurment. The question should be: Is an average child, average intelligence, B/C student, without special needs capable of passing this test? If not, something is wrong. Either there needs to be an adjustment period to the new standards or the test needs to be changed. In this case I think it is a little of both.

The genetics problem wasn't a punnett square, that would have been fine. It was about distributions of genetic traits in a population and required statistics claucluations including standard deviation that are not part of the Biology I curriculium and are not taught in the prerequisite math classes.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

You must have been part of the common core curriculum then because no one said it was. Reading comprehension...

"Common Core is another failure by those who support federal mandates."

That's your statement. Don't insult my intelligence. If that's not what you meant, don't be vague.

Edit: If it isn't obvious, I replied to this before I read the rest of the thread.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

The people who failed so miserably at the DOE and NEA couldn't get all the federal mandates through so they settled for common core.

The Federal Department of Education & NEA were not responsible for developing the Common Core State Standards. The Common Core State Standards were developed through the National Governors Association (and the Council of Chief State School Officers). Each state legislature was responsible for deciding whether or not to approve the Common Core Standards for use in its state. They were approved by 46 states, although the implementation of the standards has been stalled in several of them.

Now, the NEA did vote to support the standards (although not the testing), but were not responsible for their development.

What you could reasonably say is that switching to Common Core did give states an excuse to not have 100% proficient students by the end of this year, as NCLB mandates. NCLB itself is a failure because 100% proficiency is not possible.

 

[jodifla]

No time to read the whole thread but keep this in mind. When a district adapts a new math curriculum, often teachers have some input but just as often, they don't.

In my district, teachers had some input, but they did not receive materials until the first week of school. They had no time to prepare to teach a brand new math curriculum! Imagine getting on stage for a performance and having your lines handed to you right before the performance! That is what it feels like to be a teacher.

If the materials had been given out in the spring, the teachers would have had all summer to become familiar with the program, time to meet in groups and sort it all out. They would have gladly given up many hours of their summer to learn the curriculum. Instead, they have to teach it before they have a thorough understanding of it themselves.

My message is, go easy on the teacher, they are doing the best that they can with a curriculum that they may not even have wanted.

Oh, we know it's not any of the teachers' fault. This was foisted upon them. All the teachers feel it's a terrible curriculum for my son at this point. It relies on having conversational language -- which my son does not at this point. It is the heart of his disability. He simply cannot do the work in that way.

So we've gone straight to the district's administration and are consulting with a special education lawyer.

 

[jodifla]

Interesting skip over the previous two lines in that report (including the beginning of the quoted paragraph):

Don't understand your point here, but let me reiterate mine:

The Common Core CURRICULUM in math my district has chosen is a disaster for my son and many others who have weakness in language.

Maybe the Common Core standards overall makes sense, but now it's been hijacked by textbook and testing companies. And we are starting to see the effects of it in early adopter states. Children who were once A algebra students are now failing. Kids are getting ill over the overlong, too-hard annual testing allegedly geared to the Common Core standards, which anywhere from 60 percent to 90 percent are failing.

I have a friend whose first-grader with a disability is being tested on Mesopotamia today. He has literally no idea what they are talking about. He can't pronounce any of the words. He should be learning simple arithmetic and working with first grade reading -- not Mesopotamia, which I covered in 6th grade.

 

[DLgal]

Oh, we know it's not any of the teachers' fault. This was foisted upon them. All the teachers feel it's a terrible curriculum for my son at this point. It relies on having conversational language -- which my son does not at this point. It is the heart of his disability. He simply cannot do the work in that way.

So we've gone straight to the district's administration and are consulting with a special education lawyer.

I have to ask here, since my sons both have autism and an IEP...why is your son being forced to follow that curriculum? At my kids' schools, the IEP gives the teacher the ability to modify the curriculum to fit their needs. My boys also struggle with language and reading comprehension. So, the teachers are responsible for simply making sure they learn the same core set of skills and concepts by the end of the year (same as mainstream kids) but they can go about it any way they want. For the standardized tests...our expectations are that our kids probably won't pass them, but no one cares, as they have no bearing on anything but funding and the school's "grade". The administrators understand that, but it is a graduation requirement here that kids PARTICIPATE in the standardized testing. How they actually do is irrelevant.

This is why I am in no hurry to "mainstream" my kids. I prefer their mix of self contained and partial mainstream. This way, I know fr sure that my kids are being taught the skill set in an appropriate way, by a teacher who has the time to develop appropriate modifications.

Sounds like you are in a school or district that just doesn't "get it". I have always felt that if the schools were not willing or able to meet my kids needs, I would home school them. And, I am generally no fan of the idea.

Good luck with your fight!

 

[jodifla]

I have to ask here, since my sons both have autism and an IEP...why is your son being forced to follow that curriculum? At my kids' schools, the IEP gives the teacher the ability to modify the curriculum to fit their needs. My boys also struggle with language and reading comprehension. So, the teachers are responsible for simply making sure they learn the same core set of skills and concepts by the end of the year (same as mainstream kids) but they can go about it any way they want. For the standardized tests...our expectations are that our kids probably won't pass them, but no one cares, as they have no bearing on anything but funding and the school's "grade". The administrators understand that, but it is a graduation requirement here that kids PARTICIPATE in the standardized testing. How they actually do is irrelevant.

This is why I am in no hurry to "mainstream" my kids. I prefer their mix of self contained and partial mainstream. This way, I know fr sure that my kids are being taught the skill set in an appropriate way, by a teacher who has the time to develop appropriate modifications.

Sounds like you are in a school or district that just doesn't "get it". I have always felt that if the schools were not willing or able to meet my kids needs, I would home school them. And, I am generally no fan of the idea.

Good luck with your fight!

Everyone was blindsided by this (well, except for whatever thoughtless group picked the curriculum. But unfortunately, the teacher was told he could not modify and had to follow the model very closely.

 

[MrsPete]

Totally off-topic, but if your kid is having trouble in math, consider enrolling him in music lessons. Yes, really. Math is one of the bases of music, and for many kids, music lessons help math "click".

 

[DawnM]

OP implied that math is not the issue, the methodology of how this new math is implemented in the issue. The new curriculum itself may be an issue too.

But no amount of music lessons will fix Common Core issues.

Totally off-topic, but if your kid is having trouble in math, consider enrolling him in music lessons. Yes, really. Math is one of the bases of music, and for many kids, music lessons help math "click".

 

[justhat]

I didn't read more the the first and last page, but my kids' district moved to the common core curriculum 2 years ago. Last year my son was a 1st grader. He learned nothing of what is in the post on the 1st page. Test scores in our district have remained unchanged since they implemented this curriculum (over 90% M&E standards on the state standardized tests). My daughter is a 4th grader this year, in extended math (doing the 5th grade curriculum) and doesn't have any of that group stuff going on and my friends with kids in the middle schools in our district haven't mentioned that either. Maybe it's just the method your district chose to implement the curriculum?

ETA: My daughter was in regular 3rd grade math when we started at this school last year (they were in a public charter previously) and did so well with math that at the year end 3rd grade assessments and 4th grade placements, she was able to skip 4th grade math entirely. So the new curriculum definitely works for her.

My son is in Spanish immersion so as a 1st grader all of his math and science was taught in Spanish, as well as Spanish language arts, social studies and English language arts in English. His social studies did not cover mesopotamia, like I previously mentioned, but mostly geography, map components, cities/states/countries, last fall they covered election stuff, etc. Nothing like what you described, however. Math was addition, subtraction, telling time, fractions. This year he has science, Spanish language arts, and social studies in Spanish, math and English language arts in English. Still none of the ancient world stuff. So far still a lot with geography. Math is more advanced addition/subtraction/time, but with a lot of word problems, and also a lot of graph stuff.

 

[cobright]

college has been deemed the One. Right. Path for all and we're supposed to ignore the fact that many kids in lower/working class families won't go on to college for academic or financial reasons. So we are horrified when we hear about schools that have mechanic and carpentry programs but no AP classes, our state rankings penalize those schools, and we seek to "improve" them by forcing them into the middle/upper class mold of college being a given and childhood extending into one's early/mid 20s.

My issue with this reasoning is that the purpose of education is to give our kids the best opportunity at adult success. Job growth in the skilled trades is dependent on population which has more or less leveled off. Housing booms can temporarily create localized demand for construction jobs but these are not the high paying career options we should be wanting for our kids.

Skilled trades and health care related jobs pay well but even if they don't require advanced education the applicant still benefits from a mastery of advanced mathematics, science, history, and often even art. My brother is a master plumber and he is appalled at the kids coming to him out of highschool who cannot calculate radial turns, flow rates and capacities of pipes, or who have no understanding of aesthetics and design.

I support a polytechnic approach to trades education and integrating this with the highschools would be a great idea, but whether your kid ends up in college or not he is still better off if he leaves highschool understanding some advanced math, history, research and presentation skills, and a firm grip on the physical sciences.

Put another way, I would rather have a garbage man who understands mitosis than a surgeon who doesn't.

 

[tvguy]

And if it's an utter failure, what do those kids do who have lost out on 7 years of education?

I'm not interested in my son being a guinea pig.

This curriculum should have been field tested. It has not. My district is jumping into it blind, and using it with all sorts of kits it's totally inappropriate for, like my son.

Most of these programs don't even stick around 6-7 years.

I started teaching in 1988. In that time, I have seen trends come and go and it seems that every 2-4 years we have a new program to implement.

Something is working? Nope, we can't keep that one! We must be on to the next latest and greatest thing. Something not working? It doesn't matter anyway, it is gone soon enough.

I think DawnM answered better than I could.

 

[trip]

Most of these programs don't even stick around 6-7 years.

I started teaching in 1988. In that time, I have seen trends come and go and it seems that every 2-4 years we have a new program to implement.

Something is working? Nope, we can't keep that one! We must be on to the next latest and greatest thing. Something not working? It doesn't matter anyway, it is gone soon enough.

It keeps the book publishing companies happy!

 

[jodifla]

Our district said they were moving to common core a couple of years ago as well -- and that they were in fact already doing a lot of it anyway-- but the curriculum was much more traditional.

But a flood of CC textbooks is now hitting the market, and for some reason, our district picked this one.

We have heard neighboring districts are doing CC but not using this approach -- which again, might be great for many learners, but not mine.

So while Common Core is uniform, the specifics are not. And as we all know, the devil is in the details!

 

[Colleen27]

My issue with this reasoning is that the purpose of education is to give our kids the best opportunity at adult success. Job growth in the skilled trades is dependent on population which has more or less leveled off. Housing booms can temporarily create localized demand for construction jobs but these are not the high paying career options we should be wanting for our kids.

Skilled trades and health care related jobs pay well but even if they don't require advanced education the applicant still benefits from a mastery of advanced mathematics, science, history, and often even art. My brother is a master plumber and he is appalled at the kids coming to him out of highschool who cannot calculate radial turns, flow rates and capacities of pipes, or who have no understanding of aesthetics and design.

The problem is, though, that we're all raising our kids to chase the same 20% or so of American jobs - the ones that require a college degree, pay a good salary, and don't involve unpleasant or dangerous working conditions. We're going into trillions of dollars to do it, not to mention alienating students who don't fit the college-prep mold. And while the oversupply of grads is driving down wages and driving up unemployment in many of those fields, we're importing labor from overseas to fill skilled trade jobs because American kids are raised to consider trade school or apprenticeship beneath them.

As far as benefit, I'd argue that not all do. For some, the costs outweigh any benefit they gain. First of all, many don't master those subjects. Some end up in summer school or alternative programs to escape the more stringent graduation requirements (in my state, they're in line with the admissions criteria for semi-selective colleges). Second, many students are in those classes in place of classes that would have offered more benefit to them, because they'd otherwise have chosen classes that confer some desirable skill to take into the working world or that would give a head-start on a vocational or technical course of study.

I suppose in an abstract way all students do benefit from exposure to more advanced coursework, but to me that's like saying everyone would benefit from traveling overseas or becoming fluent in a foreign language. On its face both are true, but many people don't do those things because of financial, intellectual, or logistical limitations and still live successful, fulfilled lives.

 

[cheer25mom]

The problem is, though, that we're all raising our kids to chase the same 20% or so of American jobs - the ones that require a college degree, pay a good salary, and don't involve unpleasant or dangerous working conditions. We're going into trillions of dollars to do it, not to mention alienating students who don't fit the college-prep mold. And while the oversupply of grads is driving down wages and driving up unemployment in many of those fields, we're importing labor from overseas to fill skilled trade jobs because American kids are raised to consider trade school or apprenticeship beneath them.

As far as benefit, I'd argue that not all do. For some, the costs outweigh any benefit they gain. First of all, many don't master those subjects. Some end up in summer school or alternative programs to escape the more stringent graduation requirements (in my state, they're in line with the admissions criteria for semi-selective colleges). Second, many students are in those classes in place of classes that would have offered more benefit to them, because they'd otherwise have chosen classes that confer some desirable skill to take into the working world or that would give a head-start on a vocational or technical course of study.

I suppose in an abstract way all students do benefit from exposure to more advanced coursework, but to me that's like saying everyone would benefit from traveling overseas or becoming fluent in a foreign language. On its face both are true, but many people don't do those things because of financial, intellectual, or logistical limitations and still live successful, fulfilled lives.

This 100%. We have a serious lack of skilled tradesmen in this country. Not everyone can and should go to college. My Dad would hire 100 skilled welders today if he could, but the reality is that there are none to be found. College grads in business, english, history with no experience are applying in droves. They don't have the skills to do the job, and the skills they have are not in demand. Forcing kids to do college prep curriculium and get a degree, any degree, is not resulting in success. What those who are not going to be successful in that arena need is a solid skills based program that offers some type of certification option. My DH has a history masters and couldn't use it. He is a 3D structural designer, no degree required. He was lucky to get into a training program that paid him while he trained. Many aren't so lucky.