Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have a math phd. I just get math and see its patterns long before I can explain it. The "explain your work" can kill creativity. My DD is very verbal and this method helps her since she can step herself through things. My son, on the other hand, who can "see" patterns can't always explain them but is almost always right. As he is figuring this stuff out, it is absolutely not ok to penalize him for not being able to describe his processes.

Yes! Common Core is a thought straitjacket. It requires all children to learn the same things in the same ways and express them in exactly the same ways.

It's interesting -- and sad and frightening -- to hear those from China say it's very similar to the Chinese system. No creative thought, but hey, they're good test takers!

I think CC is opposite of "no creative thought". Previous teaching methods were all rote - that is no creative thought.

CC requires *a lot * of thought, and some would say, too much for simple problems. And this may surely be the case, but CC standards are far from "no creative thought".

And how was the previous curriculum so creative? Didn't all the kids have to meet the same standards back then, too? Pass the same tests? In the previous curriculum, when they all learned 2+2 = 4, didn't they all express it the same way? Actually, in CC standards, you can express 2+2 in different ways... in my DC's class, DC can show 2+2 with numbers, pictures, graphs. That is more creative than just writing 2+2=4.

I think that showing kids multiple modalities before understanding the concept absolutely can kill creativity. Here is an example from my son. He was asked to add 36 and 24. He immediately said 60. He was taught that you can add the tens and then the ones and then add them together. He was told you could count forward. He was taught some estimation tricks. All are totally fine but he got stuck trying to explain how he came to his answer. Turns out that he groups in his head by 6 (this month). He was actually recognizing that 24 and 36 are groupings of 6 and using that insight to come up with 60. He doesn't have the language to explain multiplication (he doesn't know what it is). He does know his 6 times table because he heard his sister memorizing it. It took me a very long time to figure out what he was doing and an even longer time to convince him that it was totally fine to do it that way even though it wasn't one of the options. Kids have to be free to make their own connections and to not try to do them until they are ready. Teach the concept. Being teach multiple ways of getting there until the concept is super solid. And when they are ready, they will be able to brainstorm these methods in their own.

I see it the opposite way. In the early years, they are taught that you can do math in many different ways. Your DC came up with his own way. I'm thinking your DC came up with that because he was exposed to different methods of adding. His inability to explain how he came up with the answer has nothing to do with creativity, but rather the inability of young kids to explain their thought process (which is what CC is trying to teach, btw. Yes, it's tough for kids.).

The old-fashion way of doing math was only one way. I only learned how to carry the 1. Never learned about the other methods. It wasn't until a bit later that I started to use the "base 10" model. I never learned it that way, though. I'm math minded so I figured this out on my own. I'm glad my kids are learning base 10 method.

[Anonymous]

PP, I think that creativity is limited because it becomes a multiple choice activity: which of these three methods are you going to use?

There are kids that will understand the idea that many roads lead to Rome while simultaneously learning about the existence of Rome. Many kids will be frustrated because they are struggling with figuring out what Rome is and are really not ready to discuss road building. And then there are the kids that show up in Rome by plane and figure they should have taken one of the roads. I don't think it's effective until the concepts are sound.

[Anonymous]

Success is important in learning. Some of these CC requirements are too circular. Kids need success. Some concepts are better learned after the facts are learned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think that showing kids multiple modalities before understanding the concept absolutely can kill creativity. Here is an example from my son. He was asked to add 36 and 24. He immediately said 60. He was taught that you can add the tens and then the ones and then add them together. He was told you could count forward. He was taught some estimation tricks. All are totally fine but he got stuck trying to explain how he came to his answer. Turns out that he groups in his head by 6 (this month). He was actually recognizing that 24 and 36 are groupings of 6 and using that insight to come up with 60. He doesn't have the language to explain multiplication (he doesn't know what it is). He does know his 6 times table because he heard his sister memorizing it. It took me a very long time to figure out what he was doing and an even longer time to convince him that it was totally fine to do it that way even though it wasn't one of the options. Kids have to be free to make their own connections and to not try to do them until they are ready. Teach the concept. Being teach multiple ways of getting there until the concept is super solid. And when they are ready, they will be able to brainstorm these methods in their own.

I would argue that making groups of 6 as your son did, while extremely creative, is not a very efficient strategy to use. It will only work in those infrequent cases where both addends happen to be multiples of 6 (or multiples of the same number, if you want to extend the concept). It also relies on knowing the times tables perfectly, and being able to keep in your head how many groups of six for both addends, then add them together, then multiply by 6 to get your answer.

Our number system is based on, well, base ten -- multiples of 10. So it makes a lot of sense and is most efficient, to have students learn very well how to add groups of 10, and to quickly make additional groups of ten from the numbers in the ones column, and add that new group of ten to the rest of the groups of ten. This is a method that will work for all numbers, and only requires students to be able to multiply by 10 (which is super easy of course) and to be know what two numbers add together to make ten (number bonds of ten).

I'd rather not have kids be encouraged to brainstorm new methods or learn multiple ways of adding. Stick with one efficient system. Once they have totally mastered that, if they want to experiment with "Hey, are both those numbers multiples of 6? Multiples of 8?" that's really cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think that showing kids multiple modalities before understanding the concept absolutely can kill creativity. Here is an example from my son. He was asked to add 36 and 24. He immediately said 60. He was taught that you can add the tens and then the ones and then add them together. He was told you could count forward. He was taught some estimation tricks. All are totally fine but he got stuck trying to explain how he came to his answer. Turns out that he groups in his head by 6 (this month). He was actually recognizing that 24 and 36 are groupings of 6 and using that insight to come up with 60. He doesn't have the language to explain multiplication (he doesn't know what it is). He does know his 6 times table because he heard his sister memorizing it. It took me a very long time to figure out what he was doing and an even longer time to convince him that it was totally fine to do it that way even though it wasn't one of the options. Kids have to be free to make their own connections and to not try to do them until they are ready. Teach the concept. Being teach multiple ways of getting there until the concept is super solid. And when they are ready, they will be able to brainstorm these methods in their own.

I would argue that making groups of 6 as your son did, while extremely creative, is not a very efficient strategy to use. It will only work in those infrequent cases where both addends happen to be multiples of 6 (or multiples of the same number, if you want to extend the concept). It also relies on knowing the times tables perfectly, and being able to keep in your head how many groups of six for both addends, then add them together, then multiply by 6 to get your answer.

Our number system is based on, well, base ten -- multiples of 10. So it makes a lot of sense and is most efficient, to have students learn very well how to add groups of 10, and to quickly make additional groups of ten from the numbers in the ones column, and add that new group of ten to the rest of the groups of ten. This is a method that will work for all numbers, and only requires students to be able to multiply by 10 (which is super easy of course) and to be know what two numbers add together to make ten (number bonds of ten).

I'd rather not have kids be encouraged to brainstorm new methods or learn multiple ways of adding. Stick with one efficient system. Once they have totally mastered that, if they want to experiment with "Hey, are both those numbers multiples of 6? Multiples of 8?" that's really cool.

NP. That's not at all how Common Core math works. The concept is to learn many different ways of adding before a student selects a preferred way of doing it. And then they need to explain all of it, while they're being exposed to all sorts of different ways of adding.

That's pretty much exactly what the prior several posts are saying. That it seems students should learn one way to add first before learning six other ways. Contrary to the way Common Core teaches math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NP. That's not at all how Common Core math works. The concept is to learn many different ways of adding before a student selects a preferred way of doing it. And then they need to explain all of it, while they're being exposed to all sorts of different ways of adding.

I disagree with your assessment. In the early years, Common Core standards for math state students should be able to use a few different strategies to add and subtract, the most efficient ones, not just any and all strategies willy nilly, and then use the one that is most appropriate to the task. Children should get a lot of chances for drill in using these strategies so that they becomes absolutely automatic by the end of 2nd grade.

The strategies are: Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13) and those involving knowledge of place value (i.e. based on base ten).

These aren't a whole bunch of strategies for adding and subtracting just pulled from thin air. They make use of the fact that our number system is based on the number 10. And counting on or counting down (essentially, couning on your finger) is really only to be used if you are adding or subtracting a very small number or if there is juse a small distance between two numbers.

Children who count on to add 6 + 4 or 13 + 7 should be encouraged to use the more efficient strategy of "making a 10" for example.

And the strategy of "Figure out how many multiples of 6 each number is, then add those two numbers together and multiply the sum by 6" really isn't a useful strategy.

[Anonymous]

That's pretty much exactly what the prior several posts are saying. That it seems students should learn one way to add first before learning six other ways. Contrary to the way Common Core teaches math

+1000
Let the kids be successful before you keep going. The "cyclical" method has been tried from time to time through the years and always fails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My child has no problem with word problems, it's when they purposely make things difficult by making word problems something where a child needs to be an abstract thinker before she or she is developmentally ready and able is frustrating to me. The article about the NY common core applies to the thinking behind the abstract of this type of math, when math is a straightforward subject.

I disagree -- both about the subject of the article, and about the Common Core math standards requiring abstract thinking before children are developmentally ready. I think that the Common Core math standards are appropriate to the development of most children. Could you cite some Common Core math standards that you think are not appropriate?

+1

If you child is struggling with critical thinking about math, your child needs practice in critical thinking. Common Core will give that to them. It will make them better over the long haul. It's frustrating to me that so many parents dislike Common Core because it made school more rigorous for their children. More rigorous learning is good for kids!

This line of thinking only applies when the student has been educated using Common Core standards starting in kindergarten!!!! Do not take a child who is in 6th grade and on an IEP and initiate a wholesale change on how the material is going to be presented to them for the remainder of their time in public school. That is unfair and unjust. Its bait and switch! Surely you understand that, but because your child isn't struggling then too bad for all the other kids who ARE NOT getting it! its their problem, not yours - correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's pretty much exactly what the prior several posts are saying. That it seems students should learn one way to add first before learning six other ways. Contrary to the way Common Core teaches math

+1000
Let the kids be successful before you keep going. The "cyclical" method has been tried from time to time through the years and always fails.

The way Common Core State Standards in math are arranged is the OPPOSITE of the cyclical way standards were presented before.

[Anonymous]

That's pretty much exactly what the prior several posts are saying. That it seems students should learn one way to add first before learning six other ways. Contrary to the way Common Core teaches math

This would be a bad way to teach beginning addition. For example, the first way teachers teach adding is to "count on". "Counting on" is fine for adding +1 or +2. But you do NOT want children to solve 5+5 by "counting on". You do NOT want children saying the number 5, and then counting on (their fingers) 5 more times.....6,7,8,9,10. The answer is 10! That would result in yes, children being very proficient at counting on their fingers to get the correct number.

Children should master the counting on strategy just for +1 and +2 but then quickly should move on to the more efficient strategies (such as making 10s) for other facts. This is not randomly based. There is a specific reason why each strategy is worth learning.

[Anonymous]

Common Core teaches the abstract before it teaches the concrete. This will be a failure for many early learners. It's why so many are already unconnecting from the learning process. They think they are "dumb" and they are only in Kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core teaches the abstract before it teaches the concrete. This will be a failure for many early learners. It's why so many are already unconnecting from the learning process. They think they are "dumb" and they are only in Kindergarten.

No, it doesn't. The state standards for grades K and 1 are quite concrete.

For example, the standards for Kindergarten Math: operations and lagebraic thinking, below, all are carried out using objects, fingers, or drawings. The standards state that in grade K students should be exposed to equations, but should not be expected to write equations yet (if they want to that;s great but it is not necessary, hence "drawings OR equations" not "Drawings AND equations."

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.OA.A.1
Represent addition and subtraction with objects, fingers, mental images, drawings1, sounds (e.g., claps), acting out situations, verbal explanations, expressions, or equations.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.OA.A.2
Solve addition and subtraction word problems, and add and subtract within 10, e.g., by using objects or drawings to represent the problem.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.OA.A.3
Decompose numbers less than or equal to 10 into pairs in more than one way, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record each decomposition by a drawing or equation (e.g., 5 = 2 + 3 and 5 = 4 + 1).

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.OA.A.4
For any number from 1 to 9, find the number that makes 10 when added to the given number, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record the answer with a drawing or equation.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.OA.A.5
Fluently add and subtract within 5.

[Anonymous]

PP again. I will grant you that the final standard "fluently add and subtract within 5" *is* an abstract standard. By the end of their K year, Kers are expected to be able to just plain add and subtract 2+3, 4+1 and 5+0 WITHOUT using their fingers or counting objects.

That is abstract I agree.

I don't think it is too much for many Kindergarteners, but it probably is too hard for some.

[Anonymous]

The first problem:

Those K standards should be grade 1 standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The first problem:

Those K standards should be grade 1 standards.

Why? It's unrealistic to expect kindergarteners, by the end of the year, to be able to solve addition and subtraction word problems, and add and subtract within 10, e.g., by using objects or drawings to represent the problem?

(For example: Isabella has two hats and Caleb has three hats. Draw a picture to show how many hats they have altogether.)

On the Maryland Public Schools forum, I keep reading that Common Core standards are dumbed-down, and everybody's child was doing problems like this in the first year of preschool.