Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever tried teaching "missing addend" to first graders? It might work for the sophisticated ones, but it doesn't for a lot of them. It frustrates them. Sure, you teach it--but it is not a value we should be testing.

Yes, I have taught it to my ESOL students. Very easy.

Let's be clear here -- your gripe is, you think you can NOT teach "unsophisticated" 1st graders how to solve missing addend problems??

[Anonymous]

Common Core math standards for second grade:

1) A requirement that students understand place value, for instance, that “100 can be thought of as a bundle of ten tens -- called a ‘hundred.’”

2) That students be able to “add and subtract within 1000, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value … and relate the strategy to a written method.” Also that they “understand that in adding or subtracting three-digit numbers, one adds or subtracts hundreds and hundreds, tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose or decompose tens or hundreds.”

3) That they can “explain why addition and subtraction strategies work, using place value and the properties of operations.”

4) And that they can “represent whole numbers as lengths from 0 on a number line diagram with equally spaced points corresponding to the numbers 0, 1, 2, …, and represent whole-number sums and differences within 100 on a number line diagram.”

In general, being able to explain how you arrived at an answer – not just memorizing a formula – is also one of the standards’ key goals for students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


70 percent of the white student body will fail this test, and up to 95 percent of black, Hispanic and special needs students will fail.

How can you possibly know these numbers about a test that is only in pilot form? And what a sad statement about public education in America if this was true.

Because that is what has happened in every state that rolled out Common Core, then tested their kids on it.

Every state = 2. Kentucky and New York. Neither of the states used the two main Common Core-aligned tests (PARCC and Smarter Balanced), because those tests won't be ready until next year (this year they're getting field-tested). In Kentucky, it's pretty clear that one of the reasons so many kids failed is because their education was not as good as it should be. And the New York so-called "Common Core" curriculum is full of stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Common Core.

Add North Carolina to the mix. Their results were the same as Kentucky and New York.

One person who worked on the Common Core ELA standards said they were designed for the top 30 percent of students, not the entire student population. And that is exactly the percentage who passes them. Hardly a coincidence.

Seems like you've made up your mind prior to the standards even being put into place (and certainly before the national standardized tests are in place)). That's fine, but own up to it. Frankly I don't think higher standards are bad, clearly you do. I think more kids lose interest in school out of boredom than too much challenge. But I don't think you can judge common core on the data that is currently available -- it will take 5 to 10 years to have a clear picture

5 to 10 years -- and an entire generation's education down the toilet.

You act like the standards are any good. There is ZERO PROOF that they are better. And for kids with language disabilities, they make every party of the curriculum unattainable. That is what my child is experiencing right now.


Why are you such a gullible believer? They trot out standards, and you are immediately on your knees worshipping them. They are a fad, just like Everyday Math and New Math.

Have you actually read the standards? I have. There really isn't much to criticize there in my opinion. As I said before, my kids are in a common core district. It isn't really that different that the curriculum before (in Maryland but not Montgomery county). I think that the standards should be geared towards what the majority of the kids can do and they will need to find to make it work for those with learning disabilities via exceptions or otherwise. However, I don't think you bore the other seventy five percent of the class No Child Left Behind style.




Yes, I've read the standards, and they are rife with problems. Close reading is totally unproven -- Good God, the clueless children that will come out of that curriculum!


Most of the math standards are problematic because they insist on explaining in great detail in abstract terms at young ages with writing skills well beyond their ability. Until middle school, kids are concrete thinkers. These standards insist they be abstract thinkers well before the time that they are biologically wired to do so. It's like asking a fish to fly.


Many of the issues are in the "fine print" of the appendixes. Those rachet up the reading levels sky high. There are reports of the PARCC test for 3rd graders being at an S, T, U reading level --- even though they should be at about N-O.

The other thing is, all bets are off the table for your district's curriculum next year. Here's how this is going to go: Kids will take the PARCC next year. Almost everyone will fail. There will be an uproar. Your school district will panic and buy Pearson's curriculum -- because it's also been well reported that Pearson is inserting its prefab curriculum as the basis for its tests. And on the cycle goes, until parents go to the polls and vote out the politicians who signed up for this boatload of crap.







Keep hoping because it isn't going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


70 percent of the white student body will fail this test, and up to 95 percent of black, Hispanic and special needs students will fail.

How can you possibly know these numbers about a test that is only in pilot form? And what a sad statement about public education in America if this was true.

Because that is what has happened in every state that rolled out Common Core, then tested their kids on it.

Every state = 2. Kentucky and New York. Neither of the states used the two main Common Core-aligned tests (PARCC and Smarter Balanced), because those tests won't be ready until next year (this year they're getting field-tested). In Kentucky, it's pretty clear that one of the reasons so many kids failed is because their education was not as good as it should be. And the New York so-called "Common Core" curriculum is full of stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Common Core.

Add North Carolina to the mix. Their results were the same as Kentucky and New York.

One person who worked on the Common Core ELA standards said they were designed for the top 30 percent of students, not the entire student population. And that is exactly the percentage who passes them. Hardly a coincidence.

Seems like you've made up your mind prior to the standards even being put into place (and certainly before the national standardized tests are in place)). That's fine, but own up to it. Frankly I don't think higher standards are bad, clearly you do. I think more kids lose interest in school out of boredom than too much challenge. But I don't think you can judge common core on the data that is currently available -- it will take 5 to 10 years to have a clear picture

5 to 10 years -- and an entire generation's education down the toilet.

You act like the standards are any good. There is ZERO PROOF that they are better. And for kids with language disabilities, they make every party of the curriculum unattainable. That is what my child is experiencing right now.


Why are you such a gullible believer? They trot out standards, and you are immediately on your knees worshipping them. They are a fad, just like Everyday Math and New Math.

Have you actually read the standards? I have. There really isn't much to criticize there in my opinion. As I said before, my kids are in a common core district. It isn't really that different that the curriculum before (in Maryland but not Montgomery county). I think that the standards should be geared towards what the majority of the kids can do and they will need to find to make it work for those with learning disabilities via exceptions or otherwise. However, I don't think you bore the other seventy five percent of the class No Child Left Behind style.

Yes, I've read the standards, and they are rife with problems. Close reading is totally unproven -- Good God, the clueless children that will come out of that curriculum!


Most of the math standards are problematic because they insist on explaining in great detail in abstract terms at young ages with writing skills well beyond their ability. Until middle school, kids are concrete thinkers. These standards insist they be abstract thinkers well before the time that they are biologically wired to do so. It's like asking a fish to fly.


Many of the issues are in the "fine print" of the appendixes. Those rachet up the reading levels sky high. There are reports of the PARCC test for 3rd graders being at an S, T, U reading level --- even though they should be at about N-O.

The other thing is, all bets are off the table for your district's curriculum next year. Here's how this is going to go: Kids will take the PARCC next year. Almost everyone will fail. There will be an uproar. Your school district will panic and buy Pearson's curriculum -- because it's also been well reported that Pearson is inserting its prefab curriculum as the basis for its tests. And on the cycle goes, until parents go to the polls and vote out the politicians who signed up for this boatload of crap.







Keep hoping because it isn't going to happen.



It's already happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


70 percent of the white student body will fail this test, and up to 95 percent of black, Hispanic and special needs students will fail.

How can you possibly know these numbers about a test that is only in pilot form? And what a sad statement about public education in America if this was true.

Because that is what has happened in every state that rolled out Common Core, then tested their kids on it.

Every state = 2. Kentucky and New York. Neither of the states used the two main Common Core-aligned tests (PARCC and Smarter Balanced), because those tests won't be ready until next year (this year they're getting field-tested). In Kentucky, it's pretty clear that one of the reasons so many kids failed is because their education was not as good as it should be. And the New York so-called "Common Core" curriculum is full of stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Common Core.

Add North Carolina to the mix. Their results were the same as Kentucky and New York.

One person who worked on the Common Core ELA standards said they were designed for the top 30 percent of students, not the entire student population. And that is exactly the percentage who passes them. Hardly a coincidence.

Seems like you've made up your mind prior to the standards even being put into place (and certainly before the national standardized tests are in place)). That's fine, but own up to it. Frankly I don't think higher standards are bad, clearly you do. I think more kids lose interest in school out of boredom than too much challenge. But I don't think you can judge common core on the data that is currently available -- it will take 5 to 10 years to have a clear picture

5 to 10 years -- and an entire generation's education down the toilet.

You act like the standards are any good. There is ZERO PROOF that they are better. And for kids with language disabilities, they make every party of the curriculum unattainable. That is what my child is experiencing right now.


Why are you such a gullible believer? They trot out standards, and you are immediately on your knees worshipping them. They are a fad, just like Everyday Math and New Math.

Have you actually read the standards? I have. There really isn't much to criticize there in my opinion. As I said before, my kids are in a common core district. It isn't really that different that the curriculum before (in Maryland but not Montgomery county). I think that the standards should be geared towards what the majority of the kids can do and they will need to find to make it work for those with learning disabilities via exceptions or otherwise. However, I don't think you bore the other seventy five percent of the class No Child Left Behind style.

Yes, I've read the standards, and they are rife with problems. Close reading is totally unproven -- Good God, the clueless children that will come out of that curriculum!


Most of the math standards are problematic because they insist on explaining in great detail in abstract terms at young ages with writing skills well beyond their ability. Until middle school, kids are concrete thinkers. These standards insist they be abstract thinkers well before the time that they are biologically wired to do so. It's like asking a fish to fly.


Many of the issues are in the "fine print" of the appendixes. Those rachet up the reading levels sky high. There are reports of the PARCC test for 3rd graders being at an S, T, U reading level --- even though they should be at about N-O.

The other thing is, all bets are off the table for your district's curriculum next year. Here's how this is going to go: Kids will take the PARCC next year. Almost everyone will fail. There will be an uproar. Your school district will panic and buy Pearson's curriculum -- because it's also been well reported that Pearson is inserting its prefab curriculum as the basis for its tests. And on the cycle goes, until parents go to the polls and vote out the politicians who signed up for this boatload of crap.

Keep hoping because it isn't going to happen.



It's already happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core math standards for second grade:

1) A requirement that students understand place value, for instance, that “100 can be thought of as a bundle of ten tens -- called a ‘hundred.’”

2) That students be able to “add and subtract within 1000, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value … and relate the strategy to a written method.” Also that they “understand that in adding or subtracting three-digit numbers, one adds or subtracts hundreds and hundreds, tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose or decompose tens or hundreds.”

3) That they can “explain why addition and subtraction strategies work, using place value and the properties of operations.”

4) And that they can “represent whole numbers as lengths from 0 on a number line diagram with equally spaced points corresponding to the numbers 0, 1, 2, …, and represent whole-number sums and differences within 100 on a number line diagram.”

In general, being able to explain how you arrived at an answer – not just memorizing a formula – is also one of the standards’ key goals for students.

OK, you got me there.

Out of 26 2nd grade math standards for 2nd grade, ONE says that students need to be able to explain something.

Using place value,

So why is 27 + 22 = 49? Because 7 ones and 2 ones are 9 ones, and 2 tens and 2 tens are 4 tens.

using properties of operations

Why does 10 - 7 = 3?

Because 3 and 7 make 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever tried teaching "missing addend" to first graders? It might work for the sophisticated ones, but it doesn't for a lot of them. It frustrates them. Sure, you teach it--but it is not a value we should be testing.

Yes, I have taught it to my ESOL students. Very easy.

Let's be clear here -- your gripe is, you think you can NOT teach "unsophisticated" 1st graders how to solve missing addend problems??

Please answer my question.

Are you saying that you believe some 1st graders are simply too slow, unintelligent, unsophisticated, to be able to answer the question 7 + _____ = 10?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Tell you what: You go sit for 10 hours for an Engineering test in Chinese. And if you don't pass it, we'll take away your diploma, your job, your home, your bank account and any chance you have to make it in the world.


And you have do it year after year after year, or we'll threaten and harass your parents.

If I were trying to get an engineering degree, in a Chinese university, it would be perfectly fair to expect that I could sit for the test, in Chinese.

That's what the Chinese Engineering School Diploma would certify -- that I had met the standards of the University in engineering!

If I am a fifth grader, "passing" the fifth grade in MD at a proficient level, I should be expected to have mastered the basic concepts in math, reading and writing.

No, I'm sorry, you don't get any choices in our new totalitarian regime. You will take an engineering test in Chinese because that's what the regime has decided you must do. It doesn't matter that you don't want to be an engineer or have ever been taught Chinese. You must know the material anyway. There are no changes and no exceptions or exemptions.

You will sit in room for 10 to 20 hours and take an engineering test in Chinese. No excuses. Just work harder, read "closer." You will do this year after year, for at least 6 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core math standards for second grade:

1) A requirement that students understand place value, for instance, that “100 can be thought of as a bundle of ten tens -- called a ‘hundred.’”

2) That students be able to “add and subtract within 1000, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value … and relate the strategy to a written method.” Also that they “understand that in adding or subtracting three-digit numbers, one adds or subtracts hundreds and hundreds, tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose or decompose tens or hundreds.”

3) That they can “explain why addition and subtraction strategies work, using place value and the properties of operations.”

4) And that they can “represent whole numbers as lengths from 0 on a number line diagram with equally spaced points corresponding to the numbers 0, 1, 2, …, and represent whole-number sums and differences within 100 on a number line diagram.”

In general, being able to explain how you arrived at an answer – not just memorizing a formula – is also one of the standards’ key goals for students.

OK, you got me there.

Out of 26 2nd grade math standards for 2nd grade, ONE says that students need to be able to explain something.

Using place value,

So why is 27 + 22 = 49? Because 7 ones and 2 ones are 9 ones, and 2 tens and 2 tens are 4 tens.

using properties of operations

Why does 10 - 7 = 3?

Because 3 and 7 make 10.

FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's not the answer. We need at least three sentences on each problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core math standards for second grade:

1) A requirement that students understand place value, for instance, that “100 can be thought of as a bundle of ten tens -- called a ‘hundred.’”

2) That students be able to “add and subtract within 1000, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value … and relate the strategy to a written method.” Also that they “understand that in adding or subtracting three-digit numbers, one adds or subtracts hundreds and hundreds, tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose or decompose tens or hundreds.”

3) That they can “explain why addition and subtraction strategies work, using place value and the properties of operations.”

4) And that they can “represent whole numbers as lengths from 0 on a number line diagram with equally spaced points corresponding to the numbers 0, 1, 2, …, and represent whole-number sums and differences within 100 on a number line diagram.”

In general, being able to explain how you arrived at an answer – not just memorizing a formula – is also one of the standards’ key goals for students.

OK, you got me there.

Out of 26 2nd grade math standards for 2nd grade, ONE says that students need to be able to explain something.

Using place value,

So why is 27 + 22 = 49? Because 7 ones and 2 ones are 9 ones, and 2 tens and 2 tens are 4 tens.

using properties of operations

Why does 10 - 7 = 3?

Because 3 and 7 make 10.

Actually, each math standard from K on requires extensive explanation. You thing 1 plus 1 is 2? You're wrong. FAIL!

[Anonymous]

re you saying that you believe some 1st graders are simply too slow, unintelligent, unsophisticated, to be able to answer the question 7 + _____ = 10?

When you get first graders who do not understand one to one correspondence at the beginning of the year, it is an achievement to have them learn that 7+3=10. That should be the goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever tried teaching "missing addend" to first graders? It might work for the sophisticated ones, but it doesn't for a lot of them. It frustrates them. Sure, you teach it--but it is not a value we should be testing.

Yes, I have taught it to my ESOL students. Very easy.

Let's be clear here -- your gripe is, you think you can NOT teach "unsophisticated" 1st graders how to solve missing addend problems??

Please answer my question.

Are you saying that you believe some 1st graders are simply too slow, unintelligent, unsophisticated, to be able to answer the question 7 + _____ = 10?

Because you fear "frustrating" the poor, underprivileged children? That really bothers me. Personally, I expect that all my students, even the slow ones, will master the grade level math objectives. And so if something is hard for them to learn, I keep looking until I find a way to help them get the concept. And yes, absolutely, there is an easy way to teach missing addends.

So you know what DOESN'T work, though? If the only way you teach these poor, underprivileged children to add and subtract is through mastering a simple algorithm, because you believe that's all they can handle. If you only teach children to add by counting on, then they just know that 7 and 3 is 10 because 7... 8 ... 9... 10.

If you spend a lot of time, though, helping them learn their number bonds BY HEART, they know that 7 and 3 make ten, and 6 and 4 make ten, and 5 and 5 make ten... WITHOUT COUNTING. And then when it comes time to subtract, they don't need to say 10 and then count down.... or say 8 and count up 2... they just know, because of "properties of operations" that if 8 and 2 make 10, then for the equation: 10 - ____ = 2 ... the missing addend has to be 8.

If you spend a lot of time working with these skills at the start, to build up basic numeracy, it is not difficult at all to teach these concepts you seem to think are so complicated.

[Anonymous]

Please answer my question.

Are you saying that you believe some 1st graders are simply too slow, unintelligent, unsophisticated, to be able to answer the question 7 + _____ = 10?

When I taught in the projects, I could get them to understand with concrete objects--but transferring that to paper was almost impossible. You have no clue if you have not taught in these circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, each math standard from K on requires extensive explanation. You thing 1 plus 1 is 2? You're wrong. FAIL!

NO. 1 out of 26 grade 2 standards requires "explanation" and that is only in relation to place value and order of operations, which I just showed you in an earlier post is VITAL to being able to solve the missing addend problem you were so concerned about.

In first grade, 1 out of 21 standards requires "explanation". And it isn't "Explain why 1 + 1 = 2" It is in reference to adding a 2 digit number to a number that is a multiple of 10. For example, if you add 45 to 20, are you able to explain it is 4 tens being added to 2 tens to get 6 tens.

This is not "EXTENSIVE" explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Please answer my question.

Are you saying that you believe some 1st graders are simply too slow, unintelligent, unsophisticated, to be able to answer the question 7 + _____ = 10?

When I taught in the projects, I could get them to understand with concrete objects--but transferring that to paper was almost impossible. You have no clue if you have not taught in these circumstances.

I don't think you were a very good teacher.