Common Core: one goal is by the end of kindergarten, kids can count to 100 by 1s and 10s. ???

[Anonymous]

These actually seem to be reasonable goals in that they don't seem to be too easy or too hard. I'm actually impressed and I didn't expect to be.
The kids seem to be learning about geometry, the idea that our number system is base 10, the idea of planes (2d and 3d).
Thanks to PP who posted this.

Anonymous wrote:Kindergarten Math goals by the end of the year:


CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.A.1 Count to 100 by ones and by tens.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.A.2 Count forward beginning from a given number within the known sequence (instead of having to begin at 1).

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.A.3 Write numbers from 0 to 20. Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects).
Count to tell the number of objects.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.B.4 Understand the relationship between numbers and quantities; connect counting to cardinality.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.B.4a When counting objects, say the number names in the standard order, pairing each object with one and only one number name and each number name with one and only one object.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.B.4b Understand that the last number name said tells the number of objects counted. The number of objects is the same regardless of their arrangement or the order in which they were counted.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.B.4c Understand that each successive number name refers to a quantity that is one larger.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.B.5 Count to answer “how many?” questions about as many as 20 things arranged in a line, a rectangular array, or a circle, or as many as 10 things in a scattered configuration; given a number from 1–20, count out that many objects.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.C.6 Identify whether the number of objects in one group is greater than, less than, or equal to the number of objects in another group, e.g., by using matching and counting strategies.1

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.C.7 Compare two numbers between 1 and 10 presented as written numerals.

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.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.NBT.A.1 Compose and decompose numbers from 11 to 19 into ten ones and some further ones, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record each composition or decomposition by a drawing or equation (such as 18 = 10 + 8); understand that these numbers are composed of ten ones and one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine ones.


CCSS.Math.Content.K.MD.A.1 Describe measurable attributes of objects, such as length or weight. Describe several measurable attributes of a single object.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.MD.A.2 Directly compare two objects with a measurable attribute in common, to see which object has “more of”/“less of” the attribute, and describe the difference. For example, directly compare the heights of two children and describe one child as taller/shorter.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.MD.B.3 Classify objects into given categories; count the numbers of objects in each category and sort the categories by count.1

CCSS.Math.Content.K.G.A.1 Describe objects in the environment using names of shapes, and describe the relative positions of these objects using terms such as above, below, beside, in front of, behind, and next to.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.G.A.2 Correctly name shapes regardless of their orientations or overall size.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.G.A.3 Identify shapes as two-dimensional (lying in a plane, “flat”) or three-dimensional (“solid”).

CCSS.Math.Content.K.G.B.4 Analyze and compare two- and three-dimensional shapes, in different sizes and orientations, using informal language to describe their similarities, differences, parts (e.g., number of sides and vertices/“corners”) and other attributes (e.g., having sides of equal length).

CCSS.Math.Content.K.G.B.5 Model shapes in the world by building shapes from components (e.g., sticks and clay balls) and drawing shapes.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.G.B.6 Compose simple shapes to form larger shapes. For example, “Can you join these two triangles with full sides touching to make a rectangle?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. This is why so many parents are dissatisfied.

Really, because there is a zillion long thread about how it is too hard and forcing first graders and kindergarteners to hate school and to drop out and become meth heads.
My god, people.
I cannot keep things straight. There are post bitching that common core is too hard and now a post about how it's too simple.

This all leads me to believe that if you are against it, you are against it and are going to find something to bitch about without really looking at it.

Yes, I also can't keep up. To go by what I read on DCUM, the Common Core standards are

1. too hard
2. too easy

I'm so confused.

DCUM is not a single person or a point of view. Some posters think CC standards are too hard, others that they are too easy. Still others that they are fine. I am not sure why is this getting you confused.

Because the people who think they're too easy and the people who think they're too hard can't both be right. And because the posts on DCUM on the Common Core always go something like this:

PP#1: Man, I sure do hate the Common Core.
PP#2: No kidding. Can you believe how dumbed-down those standards are? Six-month-olds in [insert non-US country here] can do the things the Common Core has 8th graders doing!
PP#3 Yes, I agree. Those standards are way too hard! Children are vomiting in the aisles!

They're not actually agreeing with each other...

As a teacher, my "favorite" part of the Common Core debates is when people who don't seem to have been in a Kindergarten since they were five, imagine how they'd teach something, and describe something absurdly developmentally appropriate and imply that that must be how it's all going to be taught.

For example, if the standard is: CCSS.Math.Content.K.OA.A.5 Fluently add and subtract within 5.

Then teachers absolutely positively must be doing timed fact tests on the first day of Kindergarten which is just wrong! As opposed to actually finding out how real Kindergarten teachers, and real Kindergarten teachers approach that goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, since you're obviously the expert, seeing as how you're challenging the CC goals and all, what do you think is a more optimal ambition?

I'm not cherry-picking, since this was the one example I was given by the teacher. I know little about Core Curriculum -- hence my post. It surprised me and alarmed me. PP, I'm sorry if I touched some kind of nerve with you. Please point out where I put myself forward as an expert and I will gladly retract that statement.

Well, you certainly had some nerve raising questions in the first place. Couting to 100 and counting by 10s to 100 seems like a perfectly reasonable goal for kindergarteners to me. You still haven't answered the question: What are you looking for? Why would this "alarm" you -- are you normally an alarmist? It was just such a strange post...

[Anonymous]

If it makes you feel better, here's the curriculum for Sidwell. Looks like their math goals are even more modest! Egads!

http://www.sidwell.edu/lower_school/academics/index.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it makes you feel better, here's the curriculum for Sidwell. Looks like their math goals are even more modest! Egads!

http://www.sidwell.edu/lower_school/academics/index.aspx

I'm not seeing a curriculum there, just a philosophy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These actually seem to be reasonable goals in that they don't seem to be too easy or too hard. I'm actually impressed and I didn't expect to be.
The kids seem to be learning about geometry, the idea that our number system is base 10, the idea of planes (2d and 3d).
Thanks to PP who posted this.

Yes, overall I'm pleased with the clarity and scope of the Common Core Math goals.

I also mostly am pleased with the Language Arts goals. I feel the writing expectations are quite ambitious. I don't think they are beyond the average child's ability; however, as things currently stand, I'm not sure our teachers are yet qualified to teach the writing portion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it makes you feel better, here's the curriculum for Sidwell. Looks like their math goals are even more modest! Egads!

http://www.sidwell.edu/lower_school/academics/index.aspx

I'm not seeing a curriculum there, just a philosophy.

Click on the tab that says homeroom subjects. Scroll down to math part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it makes you feel better, here's the curriculum for Sidwell. Looks like their math goals are even more modest! Egads!

http://www.sidwell.edu/lower_school/academics/index.aspx

Especially modest when you figure that about 1/2 the Kindergarteners at Sidwell would be first graders in public due to red shirting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, since you're obviously the expert, seeing as how you're challenging the CC goals and all, what do you think is a more optimal ambition?

I'm not cherry-picking, since this was the one example I was given by the teacher. I know little about Core Curriculum -- hence my post. It surprised me and alarmed me. PP, I'm sorry if I touched some kind of nerve with you. Please point out where I put myself forward as an expert and I will gladly retract that statement.

Well, you certainly had some nerve raising questions in the first place. Couting to 100 and counting by 10s to 100 seems like a perfectly reasonable goal for kindergarteners to me. You still haven't answered the question: What are you looking for? Why would this "alarm" you -- are you normally an alarmist? It was just such a strange post...

Yes! The NERVE of people for RAISING QUESTIONS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that common core encompasses more than just the children of two college/advanced degree families. There are tons of kids from less privileged backgrounds who absolutely have not had exposure enough to be able to do this.

People absolutely cannot remember this. They think every kid out there has the same advantages as their little darlings and therefore the schools should cater exclusively to their advanced Einsteins.

You know, instead of accepting that the public schools are geared toward educational plurality and actually thrive best under that model.

So what are you saying? That we should dumb things down and not meet the needs of every kid and challenge them appropriately in separate classroom if need be?

My kid was counting to 100 at 2 years. It is not rocket science and there are many fun ways to engage and teach kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that common core encompasses more than just the children of two college/advanced degree families. There are tons of kids from less privileged backgrounds who absolutely have not had exposure enough to be able to do this.

People absolutely cannot remember this. They think every kid out there has the same advantages as their little darlings and therefore the schools should cater exclusively to their advanced Einsteins.

You know, instead of accepting that the public schools are geared toward educational plurality and actually thrive best under that model.

So what are you saying? That we should dumb things down and not meet the needs of every kid and challenge them appropriately in separate classroom if need be?

My kid was counting to 100 at 2 years. It is not rocket science and there are many fun ways to engage and teach kids.

I'm not the PP. But I'm guessing that the PP was saying that the Common Core standards are the common, core standards. "Common" meaning: for everybody. And "core" meaning: essential. If there is a Common Core person saying that all kids in school should learn only what's in the Common Core standards AND NOT ONE NANOMETER MORE!!1!!!!1!!!!, I haven't heard it.

Congratulations on your kid who could count to 100 at 2.

[Anonymous]

My 4 year old is one of the most advanced academically in his class of high SES income families and is still working on everything that's involved in counting to 100 such as writing numbers, figuring out which number is bigger or smaller, reading numbers, counting them, sorting into groups of 10. The CC goals are perfectly reasonable to me. I'm sure there are some 2 year olds who can do this, but there aren't a lot. If you go into K with this kind of alarmist attitude, you'll be in for a long haul. Many kids come in being able to score the most soccer goals, make the most friends, dance well, read long books, make the prettiest picture or clay sculpture. They all deal with kindergarteners being below their child in some way. It's a beginning grade. It won't matter who was ahead at the beginning of the year by 1st grade.

[Anonymous]

We have a pretty advanced DS who can do pretty much everything on the CC list but I have the opposite reaction to the goals as the OP.
There are many ways to interpret some of these goals.
For instance,

CCSS.Math.Content.K.G.B.4 Analyze and compare two- and three-dimensional shapes, in different sizes and orientations, using informal language to describe their similarities, differences, parts (e.g., number of sides and vertices/“corners”) and other attributes (e.g., having sides of equal length).


Can your DC tell the difference between a 90 degree angle and one that is not one? He/she may not understand how to measure angles and what 90 degrees is but he/she will probably start to understand the concept of how lines that intersect at different angles create different shapes. I would be surprised, OP, if your DC understands this. Our DS certainly doesn't.

CCSS.Math.Content.K.G.B.6 Compose simple shapes to form larger shapes. For example, “Can you join these two triangles with full sides touching to make a rectangle?”

This is the start of understanding fractions/geometry. Our DS gets that you can put two triangles to make a rectangle. And two squares. And that you could use two triangles and two squares to make two rectangles of the same size.. But we've certainly never explained that both the triangles and the squares contain half the area of the rectangle. And that the area of the triangle = the area of the square.

I would like to think that working on the CC goals in K would give our DS time to start to understand these larger concepts at a deep level.

There has been a lot of debate at MCPS about math standards and accelerating kids through the curriculum too fast. Sure, some kids here get to Algebra 2 faster than in other districts but some teachers have argued that many of the kids are just memorizing formulas and they don't really understand this stuff and the result is that they are scoring lower in standardized tests.

[Anonymous]

Fantasies by people who do not understand child development, much to the detriment of many children.

Don't think your math or reading whiz in K is going anywhere special until 3rd grade; up until then progress is pretty individual. And a problem, among many, with the standards for lower grades and pre-school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really, do you all have a budding genius or go to 5 years of preschool or something? My dd went to part-time preschool for 3 years, and she can now reliably count to 20 or 30, but she is not able to count to 100 by 1's and 10's yet. She certainly didn't show up to K with that ability. Do you want your K student to be doing calculus or something? You know some kids that are very advance academically have other issues such as autism.

I think the op is too easily alarmed but you are something else. Advanced academics means issues? Autism? Is that the first thing you think of when you see an advanced child?