Common Core math word problems

[Anonymous]

Give it up. The standards are solid. They are here to stay. They continue a culture of establishing standards that was expanded during NCLB, when "accountability" became the watchword. As such, we are living in a culture of our own creation.

Why do you think they are solid? Please tell us.

[Anonymous]

Written in secret by people who were not experts and were selected by unknowns. What makes them solid.?

[Anonymous]

Can you post some examples of problematic word problems?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's not "defending the Common Core" to say that the Common Core is standards, not curriculum. It's just stating a fact.

You do know that many of the writers of the standards work for the publishing companies? Then, why are they having so much trouble developing the problems?

Most of the publishing companies are just reselling the same old crappy textbooks and worksheets, rebranded as "common core.".

Bet you dollars to donuts that if you looked at the materials the publisher that's being complained about was publishing 5 years prior to Common Core, you would find those exact same ambiguous and poorly worded problems, examples and questions that you are now deriding as "Common Core"

[Anonymous]

Bet you dollars to donuts that if you looked at the materials the publisher that's being complained about was publishing 5 years prior to Common Core, you would find those exact same ambiguous and poorly worded problems, examples and questions that you are now deriding as "Common Core"

Sure.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Written in secret by people who were not experts and were selected by unknowns. What makes them solid.?

That's bullshit and has been debunked already several times on DCUM. Most of the standards were adopted from existing state standards, and they were reviewed and vetted by a wide variety of experts and educational organizations, who were involved at numerous stages throughout the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Written in secret by people who were not experts and were selected by unknowns. What makes them solid.?

That's bullshit and has been debunked already several times on DCUM. Most of the standards were adopted from existing state standards, and they were reviewed and vetted by a wide variety of experts and educational organizations, who were involved at numerous stages throughout the process.

Prove it. Quote your sources.

In reality, they were developed by about 25 people -- most of whom never taught school. Most of whom are administrators or work for testing companies.

[Anonymous]

That's bullshit and has been debunked already several times on DCUM. Most of the standards were adopted from existing state standards, and they were reviewed and vetted by a wide variety of experts and educational organizations, who were involved at numerous stages throughout the process.

No. It has never been debunked. The information is scarce. We do not know who created the committees or how they were chosen. We do know that many members are not experts.

[Anonymous]

Please start by telling us who selected the committees--and what was the criteria for selection.

We also know that there was ONE math teacher on the feedback group. ONE--and he did not write the standards.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't it seem like the feedback would come from teachers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please start by telling us who selected the committees--and what was the criteria for selection.

We also know that there was ONE math teacher on the feedback group. ONE--and he did not write the standards.

Again, this was already debunked in the other CC threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please start by telling us who selected the committees--and what was the criteria for selection.

We also know that there was ONE math teacher on the feedback group. ONE--and he did not write the standards.

Again, this was already debunked in the other CC threads.

No, it was never debunked. NEVER.

[Anonymous]

Here's some of the details behind the CLOSED DOOR and SECRETIVE PROCESS!

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/06/07/five-people-wrote-state-led-common-core

Three Main Committees
By July 1, 2009, NGA and CCSSO had formed more committees. There were two work groups, whose dozen members in math and English wrote the standards. These included no teachers, but did include a few professors. Second were two feedback groups, who were supposed to provide research and advice to the writers. Those had 18 members each, who were mostly professors but included one math teacher. Third was the validation committee, announced in September 2009, which acted as the final gate for Common Core. Their job was to “ensure [the standards] are research and evidence-based.”

While many people sat on these various committees, only one in sixty was a classroom teacher, according to teaching coach and blogger Anthony Cody. All of the standards writing and discussions were sealed by confidentiality agreements, and held in private. While Linn says six states sent intensive teacher and staff feedback, committee members weren’t sure what effect their advice had, said Mark Bauerlein, an Emory University professor who sat on a feedback committee.

“I have no idea how much influence committee members had on final product. Some of the things I advised made their way into the standards. Some of them didn’t. I’m not sure why or how,” he said. He said those who would know were the standards’ lead writers: David Coleman and Susan Pimentel in English, and Jason Zimba, Phil Daro, and William McCallum in math. Coleman and Zimba did not have previous experience writing standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think it's important to point out that they are not "Common Core math word problems". They are word problems from curricula that are (or claim to be) aligned to the Common Core standards. There are bad curricula and good curricula aligned to the Common Core standards, just as there were bad curricula and good curricula before the Common Core standards.


+1000. There seem to be some persistent CC haters who wish to confuse the issue.


And there are the freaks who constantly jump to defend common core every chance they get. COMMON CORE SUCKS!!!!

Stating that CC is a set of standards isn't defending anything. It's a fact. You may want to start acquainting yourself with those little inconveniences called facts. Throwing internet tantrums with all caps proclaiming CC SUCKS convinces no one of anything other than your lunacy. You and other detractors continually fail in your attempts to discredit the standards because, quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about and you can't find anything substantially wrong with the standards. Even the hater poster who loves to post links from all the many people who hate CC (not so many) are unconvincing because their articles discuss teacher training, the impact of scores on teacher evaluation, standardized testing....everything but the standards themselves.

Give it up. The standards are solid. They are here to stay. They continue a culture of establishing standards that was expanded during NCLB, when "accountability" became the watchword. As such, we are living in a culture of our own creation.

Also, you're a hypocrite if you rail against CC and standards and have ever used test scores to judge whether a school was "good".

Can you tell me, in detail, how those excellent standards translate to excellent results? Otherwise, they are simply words in a page

[Anonymous]

Here are the 24 people who wrote the standards. I've given a few examples. Notice their incredible LACK of credentials to be doing this IMPORTANT job:

https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/those-24-common-core-2009-work-group-members/


Robin O’Callaghan has a bachelors and doctorate in mathematics (in school from 1966 to 1975 earning these two degrees). Her linkedin bio lists employment from 1997 to present as being with the Educational Testing Service (ETS), then College Board, and back to ETS. If O’Callaghan was ever a classroom teacher, it has not been in the last 17 years. Since her degrees are not in mathematics education, classroom teaching experience is unlikely.

Andrew Schwartz is another mystery who has limited biographical information on the web. And like the ACT website, the College Board website does not provide information on a man with a seemingly impressive title, Assessment Manager, Research and Development, The College Board. Bio: “I’m Andrew, and I work for a testing company.”

Laura McGiffert Slover has been with the nonprofit Achieve since 1998. She is still with Achieve and is also CEO of PARCC (Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) as of September 2013. Slover taught high school English in Eagle County, Colorado, at some point between graduating from Harvard in 1990 and joining Achieve in 1998. Thus, she had been away from the classroom for at least 11 years by 2009, and her classroom teaching experience is not in mathematics.

Doug Sovde is also now tied to PARCC and Achieve as the director of PARCC content and instructional supports at Achieve. Sovde does have classroom teaching experience in Bellvue, Washington, though the number of years in the classroom is unclear (the linked info notes 12 combined years as teacher, assistant principal, and principal). Sovde’s bachelors degree is in mathematics, and his teaching experience is in high school math. He left the classroom before 2006– at least three years prior to his stint on the 2009 NGA CCSS work group.