Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP of above post again.

While I think it is reasonable to argue whether an individual standard such as "Count orally by rote to 100" is appropriate for the end of K or the end of grade 1, I don't think it is reasonable to argue that the standard it "vague", "wordy" or confusing.

Any teacher who cannot understand the kindergarten or grade 1 math standards shouldn't be in teaching. Any adult who can't understand the math standards (without a little bit of effort, perhaps, to learn the vocabulary used to describe certain strategies that they might not be familiar with) has some kind of problem. The math standards aren't vague at all.

The teachers I've talked to disagree.

I am not a teacher-basher, and I think that anybody who teaches kindergarten, no matter how badly, is doing something I can't do.

Nonetheless, I agree with the PP that if a kindergarten or first-grader teacher has trouble understanding the math standards after receiving basic training from the school district in math vocabulary and strategies, then that indicates a problem with the teacher, not with the math standards. And it suggests why the Common Core math standards are necessary, namely that in general, math education in the US is not very good: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

Common Core is only going to make that worse. It's not going to improve kids' math understanding. All we see all over the country now are confused students who hate school.

That is certainly what you see, if that's what you're looking to see. I don't think it's the complete picture, though.

[Anonymous]

CCSS.Math.Content.K.G.A.2
Correctly name shapes regardless of their orientations or overall size.
There is a glaring problem with this "standard." Am I the only one on DCUM who sees it?

bump:

Look at this standard. It doesn't actually set the "standard"......Anybody?

[Anonymous]

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

There is a glaring problem with this "standard." Am I the only one on DCUM who sees it?

The standard does not spell out which shapes Kindergarteners are expected to be able to correctly name.

In the first grade standard, the shapes are specified:


rectangles, squares, trapezoids, triangles, half-circles, and quarter-circles

However at Kindergarten the exact shapes are not specified. Teachers should be able to tell students: This is a triangle. The student should be able to name the other triangles on the page even if they don't look exactly like the first triangle.

[Anonymous]

A "standard" written like that K standard would have caused a couple of my professors to give me a very bad grade.

[Anonymous]

The shapes should have been specified. That is an example of the way these things were slapped together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is a glaring problem with this "standard." Am I the only one on DCUM who sees it?

The standard does not spell out which shapes Kindergarteners are expected to be able to correctly name.

In the first grade standard, the shapes are specified:


rectangles, squares, trapezoids, triangles, half-circles, and quarter-circles

However at Kindergarten the exact shapes are not specified. Teachers should be able to tell students: This is a triangle. The student should be able to name the other triangles on the page even if they don't look exactly like the first triangle.

Yep, the first grade standard is about vocabulary. The Kindergarten standard is about connecting shapes to each other, even when they are rotated or the size changes. This isn't a "glaring problem". They are different skills. Obviously most kindergarteners will pick up the shape names from playing with them in the context of activities that teach them to recognize them even when they're rotated, but ithat's not a standard until first.

[Anonymous]

Yep, the first grade standard is about vocabulary. The Kindergarten standard is about connecting shapes to each other, even when they are rotated or the size changes. This isn't a "glaring problem". They are different skills. Obviously most kindergarteners will pick up the shape names from playing with them in the context of activities that teach them to recognize them even when they're rotated, but ithat's not a standard until first.

great CC spin--doesn't pass the smell test. They could have written it differently if that is what the writers intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yep, the first grade standard is about vocabulary. The Kindergarten standard is about connecting shapes to each other, even when they are rotated or the size changes. This isn't a "glaring problem". They are different skills. Obviously most kindergarteners will pick up the shape names from playing with them in the context of activities that teach them to recognize them even when they're rotated, but ithat's not a standard until first.

great CC spin--doesn't pass the smell test. They could have written it differently if that is what the writers intended.

Honestly? If the Common Core Standard for Kindergarten math specified that "all kindergarten students would be able to correctly name the shapes: rectangles, squares, trapezoids, triangles, half-circles, and quarter-circles" you'd be bitching that that was too much for kindergarten kids. You should be happy all those hard, difficult shapes weren't specified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep, the first grade standard is about vocabulary. The Kindergarten standard is about connecting shapes to each other, even when they are rotated or the size changes. This isn't a "glaring problem". They are different skills. Obviously most kindergarteners will pick up the shape names from playing with them in the context of activities that teach them to recognize them even when they're rotated, but ithat's not a standard until first.

great CC spin--doesn't pass the smell test. They could have written it differently if that is what the writers intended.

Honestly? If the Common Core Standard for Kindergarten math specified that "all kindergarten students would be able to correctly name the shapes: rectangles, squares, trapezoids, triangles, half-circles, and quarter-circles" you'd be bitching that that was too much for kindergarten kids. You should be happy all those hard, difficult shapes weren't specified.

And this is why all my teacher friends say they are vague and unclear. YOU are the one who wants it both ways -- you said they were clear, darling. They are totally slapped together, as another poster put it.

Hopefully they'll be dead within 18 months.

[Anonymous]

That standard doesn't seem unclear to me. It's just saying that kids should know that a shape is still the same shape, whether it is upside down or a different size.

If all they can name are triangles, then they can name triangles no matter what their size or orientation.

If they can name triangles, squares, circles, then they can name triangles, squares, circles no matter their orientation or size.

The other kindergarten standards also aren't unclear to me.

[Anonymous]

That standard doesn't seem unclear to me. It's just saying that kids should know that a shape is still the same shape, whether it is upside down or a different size.

Well, you have no critical thinking skills if you cannot see that at least one CC standard is vague and confusing. A standard is measurable. This one is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That standard doesn't seem unclear to me. It's just saying that kids should know that a shape is still the same shape, whether it is upside down or a different size.

Well, you have no critical thinking skills if you cannot see that at least one CC standard is vague and confusing. A standard is measurable. This one is not.

Shorter PP: If you disagree with me, you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Shorter PP: If you disagree with me, you're wrong.

In this case, you are. Please tell me what the "standard" is in that "standard." It is not a standard. It is vague and confusing and you cannot justify it by spin.

[Anonymous]

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).

Another error. More sloppy work.

[Anonymous]

Here's a list of all the 4th grade math standards.

http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/ES%20Table%20Grade%204%20EOY%20for%20PARCC_Final.pdf

Holy Moley are they ever confusing!!! (not)