I suck at common core math

[Anonymous]

?? A standard is an articulation of what you think students should know/know how to do. You don't need to test it for students to achieve the standard. It's hard to *know* if they've achieved it without some sort of measure, but it's not integral to learning it.

The standards are worth nothing if they are not used. A 12 inch ruler is a standard used to measure. If it sits in the drawer, what good is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

?? A standard is an articulation of what you think students should know/know how to do. You don't need to test it for students to achieve the standard. It's hard to *know* if they've achieved it without some sort of measure, but it's not integral to learning it.

The standards are worth nothing if they are not used. A 12 inch ruler is a standard used to measure. If it sits in the drawer, what good is it?

Here's an example of a standard (this is from CC 5th grade math):

Add and subtract fractions with unlike denominators (including mixed numbers) by replacing given fractions with equivalent fractions in such a way as to produce an equivalent sum or difference of fractions with like denominators. For example, 2/3 + 5/4 = 8/12 + 15/12 = 23/12. (In general, a/b + c/d = (ad + bc)/bd.)

The standard says that kids should be able to add and subtract fractions by finding the common denominator. A kid can learn to do this. You can then test the child to see if they are able to do this. Those are two different things. The standard is not a measure, it's an articulation of an ability.

[Anonymous]

Services
Ask-A-Librarian
Collaboration Room
Instructional Services
Recommend an Item for Purchase
Research Consultations
Technology


Research
Library Catalog
Databases by Subject
Research Guides
Class Guides
Online Journals & Databases


Library Links
Library Gateway
Find a Library
Online Reference Collection
Services for Users with Disabilities






Library » Social Sciences, Health, and Education Library » Education » Education Standards

Education Standards



General Standards | State Standards | Subject Standards | Teaching Standards | Resources



General Standards

Educational standards define the knowledge and skills students should possess at critical points in their educational career. "Standards serve as a basis of educational reform across the nation as educators and policy makers respond to the call for a clear definition of desired outcomes of schooling and a way to measure student success in terms of these outcomes" (National Research Council 2001). National, state and local educators play an important role in improving student learning through development and implementation of standards throughout the country.



from University of Illinois education

[Anonymous]

Didn't realize I had copied the extraneous information. Please note, though, that the standard requires a measurement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't realize I had copied the extraneous information. Please note, though, that the standard requires a measurement.

That's not the way I read the sentence "Standards serve as a basis of educational reform across the nation as educators and policy makers respond to the call for a clear definition of desired outcomes of schooling and a way to measure student success in terms of these outcomes."

Standards serve as a basis of educational reform. Educators and policy makers are responding to a call. The call is for a clear definition of desired outcomes of schooling and a way to measure student success in terms of these outcomes.

In any case, so what? I don't understand what's particularly unmeasurable about, for example,

CCSS.Math.Content.4.NBT.B.4
Fluently add and subtract multi-digit whole numbers using the standard algorithm.

I picked this standard at random.

[Anonymous]

Understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem. For example, subtract 10 - 8 by finding the number that makes 10 when added to 8.

This is an extremely difficult standard for first graders. While they can easily do this with objects, translating this to paper tests is very difficult for many immature first graders.

[Anonymous]

I have 2 bachelors degree's, one in elementary education with a minor in math, the second in technology, and I needed someone to explain to me the thought process of common core addition. I think for children who have issues learning how to add larger numbers, it's not a bad option, however I don't think it should be the primary focus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 bachelors degree's, one in elementary education with a minor in math, the second in technology, and I needed someone to explain to me the thought process of common core addition. I think for children who have issues learning how to add larger numbers, it's not a bad option, however I don't think it should be the primary focus.

It's not. They do eventually use the "old" method of adding. They spend a lot of time on the various forms of adding, in part, because they want to make sure all the kids understand it. And when you have large class sizes with varying abilities, you have to teach to the middle, the "average" kid. So, maybe for some kids, the pace might be too slow, while for others, it's too fast, and the rest just right - kind of like Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 bachelors degree's, one in elementary education with a minor in math, the second in technology, and I needed someone to explain to me the thought process of common core addition. I think for children who have issues learning how to add larger numbers, it's not a bad option, however I don't think it should be the primary focus.

I teach my kids math afterschool with a variety of math materials/curriculums including Singapore Math and from a Japanese Textbook translated into English. If you look at how addition and subtraction is taught there it is what Common Core lists as the standards. The whole idea is to get kids to understand that numbers can be broken apart and put back together again so you can easily add or subtract in our base 10 system (which is what composing/decomposing numbers is all about). I love that my kids can solve a problem like 18 + 19= ? several different ways.
They can solve it using the traditional algorithm (add 8+9, put down 7 under the line in the ones place and carry the one; 1 +1+1 equals 3, write down the 3 under the line so the answer is 37). However, doing it that way doesn't get kids to understand you aren't carrying "one" you really are adding 10.
So my kids can also add it right to left, so 10 + 10 = 20; 8+9+ 17; then 20 +17 =37.
They also can use compensation so they can add one to the 19 and take away one from the 18 so the problem becomes 20 +17 = 37
They also can make both numbers into 20 by adding 2 to the 18 and 1 to the 19, then subtracting 3 from the final answer so 20+20 = 40; 40-3 =37.

What my kids hate in school is having to explain in writing what they have done. UGH! No where in Singapore or Japanese Math do they make you write down your explanation in a paragraph. So my kids can easily do the math different ways which meet Common Core Standards yet whoever is interpreting the standards has made up that you have to write a paragraph explaining your answer or draw 37 circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 bachelors degree's, one in elementary education with a minor in math, the second in technology, and I needed someone to explain to me the thought process of common core addition. I think for children who have issues learning how to add larger numbers, it's not a bad option, however I don't think it should be the primary focus.

I teach my kids math afterschool with a variety of math materials/curriculums including Singapore Math and from a Japanese Textbook translated into English. If you look at how addition and subtraction is taught there it is what Common Core lists as the standards. The whole idea is to get kids to understand that numbers can be broken apart and put back together again so you can easily add or subtract in our base 10 system (which is what composing/decomposing numbers is all about). I love that my kids can solve a problem like 18 + 19= ? several different ways.
They can solve it using the traditional algorithm (add 8+9, put down 7 under the line in the ones place and carry the one; 1 +1+1 equals 3, write down the 3 under the line so the answer is 37). However, doing it that way doesn't get kids to understand you aren't carrying "one" you really are adding 10.
So my kids can also add it right to left, so 10 + 10 = 20; 8+9+ 17; then 20 +17 =37.
They also can use compensation so they can add one to the 19 and take away one from the 18 so the problem becomes 20 +17 = 37
They also can make both numbers into 20 by adding 2 to the 18 and 1 to the 19, then subtracting 3 from the final answer so 20+20 = 40; 40-3 =37.

What my kids hate in school is having to explain in writing what they have done. UGH! No where in Singapore or Japanese Math do they make you write down your explanation in a paragraph. So my kids can easily do the math different ways which meet Common Core Standards yet whoever is interpreting the standards has made up that you have to write a paragraph explaining your answer or draw 37 circles.

I agree with you 100%, on every point. I think there are some good things about 2.0. But the explaining in words part is a bit overkill, especially for kids that are not verbal. However, I believe the reason why they incorporated this is because they want the kids to be able to explain their thinking, and with 25+ kids in the class, the easiest way for a teacher to gauge this is by the kids writing their explanation.

In 3rd grade, when they test for compacted math, I think the teachers do use different methods when testing, including letting the kid answer verbally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 bachelors degree's, one in elementary education with a minor in math, the second in technology, and I needed someone to explain to me the thought process of common core addition. I think for children who have issues learning how to add larger numbers, it's not a bad option, however I don't think it should be the primary focus.

I teach my kids math afterschool with a variety of math materials/curriculums including Singapore Math and from a Japanese Textbook translated into English. If you look at how addition and subtraction is taught there it is what Common Core lists as the standards. The whole idea is to get kids to understand that numbers can be broken apart and put back together again so you can easily add or subtract in our base 10 system (which is what composing/decomposing numbers is all about). I love that my kids can solve a problem like 18 + 19= ? several different ways.
They can solve it using the traditional algorithm (add 8+9, put down 7 under the line in the ones place and carry the one; 1 +1+1 equals 3, write down the 3 under the line so the answer is 37). However, doing it that way doesn't get kids to understand you aren't carrying "one" you really are adding 10.
So my kids can also add it right to left, so 10 + 10 = 20; 8+9+ 17; then 20 +17 =37.
They also can use compensation so they can add one to the 19 and take away one from the 18 so the problem becomes 20 +17 = 37
They also can make both numbers into 20 by adding 2 to the 18 and 1 to the 19, then subtracting 3 from the final answer so 20+20 = 40; 40-3 =37.

What my kids hate in school is having to explain in writing what they have done. UGH! No where in Singapore or Japanese Math do they make you write down your explanation in a paragraph. So my kids can easily do the math different ways which meet Common Core Standards yet whoever is interpreting the standards has made up that you have to write a paragraph explaining your answer or draw 37 circles.

Agree with this. The math itself was not the problem. The writing in words is.

[Anonymous]

But the explaining in words part is a bit overkill, especially for kids that are not verbal.

For those who do understand, it is boring. For those that don't, it is frustrating. It is a terrible way to test math. Use it verbally as a teaching technique--but not as a standard which must be tested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem. For example, subtract 10 - 8 by finding the number that makes 10 when added to 8.

This is an extremely difficult standard for first graders. While they can easily do this with objects, translating this to paper tests is very difficult for many immature first graders.

Why do you say that this is extremely difficult for first-graders? Singapore Math 1A has problems like 8 + ? = 10, as well as number bonds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But the explaining in words part is a bit overkill, especially for kids that are not verbal.

For those who do understand, it is boring. For those that don't, it is frustrating. It is a terrible way to test math. Use it verbally as a teaching technique--but not as a standard which must be tested.

The Common Core standards do not require paragraph-length explanations. To the extent that it's required in MCPS, this is an MCPS thing, not a Common Core thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the explaining in words part is a bit overkill, especially for kids that are not verbal.

For those who do understand, it is boring. For those that don't, it is frustrating. It is a terrible way to test math. Use it verbally as a teaching technique--but not as a standard which must be tested.

The Common Core standards do not require paragraph-length explanations. To the extent that it's required in MCPS, this is an MCPS thing, not a Common Core thing.

The common core author says this as well, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. It is being implemented in many states simiar to MCPS.