You must be a policy wonk who has no understanding that implementation of standards make or break them. You can create whatever 'policy' you want, but if it's not implemented correctly, your 'policy' will fail. Not rocket science.

So the CC supporters like yourself can quote standards all you want, but until you show me proper implementation in the classrooms, and how that implementation translates into positive results, you have nothing but a bunch of words on paper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+10000 Like there is no connection between the materials and common core. If it is so hard to interpret these standards properly.................

In fact, I don't understand the connection between interpreting the standards properly and writing word problems that a parent doesn't understand. It's certainly possible to write terrible word problems to go with clear standards. It's also possible to write good word problems that a parent doesn't understand -- including for third-grade math.

I, personally, do not find standards such as the third-grade math standards about fractions difficult to interpret.

Develop understanding of fractions as numbers.

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NF.A.1
Understand a fraction 1/b as the quantity formed by 1 part when a whole is partitioned into b equal parts; understand a fraction a/b as the quantity formed by a parts of size 1/b.

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NF.A.2
Understand a fraction as a number on the number line; represent fractions on a number line diagram.

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NF.A.2.a
Represent a fraction 1/b on a number line diagram by defining the interval from 0 to 1 as the whole and partitioning it into b equal parts. Recognize that each part has size 1/b and that the endpoint of the part based at 0 locates the number 1/b on the number line.

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NF.A.2.b
Represent a fraction a/b on a number line diagram by marking off a lengths 1/b from 0. Recognize that the resulting interval has size a/b and that its endpoint locates the number a/b on the number line.

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NF.A.3
Explain equivalence of fractions in special cases, and compare fractions by reasoning about their size.

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NF.A.3.a
Understand two fractions as equivalent (equal) if they are the same size, or the same point on a number line.

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NF.A.3.b
Recognize and generate simple equivalent fractions, e.g., 1/2 = 2/4, 4/6 = 2/3. Explain why the fractions are equivalent, e.g., by using a visual fraction model.

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NF.A.3.c
Express whole numbers as fractions, and recognize fractions that are equivalent to whole numbers. Examples: Express 3 in the form 3 = 3/1; recognize that 6/1 = 6; locate 4/4 and 1 at the same point of a number line diagram.

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NF.A.3.d
Compare two fractions with the same numerator or the same denominator by reasoning about their size. Recognize that comparisons are valid only when the two fractions refer to the same whole. Record the results of comparisons with the symbols >, =, or <, and justify the conclusions, e.g., by using a visual fraction model.


1 Grade 3 expectations in this domain are limited to fractions with denominators 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8.

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

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!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

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

+10000 Like there is no connection between the materials and common core. If it is so hard to interpret these standards properly.................

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!!!!

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

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.

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.