Great explanation. The Common Core proponent doesn't understand that kids are the same as adults--they see no point in doing stupid work.

Yes, you can't pull things over on the kids!!

True enough, but the problem comes when the tests are aligned to the CC and the student is asked to solve the problem the CC way (and show their work). If the student does not show his work the way CC wants it done, he loses points. So the teacher is definitely forced to teach the CC method. Of course the teacher can add other methods, but the student has to have enough practice with the CC method in order to pass the mandated test (and they are still mandated).

Great explanation. The Common Core proponent doesn't understand that kids are the same as adults--they see no point in doing stupid work.

As the Common Core makes its way into real-life classrooms, I hope teachers are able to adjust its guidelines as they fit. I hope, for instance, that teachers will still be allowed to introduce the standard method for addition and subtraction in second grade rather than waiting until fourth. I also hope that teachers who favor direct instruction over an inquiry-based approach will be given this freedom."


Wait, what? Where in the Common Core does it say that teachers are not allowed to introduce the standard algorithm for addition and subtraction until fourth grade?


Common core doesn't say it's "not allowed" - Common core is a minimum standard. You can teach whatever you like, and however you like, provided you at least meet the minimum standard.

True enough, but the problem comes when the tests are aligned to the CC and the student is asked to solve the problem the CC way (and show their work). If the student does not show his work the way CC wants it done, he loses points. So the teacher is definitely forced to teach the CC method. Of course the teacher can add other methods, but the student has to have enough practice with the CC method in order to pass the mandated test (and they are still mandated).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As the Common Core makes its way into real-life classrooms, I hope teachers are able to adjust its guidelines as they fit. I hope, for instance, that teachers will still be allowed to introduce the standard method for addition and subtraction in second grade rather than waiting until fourth. I also hope that teachers who favor direct instruction over an inquiry-based approach will be given this freedom."

Wait, what? Where in the Common Core does it say that teachers are not allowed to introduce the standard algorithm for addition and subtraction until fourth grade?

Common core doesn't say it's "not allowed" - Common core is a minimum standard. You can teach whatever you like, and however you like, provided you at least meet the minimum standard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As the Common Core makes its way into real-life classrooms, I hope teachers are able to adjust its guidelines as they fit. I hope, for instance, that teachers will still be allowed to introduce the standard method for addition and subtraction in second grade rather than waiting until fourth. I also hope that teachers who favor direct instruction over an inquiry-based approach will be given this freedom."

Wait, what? Where in the Common Core does it say that teachers are not allowed to introduce the standard algorithm for addition and subtraction until fourth grade?

No. When my DC was in 3rd grade last year, he learned the standard algorithm for "carrying the 1". They first learn how to "decompose" and add, but eventually, they did learn it the standard way.

He's in 4th now, compacted math, and he carry's the 1, although, it did take me a few times to convince him that carrying the 1 was the fastest way to do this type of math. I think people get stuck on one way to do math and have a hard time switching. That goes for us old timers, too.

Anonymous wrote:

As the Common Core makes its way into real-life classrooms, I hope teachers are able to adjust its guidelines as they fit. I hope, for instance, that teachers will still be allowed to introduce the standard method for addition and subtraction in second grade rather than waiting until fourth. I also hope that teachers who favor direct instruction over an inquiry-based approach will be given this freedom."

Wait, what? Where in the Common Core does it say that teachers are not allowed to introduce the standard algorithm for addition and subtraction until fourth grade?

Not only were there people who specifically had classroom teaching experience, as well as the professors who TEACH the classroom teachers involved, but also there was review, input and feedback by HUNDREDS of other teachers. The process involved going through several existing state standards, which were already, previously developed with input from hundreds of classroom teachers, and then those existing standards were compiled, updated and modified, through various workgroups and committees, which also included numerous teachers as well as faculty in education and pedagogy, some of which are the very people who do the research and study of what is or isn't "developmentally appropriate" for children to learning, and then several rounds of review, vetting and input from hundreds more teachers, via the various teaching groups, i.e. Math Teachers, English Teachers.

So a more correct analogy would be to be working in a building that was designed by multiple architects, with their design having been reviewed by hundreds of other architects, as well as professors of architecture, structural engineering, and other related disciplines.

BS. Please document this. CC website claims this, but no where is there any documentation of the actual surveys, teachers' names, schools involved in testing, etc.

Not only were there people who specifically had classroom teaching experience, as well as the professors who TEACH the classroom teachers involved, but also there was review, input and feedback by HUNDREDS of other teachers.

Did the feedback happen BEFORE the teachers got a chance to try out the new standards or AFTER?

The excerpt below is from a longer article.


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/a-new-kind-of-problem-the-common-core-math-standards/265444/



"These guidelines seem reasonable enough. But on closer inspection, these things are essentially habits of mind that ought to develop naturally as a student learns to do actual math. For example, there's nothing wrong with the first point: "Make sense of problem solving and persevering in solving them." But these standards are being interpreted to mean that students "make conjectures about the form and meaning of the solution and plan a solution pathway rather than simply jumping into a solution attempt. They consider analogous problems, and try special cases and simpler forms of the original problem in order to gain insight into its solution."

This is a rather high expectation for students in K- 6. True habits of mind develop with time and maturity. An algebra student, for instance, can take a theoretical scenario such as "John is 2 times as old as Jill will be in 3 years" and express it in mathematical symbols. In lower grades, this kind of connection between numbers and ideas is very hard to make. The Common Core standards seem to presume that even very young students can, and should, learn to make sophisticated leaps in reasoning, like little children dressing in their parents' clothes.

As the Common Core makes its way into real-life classrooms, I hope teachers are able to adjust its guidelines as they fit. I hope, for instance, that teachers will still be allowed to introduce the standard method for addition and subtraction in second grade rather than waiting until fourth. I also hope that teachers who favor direct instruction over an inquiry-based approach will be given this freedom."

Anonymous wrote:What difference does it make?

Would you want to work in a building designed by an architect who was not certified? One who drew pretty pictures, but did not have the math background to know if the structure would work?

False analogy, based on your false premise that there were no classroom teachers involved.

Not only were there people who specifically had classroom teaching experience, as well as the professors who TEACH the classroom teachers involved, but also there was review, input and feedback by HUNDREDS of other teachers. The process involved going through several existing state standards, which were already, previously developed with input from hundreds of classroom teachers, and then those existing standards were compiled, updated and modified, through various workgroups and committees, which also included numerous teachers as well as faculty in education and pedagogy, some of which are the very people who do the research and study of what is or isn't "developmentally appropriate" for children to learning, and then several rounds of review, vetting and input from hundreds more teachers, via the various teaching groups, i.e. Math Teachers, English Teachers.

So a more correct analogy would be to be working in a building that was designed by multiple architects, with their design having been reviewed by hundreds of other architects, as well as professors of architecture, structural engineering, and other related disciplines.

Anonymous wrote:

I can answer that question: I actually do do this. There, now can we stop talking about who was on what committee 8 years ago?

Okay. Good for you. Others disagree. Hope the elevator shaft is strong enough for you.

Others disagree -- TO WHAT END? Let's say that every person in the entire US agreed with you that no active classroom teacher served on the Common Core Standard Development Standard Advisory Committee Feedback Workgroup in 2008. Then what? What would happen next? That's the question you keep not answering.

I can answer that question: I actually do do this. There, now can we stop talking about who was on what committee 8 years ago?

Okay. Good for you. Others disagree. Hope the elevator shaft is strong enough for you.

Anonymous wrote:What difference does it make?

Would you want to work in a building designed by an architect who was not certified? One who drew pretty pictures, but did not have the math background to know if the structure would work?

So that's the issue? Would I want to send my children to schools that use curricula that are based on the Common Core standards?

I can answer that question: I actually do do this. There, now can we stop talking about who was on what committee 8 years ago?

Another example: Lots of young women fancy themselves "fashion designers". However, if you have ever watched Project Runway, you understand that you have to know lots more than to imagine a dress.

What difference does it make?

Would you want to work in a building designed by an architect who was not certified? One who drew pretty pictures, but did not have the math background to know if the structure would work?

Anonymous wrote:

And what difference does it make, at this point?

Hillary, is that you?

Or you could actually answer the question.