Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These tests do not appear to have been validated. Are they really testing the standard? That is the problem. And, you want to judge the teachers and students on the results of poorly written tests. That is a bigger problem.

Which tests are you talking about?

The PARCC tests are in their first year of widespread field testing. The biggest complaints seem to be that they are on a computer and many kids aren't prepared for computer assessments-- a very valid criticism. Also there have been computer crashes and so forth -- another valid criticism.

For a few more complaints about PARCC field test and and common core-based assessments, scroll down a bit:

http://testingtalk.org/responses

When I heard about the conservatives attack the common core because they don't want federal government interferes with the state business in the radio this afternoon. I thought the common core promotors on the forum will label any criticism of common core as the Obama hater. Believe me I voted for Obama twice, but I don't like common core because it against how math has been learned and taught for hundred years. This country needs more math students but common core will turn some very promising young kids, especially boys, to math hater. Please save them.

^ The reason (some) people are up in arms is because the right wing has randomly, arbitrarily and capriciously taken it up as the latest whipping boy, presuming to paint "Arnie" and by extension Obama with some notion of horrific disaster just because it's a change "on his watch" - yet the reality of it is that this was not a FEDERAL initiative. It was a STATE initiative. The feds made some money available to support schools while they tried to switch, but beyond that it was never the feds dictating content, orchestrating some grand design or anything else. But that's what deranged, paranoid conservatives do these days - they see black helicopters and death panels lurking behind every corner. Nice try, but no cigar - and the sane and rational among us are just rolling our eyes at your hysteria.

http://michellemalkin.com/2014/04/04/pushing-back-against-parccachieve-inc-lobbyists/

Once more, follow the money.

Anonymous wrote:These tests do not appear to have been validated. Are they really testing the standard? That is the problem. And, you want to judge the teachers and students on the results of poorly written tests. That is a bigger problem.

Which tests are you talking about?

The PARCC tests are in their first year of widespread field testing. The biggest complaints seem to be that they are on a computer and many kids aren't prepared for computer assessments-- a very valid criticism. Also there have been computer crashes and so forth -- another valid criticism.

Anonymous wrote:

I wasn't there either, but PP, your answer doesn't add anything to the numerical answer. I do think it's a silly question. The equation IS the sentence. I feel like this approach to math is geared at (and maybe designed by) math-phobics. Why do you need to put it into words? Are pluses and equal signs so scary? We know what they mean. Turning the "plus" into an "and" and the equals sign into an "is" doesn't increase understanding.

It does, though.

Yes, the equation is the sentence in math. But it is possible to get 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3 by memorizing the rule that when you add fractions, you're supposed to add the top numbers and leave the bottom numbers alone. No understanding that plus = and or that equals = is required. And then you get stuck when you have to add 1/3 + 1/4.

I was in advanced math and got straight As, and if you had asked me in junior high why you solve a story problem like "Anita had 12 apples, and she ate half of them. How many apples did she eat?" by writing 1/2 x 12 = 6, I wouldn't have been able to answer. All I'd done is memorize the rule "if you see [a fraction] of [a number], you write fraction x number".

Anonymous wrote:
My DH and I both went to the teacher to discuss this particular issue. Full disclosure, I have been disappointed/upset by 2.0 from the beginning and have done my share of venting about it to my DH. He's more "hands-off" and trusting of the system than I am, so he assumed that my venting/ranting about 2.0 must be exaggerated, etc. Well, after our meeting, and listening to a teacher tell us that there really wasn't an answer to the "why" portion of the question (then proceeded to tell us that the obvious answer to "why" was, in fact, wrong?!?!?), he changed his tune on 2.0. That meeting was really eye opening. It seemed to suggest a math curriculum written by folks who are somewhat math-phobic in order to make math a subjective, language-based discipline. That's not what math is.

And.. it isn't what Common Core State standards in math are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It isn't good. It isn't even logical or age appropriate.

For example, a 4th grade math question this year: "1/3 plus 1/3 equals what? Explain why?" "Explain why" in this situation is such an esoteric question (especially for 4th graders), that it is illogical for it to be part of the math curriculum. At this age, many kids don't have the command of language to explain in detail "why" this is the case. In fact, when asked, the teacher couldn't explain "why" and told us that under 2.0 there isn't really a right answer to this "why" question(!!). That is more of a mind-game for these kids than an educational exercise.

Because if you have one third, and then you add another third, you have two thirds.

What's esoteric, illogical, and age-inappropriate about that?

What's funny about this is that your answer (which seem so logical, I agree) is WRONG. That was the only answer that wasn't allowed (well, that and well b/c 1/3 plus 1/3 just is 2/3). Your answer is exactly what we went in to discuss with the teacher. The fact that it isn't considered right IS the problem. Under 2.0, the claim that your answer doesn't "go deep enough" and doesn't "go farther." When we asked the teacher how she would go deeper/farther and what her answer would be and she couldn't answer. THAT'S WHY IT IS ESOTERIC, ILLOGICAL AND AGE-INAPPROPRIATE! BTW, the caps are just frustration at 2.0, not at your answer

I wasn't there either, but PP, your answer doesn't add anything to the numerical answer. I do think it's a silly question. The equation IS the sentence. I feel like this approach to math is geared at (and maybe designed by) math-phobics. Why do you need to put it into words? Are pluses and equal signs so scary? We know what they mean. Turning the "plus" into an "and" and the equals sign into an "is" doesn't increase understanding.

I'm the pp you're quoting and I realize that a couple of typos made my post a bit confusing. It's not that the teacher wants to translate + and= into the words "plus" and "is." Not sure if that's what you thought I was saying or not, but wanted to clarify that.

That said, I agree with your point: that the symbols of math ARE the language of math. As such the description of an equation IS the written equation.

My DH and I both went to the teacher to discuss this particular issue. Full disclosure, I have been disappointed/upset by 2.0 from the beginning and have done my share of venting about it to my DH. He's more "hands-off" and trusting of the system than I am, so he assumed that my venting/ranting about 2.0 must be exaggerated, etc. Well, after our meeting, and listening to a teacher tell us that there really wasn't an answer to the "why" portion of the question (then proceeded to tell us that the obvious answer to "why" was, in fact, wrong?!?!?), he changed his tune on 2.0. That meeting was really eye opening. It seemed to suggest a math curriculum written by folks who are somewhat math-phobic in order to make math a subjective, language-based discipline. That's not what math is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once she explained to me why she bombed that part, I understood. She still got a good overall score. It was just busy work.

That's exactly the attitude that is problematic and you are just too thickheaded to see it. You've created an entitled kid who thinks she is too smart for busy work. Congratulations.

No. I accepted her reasoning. She was never a bratty kid and is not a bratty adult. Her friends would laugh if they saw what you wrote. She is far from entitled. You just have no sense.

This is what they do. If you or your kid disagree with the teacher or the curriculum, you're "entitled". It's code for "not going along mindlessly with what we want you to do".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It isn't good. It isn't even logical or age appropriate.

For example, a 4th grade math question this year: "1/3 plus 1/3 equals what? Explain why?" "Explain why" in this situation is such an esoteric question (especially for 4th graders), that it is illogical for it to be part of the math curriculum. At this age, many kids don't have the command of language to explain in detail "why" this is the case. In fact, when asked, the teacher couldn't explain "why" and told us that under 2.0 there isn't really a right answer to this "why" question(!!). That is more of a mind-game for these kids than an educational exercise.

Because if you have one third, and then you add another third, you have two thirds.

What's esoteric, illogical, and age-inappropriate about that?

What's funny about this is that your answer (which seem so logical, I agree) is WRONG. That was the only answer that wasn't allowed (well, that and well b/c 1/3 plus 1/3 just is 2/3). Your answer is exactly what we went in to discuss with the teacher. The fact that it isn't considered right IS the problem. Under 2.0, the claim that your answer doesn't "go deep enough" and doesn't "go farther." When we asked the teacher how she would go deeper/farther and what her answer would be and she couldn't answer. THAT'S WHY IT IS ESOTERIC, ILLOGICAL AND AGE-INAPPROPRIATE! BTW, the caps are just frustration at 2.0, not at your answer

I wasn't there either, but PP, your answer doesn't add anything to the numerical answer. I do think it's a silly question. The equation IS the sentence. I feel like this approach to math is geared at (and maybe designed by) math-phobics. Why do you need to put it into words? Are pluses and equal signs so scary? We know what they mean. Turning the "plus" into an "and" and the equals sign into an "is" doesn't increase understanding.

Anonymous wrote:
What's funny about this is that your answer (which seem so logical, I agree) is WRONG. That was the only answer that wasn't allowed (well, that and well b/c 1/3 plus 1/3 just is 2/3). Your answer is exactly what we went in to discuss with the teacher. The fact that it isn't considered right IS the problem. Under 2.0, the claim that your answer doesn't "go deep enough" and doesn't "go farther." When we asked the teacher how she would go deeper/farther and what her answer would be and she couldn't answer. THAT'S WHY IT IS ESOTERIC, ILLOGICAL AND AGE-INAPPROPRIATE! BTW, the caps are just frustration at 2.0, not at your answer

aid so

Well, you were there, and I wasn't, so I'm not going to say that it didn't happen -- but it's definitely different from what my experience with Curriculum 2.0 math has been. It's been a common pattern on DCUM that some parents say, "2.0 requires [this]! The teachers/principals said so!", and then other parents say, "But that's not how they're doing things in my kid's school..." Which suggests that there is a problem, but not necessarily with the curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It isn't good. It isn't even logical or age appropriate.

For example, a 4th grade math question this year: "1/3 plus 1/3 equals what? Explain why?" "Explain why" in this situation is such an esoteric question (especially for 4th graders), that it is illogical for it to be part of the math curriculum. At this age, many kids don't have the command of language to explain in detail "why" this is the case. In fact, when asked, the teacher couldn't explain "why" and told us that under 2.0 there isn't really a right answer to this "why" question(!!). That is more of a mind-game for these kids than an educational exercise.

Because if you have one third, and then you add another third, you have two thirds.

What's esoteric, illogical, and age-inappropriate about that?

What's funny about this is that your answer (which seem so logical, I agree) is WRONG. That was the only answer that wasn't allowed (well, that and well b/c 1/3 plus 1/3 just is 2/3). Your answer is exactly what we went in to discuss with the teacher. The fact that it isn't considered right IS the problem. Under 2.0, the claim that your answer doesn't "go deep enough" and doesn't "go farther." When we asked the teacher how she would go deeper/farther and what her answer would be and she couldn't answer. THAT'S WHY IT IS ESOTERIC, ILLOGICAL AND AGE-INAPPROPRIATE! BTW, the caps are just frustration at 2.0, not at your answer

97% of the anti-Common Core hysteria is incorrect FUD.

Thanks, Arne.

97% of the anti-Common Core hysteria is incorrect FUD.

These tests do not appear to have been validated. Are they really testing the standard? That is the problem. And, you want to judge the teachers and students on the results of poorly written tests. That is a bigger problem.