Talk to any DCPS middle school principal and you will find a huge amount of frustration in how the elementary schools have failed kids - kids arrive in middle school barely able to read or do math at a 2nd grade level. That is why we need standards and accountability, and why it needs to start early - because so much of what is going on in some of our schools is a complete joke and it sets our kids up for complete disaster in later grades.

Anonymous wrote:

When people try ot create worksheets and tests to make sure students are using particular strategies, they end up overly cumbersome and confusing, which is where a lot of the frustration with COmmon Core seems to be coming from.

Exactly.

I'm the PP you are responding to. I should ad, I think it is a very good idea to teach students these particular strategies AND to make sure that they are using them. I think though that most of our teachers and all of our curriculum writers (the people who make the textbooks and and worksheets) are pretty bad at math and don't understand why these strategies are efficient and good things to teach.

That is why I would support a National Curriculum, based on people who do understand these strategies, and who know how to teach them properly -- Singapore Math.

Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

And this standard should read:Add and subtract within 20,

Similarly, everybody who uses the standard algorithm to multiply a two-digit number by a one-digit number is using partial products, even if they don't know that what they're doing is using partial products.

Bingo! That is why the standard should be to multiply a two digit number by a one-digit number. You don't have to add in all the busy work.

Anonymous wrote:

But if you know how to conjugate a verb, it should not be any problem for you to demonstrate on a test that you know how to conjugate a verb.

I was never fluent in French--but I was great at conjugating verbs when I was in high school. I have known people who were fluent in a foreign language and had no clue how to conjugate a verb. Especially, if they learned on their own.

Everybody who is fluent in a language with verbs that you conjugate knows how to conjugate verbs, even if they don't know that what they're doing is conjugating verbs.

Similarly, everybody who uses the standard algorithm to multiply a two-digit number by a one-digit number is using partial products, even if they don't know that what they're doing is using partial products.

But if you know how to conjugate a verb, it should not be any problem for you to demonstrate on a test that you know how to conjugate a verb.

I was never fluent in French--but I was great at conjugating verbs when I was in high school. I have known people who were fluent in a foreign language and had no clue how to conjugate a verb. Especially, if they learned on their own.

Anonymous wrote:

Decomposing a number is not supposed to demonstrate fluency. Decomposing a number is a method for achieving fluency.

Just like conjugating a verb is not supposed to demonstrate fluency, but you have to be able to conjugate a verb if you want to be fluent.

And, you can be fluent without being able to PROVE that you can conjugate a verb. Many people are never taught to conjugate a verb and are fluent.

But if you know how to conjugate a verb, it should not be any problem for you to demonstrate on a test that you know how to conjugate a verb.

When people try ot create worksheets and tests to make sure students are using particular strategies, they end up overly cumbersome and confusing, which is where a lot of the frustration with COmmon Core seems to be coming from.

Exactly.

Decomposing a number is not supposed to demonstrate fluency. Decomposing a number is a method for achieving fluency.

Just like conjugating a verb is not supposed to demonstrate fluency, but you have to be able to conjugate a verb if you want to be fluent.

And, you can be fluent without being able to PROVE that you can conjugate a verb. Many people are never taught to conjugate a verb and are fluent.

I can see why people have problems with this as a standard.

Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

In any case, there is no Common Core standard that says "First-graders must know four different ways to add." The Common Core standard is:

CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.C.6
Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

Again, I don't think that any of these strategies is too hard for a first-grader. And if the first-grader's worksheet says, "Find the answer to 6 + 7 by creating an equivalent but easier or known sum", that's a curriculum problem.

To be fair, I think the part I bolded, starting "use strategies..." really shouldn't be a standard. The standard should be the end goal expected at the end of the year, and it should be observable (and testable).

I DO think that teaching children to use those strategies is the best way to teach basic numeracy and computation at this grade level, but there's really no way to look inside a child's head and see which strategy he is using. When people try ot create worksheets and tests to make sure students are using particular strategies, they end up overly cumbersome and confusing, which is where a lot of the frustration with COmmon Core seems to be coming from.

I can see why people have problems with this as a standard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who is the best judge on whether the standards are "developmentally appropriate?" This term gets thrown out a lot but are these people experts in education and childhood development? It also seems this opinion differs on whether you live in say, Nevada vs. Maryland.

In my opinion, the teachers are the best judge.

So is everyone on this thread who is complaining a teacher then? I feel like they would be able to better articulate the problem besides holding opinion pieces from Fox News, etc.

While it appeared on Fox News, the story is from the Associated Press. It's appearing on most major online media source now, i.e. NBC, ABC, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

So is everyone on this thread who is complaining a teacher then? I feel like they would be able to better articulate the problem besides holding opinion pieces from Fox News, etc.

answer:

And in looking in this standard, a child might not be able to accomplish one of the steps, like bending at the waist. He bends at the knees instead. This of course means he's a TOTAL FAILURE and does not meet the standard.


Common Core standards -- with their lousy combination of vagueness and some areas and over specificity in others -- grind the creativity and uniqueness out of both children and teachers.

You don't think that is articulate?

In fairness it is often hard to distinguish between the various Anonymous posters. Some are articulate, some spout conspiracy theories ad nauseum. This particular one makes me scratch my head as its referring to an imaginary standard.

Anonymous wrote:

You object to the idea that at the end of first grade, a child should be able to add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10?

Do you really think that "decomposing a number" demonstrates fluency?

Decomposing a number is not supposed to demonstrate fluency. Decomposing a number is a method for achieving fluency.

Just like conjugating a verb is not supposed to demonstrate fluency, but you have to be able to conjugate a verb if you want to be fluent.