Anonymous wrote:Plenty of other big countries are able to have common standards
Sure they do. They also have tracking--where kids take tests at a very young age which determines whether they will be in a trade or a profession. Whether they go to trade school or university.
Plenty of other big countries are able to have common standards
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
What always gets me is flipping from the MD Public Schools forum, where the Common Core math standards are way too easy, to the Schools and General Education forum, where those exact same standards are way too hard.
Then, just maybe there is a problem with the standards......
You'll never have standards where everyone agrees. If I say the K standard for math should be "student should be able to add 1 + 1", someone else will say that's way too easy; it should be "student should be able to add 10+10". Just an example.
I think you can get broad agreement on standards locally. That's much tougher in a huge country like the U.S.
And experts don't remotely agree on Common Core standards. The content experts who consulted on the standards refused to sign off on them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
What always gets me is flipping from the MD Public Schools forum, where the Common Core math standards are way too easy, to the Schools and General Education forum, where those exact same standards are way too hard.
Then, just maybe there is a problem with the standards......
You'll never have standards where everyone agrees. If I say the K standard for math should be "student should be able to add 1 + 1", someone else will say that's way too easy; it should be "student should be able to add 10+10". Just an example.
Anonymous wrote:
What always gets me is flipping from the MD Public Schools forum, where the Common Core math standards are way too easy, to the Schools and General Education forum, where those exact same standards are way too hard.
Then, just maybe there is a problem with the standards......
Anonymous wrote:What always gets me is flipping from the MD Public Schools forum, where the Common Core math standards are way too easy, to the Schools and General Education forum, where those exact same standards are way too hard.
What always gets me is flipping from the MD Public Schools forum, where the Common Core math standards are way too easy, to the Schools and General Education forum, where those exact same standards are way too hard.
Here’s a puzzler: Why are the Common Core math standards accused of fostering “fuzzy math” when their drafters and admirers insist that they emphasize basic math, reward precision, and demand fluency? Why are CC-aligned curricula causing confusion and frustration among parents, teachers, and students? Is this another instance of “maximum feasible misunderstanding,” as textbook publishers and educators misinterpret the standards in ways that undermine their intent (but perhaps match the interpreters’ predilections)? Or are the Common Core standards themselves to blame?
My take is that the standards are in line with effective programs, such as Singapore Math, but textbook publishers and other curriculum providers are creating confusion with overly complex explanations, ill-written problems, and lessons that confuse pedagogy with content.
Many of the “fuzzy math” complaints seem to focus on materials that ask students to engage in multiple approaches when tackling arithmetic problems. But to understand whether the confusion stems from the standards or the curriculum, let’s start by recalling what the CCSS actually require.
1. The Common Core explicitly demand student mastery of the standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division for both whole numbers and decimals.
Any honest reading of the standards must recognize that in grades 4, 5, and 6, the Common Core demand that students master standard algorithms. In grade 4, students should “fluently add and subtract multidigit whole numbers using the standard algorithm.” By grade 5, they are expected to multiply whole numbers using the standard algorithm. And by grade 6, they are expected to divide whole numbers and to add, subtract, multiply, and divide decimals, again using standard algorithms.
The standards themselves are unambiguous that students will master the best and most efficient ways to do arithmetic, and any curriculum that does not give top billing to standard algorithms in the pertinent grades is not aligned with the Common Core.
2. The Common Core also allow more than the standard algorithms.
Because math users and teachers want more than procedural fluency from students (because they want young people actually to understand the math problems they answer so that they are ready for more advanced math), the Common Core leave plenty of room for teachers to go beyond the standard algorithm to ensure that students understand how numbers work. The standards ask that students understand what it means to add to and subtract from; the difference between parts and a whole; and to be able to demonstrate these understandings in more than one way.
(snip)
Three takeaways:
First, schools who’ve had long success with tried and true approaches, including Singapore Math, might consider sticking with them before pouring lots of money into shiny new—but possibly ill-written—curricula.
Second, publishers should emulate the clarity and precision of Singapore Math rather than reinventing the wheel and coming up with one that doesn’t roll straight. If they fail in that quest, nobody should buy what they’re selling.
Third, Common Core supporters need to understand that even as opponents eagerly pounce on any mistake that anybody makes in the name of the Common Core, that doesn’t mean that we deny or ignore such failures. Failure is an important part of innovation and a necessary step in the quest for excellence. Indeed, that we should be more exacting critics than the opponents, taking pains not to explain away implementation challenges, mistakes and missteps. Let’s resolve to be vigilant, candid, and demanding in our assessment and communication of such challenges.
Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/md-teachers-union-wants-kindergarten-tests-halted-citing-concerns/2014/12/16/94b573b6-84a8-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html
Yes, those MD teachers ALL love the Common Core.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, grade level standards apply to all students in that grade. Even though kids are different, the standards is the same for all. If students aren't able to reach it, that is not making a value judgment about them; that is stating that they have not yet reached the standards for that grade.
And, teachers are not given a pass if the child is not ready for that grade. Just wait, you will not be able to get teachers in poor schools as a result of this.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/osceola-co-teachers-resigning-en-masse-over-common/njPXY/
Anonymous wrote:
OK, so now we're back to the idea that there shouldn't be any standards.
Standards should be set locally. In my mind, the standards should be flexible according to where the child is when he starts the year.