Anonymous wrote:

As a general rule, if you understand something, you can explain it. If you can't explain it, you don't understand it.

There are many things in life we don't understand, but we do use them. The car I drive, the computer I am typing on are just two examples of things I don't fully understand, but that I can make use of (and I am grateful for those things). We teach kids reading and they certainly do not understand why "ph" is pronounced as the "f" sound (we don't teach them etymology and ask them to explain it), but they are able to use reading as a tool to learn things in life. As a previous poster said, we are not all going to be Newton. Some of us need tools to do jobs and we gain those tools. Asking a kindergartener to learn to read is appropriate; asking him to explain the etymology of words is inappropriate. But, you never know. We may need a lot of linguists in the future.

The Common Core standards do not require kindergarteners to be able to explain the etymology of words. Here is an example of what they do require, for first-graders:

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).

Do you think that this is a bad thing? Would this dialogue be acceptable?

Teacher: What is 8+4?
Student: 12.
Teacher How did you get that answer?
Student: I just did.

Anonymous wrote:

ACT, College Board, et cetera. Looks like people who have a shitload of background and experience in developing standardized testing.

Apparently your preference would have been to hire people who don't know a fucking thing about standardized testing.

So, the ends justify the means?

You've got the "teaching to the test" people writing the standards. Instead of thinking about what kids should learn, they may very well be thinking about standards that are easy to test. That could be a problem. At the very least there should be more perspective.

+100
Absolutely agree.

Starr will be vindicated, at least on this issue . . .


From this article:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/schools-need-time-to-implement-common-core-standards/2013/02/07/fb3a20dc-6bff-11e2-bd36-c0fe61a205f6_story.html


A moratorium on standardized tests would give our school systems the ability to implement the Common Core with fidelity. It would also give the groups developing assessments aligned to the Common Core the time they need to get it right. These assessments will include performance tasks and multi-step problems. This is a vast improvement over most, if not all, current state assessments, which rely heavily on multiple-choice problems.

To be clear: I am not opposed to all standardized tests. In a context of collaborative professional learning, they have their place. They are an entry point to further analysis among highly trained educators and can help parents, staff and all in the school community ask better questions. I also support accountability. During the moratorium, accountability for schools and districts could be determined using a variety of sources, including Advanced Placement exams, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), graduation rates, the dropout rate and student work.

But the foundation of any meaningful accountability system in education is a strong curriculum delivered by a well-trained, highly engaged teacher. The Common Core gives us the opportunity to build that foundation on the correct things. We need time to get it right.

Anonymous wrote:

The Common Core standards do not actually say, "You must be able to do x, and you must only be able to do x, and not one millimeter more."

Of course they don't. But, we've got high stakes testing based on them. That is the real big problem and Duncan will not let go of that.

We have had high-stakes testing based on standards since 2002.

There are many things in life we don't understand, but we do use them. The car I drive, the computer I am typing on are just two examples of things I don't fully understand, but that I can make use of (and I am grateful for those things). We teach kids reading and they certainly do not understand why "ph" is pronounced as the "f" sound (we don't teach them etymology and ask them to explain it), but they are able to use reading as a tool to learn things in life. As a previous poster said, we are not all going to be Newton. Some of us need tools to do jobs and we gain those tools. Asking a kindergartener to learn to read is appropriate; asking him to explain the etymology of words is inappropriate. But, you never know. We may need a lot of linguists in the future.

well stated

The Common Core standards do not actually say, "You must be able to do x, and you must only be able to do x, and not one millimeter more."

Of course they don't. But, we've got high stakes testing based on them. That is the real big problem and Duncan will not let go of that.

As a general rule, if you understand something, you can explain it. If you can't explain it, you don't understand it.

There are many things in life we don't understand, but we do use them. The car I drive, the computer I am typing on are just two examples of things I don't fully understand, but that I can make use of (and I am grateful for those things). We teach kids reading and they certainly do not understand why "ph" is pronounced as the "f" sound (we don't teach them etymology and ask them to explain it), but they are able to use reading as a tool to learn things in life. As a previous poster said, we are not all going to be Newton. Some of us need tools to do jobs and we gain those tools. Asking a kindergartener to learn to read is appropriate; asking him to explain the etymology of words is inappropriate. But, you never know. We may need a lot of linguists in the future.

CC standards are not going to change anything. Lots of money spent for nothing--or worse than nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter whether you have standards from God. You still have to look at the student and decide what and how to teach . . . whether the kid has already mastered the standard or is way behind. The standards are wishful. You can wish for something and it may or may not happen. Reality has to be the guide.

And for those who have had their wishes granted, there needs to be another step to reach for . . . always. Life without the climb is dull and meaningless.

The student is the core and the student is never common.

School is to help people reach their potential---and it's a different potential for every single person, like it or not.

The Common Core standards do not actually say, "You must be able to do x, and you must only be able to do x, and not one millimeter more."

It doesn't matter whether you have standards from God. You still have to look at the student and decide what and how to teach . . . whether the kid has already mastered the standard or is way behind. The standards are wishful. You can wish for something and it may or may not happen. Reality has to be the guide.

And for those who have had their wishes granted, there needs to be another step to reach for . . . always. Life without the climb is dull and meaningless.

The student is the core and the student is never common.

School is to help people reach their potential---and it's a different potential for every single person, like it or not.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure what the thinking was behind this "explanation" thing. Maybe the people at Microsoft have a hard time communicating their logic and somebody thinks this problem could be resolved starting in kindergarten?

As a general rule, if you understand something, you can explain it. If you can't explain it, you don't understand it.

And there's nothing in CC standards that state that kids cannot memorize math facts. They are just placing an emphasis early on to understand the concepts and have better numeracy skills. Nothing wrong with that. Like I said, in 3rd grade, DC's teacher had DC memorize the multiplication table last year. Also, in 1st grade, my other DC learned a little rhyme from the teacher to memorize additions up to 10. But, DC also knows how to add quickly using base 10 method. Again, all learned under 2.0, or CC based math.

And probably would have been learned before CC. The teacher is the key component.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know what kinds of kids you are seeing, but my kids can do mental math without a calculator. They are 6 and 9. My 6 yr old uses the base 10 method of adding/subtracting to do mental math. This was taught in school, and reinforced at home, and this is how I do mental math, too.

I think only memorizing formulas is a terrible way of teaching. I can do integrals still, but I can't tell you why it's done the way it is because the teachers never emphasized the "whys" only the "hows". That really doesn't help a person understand math and how to apply it to real world concepts.

A math teacher laments the rote memorization techniques.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/02/12/why-falling-behind-math/WQ34ITFotp30EPF9knjqnJ/story.html

For practical purposes, there's a difference between drilling through the whole deep dive into why versus just trying to quickly figure out a problem. Not all of us are Isaac Newton, who had to invent Calculus, and neither should we have to, when we just have a basic problem to solve. "SOH CAH TOA" - fastest way to solve a triangle, ever. Yes, certainly an explanation of how the relationships of angles and sides in a triangle work is important to teach, but once you are beyond that, memorization is hugely more pragmatic. There's a balance to be had, but not memorizing anything at all and instead relying on people to derive everything from scratch is certainly not pragmatic - but just the same, I don't think there's any reasonable expectation for people to memorize absolutely EVERYTHING and nobody here has proposed that.

And there's nothing in CC standards that state that kids cannot memorize math facts. They are just placing an emphasis early on to understand the concepts and have better numeracy skills. Nothing wrong with that. Like I said, in 3rd grade, DC's teacher had DC memorize the multiplication table last year. Also, in 1st grade, my other DC learned a little rhyme from the teacher to memorize additions up to 10. But, DC also knows how to add quickly using base 10 method. Again, all learned under 2.0, or CC based math.

I think only memorizing formulas is a terrible way of teaching. I can do integrals still, but I can't tell you why it's done the way it is because the teachers never emphasized the "whys" only the "hows". That really doesn't help a person understand math and how to apply it to real world concepts.

Were you not taught why it was done or were you not interested enough to listen to your teacher? Do you need to know this now?

Would learning the why of something you are more interested in be a better way to develop your analytical skills? Do you feel that you are lacking in analytical skills or are you wishing that you had gone into a math field as a career?

You can argue that this isn't being done because the teacher/school is more focused on getting the rest of the kids up to those standards (which is probably true), but that would be the case regardless of CC standards. Any school district that had baseline standards had this issue due to all the NCLB testing.

True and a lot of people were unhappy with the NCLB testing for precisely the reason you stated. Now, just when they thought there was a chance of rectifying that situation, along comes CC with different tests, but nonetheless testing. And it is worse now because people were just getting used to the other standards and testing those (and figuring how to track kids out who didn't need them) and now they are told that things didn't improve because the standards were wrong (so enter CC). I think a lot of people are skeptical for good reasons.

The best math is going to be a combination of rote and conceptual learning. CC looks like it is trying to resolve the problem that there was not enough conceptual learning going on. I'm not sure they made a case for solving that "problem", but there it is. I believe that there are people who get the concepts quickly and who are very gifted in logical thinking, but for whom the language side of their brains is not as developed and therefore they have trouble articulating their logic (this is the "inappropriate" part). Maybe this logical articulation needs to be developed from the start (K) or maybe it doesn't (this is something CC appears to have taken a stand on philosophically without a lot of evidence or research given). There are plenty of brilliant math people who have this problem with articulating their logic---and they have probably advanced their working language to a higher degree than schoolchildren have.

I'm not sure what the thinking was behind this "explanation" thing. Maybe the people at Microsoft have a hard time communicating their logic and somebody thinks this problem could be resolved starting in kindergarten?