I think that there are multiple problems


But, poor standards was not one of them.

But it's easy for people who aren't in the school to "fix" and say "we did something".

Anonymous wrote:

I think that there are multiple problems

But, poor standards was not one of them.

I disagree.

I think that there are multiple problems

But, poor standards was not one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

If any conclusion was jumped to, it was the conclusion that the problem is the standards.

Bingo! That's not the problem.

You seem to assume that there only is one problem. I think that there are multiple problems.

If any conclusion was jumped to, it was the conclusion that the problem is the standards.

Bingo! That's not the problem.

Another huge elephant in the room is poverty and shipping jobs overseas. Lift people out of poverty and scores will go up...but need to give it some time.

Anonymous wrote:The problem with some of the educational research is that people interpret it incorrectly. They don't take all the variables into consideration. One of the problems with Common Core. They jumped to the conclusion that the problem is the teaching.

That doesn't make sense. The Common Core State Standards are standards. If any conclusion was jumped to, it was the conclusion that the problem is the standards.

The problem with some of the educational research is that people interpret it incorrectly. They don't take all the variables into consideration. One of the problems with Common Core. They jumped to the conclusion that the problem is the teaching.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your school isn't requiring a lot of explaining on test questions now, I suspect it will now that schools know what the PARCC looks like. My DC's homework does not require a lot of explaining but the assessments do (MCPS). MCPS also does not give enough rote practice in homework for kids to master anything. For me, rote practice and mastery of skill should come first, true understanding later (if it doesn't come naturally from the rote practice). Certainly the explanations by the teacher can come alongside, but developing fluency/automaticity in the skills is essential for higher level math. They don't seem to be teaching this way.

The schools knew what the PARCC tests would look like last year, when they field-tested them.

And nobody is arguing against developing fluency (which the Common Core standards explicitly call for). The point is that your idea seems to be to teach the algorithm first, and then at some point later, if people don't figure out on their own how it works, they can be taught how it works. That's what we've been doing in the US for decades, and it's very ineffective for very many people. Please read this article about teaching math; it's very good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

I believe the teacher should teach the concepts as s/he teaches the algorithm, but that the emphasis from the student side should be on performance and not explanation.

That's an interesting article. It says many things I agree with. You need to have teachers who actually understand the math they are teaching and care about it.

A mathematician friend had a son in HS in Irvine, CA, where they were using a "Japanese method" using tons of discussion groups. The son and the dad both felt it was lousy, but maybe that was more due to implementation.

Yes. In some countries, children have the same teacher for multiple years.

The trouble with education trends is that they go to extremes: Phonics/Whole language; Memorization/Understanding.

Problem is that the answer is in the middle.

Agree. Problem is that different combinations are needed to address different learning styles. No one approach can work for all. Problem is that you have to let teachers figure this out by spending time with students. Some people don't want to allow this to happen.

The trouble with education trends is that they go to extremes: Phonics/Whole language; Memorization/Understanding.

Problem is that the answer is in the middle. Why? Sells more books.

Anonymous wrote:If your school isn't requiring a lot of explaining on test questions now, I suspect it will now that schools know what the PARCC looks like. My DC's homework does not require a lot of explaining but the assessments do (MCPS). MCPS also does not give enough rote practice in homework for kids to master anything. For me, rote practice and mastery of skill should come first, true understanding later (if it doesn't come naturally from the rote practice). Certainly the explanations by the teacher can come alongside, but developing fluency/automaticity in the skills is essential for higher level math. They don't seem to be teaching this way.

The schools knew what the PARCC tests would look like last year, when they field-tested them.

And nobody is arguing against developing fluency (which the Common Core standards explicitly call for). The point is that your idea seems to be to teach the algorithm first, and then at some point later, if people don't figure out on their own how it works, they can be taught how it works. That's what we've been doing in the US for decades, and it's very ineffective for very many people. Please read this article about teaching math; it's very good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

If your school isn't requiring a lot of explaining on test questions now, I suspect it will now that schools know what the PARCC looks like. My DC's homework does not require a lot of explaining but the assessments do (MCPS). MCPS also does not give enough rote practice in homework for kids to master anything. For me, rote practice and mastery of skill should come first, true understanding later (if it doesn't come naturally from the rote practice). Certainly the explanations by the teacher can come alongside, but developing fluency/automaticity in the skills is essential for higher level math. They don't seem to be teaching this way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the Common Core math standards require an immense amount of explaining? No.

Are there schools that interpret the Common Core math standards as requiring an immense amount of explaining? Evidently so.

Do all schools interpret the Common Core math standards as requiring an immense amount of explaining? No. My child's school does not.

They don't now. That all might change when they get their lousy test scores in the fall.

Ah, the DCUM crystal ball again. Well, I'll worry about that if it actually happens.

My DC's school doesn't do an immense amount of inordinate explaining and outside of one study hall session where they just went over test format, procedure and mechanics, his school spent zero time prepping for the PARCC. He took the English PARCC yesterday and said it was a piece of cake.