Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you look at the SMART Balanced PARCC aligned tests ecamples, they do indeed require multiple sentences.

Also, just point of information....


Smarter Balanced Assessment is one test, PARCC is another.

Yes, I forgot the "and."

And CPM math is the only math that didn't have to be re-written to be Common Core aligned. It's been a failure at most schools that have used it. It was popular in California in the 90s, but they abandoned it after test scores plummeted. IT was recently thrown out of a Connecticut school district when parents rebelled, and some parents in a school in Oregon have started pulling out their kids for math because their former A students started failing math -- they simply had no idea what they are doing.




Here's a great article explaining the problems with the Common Core math standards:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/a-new-kind-of-problem-the-common-core-math-standards/265444/
A New Kind of Problem: The Common Core Math Standards

Anonymous wrote:

If you look at the SMART Balanced PARCC aligned tests ecamples, they do indeed require multiple sentences.

Also, just point of information....


Smarter Balanced Assessment is one test, PARCC is another.

Anonymous wrote:

If you look at the SMART Balanced PARCC aligned tests ecamples, they do indeed require multiple sentences.


And if you look at the CC aligned math curriculums like CPM math, the problems are pages long word problems with multiple steps. We are living this, so I know it is true.

So, there is a legitimate concern. The Common Core standards themselves do NOT require answers written in sentence form, or even using words.

I don't know what the CPM math is. Is it this? http://www.cpm.org

ANYone can say they are "Common Core Aligned" but there is nothing to prevent them from adding in anything they want. If the curriculum makers decide that answering in multiparagraph sentences is what they expect, then they will write that into their curriculum.

To effectively protest this, don't say "Scrap Common Core" say "Align your requirements with what is actually IN the Common Core standards"

I agree that the PARCC assessments will in fact dictate what is actually taught, so if PARCC is requiring multi-sentence written answers in addition to numerical equations or drawings, then that is something that needs to be protested, and changed.

If you look at the SMART Balanced PARCC aligned tests ecamples, they do indeed require multiple sentences.


And if you look at the CC aligned math curriculums like CPM math, the problems are pages long word problems with multiple steps. We are living this, so I know it is true.

Here's a standard from the Third Grade Common Core that requires "explanation"

CCSS.Math.Content.3.OA.D.9

Identify arithmetic patterns (including patterns in the addition table or multiplication table), and explain them using properties of operations.
For example, observe that 4 times a number is always even, and explain why 4 times a number can be decomposed into two equal addends.

There is nothing in this standard that requires a student explain her thinking in complete sentences, or using words. She could use numbers. For example:


(words)
6x5 will be an even number because it is the same as two equal groups of 3x5

pictures:

6x5 = (3x5) + (3x5) (Child would use a circle instead of a parenthesis)

I will say that my third grade child would not currently be able to answer a question like this. I agree it is reasonable to ask most third grade children this question, but the way she is currently being taught, she does not understand that "even" means "composed of two equal addends".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is so true. Thank you for explain it well. I don't like the way math is taught here. Elementary math is the foundation of more complex math, not just simple calculus. Math language should be emphasized more. It's a pain to see sticks, bundles and other objects to be used to teach kids math beyond number 20 and poor math expressions everywhere. I'm not kidding, a random sheet from kid's homework pile has 2*8 = 16 + 1 = 17 as an example to let them exercise addition and multiplication. Isn't it more of a problem to incorrectly use "equal" sign here than not to be able to explain in english why 2*8 = 16? Seriously!

I'm guessing that this was

2*8 = 16 [separating space here] + 1 = 17

Which, actually, is a good way to teach elementary math as a foundation of more complex math.

There is no way on earth that this is a valid 'math sentence' and I completely disagree that this a good way to teach elementary math.
I'm sorry, but the sentence is complete nonsense!

Anonymous wrote:

This is Common Core math, folks. It's going to be a disaster for many kids, because it puts up a huge language barrier in front of math. So kids who are weak in reading and writing will now also be listed as a failure in math, even if it would be a strong subject for them. This is happening to autistic children all across the country.

Also, there's zero proof that it teaches anyone math more "rigorously and deeply." Our kids are Common Core guinea pigs.

You again? Anti-common core "guinea pig" extremist, "the common core sky is falling" poster?

Look, a bad math question is a bad math question. But there isn't anything in COmmon Core standards that require a child be asked a bad math question.

This is Common Core math, folks. It's going to be a disaster for many kids, because it puts up a huge language barrier in front of math. So kids who are weak in reading and writing will now also be listed as a failure in math, even if it would be a strong subject for them. This is happening to autistic children all across the country.

Also, there's zero proof that it teaches anyone math more "rigorously and deeply." Our kids are Common Core guinea pigs.

There's also this concept that a specialist who knows content is unable to teach it properly. Content specialists in many areas prefer teachers with a degree in education to someone who has a degree in the content area itself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is so true. Thank you for explain it well. I don't like the way math is taught here. Elementary math is the foundation of more complex math, not just simple calculus. Math language should be emphasized more. It's a pain to see sticks, bundles and other objects to be used to teach kids math beyond number 20 and poor math expressions everywhere. I'm not kidding, a random sheet from kid's homework pile has 2*8 = 16 + 1 = 17 as an example to let them exercise addition and multiplication. Isn't it more of a problem to incorrectly use "equal" sign here than not to be able to explain in english why 2*8 = 16? Seriously!

I'm guessing that this was

2*8 = 16 [separating space here] + 1 = 17

Which, actually, is a good way to teach elementary math as a foundation of more complex math.

I am afraid that the bold math equation is totally wrong regardless how many spaces are used. Please not teach kids this way. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

I really think part of the reason is that most the top math score countries use math specialist from the very beginning. Whereas in the US, most of the elementary school teachers are deeply uncomfortable with math themselves.

+10000 Education degrees require very little complex math and attract the English or communications type student. Curriculum 2.0 is being written by MCPS staffers with the same lack of math skills. Its an insular and in-bred system that doesn't attract the best and brightest.

+10000 again. My DC has actually had MCPS math teachers who have taught entire math concepts incorrectly, i.e. in a way that gives kids the wrong answers and assessing and grading the wrong answers as "correct". It has not been an isolated happening and seems to occur because the teachers themselves have no understanding of math beyond basic memorization. A teacher who doesn't "deeply understand" can't teach "deeper understanding" even with a curriculum which ostensibly promotes "deeper understanding".

I really think part of the reason is that most the top math score countries use math specialist from the very beginning. Whereas in the US, most of the elementary school teachers are deeply uncomfortable with math themselves.

+10000 Education degrees require very little complex math and attract the English or communications type student. Curriculum 2.0 is being written by MCPS staffers with the same lack of math skills. Its an insular and in-bred system that doesn't attract the best and brightest.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who seriously think this type of verbal exercise is going to improve the PISA score is delusional.

I really think part of the reason is that most the top math score countries use math specialist from the very beginning. Whereas in the US, most of the elementary school teachers are deeply uncomfortable with math themselves.

This is very true. From China here, we have math teachers to teach only math starting grade 1. The math teachers of the same grade form a team and grade homework and exams together. They also discuss issues and possible solutions together so that every teacher will learn from each other to profound their math understanding. There is always at least one senior teacher in the team to guide the young ones gain confidence in teaching math. I don't know how the teachers deepen their knowledge here, I guess through the professional training? but that's only a few weeks a year.

Anyone who seriously think this type of verbal exercise is going to improve the PISA score is delusional.

I really think part of the reason is that most the top math score countries use math specialist from the very beginning. Whereas in the US, most of the elementary school teachers are deeply uncomfortable with math themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the original question was that 3/4 was 6/8 then a good explanation would be a picture that showed that equal amounts were shaded.

I agree with PP that the original explanation was not good.

The problem I am having is that I got this question from a sample 3rd grade PARCC assessment question called "THe field"

http://www.parcconline.org/samples/mathematics/grade-3-mathematics-field

The FIRST part of the question has the child using a picture to demonstrate 3/4 of a field cut into 8ths.

The SECOND part of the question asks the child to write in numbers a fraction that is the same as 3/4.

The THIRD part of the question then asks the child to explain IN WORDS how she knows that 3/4 = 6/8 (or whatever equivalent fraction the child wrote for part 2).

So please tell me, using words, what a good answer to part three would be.

Anyone? This is a genuine question -- I'd love to know how to answer the question.

Ex-math teacher here (but I didn't teach in this country - only in other English-speaking countries). This is a perfect example of the ridiculous questions I'm seeing in my 3rd grader's text book. There is no real context here. Just an arbitrary 'soybean' thrown in. Really drives me nuts. Who is writing this awful material?! Anyway, I'd ignore this question (the writing part). It's going to do nothing more than confuse the kid.

What gets me is that, while we should be encouraging math dialogue, it should be through talking, not so much writing. I like the use of math vocabulary - I'd love to hear wonderful discussions in the classroom - but let's be realistic about what's really needed to show evidence of understanding, and let's base our expectations on appropriate assumptions of kids' verbal reasoning skills. The greatest danger here is turning kids off the subject.