Anonymous wrote:There are a broad range of jobs in IT. Many do not require math expertise and many US educated IT workers have limited understanding of the technologies they are managing. Its put them at a disadvantage in many ways.

No, you are not developing unique algorithms in words and using a verbal approach to solve the problem and validate your approach.

Honestly, you sound like you are the receptionist at a "very famous" company in SV. Can't wait to hear you come back and make up a title for yourself.

You obviously need CC for comprehension. I did not say I was developing an algorithm using words. I stated I read the problem presented before me in words, then translate them into an algorithm using code. Writing the algorithm requires you to translate the word problem into a "formula" (or algorithm). You obviously don't write any code.

And yes, there are a broad range of IT jobs, and many very successful developers don't even have a college degree. But the one thing they can do, is comprehend problems, which is never presented to them in a neat formula.

BTW, at this very famous company, even receptionists that are employees have degrees from really good universities. So, even if I were a receptionist here, I'd be highly educated and understand math word problems.

When I went to college for Computer Engineering, and ground through all 3 units of Calculus, by the way the culmination was 3-d Calculus, which is really crazy hard.

You just put your head down and churned out numbers and equations, until you could do them in your sleep.

Honestly that taught me more about process and organization than if I did half the work and then wrote down some blah, blah, blah explanation.

You have to understand the theory and application to derive the original formula, but when you get down to the brass tacks of any engineering discipline it is about the numbers, and knowing how to get to the answer.

Writing a bunch of explanation about how you get the final value in the actual equation is not going to help anyone. Sometimes it just comes down to good old fashioned hard work.

This is absurd. First if anybody doesn't hate Curriculum 2.0, that proves that they must work for MCPS -- even if they don't. Now if anybody who doesn't hate Curriculum 2.0, that proves that they must be bad at math -- even if they actually work in math.

Why the inability to understand that there are people who know what they are talking about, and come from a position of good faith, who nonetheless disagree with you?

There are a broad range of jobs in IT. Many do not require math expertise and many US educated IT workers have limited understanding of the technologies they are managing. Its put them at a disadvantage in many ways.

No, you are not developing unique algorithms in words and using a verbal approach to solve the problem and validate your approach.

Honestly, you sound like you are the receptionist at a "very famous" company in SV. Can't wait to hear you come back and make up a title for yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Real life math problems consists of words. They are not laid out for you in a nice, neat formula. I'm in IT. When writing an algorithm the problem is usually first presented to me in words. I have to translate those words into an algorithm. So, it is vital that you understand how to "read" a math problem.

You aren't understanding and solving it in words unless you are very bad at IT.

Are you in IT? I'm actually pretty successful in IT. I work for a *very* famous high tech company in SV. The problem is presented to you in words. You translate those words in to an algorithm. Pretty much only in a math classroom is math presented to you *only* in numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

I can see how lower reading/writing skilled students would be forced to relearn how to do math in a verbal way and fail at it.

Math is NOT a verbal discipline!!! There is a reason why math includes numeric values, symbols, and equations. You do not build foundational math skills or approach complex math later on with a verbal method any more than you write a storytelling novel using numeric, values, symbols and equations.

I really wish that we could have immersion day for the math phobic language arts people driving this curriculum. Kids K-3 would only be allowed to read Biscuit and pre-reader level picture books despite their reading level. All written work would need to be expressed in 0s and 1s, the core of binary ASCII text code. We can then see how they enjoy the deeper, rich language sense that we are giving them.

And yet in every math class I have ever taken, including graduate-level classes, the instructors have used words. Lots of words. Unfortunately not always to good effect. Maybe if they'd been taught using the Common Core approach in elementary school, they would have been able to explain and teach better.

Real life math problems consists of words. They are not laid out for you in a nice, neat formula. I'm in IT. When writing an algorithm the problem is usually first presented to me in words. I have to translate those words into an algorithm. So, it is vital that you understand how to "read" a math problem.

You aren't understanding and solving it in words unless you are very bad at IT.

Anonymous wrote:

I can see how lower reading/writing skilled students would be forced to relearn how to do math in a verbal way and fail at it.

Math is NOT a verbal discipline!!! There is a reason why math includes numeric values, symbols, and equations. You do not build foundational math skills or approach complex math later on with a verbal method any more than you write a storytelling novel using numeric, values, symbols and equations.

I really wish that we could have immersion day for the math phobic language arts people driving this curriculum. Kids K-3 would only be allowed to read Biscuit and pre-reader level picture books despite their reading level. All written work would need to be expressed in 0s and 1s, the core of binary ASCII text code. We can then see how they enjoy the deeper, rich language sense that we are giving them.

Real life math problems consists of words. They are not laid out for you in a nice, neat formula. I'm in IT. When writing an algorithm the problem is usually first presented to me in words. I have to translate those words into an algorithm. So, it is vital that you understand how to "read" a math problem.

I can see how lower reading/writing skilled students would be forced to relearn how to do math in a verbal way and fail at it.

Math is NOT a verbal discipline!!! There is a reason why math includes numeric values, symbols, and equations. You do not build foundational math skills or approach complex math later on with a verbal method any more than you write a storytelling novel using numeric, values, symbols and equations.

I really wish that we could have immersion day for the math phobic language arts people driving this curriculum. Kids K-3 would only be allowed to read Biscuit and pre-reader level picture books despite their reading level. All written work would need to be expressed in 0s and 1s, the core of binary ASCII text code. We can then see how they enjoy the deeper, rich language sense that we are giving them.

(The second one is an English/Language Arts standard, not a math standard.)

Rounding numbers doesn't seem too questionable to me. Second one sounds like a word problem. I did lots of them as a kid.

20 years? You want a curriculum to be tested for 20 years before somebody puts it into practice?

And meanwhile everybody will be using the old curricula, which have been researched, independently verified, and tested -- well, how, exactly?

Also, I am wondering which "academic theories" the Common Core standards are based on. This standard, for example:

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1
Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.

Or this standard:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.3.1
Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.

Anonymous wrote:It would be foolish for Common Core supporters to deny that there is controversy. What Common Core supporters deny (or at least this one does) are the following:

1. The standards come out of nowhere.
2. The standards are untested.
3. Nobody else in the world anywhere does anything like this.
4. All of the standards are bad, and I don't have to refer to any specific standards because they are all bad.
5. Common Core is a conspiracy of Bill Gates/Obama/the Trilateral Commission.
6. The standards are simultaneously too easy, too hard, and too standardized.

As for "no scientific evidence shows curriculum improves the quality of math instruction" -- that sounds good, but what specifically do you mean by it? Do you mean that what teachers teach, or how teachers teach, is not related to how well teachers teach? Specifically what kind of evidence would satisfy you?

Good question!

CC is based on academic theories. Now some academic theories are excellent, indeed revolutionary having profound positive impact on the lives of millions, say the theory of bacterial sensitivity to antibiotic agents. On the other hand academia can produce unfathomably stupid/dangerous theories such as Malthusian population control.

Thus before put into practice, a theory must be meticulously researched and independently verified. Regarding CC, I’d feel comfortable with a state pilot program. Allow a state to follow CC students for 20 years then do a retrospective analysis. Did graduates of CC have statistically significant improvement or results exceeding their non CC peers? Data points could be national test results, college entry rates, college graduation rates, employment rates, income, etc). If yes then other states can adapt into their education systems. But if not (or CC graduates do worse)… well consider the implications. For right now far too many states are jumping on an unproven bandwagon. Potentially an utter catastrophe awaits us in 20 years.

Look at what common core math looks like (TERRIBLE)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/31/a-ridiculous-common-core-test-for-first-graders/

Are any other countries doing common core math, what about finland which has the best schools? NO.

http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/articles/2014/02/25/how-does-common-core-compare-to-other-countries

It would be foolish for Common Core supporters to deny that there is controversy. What Common Core supporters deny (or at least this one does) are the following:

1. The standards come out of nowhere.
2. The standards are untested.
3. Nobody else in the world anywhere does anything like this.
4. All of the standards are bad, and I don't have to refer to any specific standards because they are all bad.
5. Common Core is a conspiracy of Bill Gates/Obama/the Trilateral Commission.
6. The standards are simultaneously too easy, too hard, and too standardized.

As for "no scientific evidence shows curriculum improves the quality of math instruction" -- that sounds good, but what specifically do you mean by it? Do you mean that what teachers teach, or how teachers teach, is not related to how well teachers teach? Specifically what kind of evidence would satisfy you?