Ok that's crazy. Shouldn't someone be investigating this? Can we get the education reporter from the WaPo on it? If this is really true, that Common Core is just a ruse to make publishers money, well then I'm speechless. Our children's education is not a game.

I think the idea was well-intended. However, we need to step back and analyze what is going on. This program has taken on a life of its own which is not going to help our students

Finally I can't really explain well why 2 fractions are equivalent, in writing. I can show it with models easily, but can't explain it simply, in words, in a way that will make sense to most people. And I'm not dumb or bad at math.

And, there's the rub. The teachers will have to waste time teaching the kids how to explain their answers. That will take valuable classroom time away from far more important skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again -- more importantly, I think it is enough for a 3rd grader to just demonstrate she knows that 1/3 = 2/6 If the goal is to be able to understand equivalent fractions, I don't think there's a lot of value added by requiring kids to explain, using words, WHY 1/3 - 2/6, as long as they are able to say that 1/3 = 2/6. And 4/8 = 1/2 etc.

I'm pretty sure this is the first post on this thread that actually makes a complaint about something that is part of the Common Core. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on this. Can you tell me why you wouldn't want your third grader to be expected to be able to explain this concept in words or visuals? What do you see as the downsides of teaching this skill, or the advantages of skipping this skill?

I missed this part of your question earlier. I think "in visuals" is fine, and appropriate for 3rd grade. I think REQUIRING words is too much for 3rd grade and for the particular task of explaining why two fractions are equal. I say this because it takes a lot of words to fully explain the reasoning, it is hard for (many) kids to write long sentences in third grade, and because the use of words to explain adds nothing to comprehension above what can be expressed just using a diagram, or "visual fraction model".

In addition, requiring kids to use words to describe why fractions are equivalent just risks getting them more confused.

Finally I can't really explain well why 2 fractions are equivalent, in writing. I can show it with models easily, but can't explain it simply, in words, in a way that will make sense to most people. And I'm not dumb or bad at math.

And I would like to point out, that I think the PARCC question is asking kids to do something that is not called for in the Common Core State Standards.

The third grade standard relevant to this question is as follows:

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.NF.A.3.B
Recognize and generate simple equivalent fractions, e.g., 1/2 = 2/4, 4/6 = 2/3. Explain why the fractions are equivalent, e.g., by using a visual fraction model.

A "visual fraction model" means using a diagram, i.e. showing through a drawing that 3/4 of a figure shaded = the same area as 6/8 of a figure the same size, which the student is asked to show in Part A of the PARC question I linked to.

For third grade, that is all that is expected, and that is all that IS expected. The PARCC question overreaches the standard.

I don't think any of those answers make sense.

One question is what constitutes a "proficient" answer here. I wouldn't be surprised if something as simple as

They are the same size.

Or

3/4 is the same as 6/8 because they fit on top of each other.

is acceptable

A more sophisticated answer would probably be something along the lines of

If I put two beans in each row, then I can fit six beans in 3 parts, and 8 beans in all the parts. So 6/8 is the same as 3/4.

Or

The field is cut in 8ths. You can stick 2 pieces together and it makes 1/4. If you stick 6 pieces together it makes 3/4. So 6/8 is the same as 3/4.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again -- more importantly, I think it is enough for a 3rd grader to just demonstrate she knows that 1/3 = 2/6 If the goal is to be able to understand equivalent fractions, I don't think there's a lot of value added by requiring kids to explain, using words, WHY 1/3 - 2/6, as long as they are able to say that 1/3 = 2/6. And 4/8 = 1/2 etc.

I'm pretty sure this is the first post on this thread that actually makes a complaint about something that is part of the Common Core. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on this. Can you tell me why you wouldn't want your third grader to be expected to be able to explain this concept in words or visuals? What do you see as the downsides of teaching this skill, or the advantages of skipping this skill?

You are right it is so simple: "I listened to my brain talk, and I agreed of the answer I got in my brain."

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/nemi1a/common-core-confusion

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again -- more importantly, I think it is enough for a 3rd grader to just demonstrate she knows that 1/3 = 2/6 If the goal is to be able to understand equivalent fractions, I don't think there's a lot of value added by requiring kids to explain, using words, WHY 1/3 - 2/6, as long as they are able to say that 1/3 = 2/6. And 4/8 = 1/2 etc.

I'm pretty sure this is the first post on this thread that actually makes a complaint about something that is part of the Common Core. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on this. Can you tell me why you wouldn't want your third grader to be expected to be able to explain this concept in words or visuals? What do you see as the downsides of teaching this skill, or the advantages of skipping this skill?

I'm the PP you are responding to - and I have also been posting here quite frequently ... I am the teacher who greatly supports Common Core.

I just think that requiring kids to explain, using words, how they know that 1/3 = 2/6th in third grade, isn't very useful, and is in fact difficult. I don't think the Common Core standards requires kids to do this, but I did see it as a sample question on the PARCC.

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

"Type a fraction different than 3/4 that also represents the fractional part of the field...... and explain why the two fractions are equal..."

I think it is hard to explain why 3/4 = 6/8 and is not really necessary. I'm very good at math but I would find it hard to explain why 3/4 = 6/8, except by saying that I divided the numerator and denominator by 2, but that doesn't really explain WHY that creates an equivalent fraction.

Of course, I mean I multiplied the numerator and denominator by 2! But that's part of why this is complicated for kids to explain... when you divide the three out of four parts in half, that multiplies how many parts there are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again -- more importantly, I think it is enough for a 3rd grader to just demonstrate she knows that 1/3 = 2/6 If the goal is to be able to understand equivalent fractions, I don't think there's a lot of value added by requiring kids to explain, using words, WHY 1/3 - 2/6, as long as they are able to say that 1/3 = 2/6. And 4/8 = 1/2 etc.

I'm pretty sure this is the first post on this thread that actually makes a complaint about something that is part of the Common Core. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on this. Can you tell me why you wouldn't want your third grader to be expected to be able to explain this concept in words or visuals? What do you see as the downsides of teaching this skill, or the advantages of skipping this skill?

I'm the PP you are responding to - and I have also been posting here quite frequently ... I am the teacher who greatly supports Common Core.

I just think that requiring kids to explain, using words, how they know that 1/3 = 2/6th in third grade, isn't very useful, and is in fact difficult. I don't think the Common Core standards requires kids to do this, but I did see it as a sample question on the PARCC.

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

"Type a fraction different than 3/4 that also represents the fractional part of the field...... and explain why the two fractions are equal..."

I think it is hard to explain why 3/4 = 6/8 and is not really necessary. I'm very good at math but I would find it hard to explain why 3/4 = 6/8, except by saying that I divided the numerator and denominator by 2, but that doesn't really explain WHY that creates an equivalent fraction.

Explaining in visuals would be OK -- look at the problem given at the link -- if you have 3/4 shaded, and then cut every part in half, you would then have 6/8 shaded. But saying "3/4 pieces were shaded, then I drew a line down each part and that created 6 out of 8 parts shaded -- is a lot of words, but doesn't really add anything to the meaning or demonstrate understanding of the concept.

I think it is hard to explain some math concepts using words, especially when you are only in 3rd grade.

If you can give me a good example of how a third grader should respond to the problem I linked to, please do. Remember 3rd graders are 8 or 9 years old and not all of them can write well.

Anonymous wrote:PP again -- more importantly, I think it is enough for a 3rd grader to just demonstrate she knows that 1/3 = 2/6 If the goal is to be able to understand equivalent fractions, I don't think there's a lot of value added by requiring kids to explain, using words, WHY 1/3 - 2/6, as long as they are able to say that 1/3 = 2/6. And 4/8 = 1/2 etc.

I'm pretty sure this is the first post on this thread that actually makes a complaint about something that is part of the Common Core. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on this. Can you tell me why you wouldn't want your third grader to be expected to be able to explain this concept in words or visuals? What do you see as the downsides of teaching this skill, or the advantages of skipping this skill?

Anonymous wrote:PP again -- more importantly, I think it is enough for a 3rd grader to just demonstrate she knows that 1/3 = 2/6 If the goal is to be able to understand equivalent fractions, I don't think there's a lot of value added by requiring kids to explain, using words, WHY 1/3 - 2/6, as long as they are able to say that 1/3 = 2/6. And 4/8 = 1/2 etc.

Don't worry, when the kids fail the test the first year, it will be changed.

PP again -- more importantly, I think it is enough for a 3rd grader to just demonstrate she knows that 1/3 = 2/6 If the goal is to be able to understand equivalent fractions, I don't think there's a lot of value added by requiring kids to explain, using words, WHY 1/3 - 2/6, as long as they are able to say that 1/3 = 2/6. And 4/8 = 1/2 etc.

Anonymous wrote:

That doesn't seem like a particularly hard question.

Because if you have 1/3 and you cut it in half you'll have 2 smaller pieces and 6 of those pieces will fit in the whole.

It's hard for a 3rd grader to explain.

Anonymous wrote:

If you have problems with the basics of standardized testing, then you are not going to be happy with any standardized tests... including the PARCC. That has nothing to do with Common Core -- you would have objections to ANY type of standardized test one presumes.

So there's really no reason to listen to your opinion on this topic.

Whoa! My point is that these tests are designed to judge critical thinking by what the designers judge to be "best practice". That won't fly.

Yeah, that's how standardized tests work. There are right answers and wrong answers, as measured by the test designers. No way to get around that, on a standardized test.

Anonymous wrote:Again, you cannot separate standards from implementation. They are so intricately linked, that if you try, you have immediate failure because there is no way to measure the results of the standards.

Obamacare crashed because the program did not meet those standards. You are correct. That is due to the IMPLEMENTATION of the standards - the devil is in the details. What you are missing (because you have had no decent business classes) is that the cost to date has been 1 BILLION dollars because of the poor IMPLEMENTATION of the standards.

Failure is not free.

At what price paradise?

Amen sister! And guess who supports both of these? Hmmm. He's obviously no businessman.