Common Core....wow...just wow.

[Χά�ων]

 

 

Probably because the people that support educational standards usually say something along the lines of, "Just read them, okay?" and the people against them are so busy shrieking some unintelligible nonsense about Communism and Hitler and indoctrination and the antichrist that no one can understand what the heck they're saying. If it seems like only crazies are against them around here, well, I think that speaks for itself.

 

I have read them and am not on the crazy train, and I do not like the CC standards.

[kiwik]

I couldn't get the video to work and I don't have a horse in the race but I would be leery of anything from that website.

[WishboneDawn]

Just wondering...Aren't there seperate issues the video is conflating. There's CC and then there's the specific Zane-Bloser book used in the video. Is the emotional language and term "nag" something dictated by CC? Is it ZB's responsibility entirely? Is it a misreading of CC?

 

I have no opinion on CC (up here each province comes up with a province-wide curriculum. Some work together with other provinces to reduce the costs of development and textbooks though) but there seem to be some errors in the approach of the video. I'd be interested in CC objections that made clear and reasonable arguments and I'm pretty sure they're out there.

[WishboneDawn]

Just wondering...Aren't there seperate issues the video is conflating. There's CC and then there's the specific Zane-Bloser book used in the video. Is the emotional language and term "nag" something dictated by CC? Is it ZB's responsibility entirely? Is it a misreading of CC?

 

I have no opinion on CC (up here each province comes up with a province-wide curriculum. Some work together with other provinces to reduce the costs of development and textbooks though) but there seem to be some errors in the approach of the video. I'd be interested in CC objections that made clear and reasonable arguments and I'm pretty sure they're out there.

[SarahW]

I'm always surprised at how many conservatives don't understand that Hitler was a conservative, too.

An extreme one, granted, but the complete polar opposite on the political spectrum from a communist (who is an extreme liberal).

Politically speaking, Hitler is far closer to Glenn Beck than he is to Marx...

 

 

You said it! Not me!

 

:leaving:

 

 

My husband is from a country that was occupied by the nazi's, and he was flabbergasted the first time he heard someone refer to Obama as both a Nazi and a Communist. "Did they just mis-speak, or are they actually clinically insane?"

 

 

 

 

 

Also, why does the American right appear to use the word "communist" to refer to any policy with even mild social features? Is it because they don't know what "communism" means, or because they are trying to manipulate people? Or perhaps a bit of both?

 

 

Most Americans don't know what communism actually is, so they are easy to manipulate by those who want to scare them. My husband has had to explain to Americans all the ways Obama is not a communist so many times he's quite tired of it. But I suspect most of the people he's talked to prefer to trust the talking heads on TV over him - even though his country does actually have a Communist party (not very big, but bigger than the one here in America).

[Butter]

Also, why does the American right appear to use the word "communist" to refer to any policy with even mild social features? Is it because they don't know what "communism" means, or because they are trying to manipulate people? Or perhaps a bit of both?

 

 

It's because they learned very well how to use their emotional words to persuade people. Apparently emotional words used by a 6 year old = bad, but emotional words used by an adult with an agenda = good. Really, it's both. I don't think they know what communism means. (And, ftr, I'm a *right* leaning libertarian.)

[MamaSprout]

I don't need to watch the video to determine that CC isn't for us. I don't like or use materials that indoctrinate. What I have seen of CC materials is that they are hugely slanted toward the environmentalists (we are taxing the air now), and the math is just stupid. We used to teach one best way to solve a math problem. Now, we present five different solutions and tell the kid to pick the one they like best. No better way to confuse a kid, IMO.

 

Huh? Not that I love CC... but wow. In the old days you didn't waste your resources... you know, victory gardens, and all. Now it's indoctrination?

 

Bean

[kristen18]

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with the CC? This kind of stuff bugs me to no end. Someone has a personal anecdote about something that happened in a public school that they disagreed with, therefore public schools are all bad, therefore CC must be bad too. Just once I'd like to see people debate the actual content of the standards.

 

When it comes down to it, personal anecdotes reflect what is *actually* happening in a location as a result of what is being called "education reform" in my state. CC is a part of that. I have a friend who works in a neighboring school district. Their students routinely test near the top in our state. They have recently fired their middle school librarians because the kids don't have time to go because of new initiatives. This is just one story about a district that doesn't appear to need any reform, but there are many other strange changes afoot. I am not going to ignore or discount what I see going on around me, because it is how these standards are actually manifesting in the schools that matters.

[Butter]

the math is just stupid. We used to teach one best way to solve a math problem. Now, we present five different solutions and tell the kid to pick the one they like best. No better way to confuse a kid, IMO.

 

I'm puzzled by this. On standardized tests, that's *exactly* how it's always been. The first standardized test I ever took way back in the mid-80s have 4 or 5 choices for each question and we were to pick the one we liked best. My kids took standardized tests this year and it's still the same. The SAT and ACT are the same as well.

 

Also, what makes this most puzzling, is not long ago there was a "look how horrible Common Core is!" link I followed posted by a FB friend (don't have the link available, sorry). It showed the "old" way of answering a math problem and it was ABCD multiple choice. And then it showed the "Common Core" way and it didn't have a multiple choice answer. Instead, the kids had to explain in sentences how to get the answer. The gist of the site was saying this is terrible because it's language based and doesn't show the kids understands the math. I was scratching my head over that one because the ABCD multiple choice question can be totally guessed on (25% chance of getting it right... better if you can eliminate one or two before answering) but writing how to get the answer means they have to actually understand the math and how to solve the problem.

 

If teachers are using all multiple choice Common Core aligned materials, then that is not okay, but it's also not a failing of Common Core itself. Every math-teaching-related book I have seen do indeed teach how to do the math and have plenty of non-multiple choice problems.

 

Remember: Common Core is not a curriculum. It is a set of guidelines. The companies that write the books are adhering to the guidelines in the way they see fit. If there is something terrible about the books, it is on the publisher. Same as it's always been, actually.

 

There are plenty of good arguments against Common Core out there. Unfortunately, the vast majority are like this one and do not facilitate real discussion and debates on the merits of the actual guidelines (and whether or not the federal government should be setting the guidelines in the first place). My best friend is attending college to become an elementary school teacher. In general, the view is that Common Core will not be great, but a lot has to do with how it is actually used in the schools (some will be great, some will not as has already been seen in schools that are already Common Core aligned). At any rate it is hoped it will be better than No Child Left Behind and not end up as No Child Left Behind II.

[TracyP]

My SIL is a teacher and she likes the CC standards. *shrug* The state I live in (MN), started aligning language arts to CC in 2010. We have not adopted the math standards. MN has more rigorous math standards than CC and we have decided to keep it that way. ;) Nothing big and bad has happened here after several years of CC. I can't say that anything good has happened, either. This is just another new standard put out by the powers that be.

 

IMO, there are good points (the focus on critical thinking) and bad parts (the writing standards). Like someone else said, we could possibly have rational discussion about the good and bad on points like these. Instead, we have threads like this.

[DarlaS]

Just wondering...Aren't there seperate issues the video is conflating. There's CC and then there's the specific Zane-Bloser book used in the video. Is the emotional language and term "nag" something dictated by CC? Is it ZB's responsibility entirely? Is it a misreading of CC?

 

I have no opinion on CC (up here each province comes up with a province-wide curriculum. Some work together with other provinces to reduce the costs of development and textbooks though) but there seem to be some errors in the approach of the video. I'd be interested in CC objections that made clear and reasonable arguments and I'm pretty sure they're out there.

 

 

That was a grade 1 reading/lit book. Standards never dictate specific content. ONLY specific skills. If you read the standards, you can see that they can be met with any book.

 

FYI, looking at the list below, it should be quite apparent that a good many publishers supplying homeschoolers would align with Common Core.

 

These are the actual standards for gr. 1 taken directly from Common Core Website:

 

http://www.corestand...A-Literacy/RL/1

 

English Language Arts Standards » Reading: Literature » Grade 1

 

Standards in this strand:

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.1
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.3
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.4
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.7
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.9
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.10
  

Key Ideas and Details

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.1 Ask and answer questions about key details in a text.
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2 Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson.
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.3 Describe characters, settings, and major events in a story, using key details.
  

Craft and Structure

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.4 Identify words and phrases in stories or poems that suggest feelings or appeal to the senses.
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5 Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information, drawing on a wide reading of a range of text types.
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6 Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text.
  

Integration of Knowledge and Ideas

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.7 Use illustrations and details in a story to describe its characters, setting, or events.
  
• (RL.1.8 not applicable to literature)
  
• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.9 Compare and contrast the adventures and experiences of characters in stories.
  

Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.10 With prompting and support, read prose and poetry of appropriate complexity for grade 1.
  

[Critterfixer]

IMO, there are good points (the focus on critical thinking) and bad parts (the writing standards). Like someone else said, we could possibly have rational discussion about the good and bad on points like these. Instead, we have threads like this.

 

I for one would like to see a thread on the merits and the bunk in the CC standards.

[CatholicMom]

I think what he is talking about in the video sounds like "persuasive writing," but gone a little too far in some respects (using disrespectful language like "nag" about your mom is not OK, IMO). I also think that the "social advocacy" stuff is a bit beyond what most 1st graders can comprehend and seems a little silly to me to use that as a theme in 1st grade. In 1st grade kids are also not able to differentiate persuasive writing from the logical fallacy "argumentum ad passiones" (aka appeal to emotion) and I think the line is being blurred. It does seem that the ZB book is encouraging kids to appeal to emotion with or without a valid argument. Part of the reason could definitely be a 1st grader's ability, but then I would say save these discussions for when they are in the logic stage and can understand the points being made.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

 

I'm puzzled by this. On standardized tests, that's *exactly* how it's always been. The first standardized test I ever took way back in the mid-80s have 4 or 5 choices for each question and we were to pick the one we liked best. My kids took standardized tests this year and it's still the same. The SAT and ACT are the same as well.

 

I thought cdrumm was saying that now the math programs are teaching several different methods to solve problems and telling kids to pick the one they like best, not referring to multiple choice tests. Which I still find confusing because I've used both RightStart and Singapore to teach my kids, and I'm pretty sure they focus heavily on the knowledge that there are multiple ways to get to a solution, and you should know them all so you can rely on the one that gets you there fastest. In fact, I recently went through several lessons that hammered on the various strategies for resolving fraction-based problems. And I'm pretty sure Singapore has been a highly respected math program since well before the CC was adopted. No?

[Butter]

I thought cdrumm was saying that now the math programs are teaching several different methods to solve problems and telling kids to pick the one they like best, not referring to multiple choice tests. Which I still find confusing because I've used both RightStart and Singapore to teach my kids, and I'm pretty sure they focus heavily on the knowledge that there are multiple ways to get to a solution, and you should know them all so you can rely on the one that gets you there fastest. In fact, I recently went through several lessons that hammered on the various strategies for resolving fraction-based problems. And I'm pretty sure Singapore has been a highly respected math program since well before the CC was adopted. No?

 

If that's what she is referring to, then I am still puzzled and for the very same reasons you outline here. Fact is, there really is more than one way to solve many math problems. It wasn't that long ago there was a thread on here about (if I am remembering correctly) the difference between method of long division in the US and Europe. Both ways got the same answer. Some people thought one way was easier, some thought the other way was easier. Therefore, people could choose the one they liked best.

 

Not long ago I saw a video of some lady who is a meteorologist somewhere who is VERY anti-Common Core. I watched the video and laughed because some of these "horrible" ways taught to solve multiplication problems were ways my dyslexic son had come up with *on his own* because the traditional way makes zero sense to him. They were also based heavily in place value and not "just memorize this pattern and do it" like most of us were taught. I couldn't figure out why it was so horrible for kids to be taught that multiplying 36x42 means at one point you are multiplying 30x40 and not 3x4. And then she said something that really struck me. She said this was not the way WE (parents) were taught and so WE (parents) may not understand how to help out kids with their math homework and this is clearly a bad thing and apparently reasons to ditch those particular math curricula completely (according to her).

 

And, yes, Singapore is very highly respected... As are most others that have said they are aligned with the Common Core after making NO changes to the books at all (or very few).

[Critterfixer]

You know what always happens to me when I reference the CC standards? (I've got them on file in my homeschool documents file, but I just can't bring myself to print them all out. Waste of good paper, there.) I always go to my shelves and pull Abolition of Man out and read it.

[melmichigan]

I for one would like to see a thread on the merits and the bunk in the CC standards.

 

 

But then everyone would actually have to read them, digest the information, and form their own opinion. It's much easier to make a decision based on propaganda articles, ridiculous video shorts, and emails from religious organizations. :rant:

[Critterfixer]

Part of the reason could definitely be a 1st grader's ability, but then I would say save these discussions for when they are in the logic stage and can understand the points being made.

 

This would be one of my major issues with the CC standards for language arts.

[DarlaS]

This would be one of my major issues with the CC standards for language arts.

 

That would be an issue for that book. The actual standard is this:

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.4 Identify words and phrases in stories or poems that suggest feelings or appeal to the senses.
  

IDENTIFY. That's it. I would think most first graders could do that.

[Critterfixer]

But then everyone would actually have to read them, digest the information, and form their own opinion. It's much easier to make a decision based on propaganda articles, ridiculous video shorts, and emails from religious organizations.

 

They are a bit of a pain to read. Language arts is 66 pages in a really strange format. To see all elementary grades on one page, I'd have to print them, and I just can't bring myself to print them at 66 pages, knowing that I'd have to individually work through the pages to lay out the pages properly.

Not to excuse anyone from not reading them. I did, at least through the grade level I am teaching currently. I've not gone through the upper grade CC standards yet.

And I don't care for them. There's some good stuff, and some good stuff on the surface that when considered seems pretty murky to me.

FWIW, I think the intentions were good. There seems to be a great deal of effort put into them (66 pages in Language Arts!) and a lot of thought went into them. I'm just not convinced that the thinking was good. But I'm no educator. Just a mom who teaches exactly two little boys and won't be educating any others. For me to get into a huge discussion over whether the CC is good or bad for kids wouldn't make sense. It would be like trying to make a comparison between the way I raise, feed and tend my small flock of chickens and the way a commercial operation has to do things. Can't be done.

Of course, I'm not too happy with the commercial operation subjecting my little chickens to their standards either.

[albeto]

My SIL is a teacher and she likes the CC standards. *shrug* The state I live in (MN), started aligning language arts to CC in 2010. We have not adopted the math standards. MN has more rigorous math standards than CC and we have decided to keep it that way. ;) Nothing big and bad has happened here after several years of CC. I can't say that anything good has happened, either. This is just another new standard put out by the powers that be.

 

Not true. MN just made marriage legal to all adult couples who want to get married.

 

Coincidence?

 

I think not.

 

:glare:

 

First you've got your CC (Communist Core), then you've got Gay Marriage, pretty soon you'll be seeing things like increased literacy rates, decreased teen pregnancy, and relatively high standard of living in that state.

 

Or legalized bestiality. One of the two I'm sure.

 

IMO, there are good points (the focus on critical thinking) and bad parts (the writing standards). Like someone else said, we could possibly have rational discussion about the good and bad on points like these. Instead, we have threads like this.

 

I know, right? Ironic, considering the theme of the book that brought everyone here.

[nmoira]

But then everyone would actually have to read them, digest the information, and form their own opinion. It's much easier to make a decision based on propaganda articles, ridiculous video shorts, and emails from religious organizations. :rant:

 

And compare them to their state's previous/current standards, which requires a whole 'nother round of research.

[Erin]

Thank you Mr. Bush. What a legacy you've left the American educational system. No Child Left Untested.

 

I for one would like to see a thread on the merits and the bunk in the CC standards.

 

I'm not entirely sure there ARE merits. As mentioned, most states have had similar standards in place for 20-30 years. While they have served the purpose of creating guidelines, I'm not sure they've actually done anything miraculous.

On the flip side of that, since most states have had similar standards in place for 20-30 years, I'm not seeing where it's done anything particularly detrimental, either.

 

 

But now it's the feds saying first graders need to know how to add single digits instead of the state....So now disaster ensues?? :confused1:

[Χά�ων]

I am familiar with my states standards prior to CC. I wasn't impressed then. I am not impressed with CC. I feel they had a chance for real change and blew it. I have discovered that my standards tend be a lot different.

[Mergath]

When it comes down to it, personal anecdotes reflect what is *actually* happening in a location as a result of what is being called "education reform" in my state. CC is a part of that. I have a friend who works in a neighboring school district. Their students routinely test near the top in our state. They have recently fired their middle school librarians because the kids don't have time to go because of new initiatives. This is just one story about a district that doesn't appear to need any reform, but there are many other strange changes afoot. I am not going to ignore or discount what I see going on around me, because it is how these standards are actually manifesting in the schools that matters.

 

 

Yes, they reflect what is happening in one location. And that's all. They can't be used to make an overarching argument for or against a set of national standards. And last I checked, the firing of middle school librarians is not one of the standards listed in the CC. Plenty of other schools are implementing the CC without having to fire their librarians, so it sounds like a problem with that one school.

[Farrar]

Another non-conspiracy nut (I hope) who's against them. Sure, educationally, I could parse through them - from what I've read of them, the math is pretty good, the critical thinking is okay, the writing is too much too fast and doesn't reflect my philosophy of language arts at all... But I mostly have problems with the implementation and the role of these big companies who are making so much off it. I don't think it changes the narrative of crisis in the schools. I don't think it will help most kids. I think it will cost a boatload of public money without a huge payoff.

[Cricket]

 

 

 

That was a grade 1 reading/lit book. Standards never dictate specific content. ONLY specific skills. If you read the standards, you can see that they can be met with any book.

 

FYI, looking at the list below, it should be quite apparent that a good many publishers supplying homeschoolers would align with Common Core.

 

These are the actual standards for gr. 1 taken directly from Common Core Website:

 

http://www.corestand...A-Literacy/RL/1

 

 

 

Thanks for this!

[tabinfl]

One thing I haven't seen is much information about the workbook shown in the video. A few seconds on Google brought me to Zaner-Bloser's web page: http://www.zaner-bloser.com/reading/voices-literature-writing

 

It turns out this is not really Language Arts education, but "a supplemental, social-emotional-learning, and character-education resource delivered through a unique, integrated language arts approach." The key word on the cover is Voices, not Literature & Writing.

 

Social-Emotional learning. Character education. That sounds like the anti-bullying, no-cheating, cultural-sensitivity standards and programs that are already in place in many school districts. What do you know... from the web page again: "Voices Literature & Writing complements existing character-education and anti-bullying initiatives already in place in schools and districts. The program supports or aligns to other organizations’ approaches to SEL" Oh, and by the way, this particular workbook lets you check off some of the Common Core requirements for Language Arts too. That's a marketing bonus, not the focus of the curriculum.

 

Knowing this, the video seems even more ridiculous than it did originally. They're clearly counting on uninformed viewers taking their out-of-context tidbits and working up a good froth over them, without ever peeking behind the curtain. Boo.

 

This isn't to say that I would, myself, choose that workbook nor that I particularly like the "character education" as it is implemented in many public schools, but it has nothing to do with Common Core. Or with Communist indoctrination.

[stripe]

Huh? Not that I love CC... but wow. In the old days you didn't waste your resources... you know, victory gardens, and all. Now it's indoctrination?

The Pope just said wasting food is like stealing from the poor, and I don't think he's generally seen as "liberal."

[Jayne J]

Another non-conspiracy nut (I hope) who's against them. Sure, educationally, I could parse through them - from what I've read of them, the math is pretty good, the critical thinking is okay, the writing is too much too fast and doesn't reflect my philosophy of language arts at all... But I mostly have problems with the implementation and the role of these big companies who are making so much off it. I don't think it changes the narrative of crisis in the schools. I don't think it will help most kids. I think it will cost a boatload of public money without a huge payoff.

 

Yes. This.

 

[Mergath]

The Pope just said wasting food is like stealing from the poor, and I don't think he's generally seen as "liberal."

 

You would think everyone would feel that way. I'll never understand why so many people think it's their God-given right to be wasteful and use the world as their own personal garbage can, or why it's seen as a negative to teach children to be respectful of the environment. Even the word "environment" is taboo with certain groups. :rolleyes:

 

Wish we could give those people their own planet so they'll quit screwing up this one. I hear Mars is nice this time of year.

[melmichigan]

And compare them to their state's previous/current standards, which requires a whole 'nother round of research.

 

 

I guess I can stick with the Michigan Content Expectations and Merit Standards for now, all funding for Common Core in Michigan has been blocked by bills passed in the House and now in the Senate.

[cdrumm4448]

 

At this point, I'm just going to start ignoring anyone who refers to the CC as a set of materials, because obviously you don't have the slightest clue what the CC actually is. Try reading the standards. Seriously.

 

And teaching kids to recycle and turn off lights when they leave the room isn't indoctrinating children into environmentalism, or whatever lunacy people are coming up with now. It's common sense.

 

I never stated they were materials. I realize they are a set of standards. To be excruciatingly clear, I am not interested in following CC standards. I've seen the materials. They are slanted toward extreme environmentalism and go far beyond turning off the lights. You are rude and now on ignore.

 

 

Explain to me how CC will make any difference at all. Our local schools cannot even remotely produce students who have achieved mastery of the current standards. How does raising the standards all of a sudden produce mastery?

[cdrumm4448]

 

I'm puzzled by this. On standardized tests, that's *exactly* how it's always been. The first standardized test I ever took way back in the mid-80s have 4 or 5 choices for each question and we were to pick the one we liked best. My kids took standardized tests this year and it's still the same. The SAT and ACT are the same as well.

 

Also, what makes this most puzzling, is not long ago there was a "look how horrible Common Core is!" link I followed posted by a FB friend (don't have the link available, sorry). It showed the "old" way of answering a math problem and it was ABCD multiple choice. And then it showed the "Common Core" way and it didn't have a multiple choice answer. Instead, the kids had to explain in sentences how to get the answer. The gist of the site was saying this is terrible because it's language based and doesn't show the kids understands the math. I was scratching my head over that one because the ABCD multiple choice question can be totally guessed on (25% chance of getting it right... better if you can eliminate one or two before answering) but writing how to get the answer means they have to actually understand the math and how to solve the problem.

 

If teachers are using all multiple choice Common Core aligned materials, then that is not okay, but it's also not a failing of Common Core itself. Every math-teaching-related book I have seen do indeed teach how to do the math and have plenty of non-multiple choice problems.

 

Remember: Common Core is not a curriculum. It is a set of guidelines. The companies that write the books are adhering to the guidelines in the way they see fit. If there is something terrible about the books, it is on the publisher. Same as it's always been, actually.

 

There are plenty of good arguments against Common Core out there. Unfortunately, the vast majority are like this one and do not facilitate real discussion and debates on the merits of the actual guidelines (and whether or not the federal government should be setting the guidelines in the first place). My best friend is attending college to become an elementary school teacher. In general, the view is that Common Core will not be great, but a lot has to do with how it is actually used in the schools (some will be great, some will not as has already been seen in schools that are already Common Core aligned). At any rate it is hoped it will be better than No Child Left Behind and not end up as No Child Left Behind II.

 

I was referring to teaching materials, not standardized tests. I have seen actual CC math teaching materials. Young children need to be taught one best way to solve a math problem, not five. When foundational skills are solid, feel free to expand.

[TXBeth]

 

 

I was referring to teaching materials, not standardized tests. I have seen actual CC math teaching materials. Young children need to be taught one best way to solve a math problem, not five. When foundational skills are solid, feel free to expand.

 

I heartily disagree. I think it is much better to teach young children to actually understand numbers by showing them (or allowing them to discover with your guidance) e many different ways to approach a problem.

Singapore does this, and it is highly effective. Teaching "one best way" to solve a problem leads to memorization of the method without true understanding of the process. Besides which, "one best way" is an artificial construct, since there are actually many ways that are equally "good."

[cdrumm4448]

I heartily disagree. I think it is much better to teach young children to actually understand numbers by showing them (or allowing them to discover with your guidance) e many different ways to approach a problem.

Singapore does this, and it is highly effective. Teaching "one best way" to solve a problem leads to memorization of the method without true understanding of the process. Besides which, "one best way" is an artificial construct, since there are actually many ways that are equally "good."

 

 

CC math materials are confusing and long winded. I use Singapore and it does focus on one main way to solve a problem. The CC-aligned materials I saw were confusing and I would never use them because of it.

[kiwik]

 

 

If that's what she is referring to, then I am still puzzled and for the very same reasons you outline here. Fact is, there really is more than one way to solve many math problems. It wasn't that long ago there was a thread on here about (if I am remembering correctly) the difference between method of long division in the US and Europe. Both ways got the same answer. Some people thought one way was easier, some thought the other way was easier. Therefore, people could choose the one they liked best.

 

Not long ago I saw a video of some lady who is a meteorologist somewhere who is VERY anti-Common Core. I watched the video and laughed because some of these "horrible" ways taught to solve multiplication problems were ways my dyslexic son had come up with *on his own* because the traditional way makes zero sense to him. They were also based heavily in place value and not "just memorize this pattern and do it" like most of us were taught. I couldn't figure out why it was so horrible for kids to be taught that multiplying 36x42 means at one point you are multiplying 30x40 and not 3x4. And then she said something that really struck me. She said this was not the way WE (parents) were taught and so WE (parents) may not understand how to help out kids with their math homework and this is clearly a bad thing and apparently reasons to ditch those particular math curricula completely (according to her).

 

And, yes, Singapore is very highly respected... As are most others that have said they are aligned with the Common Core after making NO changes to the books at all (or very few).

 

In some ways the parents not being able to help with homework is a valid point. A good parent wants to be involved and a lot of them can't cope with the "no we do it this way at school". The parent feels useless and alienated and stops trying to help. This is particularly bad when the child is struggling.

 

This is not a reason to not adopt new methods but it is something to bear in mind - maybe some information and instruction for parents.

 

We have always had a national curriculum and national testing. Now we have national standards. Despite all the hype and hooha the sky hasn't fallen in yet. The fact we have national payrates and all pay for teachers are payer from a central payroll may have people screaming communism but we have a national (rightish wing/conservative/republican) goverment for the second term in a row. Mind you they have just approved a couple of charted schools so the sky may fall yet.

[momma2three]

One thing I haven't seen is much information about the workbook shown in the video. A few seconds on Google brought me to Zaner-Bloser's web page: http://www.zaner-blo...erature-writing

 

It turns out this is not really Language Arts education, but "a supplemental, social-emotional-learning, and character-education resource delivered through a unique, integrated language arts approach." The key word on the cover is Voices, not Literature & Writing.

 

Social-Emotional learning. Character education. That sounds like the anti-bullying, no-cheating, cultural-sensitivity standards and programs that are already in place in many school districts. What do you know... from the web page again: "Voices Literature & Writing complements existing character-education and anti-bullying initiatives already in place in schools and districts. The program supports or aligns to other organizations’ approaches to SEL" Oh, and by the way, this particular workbook lets you check off some of the Common Core requirements for Language Arts too. That's a marketing bonus, not the focus of the curriculum.

 

Knowing this, the video seems even more ridiculous than it did originally. They're clearly counting on uninformed viewers taking their out-of-context tidbits and working up a good froth over them, without ever peeking behind the curtain. Boo.

 

This isn't to say that I would, myself, choose that workbook nor that I particularly like the "character education" as it is implemented in many public schools, but it has nothing to do with Common Core. Or with Communist indoctrination.

 

Nice find! So not only did the original video make ludicrous comparisons... they had to cherry-pick and mis-portray their original source, too. Nice.

[Leav97]

 

 

CC math materials are confusing and long winded. I use Singapore and it does focus on one main way to solve a problem. The CC-aligned materials I saw were confusing and I would never use them because of it.

 

 

Singapore is a CC-aligned math program. When you blanket complain about CC-aligned materials, that includes Singapore.

 

Maybe it's the math program and not the fact it's aligned to CC?

[Butter]

I heartily disagree. I think it is much better to teach young children to actually understand numbers by showing them (or allowing them to discover with your guidance) e many different ways to approach a problem.

Singapore does this, and it is highly effective. Teaching "one best way" to solve a problem leads to memorization of the method without true understanding of the process. Besides which, "one best way" is an artificial construct, since there are actually many ways that are equally "good."

 

 

I think, also, the one best way is what is causing so many parents to freak out. Most of us were taught one best way, memorize it, do it over and over. Now parents are being presented with math homework that isn't done based on the algorithm they were taught. The answer is still the same, the path to it is not. And when parents can't help their kids with their math homework they decide that it is horrible that their kids are being taught alternate ways to do the math. I've seen this happen over and over in FB posts by friends with kids in public school. However, once the parents learn what their kids are being taught almost all of them think it's great and are much more comfortable. Most people react negatively to something not familiar. It is human nature. It doesn't mean that that which is unfamiliar is inherently bad or wrong, however.

 

I used to be the "one way is best and it's obviously the way I was taught that is the best." Then I had a dyslexic son. Learning alternative ways to solve things (and some he's made up himself - but his ways are actually taught in Everyday Math) has been wonderful for him. Learning alternative ways to solve things hasn't hurt my typical 6 year old either. It's actually made him stronger in math. He really understands it (and is super strong in place value)He's not just plugging numbers into places and spitting out the answer. I think really understanding math is much more important than memorizing a method but haveing no clue how it works.

[Garga]

 

 

I never stated they were materials. I realize they are a set of standards. To be excruciatingly clear, I am not interested in following CC standards. I've seen the materials. They are slanted toward extreme environmentalism and go far beyond turning off the lights. You are rude and now on ignore.

 

 

Explain to me how CC will make any difference at all. Our local schools cannot even remotely produce students who have achieved mastery of the current standards. How does raising the standards all of a sudden produce mastery?

 

Wait...you say you know that CC is a set of standards and that they are not materials. But then you say you've seen the materials. That's contradictory.

 

CC is a list of things the child ought to know in each grade, much like the "What Your First Grader Need to Know" series. That's all. It's just a list. Like "In 6th grade a child will:

 

"Use punctuation (commas, parentheses, dashes) to set off nonrestrictive/parenthetical elements."

"Spell correctly."

 

(The above were cut and pasted from this website as an example: http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/L/6 )

 

Every single group out there that creates educational materials, singapore, MUS, the grammar ones, etc, are reviewing their materials to see whether their materials teach the kids to use punctuation to set off nonrestrictive/parenthetical elements in 6th grade.

 

Some curriculum providers already have that in their books--good! They're "aligned" with common core. And some are having to add bits into their books so that they are aligned. (Adding a few paragraphs and exercise questions about dashes, for example.)

 

And that's it. There is no such things as a set of books that were specifically and only created as "common core materials."

 

The environmental thing has been going on for decades. When I took an online anthropology class about 5 years ago we had to answer this question and post our answers online for everyone else to read. The question was something along the lines of "How will the United States of America end?" (It was something like that). Being that it was an anthroplogy class about culture, I wrote about how countries end due to war or a dictator coming to power and changing things. I was 35 years old.

 

ALL the other students, ALL of them wrote that we would end because of an environmental disaster. They were all in their early 20's, late teens. A number of them were Sure the human race would be extinct within 100 years. They were passionate in their responses.

 

That was well before Common Core. The fears about our environment have been being taught for a good 10-15 years. So I'm sure that whoever is writing curric already has those envirnomental issues nestled into their curric, and it's been there for years. The only thing CC does is make sure that along with checking those storm drains, they are spelling correctly and adding parentheses when appropriate.

 

ETA: i'm not picking on you. I think a LOT of people think cc is a new set of text books that are being sent to every school.

 

And you're right. Just because we have cc standards doesn't mean they'll magically be met.

[Garga]

About different ways to do math--yes! That's good! When I sit down with my son and we work on adding or subtracting mixed numerals, we discuss the different ways we could do it. We can change it all to improper fractions, we can make one of the fractions into a whole number, we can find common denominators, we can reduce before we find the common denominators, or after, etc.

 

It is wonderful that there are so many ways to do this and I love it when my son can articulate them all. It means he understands what is "means" and hasn't just memorized a formula.

[cdrumm4448]

In some ways the parents not being able to help with homework is a valid point. A good parent wants to be involved and a lot of them can't cope with the "no we do it this way at school". The parent feels useless and alienated and stops trying to help. This is particularly bad when the child is struggling.

 

This is not a reason to not adopt new methods but it is something to bear in mind - maybe some information and instruction for parents.

 

We have always had a national curriculum and national testing. Now we have national standards. Despite all the hype and hooha the sky hasn't fallen in yet. The fact we have national payrates and all pay for teachers are payer from a central payroll may have people screaming communism but we have a national (rightish wing/conservative/republican) goverment for the second term in a row. Mind you they have just approved a couple of charted schools so the sky may fall yet.

 

 

We do not have a right wingish/conservative/republican government. We have a progressive, over-reaching, Democratically-controlled, overspending government. And these are new standards, not materials, as was previously pointed out.

[cdrumm4448]

Wait...you say you know that CC is a set of standards and that they are not materials. But then you say you've seen the materials. That's contradictory.

 

CC is a list of things the child ought to know in each grade, much like the "What Your First Grader Need to Know" series. That's all. It's just a list. Like "In 6th grade a child will:

 

"Use punctuation (commas, parentheses, dashes) to set off nonrestrictive/parenthetical elements."

"Spell correctly."

 

(The above were cut and pasted from this website as an example: http://www.corestand...LA-Literacy/L/6 )

 

Every single group out there that creates educational materials, singapore, MUS, the grammar ones, etc, are reviewing their materials to see whether their materials teach the kids to use punctuation to set off nonrestrictive/parenthetical elements in 6th grade.

 

Some curriculum providers already have that in their books--good! They're "aligned" with common core. And some are having to add bits into their books so that they are aligned. (Adding a few paragraphs and exercise questions about dashes, for example.)

 

And that's it. There is no such things as a set of books that were specifically and only created as "common core materials."

 

The environmental thing has been going on for decades. When I took an online anthropology class about 5 years ago we had to answer this question and post our answers online for everyone else to read. The question was something along the lines of "How will the United States of America end?" (It was something like that). Being that it was an anthroplogy class about culture, I wrote about how countries end due to war or a dictator coming to power and changing things. I was 35 years old.

 

ALL the other students, ALL of them wrote that we would end because of an environmental disaster. They were all in their early 20's, late teens. A number of them were Sure the human race would be extinct within 100 years. They were passionate in their responses.

 

That was well before Common Core. The fears about our environment have been being taught for a good 10-15 years. So I'm sure that whoever is writing curric already has those envirnomental issues nestled into their curric, and it's been there for years. The only thing CC does is make sure that along with checking those storm drains, they are spelling correctly and adding parentheses when appropriate.

 

ETA: i'm not picking on you. I think a LOT of people think cc is a new set of text books that are being sent to every school.

 

And you're right. Just because we have cc standards doesn't mean they'll magically be met.

 

 

For the love of Pete, do I really need to say I've seen materials that are aligned with .Common Core standards. It's not understood?

[cdrumm4448]

I'm bowing out of this discussion, as some seem keenly intent on making obtuse observations in place of a real conversation. If you love CC standards, by all means, teach to them. If, however, you dislike a national curriculum and believe the federal government has NO business in education, don't use CC-aligned curriculum. I won't be brow beaten on this board by anyone. I couldn't care less what others do, but I will not hide my opinion, or change it because someone tells me to. It's sad to see what this board has become.

[Corraleno]

I'm bowing out of this discussion, as some seem keenly intent on making obtuse observations in place of a real conversation. If you love CC standards, by all means, teach to them. If, however, you dislike a national curriculum and believe the federal government has NO business in education, don't use CC-aligned curriculum. I won't be brow beaten on this board by anyone. I couldn't care less what others do, but I will not hide my opinion, or change it because someone tells me to. It's sad to see what this board has become.

 

You mean like Singapore? And Math Mammoth?

 

I don't think it's the other posters who are being obtuse here — you keep saying you understand the difference between the standards and the materials, but then you claim that, because certain curriculum providers have produced CC-aligned materials that you dislike, any and all curricula that are aligned with CC must be bad and should be avoided.

 

That is illogical.

 

Jackie

[NASDAQ]

Diane Ratvich once traced how curricula veered into these lists of objectives. They make my eyes glaze over -- curriculum-speak. I don't think it's an argument for or against a specific curriculum (they're all written this way, after all), but they aren't written in a fashion that encourages understanding and engagement in the general public.

 

I've only really read about the math and English parts of CC. Prof. Wu at Berkeley is in favour of the CC math standards, which is a huge endorsement to me.

 

Here is Prof. Wu on CC:

http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/

 

I think whether CC is an improvement depends entirely on how your particular state or district implements them, and what the curriculum they were using said beforehand.

[Kathryn]

 

 

I never stated they were materials. I realize they are a set of standards. To be excruciatingly clear, I am not interested in following CC standards. I've seen the materials. They are slanted toward extreme environmentalism and go far beyond turning off the lights. You are rude and now on ignore.

 

 

Explain to me how CC will make any difference at all. Our local schools cannot even remotely produce students who have achieved mastery of the current standards. How does raising the standards all of a sudden produce mastery?

 

How is she going to explain something to you if you put her on ignore? And I thought we weren't allowed to discuss who we put on ignore (or was that another board)?

[wapiti]

I think whether CC is an improvement depends entirely on how your particular state or district implements them, and what the curriculum they were using said beforehand.

 

I think this is the big issue - implementation. Anecdotally, states/districts/schools may (or may not) misinterpret the CC as mandating a certain method to the instruction - I haven't read the CC enough to really know; it's just where I can imagine things going awray.

 

Example: a long while ago, my kids' charter school principal, looking toward the adoption of the CC, was trying to figure out how to manage some group-work criterion that was included someplace in the elementary math standards. I never did find it so maybe he was misinterpreting (I admit I didn't look too hard), but group-learning would speak to a learning method rather than content.

 

Another example of implementation issues: there have been posts on this board discussing the affects of CC on middle school advanced math progression in ways that don't make sense to me at all. LOL, my district literally has a video to explain the effects of CC on the middle school math progression, though I don't think there will be many actual changes with how our district organizes middle school math for advanced students.

 

As for Wu, I've read some other articles from him that I really liked and I probably agree with him much of the time. Not long ago, he co-authored an article in the WSJ opinion section (I think it was on CC) that made him seem a little out of touch with what happens in actual classrooms with actual math programs at various grade levels, i.e., I recall feeling that the perspective he offered may have come from a bit too high in the ivory tower - maybe it was just how the article got edited...

[Butter]

As for the environmentalism aspect, that has been around a lot longer than the idea of CC! We use Calvert School. They are aligning with the Common Core (really... they pretty much already were). But even before that there was plenty of environmental stuff as early as the pre-k level. My 5th grader had a fabulous science experiment that had him brush his teeth with a bowl in the sink to catch the running water. He was to do it with and without turning off the tap. The difference in water used was incredible. My second grader was taught to figure out which things in our house are actually trash and which could go in the recycle bin. My kindergartener was taught not to dump things like bubble solution on the ground because it could pollute the ground and kill the plants. Are these bad things? I remember learning them in elementary school. I started K in 1983 so the recycling thing came later than second grade. Was it okay pre-CC but not okay post-CC?

 

When I was about 12 I was in a thing for gifted kids. We spent months on environmentalism. We had to form groups and pick a topic (my group's topic was Toxic Waste - other topics I remember were recycling and ozone depletion). Then we had to research it and make a skit to perform. I was 12 in 1990.I don't disagree that sometimes environmental thing can be pushed over the top. But that is not new with CC.