Coomon Core- Curriculum, not politics

[Scuff]

You hear a lot out there about CC and how it's good or bad for the country for various political reasons. But what about the standards themselves? When looking at curriculum, some advertise as being aligned with CC standards. Is this a positive or negative thing to you? What makes a CC aligned curriculum different than a non-CC aligned curriculum? Thoughts?

[Korrale]

It is good for me personally. It means that it meets the minimum standards that all children that grade level are meant to meet across the US.

It is our choice to add to those standards.

[NASDAQ]

I think that the math standards are pretty good, albeit ambitious. I think the English ones are wishful thinking and I don't bother myself with them.

[Kathryn]

I don't care about it one way or the other. It makes no difference to me as I follow my own standards. If the material I choose happens to also be CC-aligned, that's find but not something I specifically look for.

[Ellie]

It would make a difference to me.

 

I have read things from a variety of sources; HSLDA's is the most comprehensive.

 

ETA: It *might* make a difference to me, lol. Spalding is "aligned," but the Spalding Method is the Spalding Method. Nothing has changed that.

[Murphy101]

I'm starting to think CC is the vatican 2 of education. You might have to be catholic to understand.

 

Vatican2 is blamed for so much, but the truth is that it doesn't say hardly anything people often suggest it said. And then they go into the "spirit of Vatican 2". :/

 

It gets blamed for a lot of crap and excuses that turns out when you actually read the actual thing have no connection whatsoever.

 

I can hear years from now, "well CC said..." Or "in the spirit of the goals of CC..."

 

My biggest issues are:

 

I think is a valid worry that people are lazy. Those examples will quickly become mandates. They just will. If not by CC, then by school districts bc then they can say, "oh it's okay bc it's from the CC." Or similiar such hogwash because it will be easier on them. That's the nature of almost any government suggestion. It quickly is treated like a mandate until eventually it is a mandate.

 

I cannot find any method for evaluating whether students have met the criteria. And given that I'm anti-collegeboard bc I think they are haphazard and take advantage if their monopoly, I'm not thrilled with pipelining more money to them. (I endure the testing bc I have to to play the college game for my kids, but if am not a fan. Not at all.)

[Murphy101]

For the most part I couldn't care less what the public schools do bc I have no interest in them.

 

However, what they require does filter down into curriculum providers, which are actually surprisingly few. Oh there are tons, but the ones that have been around a long time and are considered reputable? Actually not very many. Especially in math and science.

 

I'd not be happy to see my MCP mathematics messed with or my Spevogal world history for secular examples.

 

I'm not worried about English and literature. I personally am not particularly impressed with my kids skills in those areas, but even my average students hit near the top score in that category on their 8th grade ACT. It will of course be interesting to see if my younger crop of kids can maintain that if the desired improvement of the general pool improves, supposedly bc of CC. But I'm not worried about it.

 

Also, currently it's not an issue in Oklahoma! but that lazy factor I mentioned previously? I can see evaluators in other states using the examples and lists on the CC more as a checklist when evaluating home schoolers. "None of the books on your list are acceptable Mrs X because they are not CC approved." I'd agree they don't need to be, but that doesn't mean TPTB won't use the logic. Historically they tend to.

[*Lulu*]

I think the idea of CC is a pretty good one, and the standards I have read seem reasonable when compared to pre-CC state GLEs. I have thought for awhile that the implementation is where it may very well go to hell in a hurry and have recently had several conversations with local educators that have confirmed my suspicion. It seems our state has decided to keep the worst changes from NCLB and compound them with CC. (This is a personal pet peeve of mine; if we are making a change from one educational strategy to another shouldn't we strip out the bits of the old before beginning the new? Why do we just keep piling on top of what already exists? It is like finding a room in an old house where they have never removed the old wall paper, but papered and painted over the old for so long that the weight of the layers pulls the edges down at the seams and the effect is ghastly.)

 

As for the actual textbooks......CC alignment is not in and of itself a negative thing. A well written text that is CC aligned will still be a well written text. A poorly written textbook will be poorly written no matter how much tweaking to make it CC is done.

 

One of the greatest complaints I've heard is about the CC math texts; they are focused very strongly on strategies instead of the "normal" way of solving things. At first I thought it was great because the kids who don't think "normally" might be able to pick up a strategy. Unfortunately, you have teachers who didn't get any training on these new strategies showing the kids who then go home to parents who have no clue how to help them and, because of the way the strategies are being approached, even if the student does understand the regular method of arriving at the answer they MUST use the new strategy. Trying to force students to used methods that are counter to the way thier brains work makes as little sense as only teaching one strategy and expecting everyone in the class to get it.

[Farrar]

I'm somewhat against CC's implementation and some aspects of it...  But for a math curriculum, definitely a mark on the curriculum's side in my opinion.  Still, I would buy a curriculum that isn't if it was the right one for us.  For language arts, at least at the stage we're in, we're on a really different path so it would actually be a drawback for us.  I wouldn't assume that meant it was a "bad" curriculum, just not for us since we've chosen to follow a different way (one that, by high school, will align much more closely).

[musicianmom]

I haven't seen anything in Common Core itself that strikes me as bad. Lazy and stupid implementation is what scares me. Our best school books, Beast Academy and Caesar's English, are CC-aligned.

[forty-two]

I think that the math standards are pretty good, albeit ambitious.

 

A blog I follow has the opposite opinion wrt the math standards - that CC's "college ready" is *not* STEM-ready.  From looking at PARCC's site, they only have standards going through Algebra 2, and their definition of "college ready" is "academically well prepared to engage successfully in entry-level, credit-bearing courses in College Algebra, Introductory College Statistics, and technical courses requiring an equivalent level of mathematics".  That is from their description of the highest level of achievement in the highest set of standards CC offers - you can't do any better in CC than that (pg 6 in http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCCCRDPolicyandPLDs_FINAL_0.pdf).

 

College Algebra seems to be Pre-Calc, basically, and my understanding is that if your goal is to major in a STEM field, it is *highly* recommended to have taken through Calc 1 in high school.  The blogger was rather disappointed that CC set the bar for their top category so much lower than what good colleges expect for STEM majors.

[Arcadia]

 

College Algebra seems to be Pre-Calc, basically, and my understanding is that if your goal is to major in a STEM field, it is *highly* recommended to have taken through Calc 1 in high school.  The blogger was rather disappointed that CC set the bar for their top category so much lower than what good colleges expect for STEM majors.

 

California's  common core state standards for math has Calculus on page 123 of 162.

"When taught in high school, calculus should be presented with the same level of depth and rigor as are entry-level college and university calculus courses. These standards outline a complete college curriculum in one-variable calculus. Many high school programs may have insufficient time to cover all of the following content in a typical academic year. For example, some districts may treat differential equations lightly and spend substantial time on infinite sequences and series. Others may do the opposite. Consideration of the College Board syllabi for the Calculus AB and Calculus BC sections of the Advanced Placement Examination in Mathematics may be helpful in making curricular decisions. Calculus is a widely applied area of mathematics and involves a beautiful intrinsic theory. Students mastering this content will be exposed to both aspects of the subject "

 

ETA:

As to curriculum, my kids are with a virtual academy and I have not seen any changes yet to their curriculum.

[forty-two]

California's  common core state standards for math has Calculus on page 123 of 162.

"When taught in high school, calculus should be presented with the same level of depth and rigor as are entry-level college and university calculus courses. These standards outline a complete college curriculum in one-variable calculus. Many high school programs may have insufficient time to cover all of the following content in a typical academic year. For example, some districts may treat differential equations lightly and spend substantial time on infinite sequences and series. Others may do the opposite. Consideration of the College Board syllabi for the Calculus AB and Calculus BC sections of the Advanced Placement Examination in Mathematics may be helpful in making curricular decisions. Calculus is a widely applied area of mathematics and involves a beautiful intrinsic theory. Students mastering this content will be exposed to both aspects of the subject "

CA might mention it, but it's not part of CC proper - you can tell by how they are suggesting schools look to CB syllabi for ideas, instead of referencing particular CC standards.  Things are *really* left up to the schools to do whatever they think is best, and they acknowledge that different schools are inevitably going to focus on different things, and there is no real attempt to come up with specifics that all schools ought to cover - pg 116-117 have 20-odd topics, but there are no CC-aligned standards nor CC-aligned tests to ensure some level of basic standardization.  Which is the opposite of what CC was trying to do - standardize the core components of the core courses.  CC doesn't seem to think that anything beyond Alg 2 qualifies as a core component of being college ready for math - else they'd have created standards for it. 

 

And even the quoted bit for CA's standards just *allows* for Calc to be taught, instead of *requiring* it (math through Alg 2 is required to be offered in CC). 

[ElizaG]

For language arts, at least at the stage we're in, we're on a really different path so it would actually be a drawback for us.

 

Same here.   To me, their approach to teaching writing makes no sense.   It's like saying:  We have a lot of road accidents, and we need all our students to be proficient drivers by age 16.   So we're going to look at the way skilled adults drive cars, and start implementing this curriculum starting from the beginning of school.  For instance, Kindergarteners will be expected to drive 5 meters.  (In a golf cart, sitting in the teacher's lap, with both pairs of hands on the wheel.)  

 

My understanding is that the language arts standards are also supposed to be applied to other subject areas.   We've found it helpful to use mainstream workbooks and textbooks for some topics in history and geography, and I try to seek out the ones that have more varied and interesting writing activities.   If they all start following the CC formula, that's going to cut back on our options. 

 

Many Catholic dioceses are adopting CC, too -- which I guess means that the Catholic Schools Textbook Project will be following the standards with their future publications. ( They wouldn't able to keep going without the parochial schools as a customer base.)   And the Protestant homeschool curricula aren't really an option for us, because they tend to introduce things that aren't compatible with our faith. 

 

It's not the end of the world.  I can come up with the writing part myself, or use older materials, or ones from other countries.  But it's alienating to think about teaching social studies without any social support.  ;)

[Arcadia]

  CC doesn't seem to think that anything beyond Alg 2 qualifies as a core component of being college ready for math - else they'd have created standards for it. 

 

The relevance of Algebra as well as what people feel is college ready for math is already being discussed in this thread. http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/490205-do-students-need-algebra/

[Farrar]

Same here. To me, their approach to teaching writing makes no sense. It's like saying: We have a lot of road accidents, and we need all our students to be proficient drivers by age 16. So we're going to look at the way skilled adults drive cars, and start implementing this curriculum starting from the beginning of school. For instance, Kindergarteners will be expected to drive 5 meters. (In a golf cart, sitting in the teacher's lap, with both pairs of hands on the wheel.)

 

My understanding is that the language arts standards are also supposed to be applied to other subject areas. We've found it helpful to use mainstream workbooks and textbooks for some topics in history and geography, and I try to seek out the ones that have more varied and interesting writing activities. If they all start following the CC formula, that's going to cut back on our options.

 

I like that metaphor. Yes. I'm sure it will work for some kinders to learn to drive a golf cart, but not in my homeschool. ;)

 

I'm less concerned about the science and history and so forth because we don't use anything even remotely geared toward public schools for those and probably won't before high school.

[forty-two]

The relevance of Algebra as well as what people feel is college ready for math is already being discussed in this thread. http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/490205-do-students-need-algebra/

 

That is an interesting discussion, but not quite my point here.  In that thread, I think that everyone agrees that *some* people need math beyond Alg 2 (who those people are and why they need it is a matter for debate, but the bare fact that some non-trivial amount of people need it seems to be generally accepted).  And whether CC's position - that you need Alg 2 to be career and college ready - is a good one would fit in with that discussion.

 

But my point is that even though *some* non-trivial amount of students need more than Alg 2, including pretty much all STEM students, CC does not choose to address that path at all.  Their minimum standards may be high, but their top standards aren't high enough.  People who are as college ready as it is possible to be under CC are still not ready to go into STEM majors.  But CC doesn't seem to acknowledge or care about that reality - they seem to treat their "college ready" as college ready for any major, but students with STEM aspirations who can't start with Calc 1 in college are far less likely to graduate in a STEM field.

 

Basically my point is that CC's "college ready" is a far more minimal standard than CC touts it to be.

[Arcadia]

Basically my point is that CC's "college ready" is a far more minimal standard than CC touts it to be.

What I see is that there is no need for CC standards for calculus or statistics because the AP exams for those "take care" of that. I guess I expect CC's "college ready" to be a minimal standard since there are so many areas of specialisation in college with different wish list for what skills they hope their applicants have.

Actually I was of the impression that AP courses are what is supposed to get kids college ready.

 

ETA:

Articles like these are where I get the impression

Academic rigor makes the difference in college readiness, success September 9, 2013 (Purdue University)

AP and College Readiness (Rice University)

 

This is from Rice University article on College Readiness. (I haven't read the entire article)

"The core areas of college readiness are:

• Strong intellectual growth throughout the primary and secondary years fostered by increasingly challenging content in the four core subjects and beyond.
• The ability to think critically and problem solve in the context of a continuously changing set of circumstances and realities.
• The advancement of reading, writing, and numeric skills that enable success in all college courses.
• The capacity to communicate effectively with individuals from a variety of cultural and professional backgrounds."

[...................]

Is it me, or was the world easier to live in, even only 13 years ago?  

 

Anyway, when I did actually sit down and try to wade through the actual standards, from my limited understanding, they seemed great.

 

But all things always seem great until human beings mess up their own ideals. 

[Roadrunner]

. Our best school books, Beast Academy and Caesar's English, are CC-aligned.

And here comes the interesting part. Do we know if any curriculum substantially revamped the way content is taught (I don't mean reordering sequence or cosmetic changes) because of CC? I believe Everyday Math is also CC aligned. (?)

Local Middle and High School kids report no real difference the way subjects are taught (we are in one of the top districts in CA), but tell of disappearance of multiple choice tests, which is a good thing.

Is anything really changes that much?

[Scuff]

Thanks for the discussion. BA and CE are what I was looking at. I've heard such great things about them, to then see they were CC-aligned made me scratch my head- since what I've heard of CC has been quite mixed!

[Farrar]

Thanks for the discussion. BA and CE are what I was looking at. I've heard such great things about them, to then see they were CC-aligned made me scratch my head- since what I've heard of CC has been quite mixed!

 

If a curriculum wants to be able to be sold to schools in any numbers, even many private schools, then it needs to be CC aligned.  CC doesn't determine the style of teaching at all (spiral vs. mastery, for example, or conceptual vs. algorithmic when you're talking about math) and it's a minimum set of standards, so curricula are free to exceed it.  In that context, really, it's not a label to fear.

 

And here comes the interesting part. Do we know if any curriculum substantially revamped the way content is taught (I don't mean reordering sequence or cosmetic changes) because of CC? I believe Everyday Math is also CC aligned. (?)

Local Middle and High School kids report no real difference the way subjects are taught (we are in one of the top districts in CA), but tell of disappearance of multiple choice tests, which is a good thing.

Is anything really changes that much?

 

Because CC doesn't cover the way a concept is taught, only the actual concepts covered, I doubt there has been substantial change to any curricula.  When MM aligned, they reordered topics and added some new ones, but the end result seems to be pretty similar.  I think that's the case with most curricula that aligned.

[musicianmom]

Thanks for the discussion. BA and CE are what I was looking at. I've heard such great things about them, to then see they were CC-aligned made me scratch my head- since what I've heard of CC has been quite mixed!

MCT has a quite long essay about CC in the back of the latest CE teacher edition. He basically claims that his program already goes above and beyond what CC requires anyway, so alignment was a matter of labeling.

[Scuff]

Nice! I have that, but haven't read it yet.

[birchbark]

Here's an article on the math portion which concerned me.

 

[Arcadia]

Here's an article on the math portion which concerned me.

Is what concern you similar to what was discussed in this thread?

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/486974-writing-a-paragraph-to-show-how-to-solve-a-math-problem-opinions/

 

Link to NY's common core state test questions with marking scheme showing expectation from students

http://www.engageny.org/resource/new-york-state-common-core-sample-questions

[Jackie]

I spent a few nights reading through the standards bit by bit a while back. My general feeling is that the goals are set a bit high for the very early grades, when kids are at such varied developmental levels, and a bit low in later grades, when kids can usually handle more. I'm far from being an advocate of "better late than early" but do wonder what is going to happen with kids not prepared to move forward at the pace given for kindy and first grade. Schools have not been historically great at differentiation or remediation.

 

When looking at curric for my daughter, I couldn't care less if it is aligned.

[Chrysalis Academy]

This video is from a teacher training in New York.  It explains the shifts that will be required from "business as usual" in the classroom in order to implement the common core:

 

http://www.engageny.org/resource/quick-explanation-of-the-shifts-by-kate-gerson

 

In case you don't feel like watching it, here are the shifts:

 

E/LA Shifts:

1) a balance of fiction/nonfiction (which means, more nonfiction)

2) gaining knowledge about the world through the page - rather than the teachers telling stories, focusing on transferring knowledge from their brains to the kids brains, the kids will be expected to learn about the world through the texts that they read

3) text complexity: students will read more complex texts.  Currently, most texts are being read 2-3 grade levels too "late" and will be shifted downward so students are reading more complex texts at earlier grades

4) Evidence-based conversations about texts

5) Writing from sources: deep analysis of the text, using the text to find evidence about what the writer is up to (no longer asking students to write about themselves - less narrative, more analysis of the text)

6)Vocabulary/Academic Language: consistently read more complex texts and learn to understand and use academic language

 

Math Shifts:

1) Focus: study less stuff, more deeply

2) Coherence - across grades.  Master integers, then fractions, then algebra . . . 

3) Fluency - rigor.  Students must learn their math facts

4) Deep Conceptual Understanding - every student will be able to articulate their mathematical reasoning.  No longer about the fastest way to the correct answer.

5) Application - model, solve problems

6) Dual Intensity - the math wars are over, students must have both fluency in facts and show conceptual understanding and the ability to apply knowledge.  Both sides are wrong - neither side is enough. Students must have both.

 

 

I don't know about you guys, but those all sound like good things to me.  They are all things I am trying to achieve in my homeschool.  They articulate reasons - academic reasons - why I chose to pull my kids from public schools.

 

Now, I have very little hope that these high ideals will be uniformly implemented, and I agree that "Common Core" stickers are being slapped on curricula right and left just to make them marketable . . . but these goals sound like good ones to me.  How about you?

[birchbark]

Is what concern you similar to what was discussed in this thread?

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/486974-writing-a-paragraph-to-show-how-to-solve-a-math-problem-opinions/

 

 

The thread seemed to be more about explaining math solutions in written or verbal form (although I think the example given in the original post was aimed at "conceptual understanding.") Thanks for linking it though, I had missed it due to recent busyness.

 

The concern of the article is the idea "that conceptual understanding must come before practical skills can be mastered."

 

The way I see it, conceptual understanding (and the ability to explain it) are both things to strive for, but in the right time and order.

[Korrale]

Birchbark,

 

There are many different ways to teach math. A program like Saxon uses traditionals algorithms, where as a program like Everyday Math uses new reform math. The latter is highly popular (and controversial) and intends to teach students how to "think mathematically." Both programs align to common core. As does Beast Academy, Singapore Math, Go Math, Mammoth Math, Math U See, and I think even Right Start Math, or at least soon it will.

Common Core doesn't dictate how anything is taught. Just what is taught.

[ElizaG]

E/LA Shifts:

1) a balance of fiction/nonfiction (which means, more nonfiction)

 

(...)

 

I don't know about you guys, but those all sound like good things to me.  They are all things I am trying to achieve in my homeschool.  They articulate reasons - academic reasons - why I chose to pull my kids from public schools.

 

Now, I have very little hope that these high ideals will be uniformly implemented, and I agree that "Common Core" stickers are being slapped on curricula right and left just to make them marketable . . . but these goals sound like good ones to me.  How about you?

 

In theory, #1 is a very classical approach.  In practice, I don't think it will work out that way.   

 

When the field of English studies was created in the 19th century, it was meant as a replacement for the literary study of canonical Latin and Greek texts, which included political speeches, historical accounts, and other non-fiction.   Somehow, though, English courses ended up concentrating almost entirely on novels, poetry, and drama.   Because of this, we've never developed a sense of a typical high school and college reading list for other types of English literature -- and the teachers probably aren't familiar with many of these works themselves.  

 

Under these circumstances, it seems very likely that the decision-makers are going to put a heavy emphasis on popular modern books, and use their own preferences (or, worse yet, CC's utilitarian "college and career readiness" criteria) to determine which ones to teach.   

 

The funny thing about this is that "poetry" and "drama" aren't categories of fiction.  They're terms that describe the literary form, not the content.   Drama is most often fictional, but poems can be autobiographical, descriptive, historical, etc.

 

I wonder what would happen if teachers started assigning The Charge of the Light Brigade as an excellent example of a non-fiction text?   Tennyson was covering current events, after all.   ;)

 

[Chrysalis Academy]

Yes, it will be very interesting to see what they end up assigning as the nonfiction texts.  In a current writing thread, there have been many discussions of essays, as well as things like National Geographic articles.  I think academic essays, scientific journal writing, books by Rachel Carson, and many other fine pieces of nonfiction writing probably deserve a bigger place in the English curriculum, so I have no problem with this in theory.  It's all in how it gets applied, right?

 

That seems to be a common conclusion in discussions of common core, I notice . . . 

[birchbark]

Common Core doesn't dictate how anything is taught. Just what is taught.

 

And when. Which is where my concern lies.

[Korrale]

Hmm. I should rephrase. Not what is taught in any specific way. But a standard to which things are taught. Frankly the standards are vague and open to interpretation.

 

These are a few 4th grade literature standards.

 

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.4.7 Make connections between the text of a story or drama and a visual or oral presentation of the text, identifying where each version reflects specific descriptions and directions in the text.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.4.9 Compare and contrast the treatment of similar themes and topics (e.g., opposition of good and evil) and patterns of events (e.g., the quest) in stories, myths, and traditional literature from different cultures.

 

As a parent I can choose whatever literature I deem appropriate to fulfill these standards.

[Roadrunner]

Because CC doesn't cover the way a concept is taught, only the actual concepts covered, I doubt there has been substantial change to any curricula. When MM aligned, they reordered topics and added some new ones, but the end result seems to be pretty similar. I think that's the case with most curricula that aligned.

That's precisely my point. Our school district is spending loads of money on implementation (even sacrificed GATE program) of CC, yet nothing looks different in classrooms.

I am sure in some states the new standards will bring improvement, but in our district it looks like a colossal waste of money.

[Chrysalis Academy]

That's precisely my point. Our school district is spending loads of money on implementation (even sacrificed GATE program) of CC, yet nothing looks different in classrooms.

I am sure in some states the new standards will bring improvement, but in our district it looks like a colossal waste of money.

 

That's what we're seeing around here so far, too.  I was talking to a friend whose daughter just started 7th grade.  At the back to school night, the history/English teacher was talking up  common core and project based learning and how kids were going to be doing all kinds of cool synthesis and analysis projects, but all her dd has done so far is read the textbook and answer its questions.  The textbook is no different, but it has a yellow "Common Core Aligned" sticker on the front.  My friend is really disappointed.

[magistrasan]

Just for perspective on what CC will do for STEM majors, my homeschooled son is now in graduate school in physics. We worked hard through rigorous math curricula to make sure he could pursue the science/math career that was his passion. Unhappily many/most graduate school positions in his major are going to foreign nationals because they are often better prepared than our home-grown students.  Sad.

 

With CC dumbing students down in the public schools, even more of the top science graduate school positions will be taken away by non-US citizens.

 

Or, this could be a terrific opportunity for homeschooled students to take up the slack, set high standards, and prosper in STEM fields.  Many of these jobs will support a family on one-income - so his wife can homeschool.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

This video is from a teacher training in New York. It explains the shifts that will be required from "business as usual" in the classroom in order to implement the common core:

 

http://www.engageny.org/resource/quick-explanation-of-the-shifts-by-kate-gerson

 

In case you don't feel like watching it, here are the shifts:

 

E/LA Shifts:

1) a balance of fiction/nonfiction (which means, more nonfiction)

2) gaining knowledge about the world through the page - rather than the teachers telling stories, focusing on transferring knowledge from their brains to the kids brains, the kids will be expected to learn about the world through the texts that they read

3) text complexity: students will read more complex texts. Currently, most texts are being read 2-3 grade levels too "late" and will be shifted downward so students are reading more complex texts at earlier grades

4) Evidence-based conversations about texts

5) Writing from sources: deep analysis of the text, using the text to find evidence about what the writer is up to (no longer asking students to write about themselves - less narrative, more analysis of the text)

6)Vocabulary/Academic Language: consistently read more complex texts and learn to understand and use academic language

 

Math Shifts:

1) Focus: study less stuff, more deeply

2) Coherence - across grades. Master integers, then fractions, then algebra . . .

3) Fluency - rigor. Students must learn their math facts

4) Deep Conceptual Understanding - every student will be able to articulate their mathematical reasoning. No longer about the fastest way to the correct answer.

5) Application - model, solve problems

6) Dual Intensity - the math wars are over, students must have both fluency in facts and show conceptual understanding and the ability to apply knowledge. Both sides are wrong - neither side is enough. Students must have both.

 

 

I don't know about you guys, but those all sound like good things to me. They are all things I am trying to achieve in my homeschool. They articulate reasons - academic reasons - why I chose to pull my kids from public schools.

 

Now, I have very little hope that these high ideals will be uniformly implemented, and I agree that "Common Core" stickers are being slapped on curricula right and left just to make them marketable . . . but these goals sound like good ones to me. How about you?

Hmmmmmmm.......

 

My friend is considering homeschooling b/c our schools are changing to align with CC and she is upset that her kids aren't being taught multiplication facts. She does math drills with them at home, because the schools just up and stopped teaching them. They are doing this new math stuff, and she hates it. (We didn't get into specifics, so I don't know what she hates, besides the not learning math facts).

 

She also said that they stopped giving spelling tests- just stopped. When she asked about it, the teacher said that too many kids were failing/doing poorly on them, so the whole school just stopped giving them.

 

Also, at DS's soccer game last week, I heard other parents talking about the fact that the kids aren't learning their times tables anymore. Most of them sounded like they don't particularly like CC standards- but they "trust the schools know what they're doing". I almost spit out my coffee when I heard that one....

 

And we live in an affluent area- public schos here are in the top 5, I think, in the nation. They are implementing CC stuff big time around here, and I have been BOMBARDED by questions about homeschooling from people. At the park, store, church, etc. Just tons of people who have their kids in schools doing this common core stuff and they hate it, and are looking into homeschooling.

 

I dunno... I haven't really cared about CC too much b/c my kids will never, ever, go to public school. And the private school they will eventually go to is staunchly classical and has already said in their newsletter that they will not be changing anything to align with CC.

 

However, it seems like it's a "sounds good on paper" type thing. Because all I am hearing is complaints.

[boscopup]

My friend is considering homeschooling b/c our schools are changing to align with CC and she is upset that her kids aren't being taught multiplication facts. She does math drills with them at home, because the schools just up and stopped teaching them. They are doing this new math stuff, and she hates it. (We didn't get into specifics, so I don't know what she hates, besides the not learning math facts).

Multiplication facts are in grade 3 Common Core Standards:

 

CCSS.Math.Content.3.OA.C.7 Fluently multiply and divide within 100, using strategies such as the relationship between multiplication and division (e.g., knowing that 8 × 5 = 40, one knows 40 ÷ 5 = 8) or properties of operations. By the end of Grade 3, know from memory all products of two one-digit numbers.

[AimeeM]

If I'm not mistaken, Catholic Textbook Project was already incidentally aligned... I mean, it met the standards. When I purchased LTTN over the summer, there was a page or so in the front that showed where it correlated, etc.

Same here.   To me, their approach to teaching writing makes no sense.   It's like saying:  We have a lot of road accidents, and we need all our students to be proficient drivers by age 16.   So we're going to look at the way skilled adults drive cars, and start implementing this curriculum starting from the beginning of school.  For instance, Kindergarteners will be expected to drive 5 meters.  (In a golf cart, sitting in the teacher's lap, with both pairs of hands on the wheel.)  

 

My understanding is that the language arts standards are also supposed to be applied to other subject areas.   We've found it helpful to use mainstream workbooks and textbooks for some topics in history and geography, and I try to seek out the ones that have more varied and interesting writing activities.   If they all start following the CC formula, that's going to cut back on our options. 

 

Many Catholic dioceses are adopting CC, too -- which I guess means that the Catholic Schools Textbook Project will be following the standards with their future publications. ( They wouldn't able to keep going without the parochial schools as a customer base.)   And the Protestant homeschool curricula aren't really an option for us, because they tend to introduce things that aren't compatible with our faith. 

 

It's not the end of the world.  I can come up with the writing part myself, or use older materials, or ones from other countries.  But it's alienating to think about teaching social studies without any social support.  ;)

 

[DarlaS]

I'd not be happy to see my MCP mathematics messed with or my Spevogal world history for secular examples.

If MCP is not already aligned, it's probably pretty close (so messing with it would not change much).

 

Spielvogel is a college text, isn't it? Mine are anyway. I have 6e Western Civ. 1 & 2.

[DarlaS]

Multiplication facts are in grade 3 Common Core Standards:

 

CCSS.Math.Content.3.OA.C.7 Fluently multiply and divide within 100, using strategies such as the relationship between multiplication and division (e.g., knowing that 8 × 5 = 40, one knows 40 ÷ 5 = 8) or properties of operations. By the end of Grade 3, know from memory all products of two one-digit numbers.

:iagree:

 

The math standards are a 93 page document, BUT any particular grade (below high school) is only 3-4 pages. No idea why these misconceptions abound when looking up what's covered in a particular grade would take less than a minute. :-/

[Murphy101]

If MCP is not already aligned, it's probably pretty close (so messing with it would not change much).

 

Spielvogel is a college text, isn't it? Mine are anyway. I have 6e Western Civ. 1 & 2.

I have no idea if my glencoe world history from OM is a college text or not.

 

I'm not particularly worried about MCP yet.

 

I was just saying I wouldn't want them messed with bc I like them how they are.

[DarlaS]

I have no idea if my glencoe world history from OM is a college text or not.

 

I'm not particularly worried about MCP yet.

 

I was just saying I wouldn't want them messed with bc I like them how they are.

That's right! OM uses it in high school. I think that is a high school text, just forgot it was Spielvogel.

 

Worst case scenario, you should be able to get used for some time.

 

I have a few things I'm hanging onto (older Writer's Express type handbooks) because something aligning with CC language might concern me a bit.

[Chrysalis Academy]

Multiplication facts are in grade 3 Common Core Standards:

 

CCSS.Math.Content.3.OA.C.7 Fluently multiply and divide within 100, using strategies such as the relationship between multiplication and division (e.g., knowing that 8 × 5 = 40, one knows 40 ÷ 5 = 8) or properties of operations. By the end of Grade 3, know from memory all products of two one-digit numbers.

 

Yeah, it seems crazy to me that a school could be "not teaching multiplication facts" and be aligned with common core.  I mean, it's right there - they have to memorize them by the end of 3rd grade.   :confused1:

[HRAAB]

Yeah, it seems crazy to me that a school could be "not teaching multiplication facts" and be aligned with common core.  I mean, it's right there - they have to memorize them by the end of 3rd grade.   :confused1:

 

My girlfriend and I were just discussing the math standards.  I don't have any children in school, but she has a son in 3rd grade and his has not done anything towards learning and memorizing multiplication facts.  We sat down and looked up the standards, and yes, it's there, but so far they haven't been taught.  I don't know the name of the curriculum the school is using.  They are working with him after school on learning his math facts.

 

We're only two months into the school year so who knows what will happen over the rest of the school year, but they've been frustrated with math so far this year.  My friend isn't personally critical of the Common Core standards but generally upset with math instruction this year.

 

I'm looking forward to visiting with my sil who teaches 5th grade and getting her opinion.

[Word Nerd]

I am not impressed with what I've seen thus far of the CC-aligned math program our school is using now instead of Saxon--Go Math, which is by the same publisher. DD is also in 3rd grade and hasn't started on multiplication facts yet (except for the ones they learned in 2nd grade in Saxon). I'm going to ask about it at parent-teacher conference later this week, as I know they're going to cover them this year.

 

The homework she had last night included "bar models," and she was supposed to explain how they helped her solve the problems. In reality, they didn't help and caused confusion in what would otherwise have been fairly straightforward word problems.

[Arcadia]

I don't have any children in school, but she has a son in 3rd grade and his has not done anything towards learning and memorizing multiplication facts.  We sat down and looked up the standards, and yes, it's there, but so far they haven't been taught.

It depends on the school.  My neighbor's kid's school started the timed multiplication drills around Nov of 3rd grade and finish the multiplication drills way in time for 3rd grade state standardized tests.  California had always had multiplication drills in 3rd grade even before common core.

[ElizaG]

If I'm not mistaken, Catholic Textbook Project was already incidentally aligned... I mean, it met the standards. When I purchased LTTN over the summer, there was a page or so in the front that showed where it correlated, etc.

 

They've only published five of their planned books so far, though, and all the ones they've done have been for the older grades.   At that level, CC's language arts sequence has more overlap with the approaches that many of us are using.   The differences are most apparent in the earlier years of school.   So I'm wondering what their materials for 1st to 4th grade are going to look like. 

 

It's possible that they won't be affected at all.  The whole thing is kind of confusing:  CC doesn't have standards for history per se, but the subject matter is supposed to be taught in a way that's aligned with the language arts standards at that grade level.  But how does this work out in real life?   Are the texts and activities supposed to be set up so as to facilitate the CC-recommended types of of reading and writing?  Or is the "alignment" (or lack thereof) just a matter of how the teacher uses the materials in the classroom? 

 

I've tried looking at social studies textbooks from the major publishers to see how they're arranged, but it's hard to find sample pages to view if you don't have a school account.

 

 

On a somewhat related note, this is an interesting post from a history teacher. 

 

Do the Common Core Standards Flunk History?

 

His concern is that CC is devaluing history -- and the humanities in general -- by treating them as vehicles to teach a certain narrow set of skills.  As a result, students are going to be left with a warped sense of the nature of scholarship in the academic disciplines.  (But boy, are they going to be able to drive that golf cart!  ;) )   

[Chrysalis Academy]

I am not impressed with what I've seen thus far of the CC-aligned math program our school is using now instead of Saxon--Go Math, which is by the same publisher. DD is also in 3rd grade and hasn't started on multiplication facts yet (except for the ones they learned in 2nd grade in Saxon). I'm going to ask about it at parent-teacher conference later this week, as I know they're going to cover them this year.

 

The homework she had last night included "bar models," and she was supposed to explain how they helped her solve the problems. In reality, they didn't help and caused confusion in what would otherwise have been fairly straightforward word problems.

 

Aw, c'mon, bar models?  You can't blame bar models on common core.  What about Singapore Math?????

 

I don't like bar models much, either, but what do bar models have to do with common core????  :confused1: