FYI: Collegeboard middle school math program (California comon core ed)

[Arcadia]

It is in California's 2014 list of programs awaiting approval so I took a look out of curiosity. It is currently Gr 6 to Algebra but is going to be for Gr 6 to 12 in the future. The books are online for browsing http://www.springboardonline.com/california/

 

ETA:

It is now in the approved list released on Jan 15, 2014

http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr14/yr14rel6.asp

[8filltheheart]

Am I the only one disturbed by Collegeboard producing a curriculum? As someone who has forked over way too much money to that company, I am far from thrilled to see them entangled even more than they already are via CC standards. Way too much going into and out from a single source.

[Arcadia]

Am I the only one disturbed by Collegeboard producing a curriculum?

Collegeboard has a Language Arts program for Gr 6 to 12 too. http://springboardprogram.collegeboard.org/english-language-arts/

[8filltheheart]

Collegeboard has a Language Arts program for Gr 6 to 12 too. http://springboardprogram.collegeboard.org/english-language-arts/

I'm honestly not surprised, but it is a disturbing trend regardless. The impact that CB has on education in this country and has for decades is huge. Producing a curriculum is self-fulfilling.m

[Chrysalis Academy]

Am I the only one disturbed by Collegeboard producing a curriculum? As someone who has forked over way too much money to that company, I am far from thrilled to see them entangled even more than they already are via CC standards. Way too much going into and out from a single source.

 

No, you aren't the only one.

 

I'm also in shock that they have 6th, 7th, and 8th grade math . . . and then Algebra 1!  This seems completely contrary to CA's emphasis on completing Alg1 in 8th grade.  And does PreAlgebra really take 3 years??

[Arcadia]

This seems completely contrary to CA's emphasis on completing Alg1 in 8th grade.  

California have changed to Algebra 1 in 9th grade but schools can still offer Algebra 1 in 8th grade or earlier.

 

"Last month, the State Board of Education unanimously shifted away from a 15-year policy of expecting eighth-graders to take Algebra I. The state will allow them to take either Algebra I or an alternate course that includes some algebra. New state standardized tests will focus on the alternate course -- the same one adopted by most states under the Common Core curriculum being rolled out across the nation." (Feb. 2013, Mercury News)

[Chrysalis Academy]

Wow.  I guess I didn't realize that was actually happening.  It still seems like a lot of time to cover what is basically PreAlgebra, although I see there is a lot of geometry & statistics included.  Hmm.

 

ETA: thanks for posting, it's interesting to see what is going on.

[Roadrunner]

Algebra is offered in 7th grade in our district. I am confused how this is all going to play out.

 

And yes, I can't believe how they managed to corner the market.

[Crimson Wife]

Algebra 1 in 8th may have been the official standard, but only about 60% of the state's public school students were enrolled in it before 9th. And a fair number of those kids did not pass the end of course exam so they had to repeat it in 9th. My district will continue to offer it in 7th for accelerated and 8th for standard college prep but whereas currently 75% of the students take it before 9th, I suspect that percentage will drop a bit.

[Catherine]

I'm ambivalent about the College Board's control of so much here in education. Having some kind of recognized standard for what constitutes "Algebra" is a good goal, given the progression away from rigor that has happened over the years and the problems with some states rewriting some subject material to suit political agendas or lower standards.  But allowing one private company to determine what constitutes the course content for a class is questionable. 

 

My son several years ago took a good, 2 semester Physics with Trigonometry class at CC.  We decided he should take the SAT2 in physics because he needed more SAT2's for his college applications.  He did quite poorly on the exam, given the rigor of the class he had taken, simply because it didn't conform to the College Board's syllabus.  In fact when he took college level physics with calc last year, he reported that it was very similar, even down to similar problems, to the one he had taken at CC.  I can only assume that SAT2 physics is not that relevant.

[snowbeltmom]

Collegeboard has a Language Arts program for Gr 6 to 12 too. http://springboardprogram.collegeboard.org/english-language-arts/

 

Wow.  Now that the CB has come up with its own curricula for math and English, I guess we should be able to figure out what will be tested on the "new and improved" SAT.  :glare:

 

 

[Chrysalis Academy]

Wow.  Now that the CB has come up with its own curricula for math and English, I guess we should be able to figure out what will be tested on the "new and improved" SAT.  :glare:

 

Right.  It kinda takes "teaching to the test" to a whole new level, eh?

[snowbeltmom]

Right.  It kinda takes "teaching to the test" to a whole new level, eh?

 

I will be purchasing the ACT prep books when it is time for my 9th grader to  gear up for the standardized tests.  The "non-profit" College Board is getting out of control.

 

[Arcadia]

I will be purchasing the ACT prep books when it is time for my 9th grader to  gear up for the standardized tests.  The "non-profit" College Board is getting out of control.

 

 

Did you see the news about ACT Aspire?  ACT is "gearing up" students from 3rd grade to take the ACT.

 

"ACT Aspire System Highlights

 Launches in spring 2014

 Vertically articulated, standards-based system of

summative, interim, and classroom-based assessments

 Linked to ACT College Readiness Benchmarks and

aligned with the Common Core State Standards

 Anchored by the capstone college readiness

assessment, the ACT

 Multiple question types—constructed response,

selected response, and technology enhanced

 Subject areas: English, math, reading, science,

and writing for grades 3–8 and early high school

(grades 9–10)"

 

ETA:

Exemplars on this link http://www.discoveractaspire.org/pages/test-features

 

ETA:

" ACT Aspire will take effect in August as the annual reading and math assessment for grades three through eight in Alabama public schools."

There was also field test in South Carolina (13 page pdf describing the aspire)

[snowbeltmom]

Did you see the news about ACT Aspire?  ACT is "gearing up" students from 3rd grade to take the ACT.

 

 

 

I had no idea about this, either.  Geez.  Those test optional schools are looking better and better.

 

[8filltheheart]

Did you see the news about ACT Aspire?  ACT is "gearing up" students from 3rd grade to take the ACT.

 

"ACT Aspire System Highlights

 Launches in spring 2014

 Vertically articulated, standards-based system of

summative, interim, and classroom-based assessments

 Linked to ACT College Readiness Benchmarks and

aligned with the Common Core State Standards

 Anchored by the capstone college readiness

assessment, the ACT

 Multiple question types—constructed response,

selected response, and technology enhanced

 Subject areas: English, math, reading, science,

and writing for grades 3–8 and early high school

(grades 9–10)"

 

Gag.   I have never been a standardized test giver for my kids and I will continue to refuse to be.   We jump through the college hoops, but we don't change how we educate to take those tests.

 

Did American education began to decline almost at the same time that standardized testing began to rise?

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6325

[Crimson Wife]

The SAT had a good original goal: to expand the Ivy League applicant pool beyond the traditional New England prep school feeder system. It was a way for the bright public school student to compete with the boys at Exeter, Groton, etc. It was never envisioned to be something that the majority of high school students take. When the state of California started requiring it for admission to its public colleges and universities in '67 is when the SAT started gaining far more influence.

[MarkT]

I have no problem with the College Board company creating materials. I believe in competition. At least I could see an interpretation of what is listed in Common Core HS Math standard for Algebra I.  Since that standard has some clear stuff but a certain percent is just edu-speak not math.

[MarkT]

Not bad on a quick look.  I like how they derived the Quadratic Formula instead of just presenting it and showing how to plug in the numbers.

[dereksurfs]

Interesting, is there any mention of cost or whether it will be made available to homeschool families?

 

Once we get beyond the self-serving aspects on the part of the CB and all that that entails I wonder what the quality of the curriculum will actually be?  The website leaves a lot of questions unanswered.  They really need a FAQ with more details.

 

* Update:  I found this FAQ which is still somewhat limited:  http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/springboard/1011_SpringBoard_FAQ_Flyer.pdf

 

It's interesting that it tops out at Pre-Calculus.  I wonder how many schools will stop teaching AP Calculus courses?  That seems contrary to the College Board's current AP offerings.  Secondly, what will they do with accelerated learners?  I guess a student could work a year or two ahead like any other curriculum.  

 

Mathematics with Meaning™: Grades 6–12

 Middle School Math 1

 Middle School Math 2

 Middle School Math 3

 Algebra 1

 Geometry

 Algebra 2

 Precalculus

[dereksurfs]

I have no problem with the College Board company creating materials. I believe in competition. At least I could see an interpretation of what is listed in Common Core HS Math standard for Algebra I.  Since that standard has some clear stuff but a certain percent is just edu-speak not math.

 

Yes, there is Sooo much confusion regarding the Common Core in all areas of education right now.  This will at least provide some clarity as to what is expected in terms of curriculum coverage for many schools and educators.  Whether we like or dislike the Common Core Standard or College Board they are both a fact of life for our children as they prepare for college.  So its good to be informed.

[Nart]

It is one of several math series that have been submitted for the 2014 California Math Adoption, but hasn't yet been approved. My understanding is that approval is set for January 2014. It bothers me that they use the seal of CA on their website, without yet being approved for adoption. If anyone is interested here is the list of the submitted math series along with a link to the student books.

 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/im/mathsubmissions.asp

 

It will be interesting to see which math series are approved.

 

ETA: I didn't realize Math in Focus: Singapore Math has middle school (6th to 8th grade) as well. It is on the list as well

http://www.hmhco.com/country/us/california/ca-math

 

ETA2: Wait a minute, I don't see Everyday Math published by McGraw Hill listed.  I also don't see the middle school version of Everyday Math UCSMP (University of Chicago School Math Project). My son's public school uses Everyday Math and it is awful. I really am hoping it is not in the running to get adopted for 2014. 

[dereksurfs]

It is one of several math series that have been submitted for the 2014 California Math Adoption, but hasn't yet been approved. My understanding is that approval is set for January 2014. It bothers me that they use the seal of CA on their website, without yet being approved for adoption. If anyone is interested here is the list of the submitted math series along with a link to the student books.

 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/im/mathsubmissions.asp

 

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.  They have developed curriculum for California which has already been implemented in a number of school districts including larger ones such as LAUSD & SDUSD.  Will this change once the above occurs?  I'm not really sure.  But they already have official CA curriculum in use.  So I don't really see it as false advertising.

[Nart]

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.  They have developed curriculum for California which has already been implemented in a number of school districts including larger ones such as LAUSD & SDUSD.  Will this change once the above occurs?  I'm not really sure.  But they already have official CA curriculum in use.  So I don't really see it as false advertising.

 

It isn't official CA curriculum until it is adopted by the CA State Board of Education, which has not yet happened. Districts might have purchased their curriculum with their own funds. The reason why getting on the approved CA K-8 list is of critical for publishers is that local educational agencies (school districts) can only purchase state approved math, English Language Arts, Science, and Social Studies with their state instructional funds. California is such a big market that textbook publishers pour time and money into getting their textbooks adopted in CA, then they sell the same books to smaller states. Primary Math/ Singapore Math by came up with the Standards Edition to meet CA standards so they could sell the textbook in CA. Interestingly enough they are not recommended for adoption this go around. 

[dereksurfs]

It isn't official CA curriculum until it is adopted by the CA State Board of Education, which has not yet happened. Districts might have purchased their curriculum with their own funds. The reason why getting on the approved CA K-8 list is of critical for publishers is that local educational agencies (school districts) can only purchase state approved math, English Language Arts, Science, and Social Studies with their state instructional funds. California is such a big market that textbook publishers pour time and money into getting their textbooks adopted in CA, then they sell the same books to smaller states. Primary Math/ Singapore Math by came up with the Standards Edition to meet CA standards so they could sell the textbook in CA. Interestingly enough they are not recommended for adoption this go around. 

 

I haven't really followed the educational politics of these type of votes or that specific list.  But I would think the end result will be a list of approved curricula for 2014 from which the districts can select.  I also think it likely that College Board stands a good chance of being one on that final list.  It looks like we'll know the answer to that next month.  

 

Once the list is approved will all districts then be *required* to adopt a math program from that list?  If so what does that mean for publicly funded California charters which many homeschoolers in our area participate in?  Right now their approved list of math options is fairly broad.  But maybe after such a vote it would be limited to only those vendors?

 

Another interesting thing I noticed with that list is that it only covers K-8.  And there are very few elementary options.  Do they have any similar type of list for high school?

[Nart]

I haven't really followed the education politics of these type of votes or that specific list.  But I would think the end result will be a list of approved curricula for 2014 from which the districts can select.  I also think it likely that College Board stands a good chance of being one on that final list.  It looks like we'll know the answer to that final list next month.  

 

Once the list is approved will all districts then be *required* to adopt a math program from that list?  If so what does that mean for publicly funded California charters which many homeschoolers in our area participate in?  Right now their list of options is fairly broad.  But maybe after such a vote it would be limited to only those vendors?

 

Another interesting thing I noticed with that list is that it only covers K-8.  And there are very few elementary options.  Do they have any similar type of list for high school?

 

The College Board does stand a very good chance of being approved. It was recommended. Here are the notes of which programs are recommended for adoption by a committee.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/im/mathreportsoffindings.asp

 

The end result will absolutely be a list which districts must select when they purchase new curriculum (if they want to use state funds- and I can't imagine any district forgoing the funds and using their limited unattached funds to purchase math or ELA curriculum that is not on the list). 

 

California Charters will have to choose from the list if they want to be able to use state funds. I imagine a Charter could tell a homeschool family to chose any adopted curriculum and they can use it for free or they can purchase their own with the funds that some charters make available to homeschool families.

 

Only K-8 is covered because the state does not approved high school texts, so there is no approved/not approved list. It is left up to each school district. It looks like for elementary K-5 there is

HMH Go Math

HMH Math Expressions

HMH Math in Focus

McGraw Hill My Math

Common Core System of Courses

EnVision Math

CA Digits

Creative Core Curriculum

 

Interestingly

Primary Math (Singapore Math) Common Core grades 1-3 was not recommended for adoption so it is unlikely it will be approved)

and 

I don't see Everyday Math listed so I am keeping my fingers crossed it is not approved.

[dereksurfs]

The College Board does stand a very good chance of being approved. It was recommended. Here are the notes of which programs are recommended for adoption by a committee.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/im/mathreportsoffindings.asp

...

It looks like for elementary K-5 there is

HMH Go Math

HMH Math Expressions

HMH Math in Focus

McGraw Hill My Math

Common Core System of Courses

EnVision Math

CA Digits

Creative Core Curriculum

 

Interestingly

Primary Math (Singapore Math) Common Core grades 1-3 was not recommended for adoption so it is unlikely it will be approved)

and 

I don't see Everyday Math listed so I am keeping my fingers crossed it is not approved.

 

Yes, the one glaring thing to me is how 'short' this list is.  I wonder if it could still grow before its finalization via last minute entries? Not only is SM Primary Math left out but so is Saxon and MUS.  Those seem to be local favorites.  Each California Charter may handle this differently.  But I can imagine some families having to switch due to limited resources.  And I'm not sure how Charter reps view using 'out of band' math programs in light of the new CC standards.

[dereksurfs]

....

 

ETA2: Wait a minute, I don't see Everyday Math published by McGraw Hill listed.  I also don't see the middle school version of Everyday Math UCSMP (University of Chicago School Math Project). My son's public school uses Everyday Math and it is awful. I really am hoping it is not in the running to get adopted for 2014. 

 

Sorry if I'm commenting a bit much on this.  But I find this interesting and I'm also bored while home with a cold which doesn't happen very often.  :tongue_smilie:

 

Do you think your son's school will drop Everyday Math once this list is approved next year?  I'm not so sure regarding the adoption of such a list in terms of the district's implementation timeline.  They still need to do some teacher CC retraining not to mention the teacher's lesson plans which are typically locked in if they've been doing this for a while, etc...  What about resistance to change?  Regardless of what parents or other staff might think if a teacher likes their math program for whatever reason they probably won't respond as quickly as they could.  Maybe by next Fall with sufficient arm twisting?  

[Roadrunner]

Do you think your son's school will drop Everyday Math once this list is approved next year?

Everyday Math is aligned with Common Core. I don't know how extensive the changes were, but they have CC edition. Generally I feel curruculum publishers are shlapping CC tag on everything. I just hope they are improving in the process.

[dereksurfs]

Everyday Math is aligned with Common Core. I don't know how extensive the changes were, but they have CC edition. Generally I feel curruculum publishers are shlapping CC tag on everything. I just hope they are improving in the process.

 

I find it very disingenuous when publishers make a few quick changes and then announce their curriculum is CC compliant.  I wonder at one point their self-proclaimed status actually gets reviewed.  Unless they apply for state approval at some point their claims seem pretty shallow.  That is not to say that any curriculum which doesn't attempt to follow the CC is not good. In fact none of the curriculum we currently use is CC compliant.  But that is a different discussion entirely.

 

While the CC explains 'What' the standard is, it is the publisher's job to determine 'How' it is presented and implemented.  And it is that implementation which will vary greatly especially when not peer reviewed. 

[Arcadia]

The College Board does stand a very good chance of being approved. It was recommended. Here are the notes of which programs are recommended for adoption by a committee.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/im/mathreportsoffindings.asp

......

Interestingly

Primary Math (Singapore Math) Common Core grades 1-3 was not recommended for adoption so it is unlikely it will be approved)

and 

I don't see Everyday Math listed so I am keeping my fingers crossed it is not approved.

 

 

Yes, the one glaring thing to me is how 'short' this list is.  I wonder if it could still grow before its finalization via last minute entries? Not only is SM Primary Math left out but so is Saxon and MUS.  Those seem to be local favorites.  Each California Charter may handle this differently.  But I can imagine some families having to switch due to limited resources.  And I'm not sure how Charter reps view using 'out of band' math programs in light of the new CC standards.

 

Primary Math is in under "Marshall Cavendish, Primary Mathematics (DOC)"

 

K12 math which the California Virtual Academy use is not in the list but I don't foresee the state cancelling CAVA's charter school licenses. 

 

There is no legal deadline for purchase or adoption of new materials it seems

"When will new instructional materials reflecting the CCSS be adopted?

In 2011, the Governor and State Legislature extended the suspension of State Board of Education (SBE) adoptions of instructional materials until the 2015–16 school year (Education Code Section 60200.7). While the suspension of adoptions ends in July 2015, at this time there is not yet a schedule established in law for the cycle of future adoptions."

[Nart]

Sorry if I'm commenting a bit much on this. But I find this interesting and I'm also bored while home with a cold which doesn't happen very often. :tongue_smilie:

 

Do you think your son's school will drop Everyday Math once this list is approved next year? I'm not so sure regarding the adoption of such a list in terms of the district's implementation timeline. They still need to do some teacher CC retraining not to mention the teacher's lesson plans which are typically locked in if they've been doing this for a while, etc... What about resistance to change? Regardless of what parents or other staff might think if a teacher likes their math program for whatever reason they probably won't respond as quickly as they could. Maybe by next Fall with sufficient arm twisting?

I think once the state has official adopted curriculum in the next couple of months, then school districts will take the 2014-2015 school year to decide what to adopt for the 2015-2016 school year. That year my oldest will be in third and my youngest in first grade so I am hoping our school district switches. Right now I afterschool with Singapore Standards. My oldest finished first grade a few months ago. I have had him work on getting down his math facts automatically in the last few months before starting 2A. I just ordered second grade Math in Focus from Rainbow Resource last week in part because they had a bargain set of textbooks,workbooks, and assessment for 2nd grade. I am glad I am switching since it looks like SM from Marshall Cav. is not going to get approved in California while Math in Focus will be approved. It only matters because I afterschool and if I ever am able to have the teachers give out any accelerated material I think it would help to show I was using state approved curriculum.

[Nart]

Everyday Math is aligned with Common Core. I don't know how extensive the changes were, but they have CC edition. Generally I feel curruculum publishers are shlapping CC tag on everything. I just hope they are improving in the process.

Everday Math says it is aligned with Common Core but I think it is in name only. My son's school is using the Common score version but i can't figure out what changed. A friend showed me the first grade Everyday Math from two years ago and it looks the same. It doesn't look like it is on the submitted list so I am going to hope it won't be approved. Everyday Math Homework from two weeks ago in first grade included: find three things in your house that you can use to measure and draw them; draw 17 tally marks; draw pictures of important things that happen in your family each day of the week; draw dots on dominos. Ugh!

[Nart]

Primary Math is in under "Marshall Cavendish, Primary Mathematics (DOC)"

 

K12 math which the California Virtual Academy use is not in the list but I don't foresee the state cancelling CAVA's charter school licenses.

 

There is no legal deadline for purchase or adoption of new materials it seems

"When will new instructional materials reflecting the CCSS be adopted?

In 2011, the Governor and State Legislature extended the suspension of State Board of Education (SBE) adoptions of instructional materials until the 2015–16 school year (Education Code Section 60200.7). While the suspension of adoptions ends in July 2015, at this time there is not yet a schedule established in law for the cycle of future adoptions."

Sorry, I am posting again instead of using multi quotes. I am surprised Marshall Cav. only submitted grades 1-3 for approval. I also don't see their 7th -8th grade Discovering Math Common Core Edition listed.

[8filltheheart]

Once we get beyond the self-serving aspects on the part of the CB and all that that entails I wonder what the quality of the curriculum will actually be?

??? Difference from my POV is that I won't move beyond the self-serving aspect. Nor will I alter how I teach my children. I had no interest in what ps standards were before CC and I still have no interest.

 

Ps methodology is flavor of the month. If you provide your kids with the best education they are personally capable of mastering, the CC conversation is really a moot pt.

[dereksurfs]

??? Difference from my POV is that I won't move beyond the self-serving aspect. Nor will I alter how I teach my children. I had no interest in what ps standards were before CC and I still have no interest.

 

Ps methodology is flavor of the month. If you provide your kids with the best education they are personally capable of mastering, the CC conversation is really a moot pt.

 

I agree that we should provide the best education possible for our children and in this case we are talking about math curricula.  So if the College Board offers a good math program I am at least interesting in finding out what that might be.  As a minimum I'd like to see it reviewed and compared with other curricula currently available.  But I understand if some choose not to consider it because they simply don't like the company for various reasons.  

 

I also know some homeschoolers who are very anti-CC, for example.  And so because of this if a publisher they like and use decides to go CC like MUS they refuse to use it any longer similar to consciousness objectors.  With regards to the CC and PS, yes, as homeschoolers we can choose to ignore what they do and many times for good reason.  But I don't mind learning things from them either if their approach is sound and materials good quality.  That is why I'll stick with what works for our kids which may or may not be CC compliant.  In the same way I don't dislike the College Board enough to ignore anything they publish.  Rather I'll consider it if it is a well designed program. 

[8filltheheart]

  In the same way I don't dislike the College Board enough to ignore anything they publish.  Rather I'll consider it if it is a well designed program. 

 

LOL, I guess that is the main difference b/c from my POV, what is there to like?   They are essentially a monopoly that sets dictates that even the institutions using those very dictated parameters admit are extremely flawed. 

 

[dereksurfs]

LOL, I guess that is the main difference b/c from my POV, what is there to like?   They are essentially a monopoly that sets dictates that even the institutions using those very dictated parameters admit are extremely flawed. 

 

 

LOL, sounds like an anti-Monsanto rally cry to me.  Sorry, I say this partially tongue in cheek. :tongue_smilie:

 

So whether its the best curriculum or the worst it would make no difference, right?  Still others who do not feel this strongly against them should be able to discuss the programs merits based on content, wouldn't you agree?

[Roadrunner]

In light of CC math thread on high school forum, I spent more time looking at those standards. Am I the only one underwhelmed? Middle school math, especially grades 6 and 7 don't even come close to what was taught in our district before CC. Sure, what is being taught is done in a more conceptual way, but very little is being taught. I have been pouring over AOPS preA and algebra topics versus what is in grades 6 to 8 under CC and I am worried. I am saying this as a parent who plans on sending kids back to PS high school. I am not sure how under the current sequence my kids will ever be able to take calculus if the choose to go into STEM. What am I not seeing? Am I looking at this from a wrong angle?

[8filltheheart]

LOL, sounds like an anti-Monsanto rally cry to me.  Sorry, I say this partially tongue in cheek. :tongue_smilie:

 

So whether its the best curriculum or the worst it would make no difference, right?  Still others who do not feel this strongly against them should be able to discuss the programs merits based on content, wouldn't you agree?

 

First, discuss ahead.   No one is telling you not to discuss merits of any given program.   But, don't expect others, especially those of us who have had to fork over $100s of dollars to that company to satisfy college admission hoops, to not express complete disgust that a corporation that controls the testing is producing textbooks which are in turn going to be teaching to the test.   That is the epitome of teaching to test.  Blech, blech, and triple blech.

 

Honest question--do you actually have any experience with them other than a distant memory from your own high school experience?   When you jump through SAT subject test, AP, and SAT hoops and colleges are completely unimpressed with AP courses (which are supposed to be college level courses) and they still want subject test scores (which are supposed to be high school equivalent).......when you have an entire SAT study industry in order to strictly boost scores (not real education, but SAT testing strategies/techniques).......and those scores are used in the admission process and admissions' officers say that they are only limited in value.....yes, it really, really bothers me that they are going to have more influence then they already do.   They have far too much to begin with.

 

My hope is that the more they control, the more colleges reject their testing as entrance filters and design their own.  Yes.   I would rather have my kids take individual school tests that no one knows anything about prior to taking them/taking them blind than being subject to control under the testing industry that in turn is controlling classroom content.

 

And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with CC and everything to do with the conflict of interest.

[8filltheheart]

In light of CC math thread on high school forum, I spent more time looking at those standards. Am I the only one underwhelmed? Middle school math, especially grades 6 and 7 don't even come close to what was taught in our district before CC. Sure, what is being taught is done in a more conceptual way, but very little is being taught. I have been pouring over AOPS preA and algebra topics versus what is in grades 6 to 8 under CC and I am worried. I am saying this as a parent who plans on sending kids back to PS high school. I am not sure how under the current sequence my kids will ever be able to take calculus if the choose to go into STEM. What am I not seeing? Am I looking at this from a wrong angle?

 

Not if your kids are going to be going to ps.   I would be worried too.   Gifted students are going to not be well-served by the coming trend.  There does seem to be a strong push against acceleration.

[dereksurfs]

In light of CC math thread on high school forum, I spent more time looking at those standards. Am I the only one underwhelmed? Middle school math, especially grades 6 and 7 don't even come close to what was taught in our district before CC. Sure, what is being taught is done in a more conceptual way, but very little is being taught. I have been pouring over AOPS preA and algebra topics versus what is in grades 6 to 8 under CC and I am worried. I am saying this as a parent who plans on sending kids back to PS high school. I am not sure how under the current sequence my kids will ever be able to take calculus if the choose to go into STEM. What am I not seeing? Am I looking at this from a wrong angle?

 

I think the answer to your question is 'it depends.'  Much of this will come down to what curriculum the PS decides to implement and how effective they are at using it.  I'm not sure what state you are in, but did you take a look at the list mentioned above for California schools?  Singapore Math - Math in Focus is one on the list which is solid CC program.  What will they use?  No one has reviewed the College Board's curriculum beyond commenting on the company itself.  Will it be a solid program in the hands of a good teacher or another program which may be selected?  No one here can answer these questions yet because those are unknowns and one of the challenges in sending our kids to PS.  That is also why some parents 'Afterschool' their children using AoPS and other curriculum as supplemental.

[Roadrunner]

I think the answer to your question is 'it depends.' Much of this will come down to what curriculum the PS decides to implement and how effective they are at using it. I'm not sure what state you are in, but did you take a look at the list mentioned above for California schools? Singapore Math - Math in Focus is one on the list which is solid CC program. What will they use? No one has reviewed the College Board's curriculum beyond commenting on the company itself. Will it be a solid program in the hands of a good teacher or another program which may be selected? No one here can answer these questions yet because those are unknowns and one of the challenges in sending our kids to PS. That is also why some parents 'Afterschool' their children using AoPS and other curriculum as supplemental.

This is true, but no matter what they use they will only get through Algebra 2 by 11th grade, leaving not enough time to thoroughly cover precalculus and calculus, never mind anything higher. For a kid not aiming to concentrate on math/sciences in college, it's fine, but the odds are my older will want to go into science. Any chance I am wrong on the progression?

[Roadrunner]

Not if your kids are going to be going to ps. I would be worried too. Gifted students are going to not be well-served by the coming trend. There does seem to be a strong push against acceleration.

Anecdotal evidence, but our local middle school no longer differentiates as far as we were told.

[dereksurfs]

This is true, but no matter what they use they will only get through Algebra 2 by 11th grade, leaving not enough time to thoroughly cover precalculus and calculus, never mind anything higher. For a kid not aiming to concentrate on math/sciences in college, it's fine, but the odds are my older will want to go into science. Any chance I am wrong on the progression?

 

Yes, there is a chance this assessment is wrong.  IMO, there is also a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) being generated with regards to the CC in addition to general misinformation.  Some of this even comes from educators who do not understand the CC.  A common myth is that the CC only permits children to all progress at the same, sometimes slower, pace.  In reading the standard in more detail this can be seen as clearly false.  In fact multiple trajectories or 'Pathways' are accounted for within the standard.  

 

"Pathways in Mathematics based on the Common Core State Standards:

 

1. An approach typically seen in the U.S. (Traditional) that consists of two algebra courses and a geometry course, with some data, probability and statistics included in each course;

2. An approach typically seen internationally (Integrated) that consists of a sequence of three courses, each of which includes number, algebra, geometry, probability and statistics;

3. A “compacted†version of the Traditional pathway where no content is omitted, in which students would complete the content of 7th grade, 8th grade, and the High School Algebra I course in grades 7 (Compacted 7th Grade) and 8 (8th Grade Algebra I), which will enable them to reach Calculus or other college level courses by their senior year. While the K-7 CCSS effectively prepare students for algebra in 8th grade, some standards from 8th grade have been placed in the Accelerated 7th Grade course to make the 8th Grade Algebra I course more manageable;

4. A “compacted†version of the Integrated pathway where no content is omitted, in which students would complete the content of 7th grade, 8th grade, and the Mathematics I course in grades 7 (Compacted 7th Grade) and 8 (8th Grade Mathematics I), which will enable them to reach Calculus or other college level courses by their senior year. While the K-7 CCSS effectively prepare students for algebra in 8th grade, some standards from 8th grade have been placed in the Accelerated 7th Grade course to make the 8th Grade Mathematics I course more manageable;

...

The pathways and courses are models, not mandates. They illustrate possible approaches to organizing the content of the CCSS into coherent and rigorous courses that lead to college and career readiness. States and districts are not expected to adopt these courses as is; rather, they are encouraged to use these pathways and courses as a starting point for developing their own."  -- http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Mathematics_Appendix_A.pdf

 

As you can see the school districts are given much more freedom than is being conveyed.  How they decide to implement the standard will determine their own success or failure.

[Roadrunner]

Derek, thanks for so much detail. Now armed with new knowledge, I can at least ask better questions to our district. Have you (or anybody else) by any chance compared AOPS textbooks against those standards? I see you are using AOPS algebra text. I am breathing better. :)

My friend's daughter will be starting local middle school next year, so I will be taking detailed notes. :)

[Chrysalis Academy]

Derek, thanks for so much detail. Now armed with new knowledge, I can at least ask better questions to our district. Have you (or anybody else) by any chance compared AOPS textbooks against those standards? I see you are using AOPS algebra text. I am breathing better. :)

My friend's daughter will be starting local middle school next year, so I will be taking detailed notes. :)

 

Roadrunner, have you seen this thread from the High School Board?

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/499209-musings-about-the-common-core-and-high-school-math-longish/

 

It might answer some of your questions, and give you some whole new ones . . .  :p

[dereksurfs]

First, discuss ahead...

 

Honest question--do you actually have any experience with them other than a distant memory from your own high school experience?

 

Yes, I'll continue to look with interest at the College Board's SpringBoard curriculum.  And, no I have very little experience with the company which in this case I'm glad about since it allows me to evaluate their curriculum independent of their other endeavors, test, etc...  Maybe when our kids are older and we go through more of the problems which you've encountered I'll have more of a general dislike for the company.  Who knows?  But for now I'm just going to focus on preparing them for college using the best curriculum I can find to achieve those goals.  This may involve their prep books, curriculum or whatever else proves beneficial.

[8filltheheart]

Yes, I'll continue to look with interest at the College Board's SpringBoard curriculum.  And, no I have very little experience with the company which in this case I'm glad about since it allows me to evaluate their curriculum independent of their other endeavors, test, etc...  Maybe when our kids are older and we go through more of the problems which you've encountered I'll have more of a general dislike for the company.  But for now I'm just going to focus on preparing them for college using the best curriculum I can find to achieve those goals.  This may involve their prep books, curriculum or whatever else proves beneficial.

Derek,

You are missing my entire pt.   I don't think CB's approach is the best approach for preparing students for college.   ;)  Definitely far from it IMHO.

 

Here is rant we lived through at a university this yr where the undegrad advisor for physics goes off on how UN-prepared AP/high SAT/PSAT scoring students are:  http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/493481-well-not-what-i-expected-is-a-fairly-accurate-summation/?p=5287896  A brief summation is

 

 

He said they were a school full of National Merit Scholars and kids with pages of AP exams. He said 4.0 students with high test scores were a dime a dozen and arrived in his honors physics classes not understanding anything calculus, how to apply math to real concepts, etc. He said he had kids crying b/c they didn't understand.

SAT and AP are College Board's creation.  High scorers should be positive reflections on their educational objectives.   FWIW, many universities are very unimpressed with APs these days.

[dereksurfs]

Roadrunner, have you seen this thread from the High School Board?

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/499209-musings-about-the-common-core-and-high-school-math-longish/

 

It might answer some of your questions, and give you some whole new ones . . .  :p

 

It's nice to see Jann's input on these topics.  I know many homeschoolers enjoy her courses.