Indiana Backs Out of Common Core...

[nature girl]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/03/24/293894857/indiana-becomes-first-state-to-back-out-of-common-core

 

To be honest, CC is one of the main reasons I want to hs. I wonder if this might happen in other states as there's more and more pushback from parents and teachers?

[Walking-Iris]

It will be the children who are the innocent victims of all this political fighting. 

 

CC wasn't around when I started homeschooling, but politics and big business, and unions etc are why I homeschool. I decided a long time ago that I didn't want the political flavor/fight of the moment to affect my children's education.

 

I see these political fights and standards as a totally different thing from an education. And while the adults and powers that be tussle over the ball, it's children that will suffer. 

 

 

 

[nature girl]

I read an article yesterday about what Kindergarten has become and what it's doing to our kids, the most depressing article yet (and I've read a lot of similar articles on this issue.) It's all in the name of making our kids smarter, but when your children come home crying every afternoon because they think they're stupid, when parents can't even help because THEY don't understand the new math, when teachers are mourning the loss of freedom to teach in the way they know will actually help kids learn, and kids hate school because they're so stressed and over-tested and there's no time for them in the day to play and just breathe, what are the long term implications? I guess we'll see in 15-20 years the results of experimenting on our kids.

[shawthorne44]

I read about parents that were protesting CC by not allowing their children to do the testing for CC.  It was 4-year-old kids doing bubble tests.  

They were 4, doing bubble tests.  Well, I guess protesting wasn't their primary motivation, but it was throwing a kink in the CC implementation because they didn't have a large enough percentage of test results to show.  

I have a friend who has a 3.5 year-old that has decided he is dumb because he isn't good at memorizing the whole-word flash cards they use at his school.  

[JustEm]

I'm sure more state will pull out of CC but that will not make the education system in those states any better.  There have been problems in the system far before CC and there will be after it unless big changes are made. I'm not holding my breath for those big changes.

[JustEm]

I read about parents that were protesting CC by not allowing their children to do the testing for CC.  It was 4-year-old kids doing bubble tests.  

They were 4, doing bubble tests.  Well, I guess protesting wasn't their primary motivation, but it was throwing a kink in the CC implementation because they didn't have a large enough percentage of test results to show.  

I have a friend who has a 3.5 year-old that has decided he is dumb because he isn't good at memorizing the whole-word flash cards they use at his school.  

 

 

Good for those parents.  4 year olds doing bubble tests sounds insane.

 

 When I was in high school I refused to take the standardized tests. I had a 3.8 GPA (4 point scale)  and those tests would make me look like I was an idiot.  I just did not know how to take them and didn't care to learn.  So after getting lectured by my teacher that I have to take them seriously or else would never get into college I out right refused to take them.  They threatened me with detentions, suspensions,  being held back, etc.  When the principal brought it up to my parents they supported my decision.   By the way, I applied to only one school for college and even though  my SAT scores were awful I got in early decision (meaning I was the first round of students accepted.)

[nature girl]

Yes hjffkj, looking back the article that I read was actually talking about recent studies done on changes in K from 1999-2006! And it has obviously only gotten worse.

[Alessandra]

It was announced recently that New York has delayed CC implementation for five years.

[Caroline]

I read about parents that were protesting CC by not allowing their children to do the testing for CC.  It was 4-year-old kids doing bubble tests.  

They were 4, doing bubble tests.  Well, I guess protesting wasn't their primary motivation, but it was throwing a kink in the CC implementation because they didn't have a large enough percentage of test results to show.  

I have a friend who has a 3.5 year-old that has decided he is dumb because he isn't good at memorizing the whole-word flash cards they use at his school.  

 

Common Core has nothing to do with 4 year olds. Or 3.5 year olds. Common Core starts in kindergarten. The testing doesn't start until 3rd grade.

[foxbridgeacademy]

Hey, that's my state, leave it to a Hoosier to be contrary and go their own way :huh: .  I haven't spent much time looking at Common Core because well, as a HSer it didn't effect me.  My daughter is thinking about PS this fall and I was dreading the whole Common Core thing.... now it looks like I can dread something else.  

[nature girl]

^^I think it's indirectly related, because some .comstates are testing ps'ers to make sure they're going to be ready for the more intensive K requirements, and remediate where they think it's neceassary. Same deal with teaching sight words to 4yo's, parents are more likely to send their kids to academic preschools because if they're not starting to read by early K they're going to fall behind very quickly. What is it going to do to these kids who think they're dumb just because their brain hasn't reached that developmental stage yet? I think for a child, thinking you're not smart makes you lose motivation, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[scwendy]

I'm sure more state will pull out of CC but that will not make the education system in those states any better.  There have been problems in the system far before CC and there will be after it unless big changes are made. I'm not holding my breath for those big changes.

This exactly.  Fundamental problems in education (public and private) pre-date CC. 

 

The only viable answer in the foreseeable future is for individual parents to be active and instrumental in making sure their children are not slipping through the cracks, falling behind, not being challenged etc.  We are not equipped as a country to meet the educational demands in the public arena in a consistent, rigorous manner for all students (and that is to say nothing of special issues).

 

Many people just don't want to hear that.  No test or standard is going to change the structure and culture of the educational system in the USA.  There were similar problems when MY MOTHER was in school.

 

I view it largely as a pro/con scenario of living in a capitalistic republic.  There are some great things about it and some not so great things about it.  We parents just have to advocate for our children and not leave it to the schools/government/society alone.

[foxbridgeacademy]

I've always thought that one of the biggest problems for America is that we're just too big.  To big to adequately oversee programs that need to be individualized.  Things like Education, Healthcare, Welfare, and Social Programs would benefit from a smaller governing body that could make adjustments based on need of a smaller population.  Leaving Education standards up to each state just makes more sense.  Heck, leaving it up to individual regions/counties would make more sense IMO.  There should be general standards but they could be broad with built in flexibility.   IDK, maybe not, just wishing for a better world overseen by real people who have to live in that world.

[bethben]

I've always thought that one of the biggest problems for America is that we're just too big.  To big to adequately oversee programs that need to be individualized.  Things like Education, Healthcare, Welfare, and Social Programs would benefit from a smaller governing body that could make adjustments based on need of a smaller population.  Leaving Education standards up to each state just makes more sense.  Heck, leaving it up to individual regions/counties would make more sense IMO.  There should be general standards but they could be broad with built in flexibility.   IDK, maybe not, just wishing for a better world overseen by real people who have to live in that world.

 

Yes!  The people who "know" always spout off about this or that country that has done well with government health care or education and forget to mention that xyz country is a fairly homogeneous country that is a TON smaller in size and population than the United States.  Such as, "Look at Canada's one payer system health care!  Isn't it great?"  They fail to mention that Canada has a population 1/10 of our population.  Same with education.  Finland seems to be the country to beat as far as education is concerned.  Granted, their population is only 1.5 % of ours - closer to a state population.  Yup, we're too big and too spread out for anything the government decides to work out well.

 

Beth

[ScoutTN]

Way to go Indiana!

[foxbridgeacademy]

Here's something else.....

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/common-core-parent-facebook-post-indiana-school-181841158.html

 

I love the dad's letter.

[tammyw]

Here's something else.....

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/common-core-parent-facebook-post-indiana-school-181841158.html

 

I love the dad's letter.

 

I love that!

[Walking-Iris]

Here's something else.....

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/common-core-parent-facebook-post-indiana-school-181841158.html

 

I love the dad's letter.

 

Math in Focus is the Singapore Approach, and aligned to Common Core, and I just sort of hate it. I'm beginning to think I made a  huge error in purchasing it.

 

I'm starting to dislike Math Mammoth too just a bit. 

 

Just throwing that out there because that letter reminded me of feelings I have had at times...."just do the math already!!! Why is this making it so complicated!!!?" 

[Mom2pandc]

I'm leery of Indiana's new standards though. They are ramming them through and some of them I looked at, sound like common core repackaged and renamed. Now I admittedly didn't look through all of them, nor did I do a side by side comparison, but it is just not sitting well with me.
Some people were reporting that 85% of the new indiana standards were similar or the same as common core.
It's a step in the right direction, but I fear it hasn't gone far enough away from common core to really set indiana apart like the politicians are claiming.

[wormbuy]

I'm leery of Indiana's new standards though. They are ramming them through and some of them I looked at, sound like common core repackaged and renamed. Now I admittedly didn't look through all of them, nor did I do a side by side comparison, but it is just not sitting well with me.
Some people were reporting that 85% of the new indiana standards were similar or the same as common core.
It's a step in the right direction, but I fear it hasn't gone far enough away from common core to really set indiana apart like the politicians are claiming.

Yes this is true. In the last month there has been much talk in IN regarding just this exact thing, rushing thru standards that are just a revamp of CC. Given this I am puzzled over the reporting that this is some kind of victory. I guess it is a victory over the reporting or something? Color me confused!

[Slache]

Math in Focus is the Singapore Approach, and aligned to Common Core, and I just sort of hate it. I'm beginning to think I made a  huge error in purchasing it.

 

I'm starting to dislike Math Mammoth too just a bit. 

 

Just throwing that out there because that letter reminded me of feelings I have had at times...."just do the math already!!! Why is this making it so complicated!!!?" 

 

I plan to use Ray's because none of the new stuff sits right with me. Singapore makes my head spin. Even as a "mathy kid" myself, I agree.

 

 

I'm leery of Indiana's new standards though. They are ramming them through and some of them I looked at, sound like common core repackaged and renamed. Now I admittedly didn't look through all of them, nor did I do a side by side comparison, but it is just not sitting well with me.
Some people were reporting that 85% of the new indiana standards were similar or the same as common core.
It's a step in the right direction, but I fear it hasn't gone far enough away from common core to really set indiana apart like the politicians are claiming.

 

But the standards are their's and they can do what they want, change them when needed and choose curriculum themselves. There is something comfortable about making the rules yourself. I guess we can hope for the best?

[sunnyday]

Here's something else.....
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/common-core-parent-facebook-post-indiana-school-181841158.html
 
I love the dad's letter.

 
I think it goes to show that one can take a lot of math instruction and still not really learn to think mathematically. It kind of blows my mind that a grown adult would look at the worksheet and not be able to respond beyond "You got the wrong answer because that's not what the answer is."
 

There should be general standards but they could be broad with built in flexibility.

This is what the common core IS. For example, paraphrasing the math standards, "A kid who's successfully completed second grade should be able to deal with place value to the thousands, should be able to do and *understand* addition and subtraction within 100, they should know how to measure stuff and that you need more centimeters than inches to cover the same length, and they can name two and three dimensional shapes." Pretty broad. Quite a bit of room for individual teachers to teach in their own way and add their own supplementary topics.

[michelea6]

Common Core has nothing to do with 4 year olds. Or 3.5 year olds. Common Core starts in kindergarten. The testing doesn't start until 3rd grade.

 

This isn't entirely true and very much depends on the state you're in.  While the schools don't need to report until 3rd grade many schools are testing beginning in Kindergarten.  We are currently stationed in Japan.  Here at the DOD schools TerraNova testing begins in 3rd grade but all the many assessments begin in Kindergarten.  Before living here we were station in NJ.  All of my kids were in school then.  My daughter took the TerraNova in Kindergarten.  Those are the only two situations I know about.

[sunnyday]

This isn't entirely true and very much depends on the state you're in.  While the schools don't need to report until 3rd grade many schools are testing beginning in Kindergarten.  We are currently stationed in Japan.  Here at the DOD schools TerraNova testing begins in 3rd grade but all the many assessments begin in Kindergarten.  Before living here we were station in NJ.  All of my kids were in school then.  My daughter took the TerraNova in Kindergarten.  Those are the only two situations I know about.

 

That's not Common Core though. The Common Core State Standards are fully published and anyone can see that they are for K-12. PARCC and Smarter Balanced tests start at third grade, so again, CC aligned assessments are not directly driving the classroom experience of 3 year olds.

[Caroline]

This isn't entirely true and very much depends on the state you're in. While the schools don't need to report until 3rd grade many schools are testing beginning in Kindergarten. We are currently stationed in Japan. Here at the DOD schools TerraNova testing begins in 3rd grade but all the many assessments begin in Kindergarten. Before living here we were station in NJ. All of my kids were in school then. My daughter took the TerraNova in Kindergarten. Those are the only two situations I know about.

That isn't Common Core. Your school may test in kindergarten, but that is not because of Common Core.

[wapiti]

Just now I saw a TV commercial promoting Common Core.  Someone must be feeling the pressure of opposition.

 

(My district rejected the CC standards but is still required by the state to do the PARCC testing.  There's a state legislative bill pending to delay implementation of the testing - we'll see...  If it's not delayed, my kids will have to take the new test next spring.)

[Mergath]

^^I think it's indirectly related, because some .comstates are testing ps'ers to make sure they're going to be ready for the more intensive K requirements, and remediate where they think it's neceassary. Same deal with teaching sight words to 4yo's, parents are more likely to send their kids to academic preschools because if they're not starting to read by early K they're going to fall behind very quickly. What is it going to do to these kids who think they're dumb just because their brain hasn't reached that developmental stage yet? I think for a child, thinking you're not smart makes you lose motivation, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

But then if we don't have this push for a more rigorous education, everyone bitches and moans about how we're so far behind other countries in the world education rankings.  We can't have it both ways.  

[Dicentra]

Here's something else.....

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/common-core-parent-facebook-post-indiana-school-181841158.html

 

I love the dad's letter.

 

I saw this letter posted elsewhere and I'm not sure I understand the kerfuffle. :)  The reasoning behind the problem, as given by the number line, is common when doing mental math.  One could probably do the subtraction problem more quickly using the idea behind the number line method (not actually drawing the number line - that would take a bit longer) than by using the "line 'em up and subtract" algorithm that the parent wrote down.  I agree - writing a "letter to Jack" is somewhat unnecessary but asking a student to give me a quick explanation of what went wrong with Jack's number line would tell me quite a bit about the level of the student's math reasoning skills.  As a teacher, I'd end up knowing a lot more about where the student is in his/her math abilities than if I just gave him/her the question as a "line 'em up and subtract" algorithm.

 

Just my thoughts. :)

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I'm in Indiana. I'm about as anti-Common Core as a person can be, but I don't think we've made it better by "pausing" and then "backing out" all through the school year. It seems to me that nobody has a clue whether they're coming or going (least of all the teachers who started the year with one set of plans and then were expected to be on a different track once the school year had begun!)...and now God-knows-what our standards are going to be now.

One of the primary anti-CC arguments in this state were that the CC English and Math standards were so stinkin' far BELOW what we already had (and those standards had been overhauled and updated recently, and proven good)...but could we just put them back when we decided the CC we agreed to was not for us? Noooooo.

There's only one direction in modern ps and that is forward, forward, forward. In the history of public education, nobody has ever once (to my knowledge) said, "You know what, we really busted it this time. Let's put back all the stuff we broke and be smarter about making changes in the future." Nope. Gone is gone.

So the new standards, some of which were crafted in less than a week, are a hodge podge of CC, former standards, stuff borrowed from other states, and stuff pulled out of the top of somebody's head. Untried? Untested? Not created by experts? Not enough time spent creating and evaluating the standards; instead, they're just pulling them together briefly and calling it good? HELLO. Those were the arguments against CC.

I know people who are pulling their kids out of ps because of Common Core shenanigans, but in our particular state I know many more who are pulling the dc out just because they are tired of the games. What are our standards? No idea. What should our teacher training be like for this year? Well, let's take their whole summer to teach them something new and then pull the rug out from under them the second week of the school year! And our governor and school board superintendent can't work together at all? Fabulous.

No thanks.

I know people want to be happy that Indiana is no longer CC but I find it impossible to be glad about this big ol' mess that has been made.

[Corraleno]

But then if we don't have this push for a more rigorous education, everyone bitches and moans about how we're so far behind other countries in the world education rankings.  We can't have it both ways.  

 

Exactly! I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison of Indiana's pre-CC state standards with CC standards, and see what the fuss is actually about. Because I'd bet there's not much difference at all, and 99% of the objection is political posturing. I'm very curious as to what changes the people of Indiana are demanding — do they want higher standards than CC? Won't that just drive more testing, even earlier? Or do they want the standards dumbed down? Or they think the current educational system in Indiana is working just fine and want it to stay exactly the way it is?

 

Every stupid thing done by any teacher, administrator, or school board in America for the last year has been blamed on CC. So what happens when Indiana and other states opt out of CC? Who will they blame for stupid teachers and school boards then? 

[DarlaS]

 

This is what the common core IS. For example, paraphrasing the math standards, "A kid who's successfully completed second grade should be able to deal with place value to the thousands, should be able to do and *understand* addition and subtraction within 100, they should know how to measure stuff and that you need more centimeters than inches to cover the same length, and they can name two and three dimensional shapes." Pretty broad. Quite a bit of room for individual teachers to teach in their own way and add their own supplementary topics.

 

:iagree:

 

There are many elementary teachers who cannot teach math well at all, lots of schools using truly awful programs, and now they all have a scapegoat.  :thumbdown:

[northcoast]

I went in February to one the public hearings in Indiana regarding the new proposed standards to replace Common Core.  I did not have time to look them all over before attending.  However several at the hearing did tell the Board that they did go over the standards.  The proposed standards looked very much like Common Core.  I'm sorry I don't remember the percentage quoted.  It was high.  Supposedly this link has side by side comparison of standards for math as 1st drafted, which I also haven't seen.   http://hoosiersagainstcommoncore.com/side-side-comparison-indianas-new-k-12-math-standards/    Keep in mind that SBOE can change the proposed standards and there is no more public input.  They are making changes supposedly from the public hearings in February and online comments.

 

So even though Indiana has dropped out of Common Core, I'm concerned about what the new standards look like.  Even though I homeschool and right now proposed standards don't affect homeschoolers here, what will happen to all the public school kids?  What will it mean for the future of Indiana (not to mention other states) if students are not well educated?

[Joker]

It sounds like Indiana has just done what Florida did. They've tweaked the CC standards a bit and then gave it a new name. I have two dds in ps and don't have a huge problem with CC or how it has been implemented so far, but mine are in middle school so maybe that makes a difference. I don't really know.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Exactly! I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison of Indiana's pre-CC state standards with CC standards, and see what the fuss is actually about. Because I'd bet there's not much difference at all, and 99% of the objection is political posturing. I'm very curious as to what changes the people of Indiana are demanding — do they want higher standards than CC? Won't that just drive more testing, even earlier? Or do they want the standards dumbed down? Or they think the current educational system in Indiana is working just fine and want it to stay exactly the way it is?

 

Every stupid thing done by any teacher, administrator, or school board in America for the last year has been blamed on CC. So what happens when Indiana and other states opt out of CC? Who will they blame for stupid teachers and school boards then? 

If I have time this week, I will find you that side-by-side comparison. The old standards were better. The complaints against the changes were legitimate; we were one of the states that had math and LA standards that were more rigorous AND already proven reasonably effective in our schools.

As for what Hoosiers want regarding standards -- we don't know. (Judging by comments on news articles.) We do know that Bill Bennett was pro-CC and we didn't like what he'd done here as superintendent, and Glenda Ritz, the Teacher's Union's pick and the popular favorite, was elected on an anti-CC platform on behalf of public school teachers and parents. When Ritz went to work on ed. reform issues, she and the Governor's (Mike Pence) office were at constant loggerheads to the point of public drama on the evening news. :/

Then the Indiana state legislature took up the battle. The head of the ed committee is Republican, pro-CC, a pretty good listener, friend of homeschoolers, nice guy...the charge against was led by Republicans. From here (and I don't know everything) it seemed that once the Republicans were firmly anti-CC Mike Pence showed up for work and became anti-CC. So to please everybody AND nobody, the CC standards were paused, then dropped, and new ones were to be put into place immediately. But the new standards are a mess.

[Kevin'sMom]

Possibly a voice crying in the wilderness again, but I am homeschooling because our school district couldn't even come close to implementing CC, which I think is an awesome standard. If I can reach 75% of the CC standards for fourth grade by the end of the year, I will be really happy. That will be about 50% more than my son would have been learning with the (highly inadequate) standards in place now.

[bullseye]

I saw this letter posted elsewhere and I'm not sure I understand the kerfuffle. :)  The reasoning behind the problem, as given by the number line, is common when doing mental math.  One could probably do the subtraction problem more quickly using the idea behind the number line method (not actually drawing the number line - that would take a bit longer) than by using the "line 'em up and subtract" algorithm that the parent wrote down.  I agree - writing a "letter to Jack" is somewhat unnecessary but asking a student to give me a quick explanation of what went wrong with Jack's number line would tell me quite a bit about the level of the student's math reasoning skills.  As a teacher, I'd end up knowing a lot more about where the student is in his/her math abilities than if I just gave him/her the question as a "line 'em up and subtract" algorithm.

 

Just my thoughts. :)

 

I agree.  I interpret the dad's letter as basically saying, "I learned the traditional algorithm; now I lack the conceptual understanding to figure out a basic subtraction problem on a number line" - how is that an endorsement of The Way Things Used To Be rather than an indictment??  

 

Take my opinion with a grain of salt - I'm not familiar enough with Common Core yet to decide whether I like everything about it, but I've seen so many versions of basically the same nonsensical (to me) anti-CC math complaints floating around the internet lately that it's wearing on me. I'm also coming from a "bottom of the barrel" state, so the sentiment around here, at least from the teachers I know, is that CC is a massive improvement over what we currently have in place.

[Walking-Iris]

I agree.  I interpret the dad's letter as basically saying, "I learned the traditional algorithm; now I lack the conceptual understanding to figure out a basic subtraction problem on a number line" - how is that an endorsement of The Way Things Used To Be rather than an indictment??  

 

Take my opinion with a grain of salt - I'm not familiar enough with Common Core yet to decide whether I like everything about it, but I've seen so many versions of basically the same nonsensical (to me) anti-CC math complaints floating around the internet lately that it's wearing on me. I'm also coming from a "bottom of the barrel" state, so the sentiment around here, at least from the teachers I know, is that CC is a massive improvement over what we currently have in place.

I believe the point was...why ask a young child to do that?

 

Honestly I think the mental math and conceptual stuff is being given a place higher than a more basic understanding of math.

 

It would be ridiculous to ask a child to do that sort of place value mental math with a number line, and especially a model that was already in error, find the correct answer, and then write an imaginary letter about it.

 

Who knows if the child was even at a place of understanding the simple method of subtraction? If my child was still learning simple three digit subtraction, I certainly wouldn't give them a problem like this to learn it. 

 

So I disagree...very much disagree...that learning a traditional algorithm will somehow mean there would be a lack of conceptual understanding. BOTH---are necessary IMHO for a well rounded math education.

[bethben]

Here's something else.....

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/common-core-parent-facebook-post-indiana-school-181841158.html

 

I love the dad's letter.

Wouldn't it be easier to have a child show

 

427= 400+20+7

316= 300+10+6

 

Subtract the ones 7-6 = 1

Subtract the 10s  --- 20-10=10

Subtract the 100s---400-300=100

 

100+10+1 = 111

 

I think that they want them to understand the "why" behind the problem.  I do teach my children the why but I don't make them do their problems that way.  I teach them the "easy" way to do it knowing that they understand why it works.  It's laborious to make a child basically do proofs to show why 427-316 works.  There is too much room for error and can easily make a child think they are stupid because you make one little mistake in a proof and the whole thing falls apart.  I did like Singapore math when we did it because it did teach the "whys" but didn't force the child to complete the problems that way.  

 

Beth

[JustEm]

I really doubt the dad didn't know how to answer that question. He was simply pointing out that there was no point for it. And I would agree with him if his child was not at a point developmentally to figure it out, which is likely given the student couldn't do it. I don't see that as a common core issue though unless common core is asking kids to conceptualize math before they are capable of doing so. I haven't studied cc so I don't know if it does,

I agree. I interpret the dad's letter as basically saying, "I learned the traditional algorithm; now I lack the conceptual understanding to figure out a basic subtraction problem on a number line" - how is that an endorsement of The Way Things Used To Be rather than an indictment??

Take my opinion with a grain of salt - I'm not familiar enough with Common Core yet to decide whether I like everything about it, but I've seen so many versions of basically the same nonsensical (to me) anti-CC math complaints floating around the internet lately that it's wearing on me. I'm also coming from a "bottom of the barrel" state, so the sentiment around here, at least from the teachers I know, is that CC is a massive improvement over what we currently have in place.

[JustEm]

Yes it would be easier to show that but still overkill. If a child can do 427-316 then they already know to subTract the ones with ones, tens with tens, etc. And they show it when they line up the numbers with the answer vertically. What you show adds 5 extra steps that waste time and frustrates students that feel they are being babied through a math problem. But the problem was to show why the student used the number line was wrong which is an even bigger waste of time.

Wouldn't it be easier to have a child show

427= 400+20+7
316= 300+10+6

Subtract the ones 7-6 = 1
Subtract the 10s --- 20-10=10
Subtract the 100s---400-300=100

100+10+1 = 111

I think that they want them to understand the "why" behind the problem. I do teach my children the why but I don't make them do their problems that way. I teach them the "easy" way to do it knowing that they understand why it works. It's laborious to make a child basically do proofs to show why 427-316 works. There is too much room for error and can easily make a child think they are stupid because you make one little mistake in a proof and the whole thing falls apart. I did like Singapore math when we did it because it did teach the "whys" but didn't force the child to complete the problems that way.

Beth

[wapiti]

But then if we don't have this push for a more rigorous education, everyone bitches and moans about how we're so far behind other countries in the world education rankings.  We can't have it both ways.  

 

FWIW, I don't think it's the K requirements that people complain about being behind other countries/insufficiently rigorous.  It would be high school level.  (e.g., IIRC, the standards end with a weak algebra 2 and bare smitch of trig.)

 

Honestly I think the mental math and conceptual stuff is being given a place higher than a more basic understanding of math.

 

Unfortunately this may be the case for the concept stuff, through a roundabout way.  It's been a few months since I read about it, but IIRC, the language of some of the CC math standards harks back to "fuzzy math," and for whatever reason - habit or lack of understanding - there are actually districts re-adopting those very fuzzy programs - perhaps repackaged and renamed - that were dumped not that long ago for failing to pair adequate instruction in algorithms with the concept instruction (not to mention that the concept instruction in fuzzy math programs could stand a great deal of improvement as well, IMO).

 

Accordingly, it's not surprising that there may be some backlash among parents now using "new" fuzzy-repackaged programs.  1990s Math Wars deja vu.  (disclaimer: I didn't follow the link to the dad letter.)

 

So I disagree...very much disagree...that learning a traditional algorithm will somehow mean there would be a lack of conceptual understanding. BOTH---are necessary IMHO for a well rounded math education.

 

 

I totally agree that both concept understanding and learning the traditional algorithm are necessary.

 

 

Additionally, it's questionable to me whether the standards are actually deeper and not broader as they are often proclaimed to be.  I haven't gone through them with a fine-toothed comb yet, though the actual language of the standards is a huge deterrent to that (I think they're rather poorly-written and often vague and ambiguous).

 

The math standards also basically prohibit ("strongly recommend against") any math acceleration whatsoever prior to 7th grade, an idea which I find absurd from a perspective of gifted ed.  Not only does the CC specifically state that in the appendix, but I've read that the organization of the standards themselves makes math acceleration in a traditional elementary school exceedingly difficult as a practical/logistical matter.

 

Another random little bit that I noticed in reading about CC awhile back is that the geometry standards include a heavy focus on some aspect that has never before, in any country, been such a heavy basis for learning the rest of it... I'd have to look up what it was, exactly, but that may involve significant textbook changes.  Eta, transformations.

[bullseye]

 

I believe the point was...why ask a young child to do that?

 

Honestly I think the mental math and conceptual stuff is being given a place higher than a more basic understanding of math.

 

It would be ridiculous to ask a child to do that sort of place value mental math with a number line, and especially a model that was already in error, find the correct answer, and then write an imaginary letter about it.

 

Who knows if the child was even at a place of understanding the simple method of subtraction? If my child was still learning simple three digit subtraction, I certainly wouldn't give them a problem like this to learn it. 

 

So I disagree...very much disagree...that learning a traditional algorithm will somehow mean there would be a lack of conceptual understanding. BOTH---are necessary IMHO for a well rounded math education.

 

 

Totally agree with you there.  My post was in reaction to a theme I keep seeing popping up, that is, if it isn't the traditional algorithm, it's a pointless waste of time.  And often the reasoning given by the parent is along the lines of, "Well, I don't understand it, so..."  To me that does indicate that perhaps learning ONLY the algorithm, as many of these parents claim is all that's needed, doesn't lead to deep understanding.  As Beth pointed out above, there are many ways to approach any problem.  I think part of a strong foundation in math is understanding what's really happening when you perform the algorithm, which in turn leads to seeing more than one way to look at it. And I think that's what the problem in question was getting at.  

 

Now, as for when this stuff should be introduced, I also agree that it's generally counterproductive to throw too much at kids before they've mastered the basics.  But we don't know anything about the grade/level this problem was aimed at, or did I miss something?  If the father had said something along the lines of, "My kid is still struggling with the idea of subtraction in general; why are you convoluting it already?" then I would've seen his point.  

 

hjffkj, I disagree that the student not being able to answer the question means it's probably developmentally inappropriate.  That MIGHT be the case, but like I said, we don't have that information.  If my kid weren't wrestling with new concepts I'd worry he wasn't being sufficiently challenged.  

 

[8filltheheart]

We can't have it both ways.

Zimba defines college ready as alg 2 and distinguishes between stem ready and college ready. Sounds like wanting it both ways to me. Alg 2 is not globally competitive. The suggestion is that only something like 5% (it was low, can't remember the exact % though) of students need math beyond alg 2.

Unintended consequences is that it will likely further a divide that already exists bc many schools won't really consider students w/o calculus, even LACs. It is unlikely that unis are going to lower their recruiting filters.

[JustEm]

Well with a parent's reaction the way it was I'd assume the concept was above their child's level. I'm also assuming the parent's background in math is what they say it is. But these are all assumption that arise because I've helped ps children who are good in math not be able to do problems like this a lot because conceptually it was beyond their level. These were all kids from the same grades in the same school district, not all in the same class or school.

Totally agree with you there. My post was in reaction to a theme I keep seeing popping up, that is, if it isn't the traditional algorithm, it's a pointless waste of time. And often the reasoning given by the parent is along the lines of, "Well, I don't understand it, so..." To me that does indicate that perhaps learning ONLY the algorithm, as many of these parents claim is all that's needed, doesn't lead to deep understanding. As Beth pointed out above, there are many ways to approach any problem. I think part of a strong foundation in math is understanding what's really happening when you perform the algorithm, which in turn leads to seeing more than one way to look at it. And I think that's what the problem in question was getting at.

Now, as for when this stuff should be introduced, I also agree that it's generally counterproductive to throw too much at kids before they've mastered the basics. But we don't know anything about the grade/level this problem was aimed at, or did I miss something? If the father had said something along the lines of, "My kid is still struggling with the idea of subtraction in general; why are you convoluting it already?" then I would've seen his point.

hjffkj, I disagree that the student not being able to answer the question means it's probably developmentally inappropriate. That MIGHT be the case, but like I said, we don't have that information. If my kid weren't wrestling with new concepts I'd worry he wasn't being sufficiently challenged.

[VinNY]

I listened to an interview recently. Professor James Milgram who was the only math content/standard expert on the CC panel and subsequently refused to sign off on them stated that he liked the K-5 standards but not the upper grade standards. He also found the need for the younger grades to "explain in writing" their reasoning to be overkill. He wouldn't expect that from them. He actually advised for families/schools  to look at older textbooks (1950's) and/or  anything written by the Russians:) etc. for quality math instruction in the upper grades. He also said that he found the CC standard writers well meaning but way over their heads. They were not experienced in writing educational standards and it shows. You need educators input.

 

He and Dr. Stotsky's experience with the panel was that it became politicized and they did not see anywhere their suggestions to improve the standards included. Therefore they could not in good conscience sign off on them.

 

 

[wapiti]

For those wanting to read specific criticisms of the CC standards, I'd search for articles authored by Milgram (math) and Stotsky (language), members of the CC Validation Committee who were not happy with the standards.

 

With regard to Indiana, Milgram provided brief written testimony to an Indiana Senate committee.  (link is from Hoosiers Against Common Core website; sorry I can't find a different link):

 

1. Why would we want to adopt Common Core Math Standards over Indiana Math Standards?

 

Mathematically, there is no good reason to adopt Common Core Math Standards over the Indiana Standards. Indeed, the Indiana standards were/are? one of the top 4 or 5 state standards in the country, and are approximately at the level of the top international standards. The Common Core standards claim to be “benchmarked against to international standards” but this phrase is meaningless. They are actually two or more years behind international expectations by eighth grade, and only fall further behind as they talk about grades 8 – 12. Indeed, they don’t even fully cover the material in an solid geometry course, or in the second year algebra course.

 

2. What are the differences between Common Core Math Standards and Indiana Standards?

 

Basically, the differences are described above. Both standards were authored with the help of the professional mathematics community as distinguished from the mathematical education community. But — as someone who was at the middle of overseeing the writing process – my main duty on the CCSSO Validation Committee — it became clear that the professional math community input to CCSSI was often ignored, which seemed not to be the case with the Indiana Standards. A particularly egregious example of this occurred in the sixth and seventh grade standards and commentary on ratios, rates, proportion and percents, where there are a number of serious errors and questionable examples. But the same issues are also present in the development of the basic algorithms for whole number arithmetic – the most important topic in grades 1 -5.

 

It was argued by some people on the Validation Committee that we should ignore such errors and misunderstandings as they will be cleared up in later versions, but I didn’t buy into this argument, and currently there is no movement at all towards any revisions.

 

3. How do they compare with international standards?

 

As I indicated above, they are more than two years behind international expectations by eighth grade. The top countries are starting algebra in seventh grade and geometry in eighth or ninth. By the end of ninth grade the students will have learned all of the material in a standard geometry course, all the material in a standard algebra I course, and some of the most important material in a standard algebra II course.  This allows a huge percentage of them to finish calculus before graduating high school. (In a number of the high achieving countries, calculus is actually a high school graduation requirement, but where it is not, typically, half or more of the high school graduates will have had calculus. Also, it is worth noting that in these countries the high school graduation rate is typically 90% or higher for their entire populations.)

 

 

 

[VinNY]

Regarding parents' complaints of the past :)   There is a 13 year age gap from my oldest brother to me. My older siblings were educated in the late 50's early 60's. My parents saw a decline in English standards and experienced that fuzzy math with the younger children. I remember them complaining. My mother purposely gave me classic literature and historical biographies to read throughout my high school years. My parents asked our older brothers to teach us math the 'right way'. I also experienced the first wave of male teachers that were pretty much hired for their sports acumen (they were really there to be sport's coaches). What a bore my high school English and history classes were being taught by these men. And they sure didn't know what to do with me when I wanted to discuss everything I was reading at home. They were embarrassed and asked me to save it for after class. I stopped and re-copied notes the whole class time. Meanwhile my twin had all the male teachers who were doctorates in their field. What a world of difference.

 

 

[MotherOfBoys]

Our school district is in a panic because it can't meet the CC. We can't even pass the crappy MEAP test anymore. Our teachers are paid very well compared the rest of our poor community and yet they don't teach a dang thing. Our teachers simply can't teach. They have a "fun day" every week or more it seems. If kids graduate here, they mostly go to a community college. I worked at a community service outreach for a while and I couldn't believe how many teens came in that couldn't read or write complete sentences.

[Scarlett]

I saw this letter posted elsewhere and I'm not sure I understand the kerfuffle. :) The reasoning behind the problem, as given by the number line, is common when doing mental math. One could probably do the subtraction problem more quickly using the idea behind the number line method (not actually drawing the number line - that would take a bit longer) than by using the "line 'em up and subtract" algorithm that the parent wrote down. I agree - writing a "letter to Jack" is somewhat unnecessary but asking a student to give me a quick explanation of what went wrong with Jack's number line would tell me quite a bit about the level of the student's math reasoning skills. As a teacher, I'd end up knowing a lot more about where the student is in his/her math abilities than if I just gave him/her the question as a "line 'em up and subtract" algorithm.

Just my thoughts. :)

Glad to see I am not the only one who didn't understand that Facebook posting. The number line was inadequate and the whole "write a letter to Jack" thing was just confusing! Just ask the student what is wrong with this problem for Pete's sake.

And what does any of that have to do with Common Core? Really the parent just made themselves look silly for failing to understand the importance of a number line. Yes of course simple subtraction is easier, but a number line is a foundational exercise in learning math.

[Alessandra]

In NJ, a big objection to CC implementation comes from teachers. A large part of their evaluations are based on test results.

 

Students across that state are compared in cohorts based on previous year's testing. So a students from, say, Newark, who may live in poverty, is being raised by a grandparent because his parents are in jail, etc will be compared to a student from, say, Glen Rock whose banker parents have a tutor for him during the year and enrichment camps during the summer, provided they had similar scores previously.  A teacher whose students improve above the state median gets a better eval than a teacher whose students do not.

 

To take another example, a teacher whose school is flooded out, by, say, Hurricane Sandy, would not have that factored into the test results, which, by law, make up a certain percentage of the teacher evaluation.

 

Btw, I like CC the curriculum. It's the testing & teacher eval that I find utterly confounding. 

 

ETA Oh, not to mention costs of new curricula and assessments. The PARCC tests NJ will be using require computers for each student. Can anyone spell 'unfunded mandate?'

 

NY press release

http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/regents-adjust-common-core-implementation.html

 

NJEA (teacher union) position

http://www.njea.org/Home/News/2014/03/03/When%20it%20comes%20to%20the%20Common%20Core%20and%20PARCC%20lets%20follow%20New%20Yorks%20lead