Does Common Core math = Singapore Math???

[Tranquility7]

On principle, I deeply despise the very idea of Common Core. 

 

On the other hand, I love everything about Singapore Math and it has been a *huge* success in our homeschool.  Hopefully that will continue.

 

But what has me flummoxed at the moment is that I recently heard someone lamenting the "crazy things" that are included in Common core math, and some of what they were saying sounded a lot like some of the Singapore Math ideas. 

 

Now, I know (or at least I think I know) that Common Core is not a curriculum but a set of standards.  Is that true?  And SM is a curriculum... but it is based on principles.  So is common core math a "version" of Singapore Math?  Based on the same principles?  Or what?

[chiguirre]

I think it would be more accurate to say that SM is a version of common core math. Or, even better, SM conforms to the Common Core standards. TBH, it's always conformed to Singapore's "Common Core". All the SM books were written to the Ministry of Education standards. In fact, the original version was written by the Ministry of Education--they were government textbooks.

 

If government involvement in education is a major concern for you, you might want to reconsider your preference for Singapore Math. It is a completely government designed program. But then that begs the question, why are Singapore's Ministry of Education standards acceptable and Common Core standards not?

[73349]

You're right that CC is a set of standards (read them here). I think the underlying principles in the standards document are sound. Curricula that have been marked "Common Core Aligned" might or might not really do what those standards are intended to do. Some of them, in the intent to demonstrate multiple ways to think about a problem, seem to overdo and promote ways that might not make a lot of sense for the particular problem... or that would make sense to people who are mathy, but not to parents who were brought up on the memorize-your-facts-and-algorithms plan. I think a lot of elementary teachers go strictly by the book, and not all kids truly make sense of either the concepts or the methods, let alone parents who see a worksheet brought home without the instructional materials.

 

SM also has methods that look odd to some people, so I can see how CC materials would generate complaints that would sound like SM.

 

I don't have a problem with CC itself. I think the states might do better to generate their own materials than to try to buy whatever Pearson et al. shovel out as fast as possible.

[Farrar]

There are other ways to align to CC's standards than the way that Singapore does it.  For example, Beast Academy's books also are aligned, but they don't use many of the hallmarks of Singapore math such as bar diagrams.  CC asks that kids learn alternate methods to solve problems, that they learn the standard algorithms, that they practice word problems, that they be able to discuss the why behind what they're doing...  Those are all things Singapore math already did.

[zoobie]

Common Core is a set of standards. I believe someone linked them upthread. CC was the brainchild of (among others) a bunch of governors who realized that states having completely different education standards hurt kids, for example, when people moved around the country. CC lists the minimum standards for grade levels, say 5th grade includes multiplying fractions, specific geometry segments, etc. CC does not tell the schools how to teach the concepts. The state or district's chosen curricula does that. Friends in different states use very different curricula, from a variety of textbook companies, all "Common Core aligned." It just means the curricula covers at least the basic concepts outlined in the CC standards.

 

Textbook companies like it because they can make one textbook and sell it to every state. Outside of Common Core, each state had very different standards, even for something as seemingly basic as math.

 

The basic goals of Common Core make sense to me. We are a mobile society, and a basic public education in the United States should look similar no matter whether you live in the poorest district or the richest district. But then politics and corporate greed got entangled and the goal seems to have shifted from how to provide a solid, basic education to each child to how to get campaign donations, board seats, and lucrative contracts. :/

[Roadrunner]

CC does not tell the schools how to teach the concepts. The state or district's chosen curricula does that. :/

That's not entirely correct. I believe it specifically mandates the usage of bar diagrams and that's to me telling somebody how to teach, not just what to teach. On the other hand I agree that somehow very different curriculum is labeled CC, including the ones that don't teach bar methods.

We use SM, so I have nothing against bar models. :)

I do think that CC math looks like SM in early grades. I haven't worked through upper grades.

[Farrar]

That's not entirely correct. I believe it specifically mandates the usage of bar diagrams and that's to me telling somebody how to teach, not just what to teach. On the other hand I agree that somehow very different curriculum is labeled CC, including the ones that don't teach bar methods.

We use SM, so I have nothing against bar models. :)

I do think that CC math looks like SM in early grades. I haven't worked through upper grades.

 

But I don't think it does mandate bar diagrams.  I didn't give it a super close reading and haven't looked in awhile, so I could be wrong, but I know BA doesn't use bar diagrams anywhere, so I assume it can't have mandated them.

[quietchapel]

I am appreciating all the comments. It is interesting to me as Math Mammoth, Math U See, Beast, and Singapore are all aligned, but are quite different from one another. I feel for the students and parents locally. From what I have heard, the materials being used are nothing like the programs I mentioned and everyone is quite confused- even teachers.

[Roadrunner]

But I don't think it does mandate bar diagrams. I didn't give it a super close reading and haven't looked in awhile, so I could be wrong, but I know BA doesn't use bar diagrams anywhere, so I assume it can't have mandated them.

I could be wrong. I thought it did, but it could be because I used CC Engage NY materials to teach SM Fractions lesson. It's just like SM. I will dig some more into it. :)

[Tranquility7]

In fact, the original version was written by the Ministry of Education--they were government textbooks.

 

If government involvement in education is a major concern for you, you might want to reconsider your preference for Singapore Math. It is a completely government designed program. But then that begs the question, why are Singapore's Ministry of Education standards acceptable and Common Core standards not?

 

Ummmmm, because I am American and thus not subject to them??  :huh:

 

My objection is not necessarily to the quality of the CC standards – heck, I don’t even know what the standards are, for the most part!  But even imagining that Common Core standards are absolutely perfect and could not possibly be improved, my objection (as I mentioned in my OP) is on *principle* - it is absolutely none of the federal govt’s business how or what my kids are taught in math (or anything else).  That is my objection to Common Core.

 

I am American and thus not subject to Singapore’s Ministry of Education standards or curricula.  If I were (IOW, if I were Singaporean), I’d object to it just like I object to Common Core.  We think SM is the best math program out there, and so we use it.  By our choice, in our own little homeschool.  I might still use it even if the American government told me to, but it would be *in spite of* their requirement, certainly never because of it.

 

(edited to fix a typo)

[boscopup]

I believe CC requires teaching how to draw some sort of picture to help solve a word problem, but I don't see anything about bar diagrams at all. Bar diagrams are ONE method, not the only method to meet that standard. Drawing a picture is often very helpful in solving complex problems, especially in high school math. As an engineer, I had to draw pictures to solve many problems. It was a basic skill.

[boscopup]

Double post.

[sunnyday]

I could be wrong. I thought it did, but it could be because I used CC Engage NY materials to teach SM Fractions lesson. It's just like SM. I will dig some more into it. :)

 

Here you go.

 

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/

[Tranquility7]

By the way, in ref to my previous post, I'm not actually trying to have a Common Core debate, merely trying to understand more about the Common Core standards where math is concerned.

 

 

... Some of them, in the intent to demonstrate multiple ways to think about a problem, seem to overdo and promote ways that might not make a lot of sense for the particular problem... or that would make sense to people who are mathy, but not to parents who were brought up on the memorize-your-facts-and-algorithms plan. I think a lot of elementary teachers go strictly by the book, and not all kids truly make sense of either the concepts or the methods, let alone parents who see a worksheet brought home without the instructional materials.

 

SM also has methods that look odd to some people, so I can see how CC materials would generate complaints that would sound like SM.

Yes, this is what I am noticing - complaints about things which seem to sound like SM, but really I think the issue is the quality of the teaching rather than the curriculum (though I don't know the currics being used either (just that it is "CC aligned"), so maybe it is both).  And I couldn't agree more that SM can seem crazy when taught incorrectly.

 

I am appreciating all the comments. It is interesting to me as Math Mammoth, Math U See, Beast, and Singapore are all aligned, but are quite different from one another. I feel for the students and parents locally. From what I have heard, the materials being used are nothing like the programs I mentioned and everyone is quite confused- even teachers.

Yes!  I would love to see materials actually used in the classroom, as well as how the teachers are trained to use them.

[Reefgazer]

Depends who you ask.  If the schools teach slavishly to the test and only what is on the test, and if the test is aligned to a major publisher of textbooks, then standards become the curriculum.

On principle, I deeply despise the very idea of Common Core. 

 

On the other hand, I love everything about Singapore Math and it has been a *huge* success in our homeschool.  Hopefully that will continue.

 

But what has me flummoxed at the moment is that I recently heard someone lamenting the "crazy things" that are included in Common core math, and some of what they were saying sounded a lot like some of the Singapore Math ideas. 

 

Now, I know (or at least I think I know) that Common Core is not a curriculum but a set of standards.  Is that true?  And SM is a curriculum... but it is based on principles.  So is common core math a "version" of Singapore Math?  Based on the same principles?  Or what?

 

[kiana]

One of my FB friends will NOT stop bitching about common core this and common core that and the math they're teaching at her kid's school. It's very singapore-like and quite honestly it's good, but she is adamantly against it because it's not the traditional way that SHE learned. I think her bitching is infecting the kids.

[Crimson Wife]

My objection is not necessarily to the quality of the CC standards – heck, I don’t even know what the standards are, for the most part!  But even imagining that Common Core standards are absolutely perfect and could not possibly be improved, my objection (as I mentioned in my OP) is on *principle* - it is absolutely none of the federal govt’s business how or what my kids are taught in math (or anything else).  That is my objection to Common Core.

 

Common Core was originally the project of a bunch of state governors. The Feds got involved when they decided to tie receipt of certain Federal education money (Race to the Top) with adopting CC and certain other educational reforms like using test scores to assess teachers. So the Feds took something that was originally a voluntary initiative and used the power of the purse to strong-arm states into joining it.

 

The biggest objection I have to CC math is that it is dumbed down compared to the previous CA state standards. And for all that proponents kept claiming that "it's a floor, not a ceiling", districts and the state have been treating it like a ceiling. The state Board of Ed. denied Singapore Primary Math Common Core edition because it was more advanced than CC. Furthermore, I can't get a straight answer from my district as to whether they are going to continue to offer a full Algebra 1 course in middle school through post-AP math in 12th. They keep dancing around the issue and telling me "it's under discussion".

[Courtney_Ostaff]

I just got done with a teacher training on this.  No, they will probably not offer Algebra I, Algebra II, etc.  Common Core implementation is going for a "blended" math. Algebra I's topics have been shoved down to 8th grade math. They will then offer Math 1, Math 2, Math 3, and Math 4 (or something named similarly in your state).  They've gutted a good portion of geometry, algebra II and trig (those topics are included, just not to the same extent) and replaced it with nearly a year's worth of statistics. Kids who are good at math will get "STEM" versions of Math 3 and Math 4. Everyone will have to take a version of this. There is no more conceptual math, which is a huge blow to low-IQ students.

 

Here's the various options:

• 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
• An approach typically seen internationally (Integrated) that consists of a sequence of three courses, each of which includes number, algebra, geometry, probability and statistics (most common implementation)
• 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
• 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

More details here: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Mathematics_Appendix_A.pdf

 

[Targhee]

From what I have read it seems CC in its infancy used successful math programs like those found in Singapore and Japan as models. Then everybody got their hands on it and morphed it into something else. You might say CC wishes it were Singapore

[chiguirre]

I just got done with a teacher training on this.  No, they will probably not offer Algebra I, Algebra II, etc.  Common Core implementation is going for a "blended" math. Algebra I's topics have been shoved down to 8th grade math. They will then offer Math 1, Math 2, Math 3, and Math 4 (or something named similarly in your state).  They've gutted a good portion of geometry, algebra II and trig (those topics are included, just not to the same extent) and replaced it with nearly a year's worth of statistics. Kids who are good at math will get "STEM" versions of Math 3 and Math 4.

Wow! That really does sound like Discovering Mathematics, right down to the slimmed down geometry, algebra 2 and trig! Those topics appear in Additional Maths, which STEM oriented students take in addition to DM 3 and DM 4 in 9th and 10th grades (it also introduces differential calculus, so it's no slouch--just different).

 

That actually makes me feel much better about using SM's secondary books. I was worried about the different S&S, but if Common Core is moving in this direction, it won't be a problem.

[kiana]

Wow! That really does sound like Discovering Mathematics, right down to the slimmed down geometry, algebra 2 and trig! Those topics appear in Additional Maths, which STEM oriented students take in addition to DM 3 and DM 4 in 9th and 10th grades (it also introduces differential calculus, so it's no slouch--just different).

 

That actually makes me feel much better about using SM's secondary books. I was worried about the different S&S, but if Common Core is moving in this direction, it won't be a problem.

 

You can check out the scope and sequence and how it compares to CC standards on SM's website. Some stuff is out of order, but imo, someone who completed DM 1-4 would be prepared for a solid precalculus class using a standard textbook such as Lial's (precalc classes usually include a fair amount of review and teach logs/trig from scratch), and someone who completed AM would have had a decent introduction to calculus and would be prepared for either an honors calc class or potentially placement into calc 2. I don't see anything major missing from calc 1 but sequences and series, an important topic from calc 2, doesn't seem to be covered.

[sweetpea3829]

Well I don't know.  I'm not against the concept of a set of federal standards.  Why should schools in Iowa be doing stuff at a completely different level than schools in Connecticut?  These graduates will all be applying to some of the same colleges.  I don't like the thought that my kid might be in a school with comparably low standards.

I do realize it is tricky to find a set of standards that everyone can agree on and feel good about, but I don't think it's a terrible idea.

 

If Singapore has come up with a math program that has been proven to work, why in heck would we not want to try it?  Rather someone else has been the guinea pig right? 

 

I've used Singapore for years.  It's excellent.  It actually helped me to understand stuff I never understood before (and I have a college degree). 

 

Not to mention SM is not the only math book on the CC list.  It's not about a book.  It's about whether a book meets the standards. 

 

This thread has been interesting for me to read.  I don't understand a lot of the whole Common Core stuff, but, like the OP, I keep seeing parents all over the country complaining about CC math, and posting examples that look remarkably like Singapore-style math.   And I keep thinking to myself that a lot of these parents really should give the method a try.  

 

We use Singapore and at first, I was a bit flummoxed by it.  But now I love it.  I can see how it is building my 7 yr old's math future with a solid basis of understanding...not just working through the computations.  

 

And while I agree with Sparkly's comment here....that it makes sense to have a COMMON set of standards nationwide, there are some issues with that.  Namely...the whole idea of a "Common" Core is flawed because no 2 students are alike!  What is appropriate for one student to be learning at age 7 is not what is appropriate for another student at the same age. Therefore, it is unacceptable to demand the same requirements from all 7 year olds.  

 

Fact is...kids are NOT common, KWIM?  They are all unique.  

 

My oldest two kids are a perfect example of why Common Core can't work.  I have my 8 yr old with math LDs.  Singapore is a disaster for her.  I'm not sure that she will EVER be able to compute mentally.  Even simple computations such as +1 and +2.  

 

So she uses MUS and is successful with it.  You know what...she still doesn't get the WHY, but she is at least able to work the computation and provide an answer.  And for her, that is what is important right now.  

 

Now my son...7 yrs old...he is gifted in math.  MUS would be such a bore to him.  He has flown through Singapore, easily grasps the WHYs of math, can compute mentally (faster than I can), can explain why an answer is what it is, etc.  

 

It is unfair to have a common expectation for both of them...they are both very different.  

 

Common Core math has this lofty goal of requiring that students be able to explain their math...and that's not a bad thing.  But it is an unrealistic expectation for ALL students.  

[Roadrunner]

This thread has been interesting for me to read. I don't understand a lot of the whole Common Core stuff, but, like the OP, I keep seeing parents all over the country complaining about CC math, and posting examples that look remarkably like Singapore-style math. And I keep thinking to myself that a lot of these parents really should give the method a try.

 

We use Singapore and at first, I was a bit flummoxed by it. But now I love it. I can see how it is building my 7 yr old's math future with a solid basis of understanding...not just working through the computations.

 

And while I agree with Sparkly's comment here....that it makes sense to have a COMMON set of standards nationwide, there are some issues with that. Namely...the whole idea of a "Common" Core is flawed because no 2 students are alike! What is appropriate for one student to be learning at age 7 is not what is appropriate for another student at the same age. Therefore, it is unacceptable to demand the same requirements from all 7 year olds.

 

Fact is...kids are NOT common, KWIM? They are all unique.

 

My oldest two kids are a perfect example of why Common Core can't work. I have my 8 yr old with math LDs. Singapore is a disaster for her. I'm not sure that she will EVER be able to compute mentally. Even simple computations such as +1 and +2.

 

So she uses MUS and is successful with it. You know what...she still doesn't get the WHY, but she is at least able to work the computation and provide an answer. And for her, that is what is important right now.

 

Now my son...7 yrs old...he is gifted in math. MUS would be such a bore to him. He has flown through Singapore, easily grasps the WHYs of math, can compute mentally (faster than I can), can explain why an answer is what it is, etc.

 

It is unfair to have a common expectation for both of them...they are both very different.

 

Common Core math has this lofty goal of requiring that students be able to explain their math...and that's not a bad thing. But it is an unrealistic expectation for ALL students.

Very true, but we face that problem with Common Core as well as individual state standards, don't we? I don't think CA had different set of standards for kids with different abilities for elementary grade kids. In upper grades you could accelerate, but that's true with CC as well.

[ElizaG]

If government involvement in education is a major concern for you, you might want to reconsider your preference for Singapore Math. It is a completely government designed program. But then that begs the question, why are Singapore's Ministry of Education standards acceptable and Common Core standards not?

 

Singapore has just 5 million people, and its geographic area is tiny -- less than 1/4 the size of Rhode Island, and even a bit smaller than New York City.   So their national curriculum can't really be compared to Common Core, or even to US state standards.  It's more as if NYC had a standard math curriculum for its five boroughs.   

 

For some people who believe in local control of education, that would seem a lot more reasonable than CC.   (ETA:  I don't mean to speak for the OP, who might not like it any better.   Just saying that such people do exist.   :001_smile:  )

[sweetpea3829]

Very true, but we face that problem with Common Core as well as individual state standards, don't we? I don't think CA had different set of standards for kids with different abilities for elementary grade kids. In upper grades you could accelerate, but that's true with CC as well.

 

Yes, we do face that problem.  However my understanding is that, before, kids could work "behind" the state standard for their age.  For example, kids with an IEP had different expectations.  

 

From what I understand, ALL kids, regardless of IEP or 504, are expected to meet Common Core requirements.  

 

Again, I do not know a ton on it, and what I do know is from heresay (and we all know how that works out).  I do know that my 8 yr old will be required to take mandatory state testing beginning in 5th grade and every other year until 9th grade and then every year thereafter.  

 

And regardless of her IEP, she WILL be required to demonstrate a certain proficiency, though her requirements for that proficiency are different for homeschoolers than what they are for PS kids.  (She has to score a composite 30% or higher...or she needs to demonstrate a year's growth).  

 

On the other end of the spectrum, my understanding is that accelerated math students such as my son, are not being given the opportunities to work with higher level math curriculum.  For example, I believe it's Crimson who has posted about how CA has not accepted Singapore as a CC curriculum because it is ABOVE CC standards in certain areas.  

 

What *I* don't understand is how certain curriculum can be considered Common Core when they don't even have grade levels...for example, MUS.  How in the world is MUS "CC" when MUS prides itself on NOT having grade levels?  You work through the books as you complete them.

 

And for that matter, if you did complete one book per year, a 2nd grader working on Beta is probably going to be missing some important content that other 2nd graders would have covered.  I understand that, with MUS, you eventually do get to all math topics, but does it follow typical chronological order?  I don't think it does...at least not from my experience with it in Alpha and Beta.  Yet its considered CC?  

Fact is...kids are NOT common, KWIM?  They are all unique.  

Actually, I don't believe all kids are unique, at least with respect to Math curricular needs.  If each and every kid on the planet required a completely personalized Math curriculum in order to learn the basics, we'd never get anywhere.  I bet that 99% of all NT kids could learn what they need in a K-8 program by picking from one of, say, ten programs. (Maybe one would be mostly spiral, another mastery, another experiential, another "new math", etc.)

[sweetpea3829]

Yeah I agree that basically no set of standards should be completely rigid.  It still strikes me as a better approach than the NCLB crap where they thought they were going to get all students to pass a standardized test.  They make kids take those tests even if it is entirely inappropriate.  I read a story of a case of a boy who was in the hospital undergoing treatment for cancer and a state worker showed up to offer the standardized test.  His parents nixed that, but frankly I don't think it was even reasonable that they showed up in the first place.  And it's like education became all about some arbitrary test rather than the content and learning.  So long as they could train the monkeys to put the round peg into the round slot that was supposedly some sign that they were being educated.  (Not intending to call people or children monkeys exactly...I'm getting at the vibe of them essentially training people to do tricks rather than educating them with meaningful methods/information.)

 

I also think that NCLB became all about teaching to the lowest common denominator to make it look like they have educated the largest number of people.  Again, that's probably going to make some people bristle, but seriously why not raise the standards and accept the fact that not everyone is going to be an A student?  My husband was not an A student (I was).  I have no doubts he received a much more rigorous education than I did.  He went on to get a degree in engineering.  I don't think I could have handled a major in engineering although my grades told otherwise (unlike his). 

 

If my kid graduates from high school with As in math and they go off to college and can't do the math, what the heck?!  But that happens.  Look at the tons of remedial course offerings at many colleges.  I'm glad they have it, but what is going on if a kid graduates from high school and needs remediation in the basics?

 

So of course I agree with you.  I don't know enough about the details of Common Core to say how rigid it is. 

 

Speaking to the explain the math thing.  That's not a bad idea, but I've seen some very ridiculous things.  I've used MIF for a bit now and some of the math journal stuff makes me want to crack up.  They give the kid this very basic math problem and then tell them to practically write an essay explaining how they got the answer.  My son looked at me like I had flipped my lid.  It wasn't all that meaningful.  Expecting that length of answer didn't match the problem.  You'd have to start making stuff up.  So I suspect that once again the idea behind it (making kids understand stuff well enough to explain it) is going to be interpreted and implemented in such a way that was never intended.  Probably in part because teachers haven't been educated in this way themselves. 

 

I could go on and on...

 

The testing aspect of this really irks me.  For how many years have we been comparing our students to students from other countries?  How many times have we heard that XYZ country's kids are scoring higher than our kids on standardized testing.

 

For a long time, I would have been bothered by the fact that, apparently, our kids are behind everybody else's kids.  But you know what....at this point, I REALLY DON'T CARE.  Seriously...what does it matter?  I mean, I get it...we want our kids to be able to compete in the world market for jobs, etc...but you know what...its unfair to compare our kids' test scores with the scores of kids from other countries.  

 

Many of these other countries do not provide an education to ALL students...and many of them do not test lower IQ kids.  So their scores, to me anyways, appear to be inflated.  

 

The US DOES provide an education to all students regardless of ability and these kids' scores are included in our averages.  

 

Plus, like you pointed out...what exactly does the test show, anyways?  I was an excellent test-taker.  Multiple choice tests, SATs, I could do them all.  But at best, I'm an average student when it comes to actually demonstrating a REAL knowledge of the material.  

 

My husband has LDs, and sucks at test-taking.  But while test scores would portray him as a low IQ person, his actual intelligence is MUCH higher.  My 7 yr old has this Snap Circuit electric set...I can't wrap my mind around the whole thing....circuits and this and that.  My husband can sit down and build complex electrical circuits with it.

 

Who's the "smarter" person?  Neither...we're both intelligent in our own ways.  

 

I am SO thankful that homeschooling is an option.  Seriously, I couldn't imagine putting my 8 yr old little girl into a school system and forcing her to sit through tests every year.  It annoys me enough that I have to test her in 5th grade.  But at least *I* can be the test administrator.  

[boscopup]

And the real kicker, is they are testing kids on CC before they have even implemented it for 1 year.  What the heck.  It's like saying we are going to teach kids Chinese and next month we'll test them on Chinese to see if they are learning it.  Because testing has somehow become equated with teaching.  Testing is teaching.  What?!

 

Many schools have implemented CC over the course of the last 2-3 years or so.

 

But yeah, after testing was over this school year, they watched movies the last 2-3 weeks of school. They were done teaching because the tests were over! :tongue_smilie:

 

And the real kicker, is they are testing kids on CC before they have even implemented it for 1 year.  What the heck.  It's like saying we are going to teach kids Chinese and next month we'll test them on Chinese to see if they are learning it.  Because testing has somehow become equated with teaching.  Testing is teaching.  What?! 

 

By starting testing now, it does make it easy to show gains in test score year over year for the next few years....

[PachiSusan]

By starting testing now, it does make it easy to show gains in test score year over year for the next few years....

Well, of course it will. LOL THE SKEPTIC in me says they did it to show how abysmal ort kids are doing and why we NEED common core sooo badly. See how badly they did on the tests????

[PachiSusan]

Right, but this is how they did it. They tested. They told parents their kids were passing. Then they retroactively went back and made the scoring more rigorous. Then they told parents your kids aren't up to snuff. Then the next year they gave them a test on content not covered. The teacher's performance reviews are tied to those test results. So teachers are telling students they better do well. So kids are stressed. Teachers are stressed. Parents are confused and pissed off.

 

They have not handled this right at all. It makes it seem like they have no clue what they are doing.

This exact scenario happened in the county I live in. My nephew was one of the sophomores caught up in the "would've passed but oops now you don't" crowd.

 

Sometimes I think they know EXACTLY what they are doing and it's to destroy the system we have and hoodwink people into thinking, as Princess Leia said, " Help me, common core... You're our only hope! "

[Roadrunner]

CA is testing this year but not releasing scores. I think they will make the test easier next year if the failure rate ends up being high.

More I look at lower level CC math standards, more puzzled I am why people dislike it. I am worried about some comments made about chunks of geometry being dumped out of the curriculum and the general trend of making higher math easier (this isn't based on my evaluation, but what I am hearing on this board). In lower grades my only gripe is that CA chose to not differentiate until 8th grade. That wild prevent us from even considering PS until high school.

[nature girl]

I think the main issue is that many of the teachers just don't know how to teach it, so the students struggle, and the math is so unfamiliar to their parents that they're just at a loss for how to help their kids. (Also that some of the revised-for-CC textbooks were written hastily so that the publishers could get a bite of the huge pie, and so are riddled with ridiculousness and mistakes. That's not the case for Singapore, though.)

[Courtney_Ostaff]

...More I look at lower level CC math standards, more puzzled I am why people dislike it....

 

Because, for the majority of students, the implementation is developmentally inappropriate. A tough critique of Common Core on early childhood education

See also: Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative

 

 

A mom at my son's drama class was telling me her daughter comes home stressed out and crying over the tests (she is 8). ....

 

I can't tell you how many of my students cry.  No, seriously, I can't, because I'd be fired. The state dept of ed tracks my social media use and private text messages to make sure I don't discuss it. Three teachers in my district last year were fired for violating testing protocol. I can't even say, "gosh, that writing prompt was tough today!" I cannot even read the questions on the test, much less read them to a student.

AFT asks Pearson to stop ‘gag order’ barring educators from talking about tests (update)

 

.... apparently, our kids are behind everybody else's kids. .....

 

The problem with panicking over PISA scores:

http://zhaolearning.com/2012/12/11/numbers-can-lie-what-timss-and-pisa-truly-tell-us-if-anything/

 

The problem with the way the PISA scores are calculated:

http://www.epi.org/publication/us-student-performance-testing/

 

And why you can't compare PISA scores between countries:

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6344672

 

.....I bet that 99% of all NT kids could learn what they need in a K-8 program by picking from one of, say, ten programs....

 

Which is fine, except that NT kids seem to be getting rarer and rarer:

Thousands of Toddlers Are Medicated for A.D.H.D., Report Finds, Raising Worries

"The percentage of total public school enrollment that represents children served by federally supported special education programs increased from 8.3 percent to 13.8 percent between 1976–77 and 2004–05." http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64

 

 

From what I understand, ALL kids, regardless of IEP or 504, are expected to meet Common Core requirements.  

....What *I* don't understand is how certain curriculum can be considered Common Core when they don't even have grade levels...for example, MUS.  How in the world is MUS "CC" when MUS prides itself on NOT having grade levels?  You work through the books as you complete them.

...

 

Yep, even kids without functioning brain stems are expected to take standardized tests and increase their proficiency from year to year.

 

Standards Vs. Curriculum

 

 

Singapore has just 5 million people, and its geographic area is tiny -- less than 1/4 the size of Rhode Island, and even a bit smaller than New York City.   So their national curriculum can't really be compared to Common Core, or even to US state standards.  It's more as if NYC had a standard math curriculum for its five boroughs.   

 

For some people who believe in local control of education, that would seem a lot more reasonable than CC.   (ETA:  I don't mean to speak for the OP, who might not like it any better.   Just saying that such people do exist.   :001_smile:  )

 

I agree.

 

This thread has been interesting for me to read.  I don't understand a lot of the whole Common Core stuff, but, like the OP, I keep seeing parents all over the country complaining about CC math, and posting examples that look remarkably like Singapore-style math.   And I keep thinking to myself that a lot of these parents really should give the method a try.  .... Common Core math has this lofty goal of requiring that students be able to explain their math...and that's not a bad thing.  But it is an unrealistic expectation for ALL students.  

 

The problem is that teachers are hamstrung to individualize curricula to these students.  I have been in classrooms where the teachers have to sign a legal affidavit every week saying that they conducted the class using the script in teacher's manual, covering X pages on Y days using Z vocabulary words--and that affidavit is used in the year-end hire/fire decisions.  

 

Students' test scores are required to be used to evaluate teachers if schools accept federal education funding (and pretty much all schools do).  The problem with that is that since K-2 students aren't officially tested (though they are -- see also DIBELs and their ilk), those teachers are evaluated based upon the scores of older students in the school that they don't teach.  Or, say, a music teacher, whose subject isn't tested, must be evaluated on language arts, math, social studies, and science standardized test scores--so he's fired based on test scores for subjects that he didn't teach.  Or, say, a gifted teacher is going to be fired because his students score on the 99th percentile every year--which means their scores don't increase from year to year. 

[Roadrunner]

 

Because, for the majority of students, the implementation is developmentally inappropriate. A tough critique of Common Core on early childhood education

 

 

The implementation is one thing, the standard is another thing. If companies are publishing confusing curriculum, problem not new to CC, it's the problem with publishers. There isn't anything in SM early grades that I would consider developmentally inappropriate and I don't believe CC math standards are ahead of SM. My kids spent 3 years bored in PS math classes, so I welcome a more rigorous lineup. I just wonder if at least in early grades for math the outrage about materials is directed at a wrong target. I think maybe it's curriculum publishers and school districts that are more responsible for the tears than math standards.

[Courtney_Ostaff]

 

Because, for the majority of students, the implementation is developmentally inappropriate. A tough critique of Common Core on early childhood education

 

 

The implementation is one thing, the standard is another thing. ... My kids spent 3 years bored in PS math classes, so I welcome a more rigorous lineup....

 

The standards are also developmentally inappropriate:

 

" There is no convincing research, for example, showing that certain skills or bits of knowledge (such as counting to 100 or being able to read a certain number of words) if mastered in kindergarten will lead to later success in school. Two recent studies show that direct instruction can actually limit young children’s learning. At best, the standards reflect guesswork, not cognitive or developmental science."

 

 TheJoint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative was signed by educators, pediatricians, developmental psychologists, and researchers, including many of the most prominent members of those fields.

Their statement reads in part:

 We have grave concerns about the core standards for young children…. The proposed standards conflict with compelling new research in cognitive science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood education about how young children learn, what they need to learn, and how best to teach them in kindergarten and the early grades….

The statement’s four main arguments, below, are grounded in what we know about child development—facts that all education policymakers need to be aware of:

1.  The K-3 standards will lead to long hours of direct instruction in literacy and math. This kind of “drill and grill†teaching has already pushed active, play-based learning out of many kindergartens.

2. The standards will intensify the push for more standardized testing, which is highly unreliable for children under age eight.

3. Didactic instruction and testing will crowd out other crucial areas of young children’s learning: active, hands-on exploration, and developing social, emotional, problem-solving, and self-regulation skills—all of which are difficult to standardize or measure but are the essential building blocks for academic and social accomplishment and responsible citizenship.

4. There is little evidence that standards for young children lead to later success. The research is inconclusive; many countries with top-performing high-school students provide rich play-based, nonacademic experiences—not standardized instruction—until age six or seven.

The National Association for the Education of Young Children is the foremost professional organization for early education in the U.S. Yet it had no role in the creation of the K-3 Core Standards. The Joint Statement opposing the standards was signed by three past presidents of the NAEYC—David Elkind, Ellen Galinsky, and Lilian Katz—and by Marcy Guddemi, the executive director of the Gesell Institute of Human Development; Dr. Alvin Rosenfeld of Harvard Medical School; Dorothy and Jerome Singer of the Yale University Child Study Center; Dr. Marilyn Benoit, past president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Professor Howard Gardner of the Harvard Graduate School of Education; and many others.

[Roadrunner]

Counting to 100 is developmentally inappropriate in K? Really? It's in SM essentials, a curriculum everybody raves about.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[PachiSusan]

Counting to 100 is developmentally inappropriate in K? Really? It's in SM essentials, a curriculum everybody raves about.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Did you read all that was posted? That wasnt the only thing mentioned as being inappropriate. It is not appropriate to think That every kindergartner (including special needs) can.

 

The problem I see a lot is that when Singapore is brought up in this way, people get upset that their program of choice is being dissed. Far from it-- Common core is NOT Singapore, so confusing it with common core does nothing but shut down the conversation IME.

 

CC text books seem to use similar methods. I think it's wrong to put Singapore(which has proven its mettle and efficacy ) in the same category as Common Core. Common Core takes unproven, untested methods and makes a conglomeration of math that makes it a mess.

 

Not one expert of child development was even consulted. That to me speaks volumes.

[Farrar]

They have not handled this right at all.  It makes it seem like they have no clue what they are doing.

 

 

Sometimes I think they know EXACTLY what they are doing and it's to destroy the system we have and hoodwink people into thinking, as Princess Leia said, " Help me, common core... You're our only hope! "

 

Actually, some of the stuff that I have read about has me thinking that there are districts out there purposefully sabotaging CC because they hate it themselves so much.  And what's the best way to firmly turn the public against it?  Implement it in the worst possible way and whenever any parent complains about absolutely anything say, "We have to do it that way because of Common Core."  And then your parents will turn around and do it for you.

[Farrar]

Counting to 100 is developmentally inappropriate in K? Really? It's in SM essentials, a curriculum everybody raves about.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

I would agree that most kindergarteners can meet that particular standard.  However, imagine for a moment that the parent of a 5 yo (like Courtney herself, who you quoted) came on this board.  "I'm using Singapore," the parent says.  "We've been working on this for months now," the parent says.  "I've tried using manipulatives and an abacus and games," the parent says.  "We changed curricula," the parent says.  "My little one just hates math now," the parent says.  What would the advice be?

 

Well, I think we all know the advice would include some good tips, some better ways to use manipulatives, maybe some suggestions of songs...  and a whole heck of a lot of people saying, "Chill out!  He's just FIVE!  He'll get it eventually."  Because THAT'S what's developmentally appropriate.

 

I guess what I'm saying is...  Is this a developmentally inappropriate thing to ask a k'er to try to do or to teach a k'er?  Absolutely not.  This should absolutely be a part of a kindergarten math curriculum.  But is this a developmentally inappropriate thing to require of every single five year old to be able to do or we fail them?  I think it is.

[Roadrunner]

Did you read all that was posted? That wasnt the only thing mentioned as being inappropriate. It is not appropriate to think That every kindergartner (including special needs) can.

 

The problem I see a lot is that when Singapore is brought up in this way, people get upset that their program of choice is being dissed. Far from it-- Common core is NOT Singapore, so confusing it with common core does nothing but shut down the conversation IME.

 

CC text books seem to use similar methods. I think it's wrong to put Singapore(which has proven its mettle and efficacy ) in the same category as Common Core. Common Core takes unproven, untested methods and makes a conglomeration of math that makes it a mess.

 

Not one expert of child development was even consulted. That to me speaks volumes.

Yes, I read all of it. I find it amusing that national papers often rave about the program, but when similar demands are pushed, they write the opposite. Either everybody complains how behind we are, or it's now developmentally inappropriate . CC isn't Singapore. I am using SM because if you look at CC math materials NY published (and and there is a lot of complaining from NY), it looks very similar to it. It is also the topic of this thread - is CC similar to SM. I am trying to tell you that I think in early grades it is very similar based on materials I have looked at. I am also trying to say that if you have intelligent people writing curriculum, they could come up with better math questions than what I have seen used as examples of why CC is bad. I am not debating LA standards and if writing under CC is developmentally appropriate. I am trying to say that CC math attempts to teach conceptually topics (a good thing in my book), it actually isn't too advanced (CA is apparently not allowing SM math because SM is advanced). Unproven, untested methods? Can you give concrete examples of elementary math standards that use unproven methods?

I believe no one standard can serve all kids and the best approach is to train teachers well and give them the freedom to teach real kids they have in their classrooms. I think tailoring instruction to individuals is the best approach, but I think often the criticism leveled at CC math standards (I can only speak to elementary grades) is simply misplaced.

[Roadrunner]

I would agree that most kindergarteners can meet that particular standard. However, imagine for a moment that the parent of a 5 yo (like Courtney herself, who you quoted) came on this board. "I'm using Singapore," the parent says. "We've been working on this for months now," the parent says. "I've tried using manipulatives and an abacus and games," the parent says. "We changed curricula," the parent says. "My little one just hates math now," the parent says. What would the advice be?

 

Well, I think we all know the advice would include some good tips, some better ways to use manipulatives, maybe some suggestions of songs... and a whole heck of a lot of people saying, "Chill out! He's just FIVE! He'll get it eventually." Because THAT'S what's developmentally appropriate.

 

I guess what I'm saying is... Is this a developmentally inappropriate thing to ask a k'er to try to do or to teach a k'er? Absolutely not. This should absolutely be a part of a kindergarten math curriculum. But is this a developmentally inappropriate thing to require of every single five year old to be able to do or we fail them? I think it is.

I think we were typing at he same time, but yes, I don't disagree that CC can't meet everybody's needs. It can't meet the needs of my kids either, which is why I homeschool.

I simply don't see a situation how we could really meet every child at their level in the classroom setting. Local control/freedom given to teachers could work well for competent school districts, but unfortunately the top and bottom 10% of kids will probably still find classroom setting challenging for various reasons.

[sweetpea3829]

I think the main issue is that many of the teachers just don't know how to teach it, so the students struggle, and the math is so unfamiliar to their parents that they're just at a loss for how to help their kids. (Also that some of the revised-for-CC textbooks were written hastily so that the publishers could get a bite of the huge pie, and so are riddled with ridiculousness and mistakes. That's not the case for Singapore, though.)

Yes, this.  I have to be honest but I think a lot of the complaints from parents is based in the fact that parents were never exposed to this kind of math...and frankly, anything that's new is often railed against, kwim?  When *WE* first started with Singapore, I felt uncomfortable with its approach because it was new to me, I didn't "get" it immediately and the "old way" I had already mastered was "easier".  

 

 

 

 

I would agree that most kindergarteners can meet that particular standard.  However, imagine for a moment that the parent of a 5 yo (like Courtney herself, who you quoted) came on this board.  "I'm using Singapore," the parent says.  "We've been working on this for months now," the parent says.  "I've tried using manipulatives and an abacus and games," the parent says.  "We changed curricula," the parent says.  "My little one just hates math now," the parent says.  What would the advice be?

 

Well, I think we all know the advice would include some good tips, some better ways to use manipulatives, maybe some suggestions of songs...  and a whole heck of a lot of people saying, "Chill out!  He's just FIVE!  He'll get it eventually."  Because THAT'S what's developmentally appropriate.

 

I guess what I'm saying is...  Is this a developmentally inappropriate thing to ask a k'er to try to do or to teach a k'er?  Absolutely not.  This should absolutely be a part of a kindergarten math curriculum.  But is this a developmentally inappropriate thing to require of every single five year old to be able to do or we fail them?  I think it is.

I agree.  

 

I think we were typing at he same time, but yes, I don't disagree that CC can't meet everybody's needs. It can't meet the needs of my kids either, which is why I homeschool.

I simply don't see a situation how we could really meet every child at their level in the classroom setting. Local control/freedom given to teachers could work well for competent school districts, but unfortunately the top and bottom 10% of kids will probably still find classroom setting challenging for various reasons.

 

I think its even more than 10% of the top and 10% of the bottom.  I think MOST kids are not having all of their educational needs met in a classroom setting.  Maybe their getting it for math, but not for language arts.  Or vice versa.  

[sweetpea3829]

Yes, I read all of it. I find it amusing that national papers often rave about the program, but when similar demands are pushed, they write the opposite. Either everybody complains how behind we are, or it's now developmentally inappropriate . CC isn't Singapore. I am using SM because if you look at CC math materials NY published (and and there is a lot of complaining from NY), it looks very similar to it. It is also the topic of this thread - is CC similar to SM. I am trying to tell you that I think in early grades it is very similar based on materials I have looked at. I am also trying to say that if you have intelligent people writing curriculum, they could come up with better math questions than what I have seen used as examples of why CC is bad. I am not debating LA standards and if writing under CC is developmentally appropriate. I am trying to say that CC math attempts to teach conceptually topics (a good thing in my book), it actually isn't too advanced (CA is apparently not allowing SM math because SM is advanced). Unproven, untested methods? Can you give concrete examples of elementary math standards that use unproven methods?

I believe no one standard can serve all kids and the best approach is to train teachers well and give them the freedom to teach real kids they have in their classrooms. I think tailoring instruction to individuals is the best approach, but I think often the criticism leveled at CC math standards (I can only speak to elementary grades) is simply misplaced.

 

And well, isn't this kind of the answer?  

 

WHY is homeschooling so effective?  What are we doing and giving our kids, that the classroom setting is not giving them?  We are giving them individualized education with high levels of attention and high levels of parental involvement (kind of goes hand in hand with homeschooling, lol).  

 

That really says something, doesn't it?  And...we and they (educators) KNOW this...we KNOW that individualizing is best for all kids.  But implementing that is another story.  What would need to happen for public schools to provide this kind of individualization for all students?  Well for starters, a lot more funding would need to be funneled towards schools, because you would need a lot more teachers and resources.  They would need to have the flexibility to switch curriculum when necessary (do you know how many math curriculums I've gone through and tossed because they were not right for my DD).  They would need to be invested in their students, perhaps instructing them for more than one school term.  

 

But the reality is that this is highly unlikely to ever happen.  It's not affordable, nor is it feasible.  

 

 

[PachiSusan]

Actually, some of the stuff that I have read about has me thinking that there are districts out there purposefully sabotaging CC because they hate it themselves so much.  And what's the best way to firmly turn the public against it?  Implement it in the worst possible way and whenever any parent complains about absolutely anything say, "We have to do it that way because of Common Core."  And then your parents will turn around and do it for you.

 

Maybe. I can say my experience has been quite the opposite - that the teachers seem to like it and people who oppose it are "Tin foil Hat nasty tea baggers..." LOL 

 

AFAIK, an internet friend who teaches in NY said that Engage NY was implemented word for word how the Common Core standards were put out - including scripts as to how to teach everything, the testing, etc...

 

People say it's only a set of standards, but standards beget curriculum...follow the money. 

[sweetpea3829]

So I had this thought last night....and maybe we can chew it over a bit.  

 

Why are our children entitled to a free*, high-quality (that being the operative phrase here) education?

 

*I fully realize its not free...we pay for it in the form of school taxes.  

 

Anyways, shouldn't our children's education be our own responsibility?  Sure, there's benefits to our country for our children to be well-educated, but perhaps we're expecting too much.  Perhaps it should be that our government provides a base education and anything more is on us?  

 

Just a thought....more devil's advocate than anything.  

[nature girl]

Why are our children entitled to a free*, high-quality (that being the operative phrase here) education?

 

...shouldn't our children's education be our own responsibility?  Sure, there's benefits to our country for our children to be well-educated, but perhaps we're expecting too much.  Perhaps it should be that our government provides a base education and anything more is on us?  

 

I agree with you in theory, maybe that's the way it should be, but do you know how many parents out there couldn't care less what kind of education their kids get? Or, even if they do care, don't have the time or energy to provide it? We owe it to those children to help them reach their highest potential, in the same way need to provide children with adequate nutrition if their parents can't afford it.

[Courtney_Ostaff]

Maybe. I can say my experience has been quite the opposite - that the teachers seem to like it and people who oppose it are "Tin foil Hat nasty tea baggers..." LOL 

 

AFAIK, an internet friend who teaches in NY said that Engage NY was implemented word for word how the Common Core standards were put out - including scripts as to how to teach everything, the testing, etc...

 

People say it's only a set of standards, but standards beget curriculum...follow the money. 

 

I think it's more that teachers aren't allowed to talk about it. If you notice, I've been careful about making statements of my own opinion or experiences, and instead, have been mostly referring you to outside resources or quoting said resources. That NDA is nationwide.  I don't know anyone who would like to be required to teach according to a script, and not able to answer a perfectly valid question from a student because they have to stay on-script. Remember, their job depends on compliance with that standard.

 

A lot of it depends on how the teachers are told implement it. My kindie daughter's private school insisted that she be able to write to 100 as proof that she knew how to count to 100. Without prompting. In D'Nealian script. Without reversals. If she didn't master all that, she "failed." To me, that's more about writing than counting--and developmentally inappropriate in more than one way. Symmetry is a learned skill, which is why reversals are normal until 2nd grade or so. When she couldn't hit all those required points, she internalized the message that she was bad at math. I figured that out the other day when she said "I'm bad at math." It's certainly nothing I've ever told her! Another stressor was that despite having her for 7 hours a day, most of the practice was to be done at home, and frankly, I only saw her for 3 or 4 hours a day--between dinner, bath, and bed, very little of that was available for practice time.

[Courtney_Ostaff]

... No one is ready for more than CC remedial coursework, if they do manage to pass their Regents Exams.

 

And that's a problem, because that remedial community college coursework is going away:

 

"IHEs will ultimately use the data from PARCC assessments to exempt from remedial courses and place into first-year, credit-bearing college courses in English and mathematics any student who meets the consortium-adopted achievement standard for college-readiness."

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/reports/parcc-year-2.pdf

 

AKA, as a condition of getting money from the feds for public K-12 schools, states had to require their public, 4-year degree-granting institutions would admit the high school graduates straight to "regular" classes, no matter their test scores. The logic underlying this thought is that because the Common Core standards are so awesome, students who successfully graduate from high school are no longer in need of remediation. Those public universities no longer get to set their own admission standards--they will all now have "open" admission. I suspect that this will mean that those freshman 101 courses will be watered down even more than they already are. 

 

Of course, those PARCC assessments? They cost the school districts money to use, FYI.

[Reefgazer]

The bolded constraints are intentional and necessary in order to achieve the goal of equal outcomes in the classroom.  If teachers simply closed their classroom doors and taught the content in the best way that existed for their students to learn capably (like they did with 20-40 years ago when national standards were first proposed and failed), that would defeat the entire purpose of OBE and equalizing outcomes, because there are always those children who will be more intellectually adept and manage to kill the idea of "everyone is equally capable".  But put in gag orders, signed affidavits, and tie teaching only what is in the textbook to pay, and that little problem is solved.  National standards/curriculum have repeatedly been rejected by the citizens of this country because of the social engineering that underpins them.  But if educrats can use PISA tests to (falsely) convince citizens that the US is underachieving, and then force the teachers to teach not quantitative knowledge, but amorphous "learning objectives", then they can a achieve the social outcomes they desire; kind of like digging a ditch for the capable to stand in so that everyone else looks taller.  These tactics are pretty well documented, if anyone cares to takes the time to read them.  I'm just stunned at how few people are so disbelieving that they don't bother to read them.

Because, for the majority of students, the implementation is developmentally inappropriate. A tough critique of Common Core on early childhood education

See also: Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative

 

 

 

I can't tell you how many of my students cry.  No, seriously, I can't, because I'd be fired. The state dept of ed tracks my social media use and private text messages to make sure I don't discuss it. Three teachers in my district last year were fired for violating testing protocol. I can't even say, "gosh, that writing prompt was tough today!" I cannot even read the questions on the test, much less read them to a student.

AFT asks Pearson to stop ‘gag order’ barring educators from talking about tests (update)

 

 

The problem with panicking over PISA scores:

http://zhaolearning.com/2012/12/11/numbers-can-lie-what-timss-and-pisa-truly-tell-us-if-anything/

 

The problem with the way the PISA scores are calculated:

http://www.epi.org/publication/us-student-performance-testing/

 

And why you can't compare PISA scores between countries:

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6344672

 

 

Which is fine, except that NT kids seem to be getting rarer and rarer:

Thousands of Toddlers Are Medicated for A.D.H.D., Report Finds, Raising Worries

"The percentage of total public school enrollment that represents children served by federally supported special education programs increased from 8.3 percent to 13.8 percent between 1976–77 and 2004–05." http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64

 

 

 

Yep, even kids without functioning brain stems are expected to take standardized tests and increase their proficiency from year to year.

 

Standards Vs. Curriculum

 

 

 

I agree.

 

 

The problem is that teachers are hamstrung to individualize curricula to these students.  I have been in classrooms where the teachers have to sign a legal affidavit every week saying that they conducted the class using the script in teacher's manual, covering X pages on Y days using Z vocabulary words--and that affidavit is used in the year-end hire/fire decisions.  

 

Students' test scores are required to be used to evaluate teachers if schools accept federal education funding (and pretty much all schools do).  The problem with that is that since K-2 students aren't officially tested (though they are -- see also DIBELs and their ilk), those teachers are evaluated based upon the scores of older students in the school that they don't teach.  Or, say, a music teacher, whose subject isn't tested, must be evaluated on language arts, math, social studies, and science standardized test scores--so he's fired based on test scores for subjects that he didn't teach.  Or, say, a gifted teacher is going to be fired because his students score on the 99th percentile every year--which means their scores don't increase from year to year.