Does Common Core math = Singapore Math???

[Arcadia]

Teachers were mean. They marked every little imperfection with a red pen.

That is why teachers get boxes of red pens from parents as Teacher's Day present :lol: Pelikan and Staedtler pens were favorites. My dad used up lots of red pens as a teacher.

[PachiSusan]

I use a red pen to correct Melissa's work. ;)

 

 

That is why teachers get boxes of red pens from parents as Teacher's Day present :lol: Pelikan and Staedtler pens were favorites. My dad used up lots of red pens as a teacher.

[rdj2027]

LOL, I have lots of red pens and use them liberally.

[sweetpea3829]

So, how is this going to affect homeschoolers taking standardized tests?  Are the standardized tests going to reflect Common Core requirements, including requiring test takers to explain their solutions?  

 

Because I have a big problem with that, if so...lol.

 

 

Also, I mentioned this before, but nobody answered.  Can anybody explain to me how a curriculum like Math U See is considered Common Core aligned when Singapore isn't (in CA).  I mean, MUS doesn't technically even have grade levels, but if you consider one grade level per MUS level, when I stop and look at the content my daughter will have covered by the time she's finished Beta, she's not covering much of what my Singapore student has covered by the end of 2nd grade.  

[PachiSusan]

So, how is this going to affect homeschoolers taking standardized tests?  Are the standardized tests going to reflect Common Core requirements, including requiring test takers to explain their solutions?  

 

Because I have a big problem with that, if so...lol.

 

This is just a guess, but I *HOPE* they will have Cliff Notes or SAT Test prep books. That way, whatever Math curriculum your child learned from, they could learn the WAY the test wants them to answer the questions. I would hope that if a child has mastery of the concepts, a little studying about the Common Core "approved" way of getting to that answer will help them ace the SAT's and ACT's.

 

It is my understanding that the tests have changed in a few ways: some of the content has been lowered (to reflect the shift in what is expected of everyone and the scope and sequence of regular math), some has been added (to reflect standards), and the grading system has changed to reflect the new way of "proving" one's answers.

[PachiSusan]

Also, I mentioned this before, but nobody answered.  Can anybody explain to me how a curriculum like Math U See is considered Common Core aligned when Singapore isn't (in CA).  I mean, MUS doesn't technically even have grade levels, but if you consider one grade level per MUS level, when I stop and look at the content my daughter will have covered by the time she's finished Beta, she's not covering much of what my Singapore student has covered by the end of 2nd grade.  

 

I can't find it right now, but if you scroll through Courtney's posts, she did address this. Roadrunner might have as well - or maybe it was her. 

[Roadrunner]

I can't find it right now, but if you scroll through Courtney's posts, she did address this. Roadrunner might have as well - or maybe it was her.

I don't have a clue. :) I think publishers are shlepping CC stamp on all sorts of curriculum, so maybe less is changing than we thought. Beast is CC aligned, yet it teaches exponents in fourth grade, so I guess they believe CC is minimum and they are meeting the minimum. Hated Everyday Mathematics is CC aligned and so is math Mammoth, and I am pretty sure they probably still look like two very different programs, so go figure. :)

I would like that question answered though.

[PachiSusan]

I don't have a clue. :) I think publishers are shlepping CC stamp on all sorts of curriculum, so maybe less is changing than we thought. Beast is CC aligned, yet it teaches exponents in fourth grade, so I guess they believe CC is minimum and they are meeting the minimum. Hated Everyday Mathematics is CC aligned and so is math Mammoth, and I am pretty sure they probably still look like two very different programs, so go figure. :)

I would like that question answered though.

 

I will scroll through the entire thread on my break from school, but I really believe that Courtney specifically addressed this question. She had a point by point break down of the standards and how Singapore did not line up with some of the criteria to be listed in the exemplar.

[sweetpea3829]

I will scroll through the entire thread on my break from school, but I really believe that Courtney specifically addressed this question. She had a point by point break down of the standards and how Singapore did not line up with some of the criteria to be listed in the exemplar.

 

She did, and I understand why Singapore is not accepted as Common Core for CA.  But I guess specifically, I am wondering how in the world MUS could possibly be considered aligned with CC when they don't even have grade levels.  

[Ohdanigirl]

In seventh grade, the explanation of why 4+8=12 is going to be a lot different than the second grade explanation.

I'm guessing he needs to state: "Combined like terms" but I would need to see the original problem and the rest of the solution to really help.Usually one explains the 'why' pertaining to the material learned in the current year, not the past years.

 

 

Take a look at Question 38 and the scoring guide on the responses: http://nysedregents.org/Grade7/Mathematics/samplesg.pdf

I appreciate the examples and the help.

[PachiSusan]

She did, and I understand why Singapore is not accepted as Common Core for CA.  But I guess specifically, I am wondering how in the world MUS could possibly be considered aligned with CC when they don't even have grade levels.  

 

I don't think grade level matters. It simply fulfills the "standards" in their program.

[Arcadia]

She did, and I understand why Singapore is not accepted as Common Core for CA.  But I guess specifically, I am wondering how in the world MUS could possibly be considered aligned with CC when they don't even have grade levels.  

 

MUS is not on the approved list for California either. Any book publisher can say they are common core aligned.  There is no certifying board. It is up to the different states to decide if the textbooks are really common core aligned enough for their liking.

Link to California's approved common core math textbooks http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/im/sbeadopted2014mathprgms.asp

 

MUS page with MUS correlation to common core for K to 6th grade https://www.mathusee.com/schools/teacher-resources/state-standards-information/ccss-correlation-information/

 

ETA:

As for standardized tests, California started field testing the common core version for state tests this year. Which means that by the time my oldest takes the SAT, he should have learnt how to game the system.

[PachiSusan]

It was this post - neither Courtney NOR Roadrunner. LOL 

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/515071-does-common-core-math-singapore-math/?p=5667035

[Courtney_Ostaff]

So, how is this going to affect homeschoolers taking standardized tests?  Are the standardized tests going to reflect Common Core requirements, including requiring test takers to explain their solutions?  ...Can anybody explain to me how a curriculum like Math U See is considered Common Core aligned when Singapore isn't (in CA). ...

 

This will only affect taking standardized tests when they quit making them multiple choice. 

 

This is just a guess, but I *HOPE* they will have Cliff Notes or SAT Test prep books. That way, whatever Math curriculum your child learned from, they could learn the WAY the test wants them to answer the questions. I would hope that if a child has mastery of the concepts, a little studying about the Common Core "approved" way of getting to that answer will help them ace the SAT's and ACT's.

 

It is my understanding that the tests have changed in a few ways... the grading system has changed to reflect the new way of "proving" one's answers.

 

Again, I don't see any tests that aren't multiple choice. I would think that you're right--they're going to offer study guides, because that makes them money.

 

She did, and I understand why Singapore is not accepted as Common Core for CA.  But I guess specifically, I am wondering how in the world MUS could possibly be considered aligned with CC when they don't even have grade levels.  

 

I took the weekend off. ;)

 

These curricula are "aligned" in the same way that they were aligned to earlier standards. Very little of the content has actually changed. What they do is go through and treat the standards like a checklist: "Yep, we cover this on page 73. We cover that on page 82." and so on.

 

Sometimes they'll pay $25/hr for a poor Ph.D. in a garret to write a chapter section, if something is missing.  In the past, they rarely took stuff out, even if it wasn't mentioned in the standards, which is why school textbooks were huge.  However, states couldn't take anything out of the Common Core, and they could only add 15% more material.  So, some textbooks were stripped of non-complying material in order to hit that no-more-than-15%-additional-material.  

 

Those other reasons that CA didn't adopt the material say more about CA than Commore Core or Singapore Math.  I find it very interesting that Harcourt's version of Singapore Math, Math in Focus, was adopted just fine. The relatively small publisher, Marshall Cavendish, somehow failed to meet the same standards with a different version of the same material.

 

Reading the exerpt from Nart, it looks like Singapore Math didn't hit all the Common Core standards at the right grade level without adding in more than 15% of extra material.

 

I don't think SM slows down in the 2nd half of the year:

"In addition, major work should especially predominate in the first half of the year (e.g., in grade 3 this is necessary so that students have sufficient time to build understanding and fluency with multiplication). Note that an important subset of the major work in grades K–8 is the progression that leads toward Algebra I and Mathematics I (see Table 1, next page). Materials give especially careful treatment to these clusters and their interconnections." 

 

I would bet that they hit some stuff before CC math requires it:

"In aligned materials there are no chapter tests, unit tests, or other assessment components that make students or teachers responsible for any topics before the grade in 

which they are introduced in the Standards. (One way to meet this criterion is for materials to omit these topics entirely prior to the indicated grades.) "

 

My quick review of my daughter's SM book isn't definitive, but I don't see any where they call out concepts separately from applications or practice.

"Conceptual understanding of key mathematical concepts is thus distinct from applications or fluency work, and these three aspects of rigor must be balanced as indicated in the Standards."

 

I would bet that the SM uses too many manipulatives (which are entirely developmentally appropriate!):

"In grades K–6 materials should help students make steady progress throughout the year toward fluent (accurate and reasonably fast) computation, including knowing single-digit products and sums from memory (see, e.g., 2.OA.2 and 3.OA.7). The word “fluently†in particular as used in the Standards refers to fluency with a written or mental method, not a method using manipulatives or concrete representations."

 

It also looks like CA didn't like the Singapore Math placement tests because they weren't prescriptive enough. It looks like California was looking for an assessment that would say that X, Y, and Z skills were lacking, so teachers should apply A, B, and C curriculum designed to get #th graders working on a lower grade level up to the Xth grade level by the end of the school year. 

"Unfinished learning from earlier grades is normal and prevalent; it should not be ignored nor used as an excuse for cancelling grade-level work and retreating to below-grade work. "

 

They didn't appear to have foreign language editions, "enrichment" material, remedial material, and audio and/or Braille material.  

"Materials help English learners access challenging mathematics, learn content, and develop grade-level language. For example, materials might include annotations to 

help with comprehension of words, sentences and paragraphs, and give examples of the use of words in other situations. Modifications to language do not sacrifice the mathematics, nor do they put off necessary language development. "

Materials should include content that is relevant to English learners, advanced learners, students below grade level in mathematical skills, and students with disabilities. 

 

I don't see these anywhere in my SM materials, but then again, I don't have a public school teacher's edition:

"Not every form of assessment is appropriate for every student or every topic area, so a variety of assessment types need to be provided for formative assessment. Some of these could include (but is not limited to) graphic organizers, student observation, student interviews, journals and learning logs, exit ticket activities, mathematics portfolios, self- and peer-evaluations, short tests and quizzes, and performance tasks. 

 

And, it appears that there was not enough of a script to follow for the teachers. 

Clear, grade-appropriate explanations of mathematics concepts that teachers can easily adapt for instruction of all students, including English learners, advanced learners, students below grade level in mathematical skills, and students with disabilities.

Different kinds of lessons and multiple ways in which to explain concepts, offering teachers choice and flexibility

 

[sweetpea3829]

 

This will only affect taking standardized tests when they quit making them multiple choice. 

 

 

Again, I don't see any tests that aren't multiple choice. I would think that you're right--they're going to offer study guides, because that makes them money.

 

 

I took the weekend off. ;)

 

These curricula are "aligned" in the same way that they were aligned to earlier standards. Very little of the content has actually changed. What they do is go through and treat the standards like a checklist: "Yep, we cover this on page 73. We cover that on page 82." and so on.

 

Sometimes they'll pay $25/hr for a poor Ph.D. in a garret to write a chapter section, if something is missing.  In the past, they rarely took stuff out, even if it wasn't mentioned in the standards, which is why school textbooks were huge.  However, states couldn't take anything out of the Common Core, and they could only add 15% more material.  So, some textbooks were stripped of non-complying material in order to hit that no-more-than-15%-additional-material.  

 

Those other reasons that CA didn't adopt the material say more about CA than Commore Core or Singapore Math.  I find it very interesting that Harcourt's version of Singapore Math, Math in Focus, was adopted just fine. The relatively small publisher, Marshall Cavendish, somehow failed to meet the same standards with a different version of the same material.

 

Reading the exerpt from Nart, it looks like Singapore Math didn't hit all the Common Core standards at the right grade level without adding in more than 15% of extra material.

 

I don't think SM slows down in the 2nd half of the year:

"In addition, major work should especially predominate in the first half of the year (e.g., in grade 3 this is necessary so that students have sufficient time to build understanding and fluency with multiplication). Note that an important subset of the major work in grades K–8 is the progression that leads toward Algebra I and Mathematics I (see Table 1, next page). Materials give especially careful treatment to these clusters and their interconnections." 

 

I would bet that they hit some stuff before CC math requires it:

"In aligned materials there are no chapter tests, unit tests, or other assessment components that make students or teachers responsible for any topics before the grade in 

which they are introduced in the Standards. (One way to meet this criterion is for materials to omit these topics entirely prior to the indicated grades.) "

 

My quick review of my daughter's SM book isn't definitive, but I don't see any where they call out concepts separately from applications or practice.

"Conceptual understanding of key mathematical concepts is thus distinct from applications or fluency work, and these three aspects of rigor must be balanced as indicated in the Standards."

 

I would bet that the SM uses too many manipulatives (which are entirely developmentally appropriate!):

"In grades K–6 materials should help students make steady progress throughout the year toward fluent (accurate and reasonably fast) computation, including knowing single-digit products and sums from memory (see, e.g., 2.OA.2 and 3.OA.7). The word “fluently†in particular as used in the Standards refers to fluency with a written or mental method, not a method using manipulatives or concrete representations."

 

It also looks like CA didn't like the Singapore Math placement tests because they weren't prescriptive enough. It looks like California was looking for an assessment that would say that X, Y, and Z skills were lacking, so teachers should apply A, B, and C curriculum designed to get #th graders working on a lower grade level up to the Xth grade level by the end of the school year. 

"Unfinished learning from earlier grades is normal and prevalent; it should not be ignored nor used as an excuse for cancelling grade-level work and retreating to below-grade work. "

 

They didn't appear to have foreign language editions, "enrichment" material, remedial material, and audio and/or Braille material.  

"Materials help English learners access challenging mathematics, learn content, and develop grade-level language. For example, materials might include annotations to 

help with comprehension of words, sentences and paragraphs, and give examples of the use of words in other situations. Modifications to language do not sacrifice the mathematics, nor do they put off necessary language development. "

Materials should include content that is relevant to English learners, advanced learners, students below grade level in mathematical skills, and students with disabilities. 

 

I don't see these anywhere in my SM materials, but then again, I don't have a public school teacher's edition:

"Not every form of assessment is appropriate for every student or every topic area, so a variety of assessment types need to be provided for formative assessment. Some of these could include (but is not limited to) graphic organizers, student observation, student interviews, journals and learning logs, exit ticket activities, mathematics portfolios, self- and peer-evaluations, short tests and quizzes, and performance tasks. 

 

And, it appears that there was not enough of a script to follow for the teachers. 

Clear, grade-appropriate explanations of mathematics concepts that teachers can easily adapt for instruction of all students, including English learners, advanced learners, students below grade level in mathematical skills, and students with disabilities.

Different kinds of lessons and multiple ways in which to explain concepts, offering teachers choice and flexibility

 

 

Thanks for your response.

 

I went back and looked at the MUS page that somebody posted (I'm sorry, I can't remember who it was, and am supposed to be filing schoolwork, so I need to rush, lol).  Some of their CC "correlations" are so weak...lol.  For example, they hit the CC requirement for introducing time, because they have it in the Alpha appendix.  A few of the CC standards are indicated as met because the teacher's guide mentions it, but its not actually covered content in the student book.

 

I mean, its kind of a moot point...I doubt there are many school districts adopting MUS as a school curriculum.  But I was just curious on how they could possibly claim to be CC-aligned when, to me, they are behind grade level.  

[VeritasMama]

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.

 

I used SM with my older children who are now in middle school and my 3rd grader who is still at home. This last year my 1st grader was in a private school that adopted a new "Common Core math" curriculum. On the surface it looked very SM, but the methods used to present the information meant my son did not understand the concepts and ended up hating math. The "creative problem solving" basically meant that the homework would dictate what type of picture he was supposed to draw to solve the problem, and then he was supposed to "explain your thinking." Most of the time his explanation would entail, "I'm just doing what they told me to do." Crying as a regular occurence.

 

My husband is an engineer and I have a teaching degree. I've used Horizons, MCP, SM, and I also used student Everyday Math. I've also used Saxon and Life of Fred to supplement with my older kids, we have "mathy" boys. I am not some unexperienced parent who knows nothing about Math instuction, but some of the new common core math curiculums are simply reform math repackaged with some more diagrams and bar graphs.  Math this year consisted of him being taught several different ways to add and subtract by parroting the teacher, but never actually understanding why he was doing any of it. Honestly, so much of it was busy work, completely unengaging, just parroting the teacher. My 2nd grader now hates math with a passion, and the phrase "Draw sticks and hoops to find your answer" will make him shudder.

 

He is homeschooling next year.

[FiveOaksAcademy]

The writers of common core books here in the US has put a lot of political and social agenda in to the books. Even if you look at a public school textbook, it is riddled with a ton of political/social stories and distractions that have nothing to do with math. To top it off, another push in education here is "collaborative" which means one person does the work, everyone takes credit.

 

My daughter had a calculus class, our last straw on public school math, where homework is participation credit, so everyone was given 100's on this. And then the tests, they were put in to groups of 4. The tests were 4 pages long. No one knew which page would be corrected. They did not share answers. They did the tests on their own and turned them in. Within the group, 1 page from each test was graded. The total equalled the grade for everyone. One girl did not even bother with her first test. She got a zero on her page. So the entire group got a 65. Everyone got an individual test grade of 65. My daughter dropped after that. She was told she was assigned to the group for the term so she just needed to get that 4th person up to speed on the calculus. She knew the class would destroy her GPA and class ranking if she stayed, so she dropped.

 

This is the definition of insanity!!! 

[simplemom]

Kind of OT, except about the part of kid's doing math in their heads or figuring things out differently. I learned in school to do math the traditional US written way as in double digit addition and subtraction in columns from right to left with carrying and borrowing as needed, division with the bracket, etc....my husband learned this way too, but he adapted in his head how to figure things differently (more like the example of the written work of a poster above's 1st grade book). My son is a number fanatic and seems to be frequently figuring out how numbers work in his head. I tried RS B math with him and he COULD NOT STAND IT! His mind would go faster than the manipulative demo I showed him and he would jump ahead of me and already have it all figured out in his head. So we switched to MEP.

 

The other day I was previewing his MEP year 3 lesson plans for next school year. I was amazed at the way MEP showed how to figure a higher number in the hundreds. (I do understand MEP will teach division different ways further in the program though). The problem was 840/4. My son was overhearing in another room while I was showing dh this new-to-me method of division from the MEP lessons. I was telling dh how I learned to work the problem with the bracket, and dh was explaining how he would figure the problem in his head different than MEP and the bracket. Ds enters the room to announce 840/4 is 210, yet he's never been instructed on how to do division beyond what MEP year 2 teaches with lower numbers of less than 100. Out of curiosity, we asked ds how he figured it out in his head so quickly, and ds went to the chalkboard and wrote out each step he thought out in equation form to get the right answer. Ds's way was completely different than the MEP example, the way I was taught in school, and my husband's mental method. To compare, dd is just getting started with MEP year 1. I am having to adjust teaching her by pulling out the c rods and the Rightstart manipulatives. I am trying to demonstrate the problems visually as best I can remember from the Rightstart B workbook I sold when RS was a bust for ds. I am pretty sure I can alter MEP for her learning style, but may have to switch to Rightstart or Math U See for her....while ds pulls his hair out in agony for her having to do math that way!

 

Regardless, it makes me feel bad for the many kids who do poorly in traditional school math, but the problem is likely their minds aren't wired to figure problems in the one way the teacher presents.