<p>James Milgram (Stanford Prof. in Math) Testimony to the Indiana Senate Education Committee</p>
<p>Mathematically, there is no good reason to adopt Common Core Math Standards over the Indiana Standards. Indeed, the Indiana standards were/are? one of the top 4 or 5 state standards in the country, and are approximately at the level of the top international standards. The Common Core standards claim to be “benchmarked against to international standards” but this phrase is meaningless. They are actually two or more years behind international expectations by eighth grade, and only fall further behind as they talk about grades 8 – 12. Indeed, they don’t even fully cover the material in an solid geometry course, or in the second year algebra course.</p>
<p>James Milgram is a loose cannon who is well-known for harassing a female Stanford colleague and trying to expose the identities of research subjects in violation of professional ethics and potentially federal law:</p>
<p>That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong about the common core. Delusional nutcases can sometimes have important insight into things. But it is worth keeping in mind.</p>
<p>Are there states that are woefully behind the “international standards” and might have a hard time meeting the objectives? How different is Indiana from, as examples, South Carolina or Alabama? </p>
<p>Is Common Core an objective or a floor?</p>
<p>And if states are different, how do we address the differences between say Marin County versus Compton, or even the differences between various schools in Palo Alto.</p>
<p>Common Core is the lowest common denominator.</p>
<p>Theoretically, schools can teach above Common Core Standards. Practically, for the next several years they will try to “digest” Common Core, integrate it, teach teaches, design new curriculum. </p>
<p>Our school district already announced that it will trim down classes that are above Common Core.</p>
<p>James Milgram is a professor emeritus of mathematics at Stanford University. He served on the validation committee for the Common Core.</p>
<p>Obviously, he was invited him to serve on the validation committee for the Common Core. When he raised concern, he started getting negative publicity. It’s not fair.</p>
<p>MSNDIS, we are on a A/B day schedule with 4 classes each day. They will have no problems meeting the requirements, but will obviously lose out on some electives. The other issue is that math is a course in which homework reinforces the skills taught. To have two math courses concurrently is a lot of work. My child is taking Calc III and AP Stat and although it is not difficult for him, he is bogged down with the time it takes to complete the homework.</p>
<p>Whenever there is a standardized test which students are expected to pass, nearly all instruction will be focused on teaching to the test. And there is considerable political pressure to make the tests fairly easy, because no one wants a lot of students to fail. So we get dumbed down tests and dumbed down classes. </p>
<p>The only solution I can see is to make the test include problems which are quite difficult. This would encourage teachers to teach as much as they think their students can handle, and allow them to get some recognition for teaching beyond the bare minimum. At the same time, the bar for passing should be set fairly low, so as not to penalize the weaker students who cannot master all of a highly rigorous curriculum. </p>
<p>But this isn’t really politically feasible. If you teach kids what they are actually capable of learning, and test them in a way that really allows them to show what they know, then you will end up with a very wide spectrum of scores. It’s not just the white suburban moms who will be unhappy then.</p>
<p>"There are no teachers, that I know, who would prefer students to achieve less than their potential. "</p>
<p>mathyone, I agree with you. I have been told with all four of my children that their peers will catch up. I have always been frustrated by that, but with Common Core and child #4, I actually see him losing ground in every area with the exception of writing. This is not because he is struggling to learn the information, but rather they are teaching “fewer skills in greater depth.” There are only so many ways to teach shapes and do extension activities with them. We have been on that concept for well over a month. Last year, they kept reteaching counting from 1-20 because 2 kids in the class needed to master the skill before they moved on to a new skill set. </p>
<p>I don’t necessarily disagree with Limewine in theory. I do believe most teachers want students to reach their potential; however, they do not have the resources to help both the high and low achievers…thus they teach to the middle.</p>
<p>Who knows good textbooks in Math for elementary school? Obviously, homeschooling in math is my only option. I have 3 young kids and I don’t want them to learn Algebra in 11th grade. </p>
<ol>
<li>Singapore Math (I know that it is really good)</li>
<li>Russian Math - great curriculum, but I don’t think that they sell their textbooks</li>
<li>??? What else ???</li>
</ol>
<p>I will be using Singapore if I pull my son out. I like Saxon and Abeka; however there is a lot of repetition that can be dry and not as much critical thinking. Singapore math has a lot of supplemental stuff as well.</p>
<p>^^ I used Singapore Math with my kids for elementary level math and then moved them to the Art of Problem Solving for algebra and beyond. I highly recommend both programs. </p>
<p>The Art of Problem Solving now offers a pre-algebra textbook and Beast Academy for younger kids.</p>
<p>The Art of Problem Solving books for grades 6-12 are very good for bright students (pre-algebra through calc, plus extra books on probability and number theory). The authors are also developing an elementary curriculum called Beast Academy, though unfortunately only third grade and a part of fourth are out right now.</p>
<p>Singapore’s real good though. Can’t really go wrong, especially if you already know a bit about it. The forums on welltrainedmind dot com are pretty helpful if you want more info about homeschooling/afterschooling curricula.</p>
<p>Doubling math classes to keep up with the older criteria seems a little extreme and maybe a little backwards when you can just let the kids, who are capable, excel. It will also hinder the AP classes, in my Ds public high school, she took AP chem as a sophomore and it required completion or concurrent enrollment in honors pre calc. My D is not a stem major but some of her classmates were and being able to start high school with algebra two leaves more open time for AP science and math classes without shorting other areas of you education. I think we will be creating a two tier system where parents that can afford to will send their kids to private school and the rest will be left to behind. I am hoping the schools that have allowed the kids to do algebra and geometry in middle school, will continue to do so for the sake of the kids, or even because accelerated kids seem to always do better on the required testing.</p>
<p>In addition to the resources shared above, check what the best private schools in your area use. The books are not bad per se, and it all goes back to the instruction. At the end of middle school, almost every one in my class made the Duke TIP and several aced the regular math sections of the SAT. There was no need for Kumon and similar crutches. Regular homework and tough quizzes took care of us AND we finished every chapter in the book. The books are not as important as the rigor and the dedication and ability to teach.</p>
<p>AP Physics C requires Calculus BC as a co-requisite.</p>
<p>I have seen schools allow geometry and algebra II at the same time without issues. I am told Precalc requires Algebra II to be completed first and can’t be concurrent.</p>
<p>I don’t worry about my older D. She does Pre-Cal in the 9th grade. Luckily she would have time for Physics and Chemistry. I truly worry about my younger kids, they are in early elementary school. </p>
<p>BTW, one needs Chemistry to understand Biology, especially Biochemistry. If Pre-Cal is pushed until the end of HS, there is not enough time for Chemistry. Biology without Organic Chemistry is half-cooked, you can memorize it, but you can’t understand it.</p>
<p>Unfortunately it means that students are supposed to memorize Biology instead of understanding it. You can’t understand photosynthesis without some organic chemistry.</p>
<p>Kids learn (memorize) ATP in 7th grade … without a slightest idea of what is Adenosine and why it has tri phosphates. I think it is a crime against common sense.</p>