Common Core

Parents Forum
21

<p>@minnymom</p>

<p>Agree - lots of training is required!</p>

<p>I think that is why we are seeing so much push back from the teachers. Nobody likes to be told that they need to change what they have been doing for 10+ year. </p>

<p>It’s been argued that teachers are used to curriculum change (eg whole math, sequenced math, etc), but never before have teachers been required to change how they teach. Almost all teachers I’ve interacted with a loving, well meaning people, but I think many, many teachers only know how to teach the mechanics of math and not math thinking.</p>

<p>Why should they know any differently, this is how most of them were taught.</p>

<p>Yes, this will require a lot of training and a lot of cooperation.</p>

22

<p>I am only familiar with the ELA Common Core standards for middle and high school, and I think they are great. No complaints at all from me; in fact, for English instruction, I don’t really understand the hoopla.</p>

23

<p>I think the hoopla is coming from two directions.</p>

<p>1) Kids are coming home with lower test scores than they are used to and parents are upset. The testing is revealing that the kids are behind where they should be but parents are interpreting that as failing of the common core, as opposed to a symptom of the problem that common core is trying to fix.</p>

<p>2) Teachers are hearing that they have to change how they teach and, understandably, they don’t want administrators (especially from Washington) telling them how to teach.</p>

24

<p>As a military parent who dragged kids through schools in at least four different states I think the common core is a great idea. As others have said, failure or success depends on the execution.</p>

25

<p>mathmom,</p>

<p>"Gosh our kids learned why 2x6 = 12 by looking at egg cartons, or other arrays. They spent maybe a week talking about different ways to think about multiplication before they set into memorizing tables. What’s the big deal? I think it’s very helpful to know what multiplication is for. "</p>

<p>I’ll tell you, what the problem is. The problem is that there are 10,000 different ways to explain multiplication to kids. And each teacher is teaching his favorite way. Regardless of whether kid understood it or not.</p>

<p>Instead of moving ahead, kids learn 10,000 explanations of multiplication. They learn apples and crates, then they learn money, then a new teacher comes and starts to teach his favorite explanation - geometrical, for example. Instead of learning math, kids are learning how to learn math.</p>

<p>My D. was in such situation and she was sooo confused. I had to go all the way up, to the principal. In the end, she was given separate worksheets.</p>

26

<p>Dreadpirit,</p>

<p>Why do you think that Common Core is harder than the current standards? </p>

<p>In our school district they tried to put kids in Algebra in 7th grade. Thanks to Common Standards, Algebra will be postponed to the 8th grade. It means that all meaningful Science will be postponed to High school.</p>

<p>Where is an improvement?</p>

27

<p>How do you think “why” would be taught in elementary math?</p>

<p>Instead of doing numbers, they will write essays and explanations.</p>

28

<p>"I guess one thing that’s always confused me is how other counties are so far ahead in early math. "</p>

<p>Because they teach math! They don’t teach “why math is important in every day’s activities”. They don’t teach “approaches to math”. They just do the numbers … </p>

<p>My fear is that Common Core is taking American kids even further from numbers.</p>

29

<p>"state of California would be eliminating its long-standing 8th grade algebra requirements. The reason given was that kids were “not ready” to learn algebra by 8th grade. "</p>

<p>Thank you, Common Core. Now they will teach Algebra 1 in high school. Forget Calculus, it won’t be enough time for it. Forget science - you can’t teach science without Algebra.</p>

<p>So much about higher standards. In reality, California is pushing math behind, at least for 2 years. In our school district Algebra was taught in the 7th grade … forget it.</p>

30

<p>californiaaa - we had to fight the school to get to get algebra in 8th grade. That is the situation in most of the country.</p>

<p>The why of math has nothing to do with essays and explanations. Teaching why of math has everything to do with being able to use math to solve a problem they haven’t seen before. Learning to use the math and not just learning the techniques.</p>

<p>Right now we are teaching are kids how to become robots. They can follow the steps they are programmed to follow, but heaven forbid you give them a different problem. </p>

<p>In Japan, for example, math is not all about the numbers. Read “The Teaching Gap” by James Hiebert and James Stigler where the authors compare math in the US, Germany and Japan…</p>

<p>"In contrast, the emphasis in Japan is on understanding concepts, and typical lessons could be described as follows:</p>

<pre><code>1. Teacher poses complex thought-provoking problem.
2. Students struggle with the problem.
3. Various students present ideas or solutions to the class.
4. Class discusses the various solution methods.
5. The teacher summarizes the class’ conclusions.
6. Students practice similar problems. [1, p. 42]
</code></pre>

<p>"</p>

<p>Over particular importance is step 2 and step 4. The kids STRUGGLE and then work in GROUPS on finding solutions.</p>

<p>as opposed to America …</p>

<p>"The study reports that eighth-grade lessons in Germany and the U.S. emphasize acquisition of skills in lessons that follow this pattern:</p>

<pre><code>1. Teacher instructs students in a concept or skill.
2. Teacher solves example problems with class.
3. Students practice on their own while the teacher assists individual students. [1, p. 42]"
</code></pre>

<p>The authors go on to say that in Japanese math teaching, 44% of the lessons contain problems where the students need to come up with a creative use of the tools they have already learned to solve a problem. This is the math needed for advanced science classes. This is the math needed to be successful in college.</p>

31

<p>You are confusing California’s decision to not REQUIRE algebra in the 8th grade with the idea that schools aren’t ALLOWED to teach algebra in the 8th grade to those students who are ready for it. </p>

<p>Most kids don’t take Calculus in HS, thus there is no need to rush the majority of kids into Algebra. On the other hand, there is nothing in the common core that prevents students who are ready for Algebra in the 8th (or 7th) grade from being presented the opportunity to take those classes.</p>

<p>From the common core documentation…</p>

<p>"A variety of courses should be available to students reflecting a range of possible interests; possible options are listed in the following chart. Based on a variety of inputs and factors, some students may decide at an early age that they want to take Calculus or other college level courses in high school. These students would need to begin the study of high school content in the middle school, which would lead to Precalculus or Advanced Statistics as a junior and Calculus, Advanced Statistics or other college level options as a senior. "</p>

32

<p>Dreadpirit ,</p>

<p>Great examples … for middle and high school. However, I don’t think it will work well in elementary school. Especially in K-3. At this level kids need to learn (memorize) basics. The faster they go through basics, the better it is. Than they will have time for complex problems.</p>

<p>BTW, German kids are very advanced in math.</p>

<p>If it would be my way, kids will learn multiplication in the second grade, pre-Algebra in the 5th, Algebra in the 6th. Then you have enough time to play with the numbers, to introduce different concepts, to play “real-life scenarios”. </p>

<p>Kids need at least pre-Algebra skills before they can solve “real life problems”. The faster they will come to this level, the better it is for everyone.</p>

33

<p>“On the other hand, there is nothing in the common core that prevents students who are ready for Algebra in the 8th (or 7th) grade from being presented the opportunity to take those classes.”</p>

<p>The problem is in implementation. It takes effort from school district to make “advanced track”. Currently, schools put all their resources into common core. They postpone every other program.</p>

34

<p>When the problem is implementation blame the implementation, don’t blame the guidelines!</p>

35

<p>Honestly, I don’t think there is a big difference between the K-3 Common Core and the old way of doing things. Most schools have always taught multiplication using demonstrations (eg egg cartons) anyway. As I said earlier, it is almost impossible to memorize multiplication tables if you don’t know what they mean.</p>

36

<p>Dreadpirit ,</p>

<p>It was better before the Common Core. Our math curriculum was not perfect, but it was workable. Currently, it is in disarray. </p>

<p>I believe in mantra “If it works, don’t mess with it”.</p>

37

<p>"I don’t think there is a big difference between the K-3 Common Core and the old way of doing things. "</p>

<p>You are lucky. As far as I understand, our math K-3 curriculum would be weakened. I have young kids, so I worry about them. </p>

<p>I don’t worry about my HS student, she is in pre-Calculus already, Common Core would not affect her.</p>

38

<p>

</p>

<p>“The basics” are the concepts. If you mean the faster they memorize the facts, the better it is, I don’t agree. I’m not using my own kids as my anecdotal evidence, but 10 years of teaching elementary math. I’ve seen it done both ways, and I can assure you that the kids who had a deep exposure to the concepts of number at a very early age (K-2, especially) were better prepared to understand the more advanced concepts in the later years. Interestingly, they also had no problem memorizing the facts. I know you said your daughter was confused by the teaching of the concepts, but it makes me suspect that she had some poor teachers who really didn’t have the guidance or understanding of what they were doing to be effective. </p>

<p>No one is saying throw out rote learning altogether. There’s a place for it, of course, but too often rote learning is what math education is about in the early years because it easy to teach and test. Teaching concepts is more difficult. What will make or break this program is the curriculum materials that the textbook companies produce. I have a fairly high level of confidence that they will be pretty good, as the companies have access to the talent to write appropriate materials and they’ll be competing for adoptions. It will be up to the individual school districts to train their teachers to use them, and that’s where we will see the differences in degrees of success.</p>

39

<p>Californiaaa</p>

<p>If the system in your state is working so wonderfully, why is California in the bottom third of SAT math scores?</p>

40

<p>It’s funny, this thread actually reminded me back of when I was learning addition and subtraction, and how I used to have these scales drawn on a piece of paper and I would need to add chips to one side in order to make it balance whatever was on the other side. Sometimes I still wind up thinking in my head about doing things this way without even realizing it. If I had been forced to just do wrote memorization I don’t think I’d have developed the intuitive grasp I do of a lot of the math concepts I use now.</p>

<p>Another example is the unit circle. Most of my friends were just forced to memorize the value of sin/cos/tan at 0, pi/3, pi/2, etc etc. My teacher made us learn just the basic numbers (1/2, sqrt(3)/2, 1, and 0) and how you could figure out exactly which value went where (and interpolate what’s in between). I still remember all of that stuff while most of my friends (all high achieving math people, as well) wound up forgetting it.</p>