<p>My state is one of those who rank lowest in the nation when it comes to education. Yet, we’ve implemented similar standards to Common Core for years now in an effort to get out of that low standing. It’s funny because we’ve been close to the top ranking in terms of standards alone but performance has remained at the bottom.</p>
<p>In the South, this is not an uncommon problem. The disparity between the top schools and underperforming schools is huge and growing. Basically the good schools remain great but the bad shcools - eek. So, at least in our state, these standards haven’t really improved our poor performing schools. </p>
<p>The only advantage that I can see is that schools can be compared nationwide easier than just statewide. Basically, I just do not see Common Core achieving its goals - much like NCLB didn’t.</p>
<p>To think, back when I was in kindergarten it was only half a day. Something like 8-12 PM including snack time, nap time, and recess. It’s a wonder I was ever able to pass third grade math.</p>
<p>I haven’t read the common core for early grades, but I think it’s really inappropriate for any guidelines to specify how the kids have to learn. I think most of the math that needs to be learned in the early grades is not well suited to learn as a group activity. I’m not saying that there should never be group math activities. It would be good to see the teacher challenge the class to solve difficult problems in groups, as mentioned somewhere on one of these threads they do in Japan. But the fact is that the kids have to memorize and master a lot of basic skills in early math which just have to be done by each kid working on problems individually. </p>
<p>I also don’t see why we need to constantly reinvent the instruction. Both my kids attended Montessori preschools and they were way beyond kindergarten math before they even started kindergarten. For the earliest material, the Montessori math materials work very well, they give a hands-on and intuitive introduction to math, and the activities can be done in large classes. They also emphasize focus and sustained attention, which is probably more important to academic success than any specific skills the kids are learning in the early grades. </p>
<p>I’d be very concerned about an emphasis on a lot of group instruction for math. The weaker students won’t learn what they need to be learning, because the stronger students will work it out first. There is great value in wrestling with a problem yourself. Nodding along as you watch someone else solve the problem is really not the same thing and will not give the same level of understanding.</p>
<p>mathyone- the standards don’t specify how they are to learn. They just lay out which concepts are to be covered in each grade level.
Part of the problem with this discussion is the confusion between standards and curriculum. The standards are not telling schools how to teach, just what to teach, and even at that, it’s the minimum, not the maximum.
The truth is there is a place for individual as well as group instruction at all levels. Talented teachers can mix it up and make it work for their students by creating activities that follow the standards as well as fit the needs of their own classroom.
Some people are looking at the way common core has been implemented in their own schools and extrapolating that this is the way it has to be done, believing it’s because of the core. But if you read the core standards, you’ll see that the methods of implementation are not dictated. There are many ways to implement these skills and concepts- just as it’s always been the case with state standards.</p>
<p>“If things were working and kids were succeeding, there would be no need.” </p>
<p>So, plenty of kids are succeeding just fine. Rewriting the rules so they all succeed strikes me as rather silly. There are losers in all aspects of life. That’s just reality.</p>
<p>"To think, back when I was in kindergarten it was only half a day. Something like 8-12 PM including snack time, nap time, and recess. It’s a wonder I was ever able to pass third grade math. "</p>
<p>I didn’t say there should not be any group work. But every kid has to work through a lot of math problems on their own to get it. </p>
<p>In my kids’ Montessori preschools (two different schools with somewhat different implementations) they did most of the works by themselves on little mats they put on the floor to mark their work area. The kids were trained to respect other kids’ work areas, and not to disturb kids who were doing that work. I know there were some group or paired activities, (one of my kids loved to trace geometric figures, I suspect because she was doing this while sitting at a table with some friends) but much of the math was done alone. One of my kids loved the counting and arranging math activities. I remember her coming home and saying with great pride that she had done the 216 cube. She didn’t mention any other kids being involved. Most of the preK-K math works weren’t designed for group activities. The whole curriculum was designed and validated on the premise that kids will explore things on their own initiative without a lot of adult oversight. I did see that the 1-3 classrooms did some group projects, but I can’t comment on the elementary program other that to say that we felt that overall a traditional class with more teacher-led instruction would be more effective as kids grew older. However, I still think the Montessori materials are a great foundation for math in the early grades.</p>
<p>What impressed me is that with a 3 year age grouping, the older kids would very quickly transmit the classroom culture and expectations to the young kids coming in. I think a lot of the problems with education have to do not so much with the details of the curriculum, as with the classroom environment and expectations. You can fiddle with standards from common core to uncommon core to rare core, but it won’t make much difference if the kids have no self-discipline and don’t care about learning and their environment outside of school isn’t supportive of education.</p>
<p>The beginning of your last paragraph is group based learning. They don’t need to be given a specific task to be working and learning in groups!</p>
<p>In the end it all comes down to implementation. The great teachers and the great school districts will always exceed expectations. Hopefully the CC will inspire those not up to par to reinvigorate their approach.</p>
I’m sorry that your family is finding your current school isn’t meeting the needs of your kids. When that happened to us, I looked into private schools for mine at the high school level, and it was a great move on our part. You mentioned home-schooling, which is another option.</p>
<p>I sounds to me like your school district is not implementing the standards in a way that tries to meet the needs of the full range of abilities. That’s too bad, but I think you may be confusing the new standards with the process of implementing them, which is up to individual districts, schools, and even down to the teacher level. I assume that you and parents who have the same grievance have talked to the district administrators, your principals and teachers and told them in what ways your kids are not being served. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it is the mission of the public schools to serve the largest numbers of students. It’s unrealistic to think everyone’s needs can be met, but if there is a way to boost the learning for the majority, it makes sense to try.
Again, the Common Core is not a curriculum but a set of minimum standards. That is all. If a district is limiting students’ learning by saying they can’t exceed the standards, then they’re being very unfair (and incorrect in the reading of the standards) and I’d find another alternative for my kid, too.</p>
<p>“Actually, it is the mission of the public schools to serve the largest numbers of students. It’s unrealistic to think everyone’s needs can be met, but if there is a way to boost the learning for the majority, it makes sense to try.”</p>
<p>No! There is a difference between dumbing down and only addressing the needs of the elite student. Perhaps we should have a placement test at the end of 8th grade. All those who are destined to work in low paying service should head straight to work.</p>
<p>Public HS have a mandate to serve everyone. Both the elite students and the average students. CC is an attempt to raise the standards for the average students. The CC doesn’t take anything away from the elite students.</p>
<p>If you are in a district where things are being taken away from elite students, blame the school board, don’t blame the common core.</p>
<p>What is wrong with average students getting C’s because they are average and elite students getting A’s because they are elite? Maybe, I’m missing something.</p>
<p>I had one of each through high school but my average kid became elite in college when he had a clear cut goal. My elite kid always wanted the highest grade possible just because, why not? My other child needed a good reason to work harder. It had nothing to do with ability.</p>
<p>It is worth noting that some of the countries where high school education is generally regarded as being better do track students that early, with some being tracked to high school education focused on preparing for skilled blue collar type careers.</p>
<p>While there are some advantages in that each track can be made optimal for each group of students (rather than trying to fit all of the students into a college prep curriculum but dumbing down the standards to avoid too many flunk-outs), the idea of determining one’s career direction in 7th or 8th grade would not sit well with many in the US, where multiple chances are at least theoretically* available at many stages of one’s education and career development.</p>
<p>*Although many people do not use these chances, or are blocked by other reasons like cost, family obligations, etc…</p>
<p>“It is worth noting that some of the countries where high school education is generally regarded as being better do track students that early, with some being tracked to high school education focused on preparing for skilled blue collar type careers.”</p>
<p>Yeah, that happened to my H in one of those countries. For the record, he’s pretty darn smart and has done quite well for himself in the US. Also, based on 7th grade my oldest son would be lucky to working in a factory assembling widgets. But he got very strong academically in college. Just sayin’.</p>
<p>Deadpirit, californiaaa and I are both frustrated with Common Core. Also, Maryland has fully adopted Common Core and in my opinion “rushed into it”. The six years is how long they think it will take to work out all the kinks and problems. I don’t want my last child to be a test subject for this untried initiative.</p>
<p>@Dread “The CC doesn’t take anything away from the elite students.”</p>
<p>The CC is very expensive for districts to implement so students not in the middle (which is where the CC is aiming) DO lose programs that benefit them because the money has to be focused where it can benefit the most students possible. There is so much riding on the CC test results that districts are forced to focus ONLY on getting students to pass the CC tests. That is not going to result in a good education for our children. We have over a decade of evidence to indicate high stakes tests don’t improve education (NCLB is a failure).</p>