"Common Core" - Good or Bad ?

[Alpo]

This is a post about the new teaching standard in my state, and most others, called "Common Core":
Home | Common Core State Standards Initiative

I recently learned from my aunt (10th grade geometry teacher), about this new standard. To hear her tell it, Common Core is even worse than "No Child Left Behind".

She showed me some of math that the younger grades now do. She hated it and gave me reason why (It's too abstract, problems now require more time to solves, it takes kids longer to get ready for algebra, ect). A lot of the math requires you to draw the units, draw 100 circles, draw another 100 circles, count the result ect.

Common Core Math - YouTube
Common Core Addition Strategies Making Ten 1.OA.C.6 - YouTube

I've been looking online, and have found out a bit more. The issue seems to be regrettably politicized, but it appears not only math has changed, Literature has as well. In common core, there is a policy of 50:50 -> literature : informational reading(manuals, ect).

It also seems that the only two experts int the Common Core validation committee, Sandra Stotsky and Jim Milgram, wouldn't sign off on the standard. The standard slipped by anyway, and now they both advocate against it's use:

http://www.uaedreform.org/downloads/...-committee.pdf

Now, I don't think my political views are affecting my opinions of this, my objections are as follows:

1. Standardized testing is bad for actual learning. Under No Child Left Behind, nearly 1/3 of the school year was taken up by learning the tests.

2. Standardized teaching is even worse than #1. All kids learn differently, and what may help one will cripple another.

3. Look at that math! lol

!--------!
TLR - Common Core is terrible, and it should feel terrible. What do you think about national teaching standards and tests?

[phantomotap]

[Edit]
I'm taking on the mathematics here because of the "Look at that math!" comment. I'm simply not as strongly interested in the other areas of "Common Core" so I'm not even honestly qualified to comment.
[/Edit]

O_o

No offense to your aunt, but I've never met a good mathematics teacher who didn't teach the techniques that form the foundation of "Common Core" mathematics.

Take a watch of that second video where the "common sense" lady is attempting to criticize the "Common Core" instruction. I'm quoting: "My common sense tells me to just take the one off of the four that leaves three giving my thirteen.". (Congratulations you ridiculous fool; you used exactly the technique you are actively trying to criticize.) Of course, she is lying her stupid ass off; there is no "common sense" about the technique she uses to perform the operation in her head. She was taught "making tens"--whatever it was called when she was in school--by a teacher or book because such techniques are already, always been, taught by every good mathematics teacher and instructional material of the appropriate levels. She, very literally, is making use of one of the foundation techniques that the "Common Core" teaches from the start.

Look at that statement again please: "teaches from the start". What "Common Core" mathematics does is formalize the instruction of tricks that every good mathematician already uses. Why? Because some students never get a chance to work with a good teacher who is actually a mathematician.

Who should actually feel bad: idiots like the "common sense" woman who doesn't realize that she was taught useful skills throughout her time in school and so are trying to prevent those techniques being mandatory instruction.

Soma

[whiteflags]

I've been concerned about math education for a very long time: http://cboard.cprogramming.com/brief...-students.html

Where I agree is that space is a problem with new methods. The standard algorithms are compact and save on paper. BUT:

I don't really understand the problem with what I'm seeing. Back when I learned arithmetic, the number line was not introduced well, was barely used, and struck me as a profoundly useless tool. I'm actually quite happy it's becoming "normal." People should use it. It's a visual tool. The human brain likes patterns and visual tools. If the strategies like making ten are the problem, then I just don't agree. With complicated addition I still will use intuition and shortcuts not unlike making ten (or other sums I've memorized). I don't see a problem with putting mental math to paper. Especially if standard algorithms are still taught. But I have to admit I don't like the standard addition algorithm - it's slow and carrying is frequently awkward.

2. Standardized teaching is even worse than #1. All kids learn differently, and what may help one will cripple another.

CGP Grey has some very interesting things to say about what schools purport to do and what they actually do ... he is a former teacher, and what he says might give you a viewpoint on the subject that you normally don't get.

School is really NOT the place for individual learning and if you want to learn your way, you probably need the drive for self teaching. What I think school can do is tell you what kind of learner you are, in a variety of subjects. When you are old enough to appreciate learning, then you can tailor the rest of your (lifelong, hopefully) education.

[Alpo]

[Edit]
I'm taking on the mathematics here because of the "Look at that math!" comment. I'm simply not as strongly interested in the other areas of "Common Core" so I'm not even honestly qualified to comment.
[/Edit]

O_o

No offense to your aunt, but I've never met a good mathematics teacher who didn't teach the techniques that form the foundation of "Common Core" mathematics.

Take a watch of that second video where the "common sense" lady is attempting to criticize the "Common Core" instruction. I'm quoting: "My common sense tells me to just take the one off of the four that leaves three giving my thirteen.". (Congratulations you ridiculous fool; you used exactly the technique you are actively trying to criticize.) Of course, she is lying her stupid ass off; there is no "common sense" about the technique she uses to perform the operation in her head. She was taught "making tens"--whatever it was called when she was in school--by a teacher or book because such techniques are already, always been, taught by every good mathematics teacher and instructional material of the appropriate levels. She, very literally, is making use of one of the foundation techniques that the "Common Core" teaches from the start.

Look at that statement again please: "teaches from the start". What "Common Core" mathematics does is formalize the instruction of tricks that every good mathematician already uses. Why? Because some students never get a chance to work with a good teacher who is actually a mathematician.

Who should actually feel bad: idiots like the "common sense" woman who doesn't realize that she was taught useful skills throughout her time in school and so are trying to prevent those techniques being mandatory instruction.

Soma

You make a pretty good point, I had thought of it like that myself a bit, honestly (thank you for going to the links).

My objection to it is that I don't think it should be required to use a certain technique (making numbers friendlier, ect). Like in the instance you are talking about, the entire point seems to be trying to take the tricks people do in their heads and formalize it (make it more explicit, write the whole process down).

Well what happens when you take a shortcut like that, and force the kids to write it down? It no longer functions as a shortcut, the formal exercise of writing the process actually takes much longer. Perhaps it could help in the long run, I don't know, but neither does anyone else it seems. These techniques have never been tested, and the experts agreed that it wasn't valid.

School is really NOT the place for individual learning and if you want to learn your way, you probably need the drive for self teaching.

Let's say a very bright kid did go out and learn a lot on his own. He really dedicated himself, and got way ahead in whatever field (math I guess). Would he be allowed to use anything he learned doing that in a system that has a rigid method of problem solving?

[whiteflags]

But math teachers in America are horrible at their jobs anyway, or do you want to argue that point? If this is going to devolve into special snowflake ways of teaching maths and how good certain math teachers are at exposing the subject to kids, you will ultimately lose the argument to the dearth of teachers who can't do that.

[Alpo]

But math teachers in America are horrible at their jobs anyway, or do you want to argue that point? If this is going to devolve into special snowflake ways of teaching maths and how good certain math teachers are at exposing the subject to kids, you will ultimately lose the argument to the dearth of teachers who can't do that.

Uhh... So will the kid that taught himself advanced material have any incentive to keep doing so in a system that formalizes problem solving using simple methods, or not?

(I've known both good teachers and bad. I'm not sure how you came to that opinion about math teachers, but I don't see the connection. Even if you invalidate all the math teachers in the world, it doesn't validate something else by default. PS: You're supposed to say, "all the math teachers suck, except your aunt" :P)

[phantomotap]

My objection to it is that I don't think it should be required to use a certain technique.

O_o

They don't require a certain technique. Have you actually looked at the "Common Core" mathematics? The foundation isn't a certain technique. Over the years, the "Common Core" teaches dozens of techniques.

Why? Seriously, you should ask yourself why you think that is a problem.

Those techniques are already taught, should be taught, and should be made available to every student because they are ridiculously effective.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal: you may have noticed that I'm quite confident in my brain. (I am now, but the past is a different beast.) I'm not bragging, but I'd be foolish to think most of my comments don't sound at least a little arrogant. You would not believe how much trouble my confidence in my abilities has caused me in mathematics. I read a lot of scientific periodicals, and I've spent very nearly my entire life as a programmer, yet I still spend hours more on mathematics articles than any other science. Why? I suck at advanced mathematics. You see, way back in my early university career I thought--need for emphasis is soon clear--I understood some common techniques for solving more complex Algebra and Calculus problems. I failed, with flying colors, my first Calculus class: a 37/100 on my midterm. Only after that abysmal effort did I seek a tutor. The tutor was kind of slow, at least by my young and foolish standards. However, the tutor actually did know the techniques; he was also gracious enough to help me find many, many flaws in my understanding. I still, a decade later, haven't successfully unlearned what I thought I knew.

I get how you might think "Oh, but kids should use what works for them.". In practice, using what is actually correct is a [expletive deleted] of a lot better.

Well what happens when you take a shortcut like that, and force the kids to write it down? It no longer functions as a shortcut, the formal exercise of writing the process actually takes much longer.

Yes. It absolutely does. You can't expect young kids to learn these things by virtue of osmosis. Learning these techniques takes time and practice. The education materials focusing on specific techniques are just an attempt at three points: making sure the kids understand the technique, making sure the kids are correctly applying the technique, and making sure the kids understand the reason the technique works.

Nothing stops these techniques from being used as a mental shortcut once the foundation is built, but the foundation must be built first.

Perhaps it could help in the long run, I don't know, but neither does anyone else it seems. These techniques have never been tested, and the experts agreed that it wasn't valid.

These techniques have been tested from at least the 1950s in the United States with great success, and there is no legitimate debate over the effectiveness because everyone already uses the techniques in question.

Wait. Let me say that a different way: there is debate in exactly the same way climate change is still in debate.

The only difference, again, is that the new standards mandates that every child should have access to these extremely useful tools.

Soma

[whiteflags]

Uhh... So will the kid that taught himself advanced material have any incentive to keep doing so in a system that formalizes problem solving using simple methods, or not?

I don't want to answer the question frankly. You're literally saying that learning arithmetic in a particular way will somehow stymy advanced topics.

In any case, I do not want to pontificate on what makes geniuses bored, and I do not want to hold general education up to a standard where geniuses thrive, because that basically makes everyone who isn't a genius tread water. Besides, I think people who are gifted are handled differently now, anyway.

[phantomotap]

So will the kid that taught himself advanced material have any incentive to keep doing so in a system that formalizes problem solving using simple methods, or not?

o_O

What?

Are you legitimately trying to argue against better education for all just because someone might not feel special?

Okay. I don't care about that one kid. Some kid wants to be a snowflake but can't because better instruction shows that every kid can be spectacular? Good. ........ that kid.

Absolutely every kid everywhere is the exact same: they could all be amazing. They only need the skills and a chance. The world sucks; we can't give them all a chance, but we absolutely can give them all the skills.

Soma

[grumpy]

1. Standardized testing is bad for actual learning. Under No Child Left Behind, nearly 1/3 of the school year was taken up by learning the tests.

Say what? The purpose of testing is not to learn. It is to gather data about how well the students have learned. The teaching and learning should occur before the tests are applied.

If the school year is being taken up by "learning the tests" then the teaching by teachers is flawed, the learning by students is flawed, or both. Effective teaching by teachers and effective learning by students, in combination, will prepare the students for any relevant tests. [Note: I am assuming that the testing is consistent with the curriculum].

Yes, testing may be used by teachers to gauge how well students have learned, and to decide what material needs to be reinforced. But that is not the same as "learning the tests".

2. Standardized teaching is even worse than #1. All kids learn differently, and what may help one will cripple another.

There is a difference between standardising a curriculum (i.e. specifying minimum expectations of the material that teachers must teach and students must learn) and locking in a specific teaching method.

With a standardised curriculum, teachers have room to move in HOW they teach, and how they respond to needs of particular students, as long as they provide coverage of the curriculum.

On seeing this thread, I took the time to read the mathematics standard on the "Common Core" site. It is actually describing a curriculum, and - although it provides examples that might be used in teaching - it is specifically allowing flexibility in how that curriculum is taught.

3. Look at that math! lol

Basic fact is that a lot of people don't like mathematics, and don't put a lot of effort into learning it properly. Some of those become teachers who don't teach mathematics well.

Standardisation of a curriculum provides a yardstick for students (what they are required to learn) and for teachers (what they are required to teach). If the standard mandated particular teaching methods, which it doesn't, then your criticism would be warranted.

Students who want an excuse for not learning mathematics effectively, or teachers who want an excuse for not teaching it effectively, will resent having a curriculum specified.

[stahta01]

What worries me most about "common core" is the idea that it is a just a front for a data mining operation.
Note: I have NOT verified this complaint; but, it is the worst NON political complaint I have heard.

The second one worst NON political complaint was that it is a money grab by testing companies.

One of political complaints is that it effectively forbids the teaching of some parts of history.
Second that it tends to try to formalize the political indoctrination of children via the section of reading materials.

Tim S.

[MutantJohn]

So about that kid that teaches themselves advanced material, it didn't work in my day either which I guess was like 7 years ago by now.

I was in Honors Trig / Pre-Calc and at the end of the year we finally learned derivatives. I was like, "Oh snap, this math is useful" so I wound up teaching myself how to integrate. For me, calculus is pretty easy. Or at least it was before I went to college.

I wanted to be a snowflake so badly. But the teachers didn't really seem to care either way. They were like, "Oh, good for you, I guess."

The problem, phantom, with your attitude is that while I agree every student should be given all these opportunities, etc, is that if we don't recognize students who do teach themselves advanced things is just as discouraging as the kid who fails test after test. I worked really hard and I basically got snubbed. How do you think that made me feel? It wasn't great.

If a kid wants to be a special snowflake and they actually put forth the effort and have tangible effects then why not recognize it? It's waaaaaaay worse to try and keep a kid like that down.

The standard should be interpreted as, there's a floor but there's no ceiling.

[Yarin]

Sure, it's bad (just look at the initiative's biggest donors), but I'm surprised many people are making a deal out of it. If you've put your child in a public school in the first place, you've already intellectually given your child up.

[Alpo]

I don't want to answer the question frankly. You're literally saying that learning arithmetic in a particular way will somehow stymy advanced topics.

I'm saying that the way you learn a thing affects the way you practice a thing, which affects your efficacy at the thing.

The guy who wrote the math standards (Jason Zimba) has admitted in interviews the Common Core math standards are "not aligned with standards at collegiate levels".

Teachers feel urgency of Common Core standards | Home | The Advocate — Baton Rouge, Louisiana

You would not believe how much trouble my confidence in my abilities has caused me in mathematics.

I would believe it lol, I've had the same problem at times.

Wait. Let me say that a different way: there is debate in exactly the same way climate change is still in debate.

The scientific experts agreed that climate change was real. The experts on the validation committee didn't feel the standards were rigorous enough, and as far as I know the standards weren't revised (I've only known about it for a few days however, so I doubt I've read all there is on it.).

If the school year is being taken up by "learning the tests" then the teaching by teachers is flawed, the learning by students is flawed, or both. Effective teaching by teachers and effective learning by students, in combination, will prepare the students for any relevant tests. [Note: I am assuming that the testing is consistent with the curriculum].

Under No Child Left Behind, that assumption would be incorrect. It's probably more correct under Common Core, but I can't say for sure. However if the standards are not rigorous enough for college readiness, I'm not sure if it would matter how well kids placed on the tests. (This is speaking to standardized testing, and not testing as a whole.)

With a standardised curriculum, teachers have room to move in HOW they teach, and how they respond to needs of particular students, as long as they provide coverage of the curriculum.

On seeing this thread, I took the time to read the mathematics standard on the "Common Core" site. It is actually describing a curriculum, and - although it provides examples that might be used in teaching - it is specifically allowing flexibility in how that curriculum is taught.

As I understand it, teachers may add to the curriculum, but not take anything out of it (which would make sense if it is to be inline with the standard's testing). As teaching the material for the tests is likely to take just as much time as under No Child Left Behind however, I find it unlikely that teachers will have the time to add to the curriculum.

Basic fact is that a lot of people don't like mathematics, and don't put a lot of effort into learning it properly. Some of those become teachers who don't teach mathematics well.

Yeah I know, and agree. However the absolute best teachers I ever had used some of the most unusual methods as well. What worries me is that national standards do away with any such creativity (To Phantomotap - that is why I'm against standardized curriculums in practice.)

If a kid wants to be a special snowflake and they actually put forth the effort and have tangible effects then why not recognize it? It's waaaaaaay worse to try and keep a kid like that down.

The standard should be interpreted as, there's a floor but there's no ceiling.

Hey you, we aren't supposed to be agreeing! Joking. :P

[Alpo]

What worries me most about "common core" is the idea that it is a just a front for a data mining operation.
Note: I have NOT verified this complaint; but, it is the worst NON political complaint I have heard.

The second one worst NON political complaint was that it is a money grab by testing companies.

One of political complaints is that it effectively forbids the teaching of some parts of history.
Second that it tends to try to formalize the political indoctrination of children via the section of reading materials.

Tim S.

I didn't want to bring it up, since I was making the practical argument (does this thing work?), but Common Core is only very narrowly avoiding breaking the law.

Public Law 103-33, General Education Provisions Act, sec 432,reads as follows:

“No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, [or] administration…of any educational institution…or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials…”
-Public Law 103-33, General Education Provisions Act, sec 432

I say it narrowly avoid it, because technically the governors of the states agreed to Common Core. However they did so on the stipulation that the debt they were in from No Child Left Behind would be forgiven. It was manipulative at best, but I don't know if it actually breaks the law I posted that it happened that way.

Source:
Is Common Core Illegal? Did Duncan Break the Law? | Diane Ravitch's blog