Priceless: Student Sums Up Common Core Idiocy in a SINGLE Word

The rest of the world is passing by and laughing at us because of this.

CC was only implemented by states to receive the race to the top funding and no child left behind credits. It all boils down to money. Because if you are saying that to figure a problem out that should only take 2 steps and turn it into 4 steps is a better way of teaching? Somethings wrong with that.

I am also a math teacher (and partially completed a Ed.D in math education but opted to stay home to home educate my children instead of finishing).
My opinion is that algorithms are taught because children are not developmentally ready for true understanding of what is happening in the patterns. But after a few years of “learning the basics,” they will work out what is happening. Some kids do not work it out on their own, they need remediation.
What common core is doing is trying to force an understanding before the children are developmentally ready. The outcome will be confusion of everyone.
This is the equivalent of switching from phonics to the Dolch sight word/whole language method. The result of that fiasco is absolute illiterate children. This new method for math will ensure they are innumerate as well.

Got lazy I guess. I just did.

“What common core is doing is trying to force an understanding before the children are developmentally ready. The outcome will be confusion of everyone.”

Perfectly stated!!!!

Interesting: “understanding is being taught. as an algorithm to be memorized.” I can’t say I ever thought of it exactly that way and that would, indeed be ironic. I know in some situations teachers’ attempts at a constructivist approach turned out to be kids hardly looking at a problem and socializing until the teacher gave them the answers. And not all high-performing countries use that approach, so the standards don’t require it. But, personally, I can only speak first-hand for myself here, I think kids are tuning out to direct instruction more and more. I know I’m not getting more and more boring, so I think it might have to do with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoT7qH_uVNo but that’s a guess. I have noticed that when I provide a realistic situation for the kids where they have to stretch a little beyond their comfort zone, and use logic to pull it together, getting ideas from each other, they are very proud of their accomplishments, exceed my expectations, and are showing huge growth on follow-up evaluations. If it weren’t happening, I would immediate go back to lecturing more because these activities take tons of time to write, they have to be tailored to the kids I’m working with, and I get a workout running around the room listening and encouraging. No one in their right mind would do all that if a lecture would accomplish the same thing. Another defense of the constructivist approach as it reflects real-life learning and problem solving. Rarely in real life does someone give us a worksheet, rather we are given a problem that is considered within our grasp and we take it from there. Sometimes we have to get a clue from outside ourselves, but developing that tenacity is huge.

Another thought has to do with how kids grow into understanding. We may not be so far apart on this issue as it seemed at first. Understanding evolves with exposure. It’s not like the kids know everything there is to know about solving an equation after 1-2 lessons no matter which kind of instruction is used. I’m better explaining this from my experience as a high school teacher but I get that the general population doesn’t work with negative exponents every day but I really want to get a better idea of how you see things because it helps me in working with my students and families to know why they think the way they do. So back to fractions. Can you give me an example of what you feel should be memorized and what you feel should be understood?

I am an English teacher. You are right about the debate between phonics and whole language. Phonics is about the mechanics of language, which every child MUST master, if they want a better understanding of how language works. Whole language is about context and deciphering codes, which you CANNOT do if you do not understand the mechanics of language. In other words, it is all MATH, people! 🙂

I first saw claims of developmental inappropriateness when
this came out: http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/11_CommonCore1_2A_rv2.pdf

CC foes claimed that early childhood experts were trashing
the CC. However, if one actually reads the document, you can see that it is a word of caution, not a rejection. Early childhood experts believe that learning best occurs within the context of play. Having ANY standards concerns them because there is always a risk that a child will be asked to do too much work and not enough play. In fact it’s really a call for care and balance. It’s not like they think a child should be able to do whatever they want. Either way, the question of developmentally appropriateness is a good question, and I have asked people making such claims to examine the kindergarten standards and explain their concerns. I invite you to do so as well.

Counting
1. Count to 100 by ones and by tens.

2. Count forward beginning from a given number within the known sequence (instead of having to begin at 1)
3. Write numbers from 0 to 20.
4. Understand the relationship between numbers and quantities; connect counting to cardinality.
5. Count to answer “how many?” questions about as many as 20
6. Identify whether the number of objects in one group is greater than, less than, or equal to the number of objects in another group
7. Compare two numbers between 1 and 10 presented as written numerals.

Operations
1. Represent addition and subtraction with objects, fingers, mental images, drawings,sounds (e.g., claps), acting out situations, verbal explanations, expressions, or equations.
2. Solve addition and subtraction word
problems, and add and subtract within 10, e.g., by using objects or drawings to represent the problem.
3. Decompose numbers less than or equal to 10 into pairs in more than one way, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record
each decomposition by a drawing or equation
4. For any number from 1 to 9, find the number that makes 10 when added to the given number, e.g., by using objects or
drawings, and record the answer with a drawing or equation.
5. Fluently add and subtract within 5.

Base 10 operations
1. Compose and decompose numbers from 11 to 19 into ten ones and some further ones, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record each composition or decomposition by a drawing or equation (e.g., 18 = 10 +8); understand that hese numbers are composed of ten ones and one, two, three, four, five, six,seven, eight, or nine ones.

Measurement
1.Describe measurable attributes of objects, such as length or weight. Describe several measurable attributes of a single object.
2. Directly compare two objects with a measurable attribute in common, to see which object has “more of”/“less of” the attribute, and describe the difference. For example, directly compare the heights of two children and describe one child as taller/shorter
3. Classify objects into given categories; count the numbers of objects in each category and sort the categories by count.

Geometry 1. Describe objects in the environment using names of shapes, and describe the relative positions of these objects using terms such as above, below, beside, in front of, behind, and next to.
2. Correctly name shapes regardless of their orientations or overall size.
3. Identify shapes as two-dimensional (lying in a plane, “flat”) or three-dimensional(“solid”).
4. Analyze and compare two- and three-dimensional shapes, indifferent sizes and orientations, using informal language to describe their similarities, differences, parts (e.g., number of sides and vertices/“corners”) and other attributes (e.g., having sides of equal length).
5. Model shapes in the world by building shapes from components (e.g., sticks and clay balls) and drawing shapes.6.
Compose simple shapes to form larger shapes. For
example, “Can you join these two triangles with full sides touching to make a
rectangle?”

The CC writers claimed there were, foes claimed there weren’t. I wasn’t there and with the inaccuracies I have been able to personally verify on the part of the foes (and they continue to proliferate inaccuracies even after they are explained to them), I would tend to believe the writers. Either way, early childhood educators are a diverse group. Some believe young children should ONLY be taught through play and they have signed a public statement of concern regarding structure in the CCSS. In that statement they voiced concerns of having ANY standards for young children but commended the CC for mentioning the importance of play in the index (unlike previous standards). I put my boys in Montessori pre-school because I liked their play-emphasis, but I also made sure they learned the basics expected before they went to Kindergarten and that often required structure. I never stressed them out with structure as some of the early childhood folks would claim. On Sunday mornings, I work with 12-15-month olds. I lay out a blanket and they crawl or toddle over for a 5-7 minute lesson that includes several songs and a story. They love it. After the first time, none of them have to be told what the blanket is for. So I disagree with the early childhood experts who advocate play-only. Another reason I feel the standards are age appropriate regardless who was consulted is because they closely follow Singaporemath.com which has been used by homeschoolers and some public schools for decades. In my thinking, homeschoolers in general are pretty careful about not messing up their kids with inappropriate learning materials. I had a discussion with a child psychologist just last week who thought the standards were inappropriate because she read “abstract” above the kindergarten standards. I explained to her that she was reading the “standards for mathematical practice” (SMP) which appear before each grade level’s standards. The SMP are ultimate goals, not meant to be completely accomplished at any point…like the goal “I want to be good.” So much of what we read about the evils of the standards are simple misunderstandings like that and, unfortunately, the clarifications don’t go viral.

sjc0116, I am so glad you wrote!

Interesting you bring that up. We math and science teachers have noted for years that kids typically look at a word problem, pick out two numbers, then multiply or add to produce their answer. Multiple choice “wrong answers” are written to match those answers. This problem is because for as long as anyone can remember, students have not been taught how to decompose things and make sense out of them. Most teachers have not expected kids to be able to figure out word problems. Just memorize some steps. Next year the kids spend another 3 months reviewing the past memorized steps so they can memorize more. This isn’t working.

We all agree on that. Some people say the CC DOESN’T require memorization of basic math facts but anyone can open them online and scan for the word “fluent.” “Fluent” means memorized and able to quickly apply. CCSS have been compared with “fuzzy math” from prior decades where kids played in groups to try to figure out things way beyond their comprehension and it was a mess. Rather CCSS strike, in my opinion, an excellent balance of memorized facts WITH understanding why the facts actually make sense.

I think most teachers have concerns about testing and those are local issues. My district, fortunately, has used a lot of common sense. NY trained teachers in Syracuse in February and tested their students in April! I have evaluated Pearson curriculum. They have some nice K-5 hands on ideas, but in their videos state things like, “So just add the numerators and keep the denominators,” basically training kids to play with manipulatives but do the “real math” by memorization. Some Pearson videos even refer to math as “magic tricks.” I tried to get Pearson to talk about it but haven’t had any luck yet. For those reasons, I recommend Singaporemath.com. What kind of computer system have you been using to teach and test? Our district places students based on other factors besides testing and do a pretty good job of it. I typically only have 1-2% I would say were misplaced in Algebra I. I wouldn’t feel to bad about your child’s CC placement. What is often happening is kids get placed in 8th grade Algebra and don’t do well and NEVER recover from it. It’s far better to go for depth. I taught part-time at 2 colleges and talk to lots of folks who do. The consensus is that way too many kids arrive with a bunch of memorized-and-confused procedures that would be much better off with a few things they know very well. It’s really frustrating for everyone. Back to your child…it is possible he/she could take both Algebra 2 and Geometry in the same year to catch up with the kids who took Algebra I in 8th grade. My “A” Algebra I students do that quite handily. It just depends on the local curriculum whether or not that would work.

Yes. Often students forget after they have mastered and it is tempting to say, like, “Oh just multiply and add.” But the students who go on to be successful in Algebra 2 are the ones who are reminded of the concept from which they see “what to do.”

go do something exciting-you are obviously —bored
Mom, successful teacher and not bored

Stereotype much, idiot?

Your error was not that the world laughs at us as our children fail, but the assumption in error was that we don’t properly “fun” (sic) education.” If you meant “fund” then we have been throwing money at it for years and the problem is worse than before. Funding is not the problem. Methods of teaching are, as well as the stress on the wrong methods as well as abandoning content.

As usual for the totalitarian wanna-bees (I know that’s not correct spelling and Am not going to worry about it) you miss the point. Whether you typed “fun” or “fund,” I wasn’t 100% sure. You could have meant “fun” since some people in the “professional education” community think all lessons should be “fun.” But obviously from your immature retort, my point about the funding of education was what you meant. And my point is (again) we need not keep throwing good money after bad. The methods of the “professionals” have failed miserably. Yet they keep begging for more and more, holding up the kids as beneficiaries when its really the publishers and educational administrators that get the bucks — and the kids get the short end of the stick. We should also get the feds out of education as they waste even more than the local agencies do. Half or more is overhead (salaries, buildings, etc). And to be truthful, it is a STATE or local matter in the first place under the Constitution.

Oh Lu. Are you bitter because you’re a failed, two-bit actor or are you just upset about the small penis thing?

3.83* 10^26 applies to what real object? Kilometers and Miles convert into each other using which ratio? Volume = pi*z^2*A? Common Core method helps translating decimal to hexidecimal how? Arithmetic was not meant to be turned into a spreadsheet, it was built to be done in your head easily.

The operative word is “some” Lane. The rest of the kids deserve to be taught MATH. The truth why this program and others like it are being rolled out is that a large percentage of primary education teachers are dumb as stumps. My kindergartner can add ANY two integers. She can find x in a simple equation. Am I now supposed to allow her to regress into this nonsense because “some” kids don’t get it, and never will?

I didn’t say teachers don’t love their students Lane, I do contend that a significant number have no business teaching math, let alone pretending to teach whatever you want to call this BS. Care to guess what group scores lowest on college math exit exams? Bingo, primary education teachers! Can you imagine, even for a second, that we are designing teaching methods to help teachers, not students?

I am happy your kids turned out so well Lane. In the end, it is our ultimate responsibility as parents to teach our kids. But now that I can assume you don’t have kids in this program, why don’t you let those of us who do worry about it. I honestly don’t want my child taught a curriculum designed to teach “everyone” so we can all feel good that all our students have ability to explain how they got the wrong answer. The IRS et. al. don’t care.

Since Singapore math has such a successful track record, why do you suppose that it wasn’t rolled out nationwide?
Where has Common Core been trialed before it was decided to make the whole nation guinea pigs?

still bored — Lane go live a little

This is good info to have.. It doesn’t surprise me because most colleges in the US don’t require elementary teachers to complete a math course as rigorous as College Algebra. Teachers without a solid understanding of Algebra do not understand how basic math flows into it and end up teaching math as being sets of memorized steps that are not clearly related to each other. I recently listened to some Pearson videos for their elementary textbook and the guy on the video talked about learning, “math tricks.” Until CCSS came along, no one could really argue about this because one opinion was as good as another. Recently this interactive doc was created to help teachers understand what is math and what is a trick: nixthetricks.com More than a couple of elementary teachers told my sons they were never good at math. That has to have an effect in itself. I have seen research comparing US teachers’ responses to things like multiplying fractions compared with other countries and our teachers could rarely explain why the procedures worked. I’ve also read that our teachers will need 80-160 hours of training to be able to understand how to teach CCSS math. It will take time. Thanks for sharing.

Bingo!!! I am a high school chemistry teacher and I have the same experience! Horrible math skills and a general dislike of science!!!

nonesense

That’s wonderful that it works for you. The problem is, CCSS are requiring all kids to learn this way instead of tailoring it to how each child learns. I, personally, do much better with memorization and tables. So this system would fail me and make me hate math – which growing up it was one of my favorite subjects because there was one answer. It wasn’t like an English essay where it could be left open to interpretation. The way the CCSS’s are written, especially in early education, do not allow room for children’s individuality. It states in the standards themselves how they have to solve a problem. They are tested on every method instead of a teacher saying you can do it way A, B, or C. They’re expected to master every method. This isn’t fair to children who are cognitively not ready for these types of expectations.

Skills with technology (such as using a smart phone) are much different than cognitive abilities in understanding abstract concepts.

An example – based on Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, which has been studied for decades now and has been found to be an accurate theory of development, children until around the age of 7 are in the pre-operational stage of development. This means “Young children are able to think about things symbolically. Their language use becomes more mature. They also develop memory and imagination, which allows them to understand the difference between past and future, and engage in make-believe.

But their thinking is based on intuition and still not completely logical. They cannot yet grasp more complex concepts such as cause and effect, time, and comparison.” (From Web MD).
In the 1st grade Math Standards introduction it states:

In the Grade 1 Introduction, it specifically states: “Mathematical Practices
Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
Model with mathematics.
Use appropriate tools strategically.
Attend to precision.
Look for and make use of structure.
Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.”

Thinking abstractly, and constructing viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others, isn’t developmentally appropriate.”

Things that are above the level of cognitive function for most kids in 1st grade. These are not bad goals to aim for – but they are the set standards. Kids are expected to meet these standards prior to entering 2nd grade. It’s not fair to them.

Another example, directly from the standards themselves for 1st grade:
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.1.OA.C.6
Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 – 4 = 13 – 3 – 1 = 10 – 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 – 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.1.OA.D.8
Determine the unknown whole number in an addition or subtraction equation relating three whole numbers. For example, determine the unknown number that makes the equation true in each of the equations 8 + ? = 11, 5 = _ – 3, 6 + 6 = _.

These are both above the cognitive abilities of an average 6-7 year old. Based on Piaget’s theories of cognitive development, these abilities are not fully comprehended until later 2nd grade early 3rd. Not 1st.

I have not had the chance to delve past 1st grade yet, and focus on it because that is where my child is headed. But will be reviewing all of these standards as time permits.

If concepts are overly complicated (as can be seen in the examples listed in the standards) it makes children question their abilities, hurt their confidence, and makes them hate learning.

Understanding deeper concepts is wonderful and important. But why not teach the basics – without the confusion? Why not teach memorization? Memorization is important for brain development and keeping your brain strong. Why eliminate rote memorization in regards to math facts? A child can learn both – if asked to do it at appropriate cognitive levels.

“Don’t sell kids short” You might want to think about that statement, how it relates to this argument, and how you might be advocating exactly what you propose we should not.

YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT! And yes I meant to yell.

“by adding 26 + 7, and that sum + 10”

But you just did the problem the same way as above. You broke the numbers apart and added the parts together separately.

I needed remedial math because the way math is taught in public school is useless. There’s a reason so many people hate math.

Large numbers aren’t any different than small numbers because large numbers are made up of small numbers. That’s the whole problem with the traditional method. Larger numbers seem different and unfamiliar, so they are more difficult because you’ve memorized how to deal with small numbers and have to work to get large numbers.

Sure, learn both methods. As they become wide spread, the traditional method will fall away because it only works for addition. I can teach your child one way to do all basic math functions. Subtraction is reverse addition, multiplication is repeated addition, division is reverse multiplication, which is addition. When you get into advanced math, knowing what the equation means is MUCH more valuable than being able to quickly learn how to carry the 1. In the market place of ideas, do you really want to suppress a better product because of stubborn tradition? Or worse, because Obama suggested it?

Also, don’t be a fanboy. The world doesn’t need shallow libertarians who throw around the only quote from the only libertarian literature they know. “Who is John Galt” sounds mysterious and occult, but it means nothing to people who have never read/seen Atlas Shrugged. It means “I’m a crazy” to liberals and “I’m going to cause you to lose elections to Democrats” to conservatives. Instead of spouting ineffective tag lines, convey policy information. True libertarianism appeals to both sides of the aisle, but most Randians are simply conservative extremists, like Glenn Beck.

Adding two integers isn’t exactly “math” – it’s the most basic of “arithmetic”. If that’s the only way your daughter is able to deal with numbers, she isn’t exactly a genius, now is she? Now if she was able to solve the problem using multiple methods and was able to outline the steps of each method, then maybe she’d be up to par with the advanced students.

Unfortunately the truth of that concept is totally lost on those who develop curriculum for the whole.

I just checked. Kids get a solid understanding of multiplying and dividing by powers of 10 in 5th grade CCSS. Traditionally teachers would say, “Just move the decimal to the right (or left if dividing). Kids typically got it right half the time. Under CCSS, students see why the decimal moves (to make a number larger or smaller according to place value). They have 3 years of work with that before they hit 8th grade where they actually add-subtract-multiply-divide in scientific notation. The science teachers would be more qualified to give a complete rundown of how scientific notation is used in real life. Part of it has to do with just understanding how HUGE things are: National debt is in the trillions, distance between planets. More often we see very SMALL numbers where the powers on the 10 are NEGATIVE. That’s huge in biology…from there I’m running a blank. You might want to Google scientific notation rather than take my word for it anyway.

If you’re 1st grader can’t articulate multiple methods of arriving at an answer, then she’s not ahead of other students, she just plateaued as an average student able to memorize simple numbers and won’t be able to proceed on to higher mathematics without difficulty. If she doesn’t understand how the math works, what good are her memorizations?

Why not? Some students have higher aspirations than simple arithmetic allows for. Let the dumb ones learn how to memorize 32*47 and let the ones with higher potential learn how to articulate the various ways one might arrive at the answer.

Young children (before 10) are in the concrete operational stage–and math manipulatives are age appropriate teaching tools. They NEED something in their hand.
Generally, children over 10 are capable of learning algebra (abstract).
It is absurd to try to bypass the appropriate developmental stages

Piaget’s theory of operational stages has been for the most part debunked. Anyway, to suggest that all children at a given age are at the same precise stage of cognitive development is obvious nonsense, contradicted by mountains of evidence. By age three, some children are a year or more ahead of others, and the gap gets bigger as the children get older. At age 10, Some children are performing at the level of the average 7 year old, and others are performing at the level of the average 13 year old. And that’s just kids you will see in every a typical classroom full of 10 year olds, and not counting the rare extremely brilliant children, who are performing at the level of an average 15 year old or higher, or the extremely dull children who would not normally attend a mainstream school, and at age 10 are at the level of the average 5 year old, or lower.
I would agree that for the first two or three years of learning mathematics, concrete tools such as Cuisenaire rods or (even better) the Japanese abacus, should be employed, but children should not be required to keep on using them, or pretending to use them, after they have demonstrated that they can do mental arithmetic fluently.

Please post a particular problem or message me in FB and I can let you know if the problem is really related to CCSS. I can tell you which standard and why it makes sense to include it in a lesson. If it isn’t I can explain how I know it isn’t. You can also send your questions directly to one of the lead writers in the forums here: http://commoncoretools.me/tools/ Bill usually takes a week or two to get back with you, though.

I disagree with your conclusion that more intelligent kids will be punished. I just responded to a post that claimed less intelligent would be punished. If that was happening with CCSS, then students who were taught Singapore math either as home schoolers or as public schoolers would not be having such good success because they are closely related. I have not been personally involved with the writing or adoption process, so my faith in why the standards works is built on my experience in the classroom and observations of others using CCSS-related materials like Singapore. Are you faulting your teacher for teaching you how to calculate in your mind like the CCSS do? I’ve heard tons of people say, “Kids can’t make change in their heads. They have to get out a calculator to do the simplest things.” That talk has been going on for at least 30 years. It sounds like you are very good evidence that teaching kids to add in their heads is very effective. I’m not sure where you read that our system WORKS but you could easily bust that claim by calling some colleges and asking them about what percent of kids they get need remedial math. To call Stanford would probably not support my argument here because they pick the best of the best. Call a regular state school or community college.

I’m still teaching 130-150 kids each year: http://www.fhsdschools.org/cms/One.aspx?pageId=15026535 Recently I emailed a legislator asking why he voted against CCSS in MO. He cited parents are furious and that it is OUR job as educators to explain CCSS to the parents so they know what we know. Until then, the legislators will continue to be intimidated into passing something (anything) to get the parents to calm down. I’m trying to do my part, trying to get the word out, before each and every State spends millions to revisit the standards and ends up with what Indiana ended up with.

as a person whose livelihood is based upon math and logic..I’ve been programming computers for 38 years. You are nuts if you think this is going to help kids ‘get good jobs’. here.. this should be simple for you.. you tell a kid he has 2 apples and someone gives him 2 more.. 2 + 2 = 4. or 2 x 2 = 4. the old method of teaching math has successfully lead to creation of computers, putting man in space and beyond, medical advancements that increased the life span of people, etc. CC is going to prevent advancement by creating crap while the rest of the world teaches the basics and the efficient way of dealing with real life equations. The problem isn’t math. it is the people teaching it and the use of electronics. if CC was such a good thing.. the rest of the world would be using it. Instead we have a bunch of a-holes developing CC and creating havoc. Go back to basic math.. it’s a simple non-technical thing. as for your dealing with other countries Ms Walker. perhaps you need to sit in their classroom and watch how they teach MATH. Other countries ARE laughing at us.

just give it up. whats the deal you have moron children who can’t keep up with Joe average?so you want Joe average to be as dumb as your children?n

Harrumph!

The problem is that in the early years many of the standards are developmentally inappropriate. They are not inline with what children are cognitively capable of. And then in later years it doesn’t allow children to reach the higher levels of math while in high school. I graduated high school in 2002. My junior year I was in AP Statistics. This is not possible with CCSS. Even one of the main creators of the math standards has stated that the CCSS prepare children for “non-select colleges” not for select colleges and universities. How is this preparing our students for STEM careers, if it doesn’t even prepare them for colleges above community college level? Much of the talk of the need for these standards is to prevent high school students from needing remedial math when they enter college. If they are only being prepared for community college level work – then remedial classes will be needed more and more at the higher university levels.

The developmentally inappropriate side I’m talking about is in the early years. Based on Piaget’s theories (which have been studied, researched and credited multiple times) the early levels of math standards are inappropriate. It is cognitively not at the level a child is capable of thinking.

I am not opposed to children developing a deeper understand of math. The problem is that they are expected to get that deeper understanding before they even grasp the basics of math. Why not teach them the basics, the facts, then, once they reach a higher level of cognitive function, go back and teach that deeper level? This makes more sense to me as a parent and psychologist.

And math standards when I was in school was to have average students complete Algebra 2 by the 10th grade, not the 11th grade. Pushing this back a year further, limits how many concurrent enrollment and AP classes can be taken to further prepare students for college, especially for STEM careers. I completed Algebra 2 in 9th grade. Common Core proponents talk of how it’s raising the bar – and while it is (to inappropriate levels) for young children, it’s not for older students.

I have read a lot of research and information, and I do look at what is being said, where and how it might be biased.

When you get down to the brass tax of everything – Common Core State Standards were not developed based on research. They claim to have used scholarly research, but have yet to provide any citations of such (with the exception of Appendix A via CoreStandards.org, which discusses testing more so than the standards). My oldest child is 6. I am not okay with her educational career being an experiment. Even Bill Gates has stated that this “education stuff” will take 10 years to find out if it works. As a parent that is not okay. (As stated in the interview included with this article – http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/09/27/bill-gates-it-would-be-great-if-our-education-stuff-worked-but/)

If you want to look at concise standards, that make sense to even a layman reading them – take a look at Finland’s standards. They rank among the highest on the international tests that are purported to be a reason for higher standards (which I have a problem with as well, being compared to other countries in ways that are biased and don’t take into consideration the creativity and innovation our education system provides our students, or at least should be providing our students). – http://www.oph.fi/download/47672_core_curricula_basic_education_3.pdf – math standards start on the document’s page 158.

There are alternatives. We shouldn’t have to rely on Federal funding and Federal oversight for our education purposes. An example of an alternate option for math standards are Utah’s 2007 math standards. The Fordham Institute rated it as high as CCSS, A-. The Fordham Institute has even received $3,000,000 from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, and yet Utah’s 2007 standards still rated as well as CCSS. And those were used without all the Federal strings attached.

The other failure of CCSS is that it assumes that by having more “rigorous” standards and having standards the same across the country it’s going to help all students improve. It won’t though. The gap between social classes will simply increase. Why? Because parents who are interactive with their children will work harder to have continued improvement and success. Homes where students were already struggling and lacked parental involvement won’t change. These students will fall further and further behind. Politicians and corporate types that are behind the development of CCSS do not take into consideration how home life affects a child’s education and fail to recognize the importance of parental involvement in a student’s success. No set of standards or policies will ever correct these struggling children’s educational careers. Only better education to parents and communities. And even then, there will be families that simply do not support their students for success. Standardized tests (which are linked to CCSS through Race to the Top and NCLB waivers) fail our students. They fail our teachers. They fail our schools and communities.

CCSS, Race to the Top, and other Federal oversight are failing our children. This is what I’m not okay with.

I’ve read through the standards for math for Kindergarten, and have no problems with them. Depending on how they are actually implemented and taught in the classrooms.

1st grade is where I have the concerns at this time – since that’s as far as I have researched in depth. I do plan to continue it as time permits.

Based on Piaget’s theory of cognitive development children until around the age of 7 are in the pre-operational stage of development. This means “Young children are able to think about things symbolically. Their language use becomes more mature. They also develop memory and imagination, which allows them to understand the difference between past and future, and engage in make-believe.

But their thinking is based on intuition and still not completely logical. They cannot yet grasp more complex concepts such as cause and effect, time, and comparison.” (From Web MD).

In the 1st grade Math Standards introduction it states:
“Mathematical Practices
Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
Model with mathematics.
Use appropriate tools strategically.
Attend to precision.
Look for and make use of structure.
Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.”

Thinking abstractly, and constructing viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others, isn’t developmentally appropriate.

Things that are above the level of cognitive function for most kids in 1st grade. These are not bad goals to aim for – but they are the set standards. Kids are expected to meet these standards prior to entering 2nd grade. It’s not fair to them.

Another example, directly from the standards themselves for 1st grade:
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.1.OA.C.6
Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 – 4 = 13 – 3 – 1 = 10 – 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 – 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13). – – – – Kids are taught to read from left to right. Why confuse them in math with breaking numbers down – 8+6=8+2+4=10+4=14. This complicates things above the level needed at this stage of learning. – – – –

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.1.OA.D.8
Determine the unknown whole number in an addition or subtraction equation relating three whole numbers. For example, determine the unknown number that makes the equation true in each of the equations 8 + ? = 11, 5 = _ – 3, 6 + 6 = _. – – – – Why not help them with memorizing the basic math facts, and then breaking down the relationship between rote memorization and solving equations of this nature? – – – –

These are both above the cognitive abilities of an average 6-7 year old. Based on Piaget’s theories of cognitive development, these abilities are not fully comprehended until later 2nd grade early 3rd. Not 1st.

If concepts are overly complicated (as can be seen in the examples listed in the standards) it makes children question their abilities, hurt their confidence, and makes them hate learning.

Understanding deeper concepts is wonderful and important. But why not teach the basics – without the confusion? Why not teach memorization? Memorization is important for brain development and keeping your brain strong. Why eliminate rote memorization in regards to math facts? A child can learn both – if asked to do it at appropriate cognitive levels.

go find some excitement in your life-you are obviously BORED

“you don’t have to remember if it makes sense”….hmmm

Okay, then maybe if you see kids making change in their heads it might help: https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/grade-1-math

Only entering second grade and tho she stated in kindergarden that she wants to be a paleontologist (how many K graders even know what that is? Im not even sure I spelled it right) She is already near tears over math even though she was adding two place odd numbers before she started K.. and NOW she is confused. Explain that please??? When parents set the stage for acheivement, then to have it ruined by illogical practices… what then? My grand daughter has been obsessed by books since she could hold them. 18 months old and would grab a book and go occupy herself on the sofa without being guided to do so. Her moral. ruined. Her drive. ruined. her lust for learning. ruined. motivation. ruined. her joy for school. ruined. thanks core!!! As a family with 6 kids 7 and under.. we are considering hiring a retired school teacher to home school the group.