WaPo: White Suburban Moms Upset By Common Core

EarlyBird said:

Yes, they do, because this is the method they've been taught. Take my six year old. She knows to look for 'friendly numbers'...ones that when added,subtracted, or multiplied together end with a 0 or 5. (She's just begun division, which is why I didn't include that particular operation.) She also looks for ways to deconstruct numbers to make them easier to compute. Much of the time she can do it mentally. Did I mention she's just six? It's pretty amazing.

Click to expand...

Doe she use the word "deconstruct" too??? That's such a big word for a six-year-old!

I wonder if this Common Core math thing is a secret way to increase vocabulary...

Um, number sentence? subtraction story? Are the terms "equation" and "word problem" really so terrifying? Man, if cuter terms were all we needed to stop kids from being terrified of math...

clintl said:

If the objection is "teaching to tests," then the objectors haven't been paying attention to what happened since NCLB was enacted over ten years ago.

Click to expand...

True. But then there are a lot of people who objected to NCLB who are also objecting to Common Core. Moreover, there are a lot of people applauding Common Core who were once complaining wildly about NCLB. And vise-versa.

Regardless, I noted upthread that Common Core would lead to standardized instruction. But I was apparently off my nut...

Roxxsmom said:

My understanding is that the Common Core relies on the development of new vocabulary and terminology, and on a new way of approaching math problems.

The examples I've seen involve math problems. They're definitely introducing very young kids to abstract mathematical concepts via lots and lots of word problems. It is a bit like introducing algebra to grade schoolers, actually, but it's done in sort of an oblique way, via puzzles and so on.

Click to expand...

Did you hear about this video game aimed at elementary aged kids that teaches algebra? This article talks ABOUT it but doesn't describe it:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordans...42-minutes-to-learn-algebra-with-video-games/

This video describes how it works in the first minute and a half, then there's a demo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kE8cosvwNM

If I had something like that in elemtary school, I would have been a genius in high school.

And so now Common Core, and public education in general, are competing with that sort of thing. After seeing that game, it seems to me the only challenge Common Core would present to kids is learning the lingo.

My husband and I looked at some of the questions, and it took us a bit of time to figure out what they were asking with some of them. We both have science background (his is physics, mine is biology) and tend to do well on tests for adults that look at logical/analytical thinking. So I can see college-educated, middle-class, suburban parents getting anxious about this, especially if they had less math back in school and college than we did. Hard to help your kid study if you have no idea what they're being asked to do (I still have no idea what they're asking for number 12 where they show a row of different colored blocks with holes in them, and they say "which is a related subtraction sentence?" and the answer is an addition problem. I also have no idea what "wring a subtraction story" means).

So much for math being the universal language, eh?

Click to expand...

I see instead of equations (which MIGHT be a big word for first graders, but it's been a long while since I was in the first grade), we have "number sentences."

...
Oh, and it's still all about standardized testing, and so it still has the potential to divert education away from an emphasis on actually becoming educated, as it becomes more and more about prepping kids to take these tests (and at the expense of subjects that aren't included on these tests, like science, social studies, music, art etc).

That hasn't been a problem with past approaches to standardized testing, of course

Click to expand...

Well, it's good to know no school has ever dropped music or art, whether it's to concentrate on standardized tests or for any other reason...

I asked my resident first grader: he did not know the word 'equation'. When I said 'number sentence', he nodded and gave me an example. Same thing with 'subtraction story'. (Although he prefers the word minus)

(anecdote is anecdotal, of course)

robeiae said:

True. But then there are a lot of people who objected to NCLB who are also objecting to Common Core. Moreover, there are a lot of people applauding Common Core who were once complaining wildly about NCLB. And vise-versa.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of the people objecting to Common Core are not the same people who objected to NCLB.

In any case, with regard to "teaching to the test", that's completely independent of what the standards are and how they're taught. What causes "teaching to the test" is creating high stakes and consequences for the results - like using them to rank schools (which motivates administrators to stress the importance), or using them to evaluate teachers (which motivates teachers to do the same). Because teaching to the test is the most efficient way to improve test scores. Whether they mean much depends on whether the tests are really testing what we want them to learn, and whether the students have any motivation to do well on them.

Some of the pedagogy behind Common Core is baffling; the language and spelling stuff is just crazy.

But here's an example that many people may have seen captured in a video, explained by a math teacher:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...e-math-problem-making-the-rounds-on-facebook/

Here's the thing: That example based on the common core math expectations for kids in elementary school.

And the way the criteria are provided in the core standards statements

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/

Isn't really making my heart sing.

The spelling/language ones -- I'm going to have to spend some more time reading them carefully, but some of the principles embodied in them, and in the examples, are just wrong.

Some of the assertions about how English spelling works, for instance are inaccurate and emphasize rules far too much—the rules aren't really rules because English spelling isn't in and of itself logical.

It just isn't. There's no point in pretending it is.

benbradley said:

Well, it's good to know no school has ever dropped music or art, whether it's to concentrate on standardized tests or for any other reason...

Click to expand...

It's true they hardly need an excuse to do that these days. As a product of the CA public education system (graduated HS in 82), I was amazed to hear people in other states lamenting the loss of art and music, school nurses, school counselors, PE teachers in grade school etc. during the 2008 recession. My reaction was, "What? They still have those things to cut in other states?"

Some of my friends who have young kids say that number sentence and subtraction story have been around for a while, but those terms certainly weren't used when I was young (those were also back in the days before SPF factor 15 and above sunscreen, child seats in cars, and bike helmets, so I won't claim that everything was wonderful back then).

I'd still like to know what those shaded block things with holes in them are supposed to represent in that picture.

Rhoda Nightingale said:

Jesus Christ. Is that how other people make change? My brain's melting just looking at it. 0_0

I say this as a former barista who, on the occasion that the register was broken, would totally break out a piece of paper and/or scramble frantically for the nearest calculator.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I'm a mathematician, but when I make change, I "count it up."

The bill comes to, say, 3.70, and they give you a $20. You give them $.30, a $1, a $5 and a 10$, and you say "There's four, one makes five, five makes ten and ten makes twenty." That was the standard way to return change before registers were available to always count it for you.

As for subtracting and adding. As I said, I'm a mathematician, but in my head, when I see 18+5, I think "18+2= 20, and then there's 3 more for 23." Same thing when I see 24-9. "24-4=20, and then there's 5 more for 15."

My six-year old knows the math lingo: equation, expression, construct, deconstruct, product, quotient, sum, factors, addends, commutative property, associate property, etc. Yes, the curriculum also weaves in the simpler terms as well, but she definitely knows her math vocabulary. She hasn't been confused by it and it wasn't difficult for her to learn. Being immersed in my daughters' education has shown me that we underestimate the ability of young people.

The spelling/language ones -- I'm going to have to spend some more time reading them carefully, but some of the principles embodied in them, and in the examples, are just wrong.

Some of the assertions about how English spelling works, for instance are inaccurate and emphasize rules far too much—the rules aren't really rules because English spelling isn't in and of itself logical.

Click to expand...

Could you provide specific examples of wrong principles? I don't have much with which to compare but, yes, there is a lot of 'rules' my girls are being taught and so far I haven't come across any errors. I'll admit that initially when I glanced through the spelling workbook and saw words like predictable, easiest, and replacement, I thought, how in the world is a six-year old supposed to learn how to spell such big words? (She is a year ahead, though, so normally this is content a seven-year old would be learning. Still, it seemed like a huge jump from what it was previously) But as we've gone through it, it hasn't been a problem. Spelling lists are aligned with the vocabulary lessons that include the meanings of prefixes and suffixes, the "big" words are broken down to make spelling easier. Again, this is different than what my oldest had at that age, but it's more comprehensive and logical, IMO.

In regards to language arts, I really like that the literature includes a healthy dose of non-fiction. When my ten-year old was in K and first grade, all of the reading was fairy tales and nursery rhymes. Not so for my youngest. She's being exposed to a wide range of literature, and I think that's very beneficial. She's also being taught parts of speech in astonishing detail, along with the means of terms such as imagery, personification, and idioms. Again, not something my ten-year old learned at that age.

I'm not sure what will happen in the next school year, though. Our state has rejected CC after implementing it this year, so I have no idea what the curriculum will be like come August. I'll be sad, though, if we lose all that I've found wonderful this year.

Myrealana said:

As I said, I'm a mathematician, but in my head, when I see 18+3, I think "18+2= 20, and then there's 3 more for 23."

Click to expand...

Prozyan said:

Click to expand...

Mathematician.

Not typist. Dammit.

18+5 is what was in my head. Somehow that's not what went into the keyboard.

clintl said:

I think a lot of the people objecting to Common Core are not the same people who objected to NCLB.

Click to expand...

I can't say, really. But there are plenty of people who objected to both. Just as there are plenty of people who applauded one but not the other.

In any case, with regard to "teaching to the test", that's completely independent of what the standards are and how they're taught. What causes "teaching to the test" is creating high stakes and consequences for the results - like using them to rank schools (which motivates administrators to stress the importance), or using them to evaluate teachers (which motivates teachers to do the same). Because teaching to the test is the most efficient way to improve test scores. Whether they mean much depends on whether the tests are really testing what we want them to learn, and whether the students have any motivation to do well on them.

Click to expand...

I'm generally opposed to high stakes testing. It creates the wrong kind of incentives, incentives that are not really about benefiting the children in the least.

Regardless, the point is that Common Core is leading to standardized instruction. And I think that's a bad thing. I want to teachers to be free to teach the way that they want to (yeah, I trust them as a group, I really do). Giving them more support is a good thing, as is giving them more resources. But trying to control how they do their job is not. They're all different. Children are all different. They don't all learn at the same rate or in the exact same way. Plus--when it comes to things like literature--regional issues matter, are important imo.

Prozyan said:

Click to expand...

Myrealana said:

Mathematician.

Not typist. Dammit.

Click to expand...

Thank you. That made my morning (I'm easily amused).

EarlyBird said:

Could you provide specific examples of wrong principles? I don't have much with which to compare but, yes, there is a lot of 'rules' my girls are being taught and so far I haven't come across any errors. I'll admit that initially when I glanced through the spelling workbook and saw words like predictable, easiest, and replacement, I thought, how in the world is a six-year old supposed to learn how to spell such big words? (She is a year ahead, though, so normally this is content a seven-year old would be learning. Still, it seemed like a huge jump from what it was previously) But as we've gone through it, it hasn't been a problem. Spelling lists are aligned with the vocabulary lessons that include the meanings of prefixes and suffixes, the "big" words are broken down to make spelling easier. Again, this is different than what my oldest had at that age, but it's more comprehensive and logical, IMO.

Click to expand...

I think possibly she's referring to the fact that English spelling does not really have "rules". It was created/standardized during a period of time where English was going through a huge vowel shift and this is why nothing "matches." You end up with stuff like through/though/tough and it's enough to make you cry. Spelling also has to do significantly with etymology and I'm going to take a wild guess and say they're not teaching that to 6-year-olds?

I don't know. I remember being taught rules and exceptions to rules when I was learning to spell. It worked for me, but I suspect it's because I have a really good memory for things like that. My mom's a terrible speller - I think she was asking me how to spell words by the time I was in the third grade, because I was already better than her.

robeiae said:

I can't say, really. But there are plenty of people who objected to both. Just as there are plenty of people who applauded one but not the other.

I'm generally opposed to high stakes testing. It creates the wrong kind of incentives, incentives that are not really about benefiting the children in the least.

Regardless, the point is that Common Core is leading to standardized instruction. And I think that's a bad thing. I want to teachers to be free to teach the way that they want to (yeah, I trust them as a group, I really do). Giving them more support is a good thing, as is giving them more resources. But trying to control how they do their job is not. They're all different. Children are all different. They don't all learn at the same rate or in the exact same way. Plus--when it comes to things like literature--regional issues matter, are important imo.

Click to expand...

This is my problem with it too. I teach at a college, and my colleagues and I have noticed that more and more students are arriving who are simply not prepared for college-level work. Standardized testing in K-12 is not the only reason for this, but it certainly isn't helping. Each year, I'm actually seeing more students with terrible reading comprehension, for instance (to the point where asking a test question about something from the text that I didn't also cover in class pretty much guarantees no student will get it), and I'm seeing lots of students who can't even do basic arithmetic.

These are high school graduates who passed their standardized tests that were supposed to be all about things like basic math skills and reading comprehension and so on.

Kids aren't all the same. They don't all learn the same way, and they don't all come to school with the same background and needs. But standardized curricula and testing encourages schools to treat them as if they are. The same teacher can have two different classes with very different personalities and ability levels. One year, you get an above-average group, and you're an awesome teacher. The next year, you get a below average group, and you're dirt.

And making salaries and job security dependent on high-stakes testing creates competition between teachers, principles, schools and districts for limited resources. If you actually hit on an innovation that results in your students doing consistently better, why would you share it if that just raises the bar and puts you back to being average once everyone else adopts it? Do we want education to become like the private sector, where successful managers and companies jealously guard their secret formulas?

And cheat when they get really desperate?

Standardized testing also encourages teachers to ignore both the kids who will pass the test no matter what and the ones who will fail no matter what. If your primary goal as a teacher is to maximize your pass rate, you will spend the bulk of your time on the so-called bubble kids.

There's no quick fix for the problems we're having with student learning in the US. I think a big problem is we don't really value education. And of course, educators aren't regarded or treated as valued professionals. And education always seems to be the first thing when budgets get tight. We're asking teachers to do more with less, then we're blaming them when we discover that kids can't think their way out of a wet paper sack.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Number sentence is not a new term, but I can't find references for how old it is.

Click to expand...

I suppose "new" is relative concerning English phrases, depending on the time frame you're studying.
Google Ngram finds the first use of number sentence in 1960 but I think we'd have to see examples to know for sure if the phrase had the same meaning back then.

The idea of the term is that students need to be able to read the strings of symbols in order to do anything with them, and that's true.

Also number sentence =/= equation.

4 + 3 > 8 - 5
is a number sentence but not an equation.

Click to expand...

Okay, so (I presume) a number sentence is either an equation or an inequality.

M.Ed. here. I took "school of choice" option for my daughter to avoid sending her to a common core school. We have her in a STEM school. One that gives special attention to the arts as well.

And I think NCLB has been devastating to education in general. We had an entire seminar dedicated to how to make "teaching to the test" work and still "educate your students."

This doesn't even begin to touch on the political bullshit surrounding NCLB. We've lost two high schools in the last 5 years because of it. Scores drop a little. Funding is threatened (in schools that need it the MOST). Parents freak and have their kids bussed to "the high test school" 3 miles further. Old school loses enrollment of higher testers. Funding dwindles. School shuts down.

Or, if you don't want "those trailer park kids" in your "high testing zone," because they'll drag down test scores, you bitch to the city, the county, to whoever will listen, and you change boundaries so the "rabble" has to go to the "low test school." Even if that trailer park is smack dab in the middle of white suburbia.

No child left behind. Hmmmm.

As for core, it's jokingly referred to the "old white man curricula" in many education circles. Sure, you can mold it to some extent, but how many teachers are going to be focused on making it into something badass? When they have funding worries and tests on their plate?

(We could also look into testing companies. Go down that rabbit hole and you'll find some nice profiting going on. These tests aren't free.)

I honestly don't know the connection with "white suburban moms." I've seen that issue more with the gifted & talented program. Oh, my baby has to score high enough to be considered "gifted." (They have prep courses for this.) That's a joke as well in many education circles.

In studies I've seen, the number one factor that can be connected to a child's success in education isn't the type of school, class, race, but the number of books the child has access to in the home and how much time parents spend reading to that child and encouraging them TO read.

Rote memorization is fine, but it can't be the whole purpose of schooling. Kids need room to breathe, a safe space to fail (when needed) and need an outlet for the creative. In my freshman classes, the biggest issue I have is that nobody knows how to critically think. And writing assessment scores have dropped considerably since NCLB.

If we had only core schools around here, yeah, that's what you do. And you supplement yourself if you want your child to learn through a more culturally diverse lens.

I'm sure there are schools out there who make core work miracles. From my experience, they are far fewer.

In truth, if someone were to ask me what I wanted from incoming college freshmen, I would say, "Let your kid get Bs. Get them involved in extracurriculars, volunteer work, arts and sports. Give them as well-rounded an experience as you can." Not every child is going to be a genius, is going to get into Yale or MIT. They're going to go to state colleges and get an education that helps them get a job. (Hopefully.) Learning how to take a good test is the last m-f*ing thing that helps with that.

Just my two cents. If you feel that testing is the cat's ass, good for you. Just remember that some things cannot be quantified so easily. Experience trumps all.

I'm in college, and the inability to think critically is always kind of shocking to me. I definitely think NCLB has caused a lot more problems with the education system. I don't know enough about the Core standards to know how I feel about it.

I do know that nationally we are very behind and something needs to change, but I don't feel that making more tests is what's going to do it. I think rewarding good teachers, better teacher retention (the number who quit after a year or two is remarkable), and at the same time, better ways to get rid of the teachers who are not doing their jobs.

I have a friend right now whose daughter has the worst elementary teacher I've ever heard of. Said friend is also a teacher, and she comes home in tears from every student teacher meeting because the teacher is just awful. Her grading is ridiculous, her policies are ridiculous, she has no concept of classroom management, the homework she sends home is a joke, she has nothing built into her grading to help students who don't understand something or to allow them to work on concepts at home. I can't really go into more detail, but to both of us, being teachers, it's appalling to hear the things she's doing. And she's not a brand new teacher, in which case it might be forgivable. She's been teaching something like six or seven years. At this point a large number of her students are actually failing the class, and she was complaining that they don't work hard enough. This is a class that has rocked every previous grade they were in.

She's awful, and yet she's going to continue teaching there...well, pretty much until she gets tired of it. And every student in her class is going to be further behind come next year because this teacher can't teach.

ETA: I'm not blaming all performance on teachers. Teachers have a lot of problems of their own to deal with, and I face my own nightmare situation at one of my schools. Administrations are also at fault, budgets can be at fault, the fact that teachers essentially have their hands tied in terms of what/how they teach and the fact that parents can often call and complain about a bad grade their child earned fair and square and get teachers in trouble are all huge issues. I just know that if we had more emphasis on making and keeping great teachers and getting rid of the bad ones, it would help.

Actually, reading some of the comments here, there's a bit of a misconception that Common Core will result in more testing. In truth, it's going to result in less testing. Instead of testing students every year, it's going to test them at 3-year intervals (after 2nd, 5th, 8th, and 11th grades). But the tests are radically different. They're not all multiple choice, and the students take them on a computer.

That doesn't mean it won't create a lot of the same problems - however, from what I've seen of sample questions, it does appear that the new tests require students to do more analytical thinking.

kaitie said:

I'm in college, and the inability to think critically is always kind of shocking to me. I definitely think NCLB has caused a lot more problems with the education system. I don't know enough about the Core standards to know how I feel about it.

I do know that nationally we are very behind and something needs to change, but I don't feel that making more tests is what's going to do it. I think rewarding good teachers, better teacher retention (the number who quit after a year or two is remarkable), and at the same time, better ways to get rid of the teachers who are not doing their jobs.

I have a friend right now whose daughter has the worst elementary teacher I've ever heard of. Said friend is also a teacher, and she comes home in tears from every student teacher meeting because the teacher is just awful. Her grading is ridiculous, her policies are ridiculous, she has no concept of classroom management, the homework she sends home is a joke, she has nothing built into her grading to help students who don't understand something or to allow them to work on concepts at home. I can't really go into more detail, but to both of us, being teachers, it's appalling to hear the things she's doing. And she's not a brand new teacher, in which case it might be forgivable. She's been teaching something like six or seven years. At this point a large number of her students are actually failing the class, and she was complaining that they don't work hard enough. This is a class that has rocked every previous grade they were in.

She's awful, and yet she's going to continue teaching there...well, pretty much until she gets tired of it. And every student in her class is going to be further behind come next year because this teacher can't teach.

ETA: I'm not blaming all performance on teachers. Teachers have a lot of problems of their own to deal with, and I face my own nightmare situation at one of my schools. Administrations are also at fault, budgets can be at fault, the fact that teachers essentially have their hands tied in terms of what/how they teach and the fact that parents can often call and complain about a bad grade their child earned fair and square and get teachers in trouble are all huge issues. I just know that if we had more emphasis on making and keeping great teachers and getting rid of the bad ones, it would help.

Click to expand...

There absolutely are bad teachers out there. Horrible. Even with college kids, I have parents calling to contest a grade. I'm not kidding.

clintl said:

Actually, reading some of the comments here, there's a bit of a misconception that Common Core will result in more testing. In truth, it's going to result in less testing. Instead of testing students every year, it's going to test them at 3-year intervals (after 2nd, 5th, 8th, and 11th grades). But the tests are radically different. They're not all multiple choice, and the students take them on a computer.

That doesn't mean it won't create a lot of the same problems - however, from what I've seen of sample questions, it does appear that the new tests require students to do more analytical thinking.

Click to expand...

Thank you for addressing this. I hoped someone would.