I won't even touch the political reflexive negativity surrounding Common Core.
However, the only non-political (I'm being nice ...) criticism I continue to see is in the mathematics. And it's always because of "word problems". Common Core likes "word problems" and reasoning a LOT.
I have taught math. With very few exceptions, everybody hates word problems. Most students just want "Give me the question and give me the procedure so I can regurgitate the procedure. Don't make me think." They don't want to reason.
You can see this even in senior year of high school in the US in science. Just try to get the students to explain why they are doing an experiment (In short: "state the hypothesis"). It's almost always a disaster. After a year, you might get a majority up to the point where they can actually state it coherently.
I have this problem even with some really senior engineers when debugging things. "We did X, Y, and Z. They didn't work." "Um, okay, why did you do X, Y, or Z?" "Huh?!?!?!" "Why should X, Y or Z have worked? Is there a relation between X, Y, or Z and the problem? What is it?" <puzzled stares>
So, I see the objections as positive evidence that the Common Core standards are doing their job. The fact that adults have trouble with some of these problems is no surprise. Most of them skated through reasoning and word problems themselves.
> You can see this even in senior year of high school in the US in science. Just try to get the students to explain why they are doing an experiment (In short: "state the hypothesis").
This starts very young. Most "science for kids" on the Internet is little more than "here's a demonstration of something, and here's a sciency explanation of what's going on". Most sites don't suggest making any changes to the setup, or ask any questions about what happens if you do stuff differently.
(I'm keen to find good science content for children that does teach scientific method, so please let me know of any good sites).
Word problems though are often hated because they're so ambiguous in unintentional ways that don't really relate to the problem. Eg, in the middle school example on the page, when it says "She makes $4.40" do they mean net or gross? In this case, it turns out that only one of those gives you an integer answer, so you can work out what they meant, but it's not uncommon to see problems where that's not the case and you're stuck making a 50/50 guess. With the current emphasis on test scores, that adds a lot of stress.
As a student I loved word problems and hated the straight equation ones. It always pissed me off that there were 35 explicit 45 - 17 = ? questions and 4 word problems.
I wonder what, if anything, that says about people. Should I start asking people which problems types they preferred during interviews? (that's mostly rhetorical...i think).
I've never personally heard any reasonable criticism of Common Core. The criticism tends to either be "The Federal Government is overreaching!" combined with some States Rights dogwhistling or "This wasn't the way I was taught and since this confuses me, a grown adult, I have decided that it's bad for children! [who have a completely different set of requirements and experiences]
Are there any sane, evidence-based criticisms? Because Common Core seems like a decent improvement to me.
From what I have seen from from a 1st, 2nd, and 7th grader the issue real issue is implementation. They want the 1st grader to understand that when you carry a 1 you are really carrying 10, so they have this huge diagram they draw out so it can be visualized. Great makes sense.
Problem is they make the kids draw out this giant ridiculous diagram every time, and they get graded on whether they draw the picture error free. So instead of teaching the concept and then reinforcing the application of the concept they are reinforcing how well you can draw the needless picture you were taught. Parents then get mad because they can't help their kids because they didn't learn the rules of the diagram drawing.
I haven't seen any real arguments to the substance. I keep seeing that one picture reposted with the "Old Fashioned" method and the "Common Core" method[1], and although I don't know anything about Common Core, I can see that it is a clearly contrived example that is certainly very misleading.
Every other criticism is consistent with your experience, essentially calling it overreaching or teachers complaining that they shouldn't have to learn it to teach their kids.
To the contrary, I've never personally heard any reasonable support for Common Core. Of the many examples I've seen, including what my daughter has been inflicted with, it is leaping past basic competency going straight to advanced techniques which only are simple because of thousands of hours of practice with straightforward fundamentals. When asking even Common Core teachers about the curriculum, they're quick to express reflexive embarrassment and change the subject. Even (IIRC) the federal head of the curriculum sends his own kids to a non-Common Core school.
> I've never personally heard any reasonable criticism of Common Core
I'm a away from my desk, but the examples that are causing the most problems are not the ones shown in the referenced article (those seem quite reasonable). The problem is how they teach addition and multiplication. Basically they are trying to do abacus math without the abacus. They also accept estimates instead of actual answers and a total removal of the memorizing of tables. A buddy of mine who is an EE with a heavy math background has had trouble helping his child get the correct answer. The worst part is he taught his daughter math early and she struggles because she knows the answer but doesn't know how to express it the way her teacher wants. This is a true pain because he thought he was raising a kid excited about STEM and now its just a wall.
As to the state rights and such. Yes, that is a valid issue, but is much broader than Common Core and a continuation of lunches and NCLB. Common Core is just more evidence to an old argument.
The argument about that Common Core is bad because it comes from the Federal government is also based on fiction. Common Core was created by the states (specifically the National Governors Association) as an effort to have consistent standards across multiple states. The only Federal Government connection I'm aware of is that adoption of Common Core standards is one way that states can score extra points for Race to the Top grants.
The big problem with common core is the reform package into which it is embedded. The standards themselves are in most cases as well thought out as other alternatives. Sure you can find details to argue about, but that is universal. The textbooks and workbooks have some rough edges because of newness. The real problem is the rest of the package: high stakes tests with no direct educational purpose taking weeks of class time, not to mention valuable tine now going to test prep. Privitazation of the testing, and increasingly of the schools themselves. Dimunuation and disenfranchisement of the teaching profession. The big picture is industrialisation of public education. This entails a loss of quality in favor of uniformity and cheapness.
That's because you are looking at the wrong problem.
The biggest problem with common core is that it codifies social promotion under the guise of "schools know better" while linking promotion to money received by the schools.
Can't say I've been following Common Core too closely (my kids are 3 and 1 respectively, so there'll be a bit before it affects me directly). But these example questions just seem completely to be arguing with a strawman:
The only difference in the elementary school question was bigger numbers.
The first middle school example contains only one additional step (being able to do algebra instead of just arithmetic). The explanation for the "old way" contains the word "simple" gratuitously - you might as well say that the CC version of the problem only requires "simple algebra."
For, the second middle school example, I definitely had questions that were multi-part like that in middle school. Also, each part is just applying the same formula a few different times - but the explanation given makes it seem like it's a whole new thing!
The explanations for the high school example is really the worst one though. "This question is an example of solving equations as a series of mechanical steps" and "This question is an example of solving equations as a process of reasoning" mean basically the same thing, just one is put in a derogatory manner.
The CC version of the question itself is also vague: can I pick any two equations that have the same solution? Should I pick equations that are the intermediate steps toward the solution? Does "y=5/3" count as one of the equations?
Regarding the elementary one, there's a good reason for the larger numbers though. With 4x3, a student can get the right answer through a counting process.
1-2-3-4 5-6-7-8 9-10-11-12
For someone who hasn't either memorized multiplication tables or learned faster ways of working out the answer, that's likely the approach they will take. With 6x7 on the other hand, it's natural to look for a faster (better) way to solve the problem.
I agree that the last question was vague / poorly state.
I also don't get their critique that the problems can be solved easily using simple mathematics. That's kind of the point of mathematics. Making the problems slightly more difficult (if it can be called that) doesn't really remedy the original problem, which is that they don't understand why something works.
The problem with Common Core, in my experience, has not been the math itself. It's the textbooks. The workbooks. The stubborn teachers.
Math is math. Knowing more than one way to solve 345 * 14 is a valuable skill. I would rather my children learn it on a whiteboard than from a workbook, and I think generally the quality of the modern texts is very poor for actually teaching math.
I also think the teachers are bemoaning the Common Core much more than they need to. Explicitly teaching the algorithms for mental math is important. Learning how to do the lattice method, even if it's not the preferred method for multiplication, is important. I've talked to far too many teachers who have complained unendlingly about the weakness of the standard, and all that the kids are being forced to learn. It feels very much like a "This is change and change is bad." mentality.
Disclaimer: I haven't encountered the Common Core as a parent at a high school level yet.
I've looked at some recent high school algebra textbooks. What a disaster. These books are literally written by committee, the "author's" page in the front has a dozen headshots complete with bios. The content inside the book is a mishmash of color photographs, historical information, brain teasers and junk.
The texts are distracting and takes away from what SHOULD BE an uncluttered exposition of the basics of mathematical reasoning.
Teachers will complain about absolutely every change that's imposed on them. Perhaps it's because there isn't really an undeniable way to know what's good and what's bad (unlike most jobs where profits make that clear) so every teacher assumes what they're doing it good and any change must therefore be bad. Or maybe it's just a job that attracts people with that kind of personality.
For clarity, these are the actual Common Core math standards. If it's not in here, then it's a problem with the curriculum instead of the Common Core. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
What I'm seeing with my Maryland 3rd and 5th graders is lots of focus on number patterns and word problems using the integers. I think they are also getting fewer, and sometimes harder, problems than they would have previously.
Some of that is good. At times they really are being required to think more deeply.
The problems I have seen are:
a. Emphasis on explanation even when it doesn't make sense. In 2nd grade they brought home worksheets with 20-30 simple addition problems where they were asked to 'explain' each answer.
b. Focus on a narrow range of topics, to the point where they are not always learning the basic vocabulary of mathematics.
c. In particular, there has been very little attention given to geometry.
a. sounds like a perfect example of the concepts of CC being mis-applied. It might make sense to explain how they arrive at the answers in general, but separately explaining each answer is obviously nuts (and would have driven me crazy when I was in school).
On what planet is this a high school math problem? How do people learn linear algebra and vector calculus in college if this is what they're at in high school?
Well, they cancelled trig when I was in school because I was the only one taking it. It happens and there is no real excuse. As to how we learn in college? I gutted it out and did every damn problem I could. I would imagine that STEM is beat out of a lot of kids in elementary so it might just be the survivors are already used to doing the extra work.
There are several level of classes at the middle and high school levels. Normally this would be taught in elementary school. But there are some students who do need to be taught this again in high school. There are a whole debate of possible reasons why, but providing the basic math avoids sticking them in classes which they are guaranteed to fail
This would be covered in Algebra I and pre-Algebra (under the old scheme, not sure what it falls under now). Those courses are typically taught somewhere between grades 7-10 (7 as the earliest for pre-Algebra, 10 as the latest for Algebra I) for most students depending on the particular track they're on.
It has to do with the particular phrasing of the question. The correct phrasing for your example would be, "Each shirt costs $6. How much money do you need for 7 shirts?" It may seem like a meaningless distinction but it isn't. The first phrasing sets you up to count, the second phrasing sets you up to multiply and grapple with what multiplication actually is.
My mom is a college math teacher, previously a high school math teacher, and helped develop the current Texas standards. She knows a number of the folks who wrote the California Common Core and has high praise for it in principle.
In practice, she is quite frustrated when she tutors my daughter. She has worked with her Over FaceTime, using Pearson's own remote tutoring app, and over a two week "Grammy Camp" in the summers.
Thanks for posting the side-by-side. I wish they would tell the parents something like this, once per testing period or so. My undergrad is in physics and I too struggle with how to help when asked.
> My undergrad is in physics and I too struggle with how to help when asked.
In what way? Is it that you're trying to replicate an unfamiliar procedure or an unfamiliar concept.
Maybe as an engineer I'm just unusual in that all of the Common Core procedures I have seen so far actually map to the way I calculate in my head. But, I've seen carpenters, woodworkers and machinists all calculate similarly when they do (normally they use advanced geometry to avoid calculating at all).
"What are two different equations with the same solution as 3(y-1) = 8?"
How is this scored if the student just adds 1 to both sides, then 2 to both sides, for the other two equations?
3(y-1)+ 1 = 8 + 1
3(y-1)+ 2 = 8 + 2
Is that a full-credit answer (it is technically correct)? Or do they want movement towards a solution? This seems very ambiguous as to what they want which I've noticed is common in CC questions.
Wikipedia says the Foundation for Excellence in Education is a think tank established by Jeb Bush and has received funding from Bill Gates, who I understand has also funded development of Common Core.
The examples given seem to be a bit of a strawman argument. Sure, asking a single, focused question tests less for understanding than the multi-part Common Core examples. But at least from what I remember, you'd be drilled on all the different permutations of these kinds of word problems anyway, so the net effect is the same.
Also, I really don't see how their reasoning follows on their first example. 3 shirts, $4/per shirt = $12. 7 shirt, 6 buttons/per shirt = 42. All that multiplication is, on the integers, anyway, is repeated addition. The only real difference I can see is that you can do the first example on your fingers and toes, whereas you'd have to scratch some tally-marks in the dirt or on paper to do the second if you don't know multiplication tables.
What I wonder about with these Common Core curricula, is whether students will ever get enough practice working through mathematics operations to really be comfortable with it. When I was taught math (and it really wasn't that long ago), we were never allowed to use calculators, and we did sheet after sheet after sheet of additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions, polynomial expansions, equation simplifications, etc. Maybe five or ten minutes, every day; they were probably graded enough to make us do them, but not enough to really matter. Most of the Common Core style math worksheets I've seen require far too much rewriting the algorithm from mathematical notation into grade-school English to ever allow that kind of repetition.
> When I was taught math (and it really wasn't that long ago), we were never allowed to use calculators, and we did sheet after sheet after sheet of additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions, polynomial expansions, equation simplifications,
A child can do sheet after sheet of calculations and co-incidentally get the right answer, without having any understanding of what they're doing.
They can manipulate these symbols because they've memorised a routine. But because they lack understanding they stumble when they move onto something more advanced - they need to forget what they thought they knew, re-learn it properly, and learn the new thing.
I agree that the first example is a confusing example to use, and that there doesn't seem to be much difference.
> we were never allowed to use calculators, and we did sheet after sheet after sheet of additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions, polynomial expansions, equation simplifications, etc.
Both occur. I was very averse to the calculator use in the classroom, but from what I have seen that part of the curriculum is more about learning how to use a calculator than doing math with the assistance of a calculator. Memorization of arithmetic is still very important and focused on.
[+] [-] bsder|10 years ago|reply
However, the only non-political (I'm being nice ...) criticism I continue to see is in the mathematics. And it's always because of "word problems". Common Core likes "word problems" and reasoning a LOT.
I have taught math. With very few exceptions, everybody hates word problems. Most students just want "Give me the question and give me the procedure so I can regurgitate the procedure. Don't make me think." They don't want to reason.
You can see this even in senior year of high school in the US in science. Just try to get the students to explain why they are doing an experiment (In short: "state the hypothesis"). It's almost always a disaster. After a year, you might get a majority up to the point where they can actually state it coherently.
I have this problem even with some really senior engineers when debugging things. "We did X, Y, and Z. They didn't work." "Um, okay, why did you do X, Y, or Z?" "Huh?!?!?!" "Why should X, Y or Z have worked? Is there a relation between X, Y, or Z and the problem? What is it?" <puzzled stares>
So, I see the objections as positive evidence that the Common Core standards are doing their job. The fact that adults have trouble with some of these problems is no surprise. Most of them skated through reasoning and word problems themselves.
[+] [-] DanBC|10 years ago|reply
This starts very young. Most "science for kids" on the Internet is little more than "here's a demonstration of something, and here's a sciency explanation of what's going on". Most sites don't suggest making any changes to the setup, or ask any questions about what happens if you do stuff differently.
(I'm keen to find good science content for children that does teach scientific method, so please let me know of any good sites).
[+] [-] thraxil|10 years ago|reply
Word problems though are often hated because they're so ambiguous in unintentional ways that don't really relate to the problem. Eg, in the middle school example on the page, when it says "She makes $4.40" do they mean net or gross? In this case, it turns out that only one of those gives you an integer answer, so you can work out what they meant, but it's not uncommon to see problems where that's not the case and you're stuck making a 50/50 guess. With the current emphasis on test scores, that adds a lot of stress.
[+] [-] malyk|10 years ago|reply
I wonder what, if anything, that says about people. Should I start asking people which problems types they preferred during interviews? (that's mostly rhetorical...i think).
[+] [-] minikites|10 years ago|reply
Are there any sane, evidence-based criticisms? Because Common Core seems like a decent improvement to me.
[+] [-] inc0gneat0|10 years ago|reply
Problem is they make the kids draw out this giant ridiculous diagram every time, and they get graded on whether they draw the picture error free. So instead of teaching the concept and then reinforcing the application of the concept they are reinforcing how well you can draw the needless picture you were taught. Parents then get mad because they can't help their kids because they didn't learn the rules of the diagram drawing.
[+] [-] irl_zebra|10 years ago|reply
Every other criticism is consistent with your experience, essentially calling it overreaching or teachers complaining that they shouldn't have to learn it to teach their kids.
[1] http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/0... (this was the first Google hit for the image I was looking for)
[+] [-] ctdonath|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|10 years ago|reply
I'm a away from my desk, but the examples that are causing the most problems are not the ones shown in the referenced article (those seem quite reasonable). The problem is how they teach addition and multiplication. Basically they are trying to do abacus math without the abacus. They also accept estimates instead of actual answers and a total removal of the memorizing of tables. A buddy of mine who is an EE with a heavy math background has had trouble helping his child get the correct answer. The worst part is he taught his daughter math early and she struggles because she knows the answer but doesn't know how to express it the way her teacher wants. This is a true pain because he thought he was raising a kid excited about STEM and now its just a wall.
As to the state rights and such. Yes, that is a valid issue, but is much broader than Common Core and a continuation of lunches and NCLB. Common Core is just more evidence to an old argument.
[+] [-] debacle|10 years ago|reply
These are more implementation problems, but as a parent they've been the biggest issue.
[+] [-] Chathamization|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dzdt|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sre_ops|10 years ago|reply
The biggest problem with common core is that it codifies social promotion under the guise of "schools know better" while linking promotion to money received by the schools.
[+] [-] jkingsbery|10 years ago|reply
The only difference in the elementary school question was bigger numbers.
The first middle school example contains only one additional step (being able to do algebra instead of just arithmetic). The explanation for the "old way" contains the word "simple" gratuitously - you might as well say that the CC version of the problem only requires "simple algebra."
For, the second middle school example, I definitely had questions that were multi-part like that in middle school. Also, each part is just applying the same formula a few different times - but the explanation given makes it seem like it's a whole new thing!
The explanations for the high school example is really the worst one though. "This question is an example of solving equations as a series of mechanical steps" and "This question is an example of solving equations as a process of reasoning" mean basically the same thing, just one is put in a derogatory manner.
The CC version of the question itself is also vague: can I pick any two equations that have the same solution? Should I pick equations that are the intermediate steps toward the solution? Does "y=5/3" count as one of the equations?
[+] [-] tempestn|10 years ago|reply
For someone who hasn't either memorized multiplication tables or learned faster ways of working out the answer, that's likely the approach they will take. With 6x7 on the other hand, it's natural to look for a faster (better) way to solve the problem.
I agree that the last question was vague / poorly state.
[+] [-] contravariant|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] debacle|10 years ago|reply
Math is math. Knowing more than one way to solve 345 * 14 is a valuable skill. I would rather my children learn it on a whiteboard than from a workbook, and I think generally the quality of the modern texts is very poor for actually teaching math.
I also think the teachers are bemoaning the Common Core much more than they need to. Explicitly teaching the algorithms for mental math is important. Learning how to do the lattice method, even if it's not the preferred method for multiplication, is important. I've talked to far too many teachers who have complained unendlingly about the weakness of the standard, and all that the kids are being forced to learn. It feels very much like a "This is change and change is bad." mentality.
Disclaimer: I haven't encountered the Common Core as a parent at a high school level yet.
[+] [-] angdis|10 years ago|reply
The texts are distracting and takes away from what SHOULD BE an uncluttered exposition of the basics of mathematical reasoning.
[+] [-] Asbostos|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] catawbasam|10 years ago|reply
Some of that is good. At times they really are being required to think more deeply.
The problems I have seen are: a. Emphasis on explanation even when it doesn't make sense. In 2nd grade they brought home worksheets with 20-30 simple addition problems where they were asked to 'explain' each answer. b. Focus on a narrow range of topics, to the point where they are not always learning the basic vocabulary of mathematics. c. In particular, there has been very little attention given to geometry.
[+] [-] tempestn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lordnacho|10 years ago|reply
On what planet is this a high school math problem? How do people learn linear algebra and vector calculus in college if this is what they're at in high school?
[+] [-] protomyth|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saboot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jtsummers|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charlesdenault|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minikites|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] niels_olson|10 years ago|reply
In practice, she is quite frustrated when she tutors my daughter. She has worked with her Over FaceTime, using Pearson's own remote tutoring app, and over a two week "Grammy Camp" in the summers.
Thanks for posting the side-by-side. I wish they would tell the parents something like this, once per testing period or so. My undergrad is in physics and I too struggle with how to help when asked.
[+] [-] bsder|10 years ago|reply
In what way? Is it that you're trying to replicate an unfamiliar procedure or an unfamiliar concept.
Maybe as an engineer I'm just unusual in that all of the Common Core procedures I have seen so far actually map to the way I calculate in my head. But, I've seen carpenters, woodworkers and machinists all calculate similarly when they do (normally they use advanced geometry to avoid calculating at all).
[+] [-] sixbrx|10 years ago|reply
How is this scored if the student just adds 1 to both sides, then 2 to both sides, for the other two equations?
3(y-1)+ 1 = 8 + 1
3(y-1)+ 2 = 8 + 2
Is that a full-credit answer (it is technically correct)? Or do they want movement towards a solution? This seems very ambiguous as to what they want which I've noticed is common in CC questions.
[+] [-] swills|10 years ago|reply
All content Copyright © 2010 – 2015 Foundation for Excellence in Education
Wikipedia says the Foundation for Excellence in Education is a think tank established by Jeb Bush and has received funding from Bill Gates, who I understand has also funded development of Common Core.
[+] [-] cline6|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] douche|10 years ago|reply
Also, I really don't see how their reasoning follows on their first example. 3 shirts, $4/per shirt = $12. 7 shirt, 6 buttons/per shirt = 42. All that multiplication is, on the integers, anyway, is repeated addition. The only real difference I can see is that you can do the first example on your fingers and toes, whereas you'd have to scratch some tally-marks in the dirt or on paper to do the second if you don't know multiplication tables.
What I wonder about with these Common Core curricula, is whether students will ever get enough practice working through mathematics operations to really be comfortable with it. When I was taught math (and it really wasn't that long ago), we were never allowed to use calculators, and we did sheet after sheet after sheet of additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions, polynomial expansions, equation simplifications, etc. Maybe five or ten minutes, every day; they were probably graded enough to make us do them, but not enough to really matter. Most of the Common Core style math worksheets I've seen require far too much rewriting the algorithm from mathematical notation into grade-school English to ever allow that kind of repetition.
[+] [-] DanBC|10 years ago|reply
A child can do sheet after sheet of calculations and co-incidentally get the right answer, without having any understanding of what they're doing.
They can manipulate these symbols because they've memorised a routine. But because they lack understanding they stumble when they move onto something more advanced - they need to forget what they thought they knew, re-learn it properly, and learn the new thing.
I agree that the first example is a confusing example to use, and that there doesn't seem to be much difference.
[+] [-] debacle|10 years ago|reply
Both occur. I was very averse to the calculator use in the classroom, but from what I have seen that part of the curriculum is more about learning how to use a calculator than doing math with the assistance of a calculator. Memorization of arithmetic is still very important and focused on.