How are your middle schools handling implementation of Common Core Math. I am on a committee looking at the changes our district is planning. Currently, our gifted students are able to take Algebra 1 in the seventh grade and Geometry in the 8th grade. Our district is proposing that gifted students not be allowed to take Geometry in 8th grade, but should instead spend 2 years in Algebra 1 beginning in the 7th grade
. This is based on the supposition that the increase in the rigor of the common core standards will be great enough to justify this amount of time spent in Algebra 1. I am a parent not a teacher and not really a mathematician. My son's class is the first this will affect.

Hmmm.

Well, I'm skeptical. My DD's foundation in algebra I and geometry is more than enough for her to tutor high school students in both courses-- and in the revamped Common Core "course three" which I gather is the new "prealgebra" class. Or maybe it's some other course that doesn't translate at all into the conventional sequence, as it has elements of algebra and geometry both, but with less rigor than either course. At any rate, DD knows her stuff well enough to explain it efficiently and cleanly to other students for four hours a week-- and that includes students who are into the newly designed/aligned course.

On the other hand, if "inquiry based" methods of math instruction are implemented as they have been in many ways around here... well, then, sure. I can see why it would take students-- even bright ones-- a couple of years to "discover" algebra 1 fundamentals on their own.

(Yes, sarcasm very much intended)

The only thing I know about Common Core Algebra I is that my son's class is using the Larson book that is supposedly aligned with the Common Core. Frankly, it doesn't look any more challenging to me. In fact, in browsing the book, I didn't find a few topics that I would have expected, such as dealing with algebraic fractions and polynomial division. The book essentially ends with the quadratic formula (there are two throwaway chapters afterward). Other books I have used for Algebra I (when I homeschooled) usually had the quadratic equation somewhere in the beginning of the second semester with topics like algebraic fractions following.

The book seems to place extreme emphasis on graphing and inequalities. It is also very much focused on procedural knowledge without much conceptual development. Unfortunately, my son's teacher prefers the "just read the book and come to me with any questions" approach to teaching, so he isn't getting the conceptual stuff there either.

Can you tell I'm frustrated?

Anyway, if this book is any indication, there is *less* covered in Algebra I under the Common Core, not more, and the level of challenge doesn't appear to be any greater.

This is pretty much why I dropped my AP Calculus class in high school (which I gather from many previous conversations here is known as Calc II in most school systems). I don't need procedures, except to reinforce the concepts. Teach me the concepts, and I'll own the procedures. If I came to the teacher with a concept question, his response was to very tersely demonstrate the procedure. Wrong answer.

I decided to stick it out until the end of the semester, by which time my test scores had fallen into the teens. But because I wasn't the only one floundering, the teacher gave me a B.

This all coincides with the "trend" that we've been observing w/r/t mathematics instruction trends as we veer into the path of Common Core.

We aren't the only parents who have been horrified that math courses don't seem to be actually, you know, teaching mathematics these days.

We and five or six other families (all with GT kids) have all noted it-- and we have all taken to offering our own kids direct instruction in everything from pre-algebra through calculus since the instructor's answer is "that's what Khan academy is for" and maybe (if you're lucky) another worked example, just like the book. Procedural without concepts, just as Dude notes.

I suspect that this is less about Common Core itself and more about the (fundamentally misguided, IMO) notions about "inquiry-based learning" and "flipped classroom" environments.

It's way different than when I was either a student OR a professor, that's for sure.

Oh, thank you for saying that. <3 <3 Inquiry-based learning is practically a sacred cow these days. It's accepted as the Truth in certain circles, which, combined with a backlash against learning actual facts ("They're too boring!"), drives me barmy.

Seeing lots of varied opinions for the common core standard.

@Val I think these buzz words of 'flipped classroom' should be highlighted as not misguided but instead an option for us teachers.

One resource that could be helpful is using online learning to supplement this. Take for example opened.io (currently in private beta).

It contains the largest catalog of educational videos all aligned to Common Core standards. Let me know if you guys need an invite.

Thank you for your input. It is very frustrating. My older son is in Algebra 1 (seventh grade). They are using the Common Core Algebra 1 book, though the district math director claims they have not implemented common core math. The class seems to be covering the material fine in a one year time span.Our Algebra teacher is phenomenal The proposal spends two years in Algebra 1. The district says they have not made a final decision. We are going to the school board about this.

I think it's ridiculous. For one thing, I can see it as possibly an option (and still not thinking it's a requirement) for the very first year that Common Core is used in your Algebra curriculum, but not as a proposal to change it for several years at a time. The thinking should be that as common core is implemented in the prerequisite classes, students will end up more and more prepared and "Common Core" Algebra will just be..."Algebra" again. No need to take two years to teach it. Sure, there may be some gaps for that first year of implementation, but it shouldn't last much beyond that, especially with gifted kids.

When I was a youngster, there was Algebra 1 and Algebra 1A and Algebra 1B. 1A and 1B were year long classes of Algebra 1 split in half. Just about everyone started in Algebra 1 with a few sections of Algebra 1A. Then at the end of the first nine weeks and again at the end of the first semester those not doing well in Algebra 1 were grouped together to make more sections of Algebra 1A. The point is...the only people who had to take two years were those who needed to take two years because the pace was too fast.

What astounds me is that everyone assumes that everyone can learn everything at the same pace (even if they need it a bit slower OR a bit faster) because of course everyone is exactly the same.

If by "integrated" you mean un-tracked, with all 9th graders taking "9th grade math" and the same for higher grades, I agree.

so this seems like willful descent into chaos

No, no, no. It's a willful descent into mediocrity. It only looks like chaos because you're fighting the idea.

Seriously, about your question? I think that you have to look at older material and college textbooks once you're past algebra I now. Up to then, the material in use for pre-algebra and algebra I seem reasonable, but the primary math courses like "EveryDay Math" are abominations.

We've seen some of the Common Core 'Course Three' materials this year as the rollout starts. So Pearson's course sequence used to be... Course 1, Course 2, Pre-algebra, Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II...

Now, apparently, "Course 3" is-- I guess?-- envisioned to take the place of Pre-algebra, which would be great... but...

that book quite honestly, er-- sucketh MIGHTILY.

I have no idea if "Algebra I" is also to undergo revision next biennium as well. But Course 3 is so bad that even my DD can see how pedagogically flawed it is as she works with students in that sequence (through geometry).

It is quite possible that that course is being used as "pre-pre-algebra" for kids who need the reinforcement, but it's a horrific mishmash of concepts without any narrative or theoretical ties from one set of concepts to the next, and it seems to borrow from ALL of the other courses. Exposure without learning, basically.

Since my ds is planning to skip 6th grade, I'd love an invite and I'll appreciate any info I can get about the 6th grade CCC. Thank you!

You guys are scaring me. All of my kids are strong math kids. Hoping that the district doesn't make the kids in the gifted program follow Common Core lock step. We had to fight to accelerate with Investigations but it eventually happened. Now they are chucking Investigations for whatever curriculum they will adopt for Common Core. Hate to do this all again . . .

Integrated as in, not splitting algebra from geometry from calculus? I've ended up buying some of the books by Bostock and Chandler, having used earlier editions when I was at school myself; they don't seem to have been bettered. The ones we have are

A core course for A level

Further Pure Mathematics

Mechanics and Probability
(almost all mechanics, in fact - don't look to this series for stats coverage).

There's a Further Mechanics book which I probably should have bought when I had the chance as it looks as though it may be out of print now, oh well, that's what second hand booksellers are for.

This series is aimed at A level, i.e. the last two years of school in the UK. Most complaints on Amazon are about them being too hard, so they may be just what some here are looking for :-) [ETA Interesting exception - someone from NSW, Australia, saying that the Further Pure book is too easy and they have far better books there. Wonder which?] They are not flawless - I remember there are a couple of odd bits I've resorted to crossing out because of weird errors - but they're pretty good.

Could you explain what "integrated" means in this context?

I vaguely recall seeing something about the Algebra I, Geometry, Albegra II sequence being reconstituted into a 3 year sequence with both subjects in each year. Is that what you mean by "integrated"?

It's not necessarily a bad idea, but I can easily see schools making a dog's breakfast of the transition.

I don't see anything in the Common Core Math standards that say how the High School topics are to be covered by year, though I didn't look too hard.
http://www.corestandards.org/Math

I thought the idea of the Common Core standards was to have national (USA) standards instead of a mish mash of state and local standards. I don't see how it could be an excuse for watering down gifted programming.

Which is pretty much a perfect term to describe that Course 3 textbook I was referring to earlier. It's ugly.

What is "Course 3"?

Well, it's one of Pearson Education's products to deal with The Coming Storm-- er, Common Core.

So this is evidently what they envision being adopted in lieu of pre-algebra? Algebra? Geometry? Kind of some of all of that?

It's a hot mess, from what I can tell.

Basically, the approach isn't "integrated" the way that any sensible person would imagine that approach to work... more like "blended" with a heavy dose of our old friend "spiraling pedagogy" thrown into the mix.

In other words, the intent seems to be to frighten er-- enlighten... the students with snippets of a LOT of math that they aren't yet prepared to actually tackle themselves.

But no worry-- we'll come back to all of that later, so I guess... just.. survive the skirmish and move on?

If an integrated math course covers a variety of topics from algebra, geometry, and probability, it will be more difficult for students to say they studied a particular topic independently (through EPGY or ALEKS for example) and should be allowed to skip ahead in school math.

Agreed, Bostonian. Though I'm guessing that isn't going to result in 'credit' for external learning so much as "placement" determination, and probably 'testing out of' which might be problematic since some of this new material teaches calculation protocols that are in some cases mathematically incorrect... (see any of the major rants about EDM)


I'm also not that hopeful that the basic integrity of even higher math coursework isn't eventually going to be "re-aligned" to the new system.

How unfortunate for curriculum design 'experts' in mathematics that the basic subject material isn't especially amenable to re-alignment as it seems to be unfolding.

I have not looked at this page in a while, but here is an update on what was decided. The district decided to move to common core math using the Carnegie math series. 6th grade was divided into 3 levels according to ability, based on MAP scores. All are using the same textbook. Unfortunately, saying that you are ability grouping is not the same as actually ability grouping! I found that even the highest level was only a little ahead of the lowest. He spent two weeks in the class and was bored! After going back and forth with our district math person, she indicated that common core is challenging for everyone. I realized there would be no change on a broad scale and spoke with my principal about options. He suggested virtual school for math only. My son goes to the library during his math class and does pre-algebra through a virtual class. It is working out well for us so far. He is flying through though and I am not sure what we will do when he finishes the course (before the end of the school year). Many of his friends are in the "high level" common core math class. I asked how they liked it. One friend said his favorite thing was that he could finish the classwork (easy) and had plenty of time left to play on his phone!

On what planet?

Magrathea

Or Earth if the kid is actually placed into the appropriately location in the curriculum and allowed to move at their ideal rate through the material.

Wow - wouldn't that be nice!?!

I know. It was not challenging for my son and is not challenging for a lot of his friends, They can move faster on the computer program, but the class stays together in the book. What we saw of the class seemed to be new ways of doing things that the kids had already mastered! I would have liked to have changed things for everyone, but ultimately had to look out for my child!

Our local school district (my kids don't attend public school, but this was in the paper) just eliminated ALGEBRA at the middle-school level. Kids ready for higher-level math in 8th grade used to be able to take Algebra and so be ready for Geometry in 9th grade. The program has been eliminated on the thought that the new CC integrated math (with NO tracking) will have plenty of "algebra concepts." I strongly suspect that "algebra concepts" does not mean a full-on dive into, say, solving systems of inequalities, factoring polynomials, etc.

It's really difficult to know how our school district will implement CC math. I went to a district meeting open to parents about that recently, and I don't think they exactly know what they will do.
We have a very good public school system in a university town. Most kids take pre-Algebra in 7th grade and Algebra in 8th grade. Kids who are in the gifted program, or test into it, take Algebra in 7th grade.
It sounds like CC will get rid of that but our school district hasn't come out and said that yet. Sigh! My son is highly gifted in math and is 5th grade.

Our school district has converted to common core - kind of. There is an accelerated math program that begins in 3rd grade. Nothing has changed with that. The kids in the regular math tract are no longer using every day math .. YEAH! The district has designed their own math program revolving around common core. The accelerated 3rd and 4th graders are still using EDM and completing 3 years of math in 2 years. The magnet program, from what my friends in the program have told me, still accelerates to the child's level as well. I have a friend in 4th grade taking pre algebra (a 2 year program in our district). Another friend with a son in the magnet is in 8th grade and taking algebra 2 at the high school. I don't know how or if this will change in the future but that is how they are dealing with it now.

What the educators told us at the meeting that would be unique for CC math is that you have to show you understand the concepts, via essays or writing more.
For example- a word problem is "Juan makes $22 if he works 1/2 an hour. How much does he make if he works 2 hours?"
I guess I would approach it like this: OK, he makes about 20 bucks for 1/2 hour or 40 bucks for an hour or 80 bucks for 2 hours.
With the CC math test, they have to:
1) Make up numbers and draw a graph
2) Make up numbers and make a table
3) Make an equation -that explains all of this.
the only thing that I thought was, OK, initially it's good for everyone to really understand this principle. However, esp. if you are gifted, won't you get really, really bored drawing graphs like this over and over?
I made a graph- none of the other adults at my table did. I don't know if they didn't know how to or just didn't want to...

Sounds just like Everyday Mathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyday_Mathematics
If Common Core is really like that (and I haven't seen evidence that it really is, so I reserve judgement), then it will be a fiasco in no time flat.

It sounds like our district is not the only one that is eliminating middle school algebra because the common core classes are supposed to have more breadth. Does anyone in this situation know what their high school math offerings will be? I saw the discussion of high school courses earlier on this thread, but does anyone know what sequence districts plan if algebra is moved to 9th grade?

My daughter is only in 4th, but I don't see how she can get through calculus in high school if they don't get to algebra until ninth grade. She is already working on prealgebra using AOPS. So we will have to work out an alternative plan. I'm concerned about the opportunities for other students, though, who may not have other options from what the school provides.

This is an interesting question because I am still unclear on what Common Core dictates for kids who are able to work ahead, as we are in NC where it was just adopted (officially). We were hoping to be in public school but are still in private school so far. For math, we recently discovered AoPS and DD has liked it so far, and we are very lucky this year in being at a private school where her teachers let her bring in her own math books. But we will have to go to another school next year or the year after because this school ends in 6th grade, and I am really dreading that.

Isn't it bizarre to hear (for example on NPR just a few days ago) how other countries' students are so far ahead of US students in math on the one hand, and on the other hand to see post after post on this website from parents who are trying to help their kids get the appropriate (accelerated) math level in school? What a total waste, and a total disconnect I mean, if we were brainstorming about how to make the US more competitive in math, wouldn't we just 'flip' all the classrooms and let students move ahead at their own rate? How do other countries do it, anyway? Maybe pay the teachers a competitive wage, and treat them with respect?? (Coming from NC, where we are now 47th in teacher pay and the legislature recently decided to revoke teacher tenure and move to I think 2-year contracts. We have friends who are public school teachers, and I really feel badly for them--I can't imagine trying to keep my enthusiasm up in a job where the requirements change every year and every news story is about how teachers just aren't very good and should be measured/scrutinized/evaluated more frequently, and also be found wanting at a predetermined rate.)

Sorry--getting back to your math question, have you seen the essay by Richard Rusczyk (sp?) on the AoPS site about the value of learning more deeply for kids who are ahead in math? It's called the Calculus Trap, here: https://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/Papers/CalculusTrap.pdf

I was trying to help DD move ahead linearly with courses (following her lead!) until recently, when I realized that even if she wanted to, unless we wanted to homeschool she would probably not be able to accelerate even in private school and so probably that would be a waste of time--we should go laterally with the math stuff. Plus now she has gotten into Tae Kwon Do, with a wonderful set of teachers, so I am happy to let that develop!

Best of luck!

I suspect our district won't offer calculus of any sort after this change, but haven't been able to get any information about it yet. Very few of the high school students here seem to take calculus anyway, which concerns me very much.

Multiple people at multiple schools have told me that my daughter won't need accommodations because "common core is harder anyway." They have offered to work with us now that we've left the district, but I just don't know it will really happen, She's in a charter school now and working independently at her own pace, but the downside is that the way they do that is just by letting kids work through worksheets. It's really good for those who are behind and need lots of extra practice, but less helpful for those who are ahead. It gives a lot of practice in procedures but not depth in the theory. That's why we've started AoPS and are hoping the school will let her use it there.

Taekwondo has been great for my daughter as well...

What really gets up my nose about this is the fact that while Hung-Hsi Wu is a competent mathematician, he is *NOT* a cognitive psychologist and frankly appears to have *NO* gifted education credentials. The statements that he has made by emphatically declaring that acceleration is not needed with the Common Core Maths are supremely irresponsible.

The debasing of the the 'gifted' label (and this is something that *all* of us here we have seen) has probably contributed to his 'weltanschauung' as it is very likely that he has had students that may have been the dubious product of 'G&T' programs. When people that are not really gifted but have just been in a class as a 'defense' against accusations of elitism, it is obvious that *those* students will not do well once the pretend G&T veneer or 'pixie dust' wears off. This why the presence of rigour as opposed to the pretense of rigour ought to be axiomatic.

In the other hand, dealing with the truly gifted population, getting kids that already have mastered the material - and in Maths this is very quantifiable - to just repeatedly do what in principle ( and IMO one of the characteristics of giftedness is being able to effortlessly distill the essence or principle quickly) is the more of the same stuff will only ensure that a host of truly gifted children are turned off Maths out of boredom not challenge.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. He's referring to acceleration-itis in American schools, not gifted kids. This problem is widespread and is contributing to U.S. mathematical illiteracy.

Background:

At some point (1980s or 90s?), someone noticed that students who took algebra in 8th grade had higher SAT scores and did better in college than other students. It was decided that acceleration was responsible for this difference (not smarter students).

An acceleration arms race commenced. When I was a kid, 5-10% of an 8th grade class was allowed to take algebra I. These days, geometry is routinely offered in middle schools, and algebra II is now creeping in. This means that pre-algebra is routinely offered in 6th grade. After all, if algebra in 8th grade improves SAT scores, geometry in 8th grade will improve them even more!

Result: many, many students are losing out on 2-3 years of fundamental mathematics education. The loss of 6th grade math is especially bad, because it cements ideas from 4th and 5th grade math. The problem is compounded by teachers who don't understand the subject matter and bad textbooks. And millions of children are lost to mathematics.

One of my kids is experiencing this mess firsthand. He's verbally gifted but not so much mathematically. He's been forced into pre-algebra in 6th grade. There is no other option at his school. The teacher clearly doesn't understand some of the basics. Plus, his book is organized as follows:

Chapter 2. Solve equations and inequalities for x. The Dolciani/Brown algebra books need 3 chapters just to get to solving equations. Inequalities come much later. The next chapter "reviews" decimals. In reality, it reviews a bit and then tosses out complex equation solving with formulas like rate*time= distance (but with decimals in them! ). So we've mixed 5th/6th grade stuff with hardcore algebra.

Chapter 4 is a mélange. Chapter 5 goes back to basic fractions. Which, of course, you have to understand before you can understand the stuff in chapters 2-4. They have a chapter of geometry in there, too. No explanations, no creation of a foundation for algebra, just an out-of-order memorize-and-regurgitate disaster.

And this is a California-approved textbook.

Millions of American students are being cheated out of a decent math education by wrong-headed ideas about acceleration. They're taught by people who don't understand what they're teaching while using textbooks that are best-suited to a fireplace. And we get kids who earn Bs or better in high school calculus and then fail the pre-calc placement exam two months later in college (even at places like UC Berkeley). This situation effectively shuts them out of STEM majors because many can't afford an extra year (or two) taking remedial math classes. Also, many Americans don't understand how mortgages work, how credit card interest accrues, or how statistics can be used to distort the truth. Etc.

THIS mess is what Professor Wu was getting at, NOT gifted students.

It may be what he means but it is not how people will interpret it, and he must know that. I am not in the US but it sounds similar to a hand out on so called "modern learning environment" stating that since all children benefit from a challenging ability there is no need to ability group because the challenging curriculum will challenge them all. Yeah right. (that will only make sense to people who have seen certain ads).

But remember college arms race mania. As soon as truly gifted kids are allowed to accelerate, everyone will have to be allowed to accelerate. It's "elitist" and not "equitable" to let some kids accelerate while not giving others "a chance."

This is precisely the result of letting 5-10% of a class jump ahead to algebra in 8th grade (not a big deal 30+ years ago) mixed with today's everyone must go to college mentality and IVY LEAGUE COLLEGE!!! hysteria.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that this is the situation.

But, how do you know this? An article by Wu was extensively discussed in another thread.
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....mon_Core_Mathematics_bac.html#Post172905
He could have articulated what you said, but it's very clear that he didn't. Numerous people, on this forum and elsewhere, are reporting that gifted programming is being shut down, with Common Core being given as the pretext. The designers of Common Core Math, who are on record with their anti-acceleration message, must have known this would happen. They must have known that they could have chosen to protect an appropriate participation rate in accelerated programming, if only they gave a more nuanced message about what degree of acceleration was needed for what proportion of students, but they chose not to, with the predictable result that many children have had the brakes put on their education.

22B, see my response to Puffin regarding equity and elitism.

The situation is awful. Horrible. Insane. It drives me nuts, and I'm not defending putting the brakes on very smart kids. But I've accepted that the situation isn't going to change immediately, and so I have to teach my kids myself.

I am in that boat too at this point.

We are in a virtual school, so DS will take Algebra I in grade 3.

There are plenty of High Schools around here where Algebra-2 is the highest course offered. I have never seen any evidence that this so-called "acceleration-itis" even exists.

The real problem is hyper-remediation-itis.

Our district will be implementing Common Core for math starting next year. They're not giving up the Everyday Math curriculum or the Discovering Algebra/Geometry textbooks, though--just "modifying" them to fit with Common Core. Everyday Math has done plenty of damage, so I'm sure adding in Common Core standards won't make it any worse. I've found advanced kids on the middle school math team who can't manipulate fractions without their calculators. And as I mentioned in another thread, my dd is in a class with 9th & 10th graders who never learned (or don't remember) simple long division. The high schoolers are kids who were in 3rd & 4th grade when our district implemented the Everyday Math curriculum and the middle schoolers have had it their whole school career.

Currently at the middle school level, most kids take 6th grade math->Integrated Algebra A->Integrated Algebra B, with the option of repeating Algebra as a 9th grader or moving on to Geometry. Advanced students can skip 6th grade math, taking Geometry in 8th grade. Very advanced students can test out of Algebra A, ending up at the high school for Algebra II in 8th grade.

With the new common core, everyone will take 6th grade math, then choose at 7th grade to either take 7th & 8th grade common core, leading to Algebra I in 9th grade, or to take an accelerated 7th/8th/Algebra I path during 7th & 8th grade. They claim that students can still skip 6th grade math, though they're actively discouraging it. Those that skip will move to the accelerated path, taking Geometry in 8th grade. Very advanced students will still be allowed to test ahead. Ultimately, I believe Geometry will no longer be offered at the middle schools, because fewer and fewer kids will be on that path each year.