Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Common Core Mathematics: background

LOL-- so glad that our stream-of-consciousness seagulls-and-Borg analogy made sense to someone else.

This is often the sort of thinking that makes other people decide that we're freaks.

Zen Scanner, I love that idea. Do you think that all people have the innate capacity to learn those things as children? I wonder, given what I've seen of the ability of adults to absorb and utilize those meta-skills. It's really aggravating sometimes.

Frankly, those that needed to memorize the algorithm never understood the two arithmetic operations of multiplication and division properly - it has nothing to do with fractions per se.

I agree with Dr Wu IFF all he IS saying is that at each stage, a solid conceptual understanding needs to be there before the next stage is introduced and acceleration for its own sake should not be considered without proof that that understanding is there. That is real rigor and I fully support THAT.

However, has anyone here actually corresponded with Dr Wu to confirm that that is what he means?

From the little that have read from links posted here his words could be interpreted either way and most of us know how many school administrators will interpret them...

That's not the point he's making. It's not that kids need to memorize an algorithm, it's that they don't have a choice in the current teaching system. He's saying that 1) yes, it is all interconnected and 2) the background stuff demonstrates stuff in point 1. If you read the materials I linked to, you'll see that.


Again, read that document in the first message in this thread for your answer. Here's another link to it.


I wrote to him about the acceleration piece two days ago. No reply yet.

All is a tricky word, and I have to own up to a bit Pollyanna-ism... I've a knack of making other people feel smart (I know, lol) because I anticipate it. I don't know, really, but if it is treated as bread and butter as the alphabet and addition? It's actually research I wish I had followed through with in college.

The first syllogism is likely: Cry when hungry, I'm hungry, therefore cry. It is pretty primary to how we work. Piaget talked about the concrete operational phase covering around age seven through to maybe eleven or twelve. That's the time when that sort of meta groundwork could be set.

I know there are studies showing strong impact of chess instruction for kids, which is basically positioned closer to direct instruction on metacognition. Gonna skim related research.

So, still no reply (yet)?

Nope. I'm not really expecting one at this point. Oh well.

It all sounds very similar to the presentation at our school (in NZ) on the "modern learning environment". I think it is a flaw in their logic which appears to go like this:

All children benefit from high expectations (research seems to back that children who are expected to suceed do better than those expected to fail)

High expectations equals challenge.

Therefore no-one will need more as everyone will be challenged.

there is flaw big enough to drive a truck through but somehow they don't or won't see it.

Admitting it means that not everyone is equally able to begin with, though. Can't have that.

The corollary seems to be that few expect gifted children to succeed; Commonly the media refers to alleged criminal suspects as "gifted".

Rather than identifying innately gifted individuals and supporting their intellectual growth so it may continue in a positive trajectory, equipping these kids with new things to think about and a sense of trust in their fellow humanity... the world has developed a system predicated on recognizing wealth-driven achievement, hot-housing, and quotas... often excluding the very children we ostensibly set out to serve.

In schools, many gifted children receive only the "challenge" of waiting for other students, having their own thoughts and questions ignored, being sandbagged if their minds may wander, being used as free tutors for slower classmates. Many innately gifted pupils do not receive an academic challenge worthy of their intellect, but rather a steady flow of teacher admonitions, and choices to undertake higher level academic work in social isolation vs slogging through work they have already mastered while having some semblance of inclusion with the cohort.

While Common Core may help set a standard for a performance floor, it does not address removing the ceiling. The establishment of further testing, reporting, and regulatory systems designed to ensure conformity of educational outcomes among pupils of diverse capabilities may further harm the educational opportunities for innately gifted kids.

This topic seems strongly related to the recent threads "Number sense in infancy predicts math ability" and "How to Hothouse Your Kid".

Here are a couple of article I got from googling about Acceleration and Common Core.

http://math.dpi.wi.gov/files/cal/CCSSM-Talking-Points.pages_.pdf [5pg pdf]

http://www.doe.mass.edu/candi/commoncore/MakingDecisions.pdf [3pg pdf]

It seems that acceleration is certainly possible in Common Core, but it should be done with compacting rather than skipping, so states and districts have to design such a compaction plan properly (not so hard, just cover all the material, just faster). Many states and districts will use Common Core as an excuse to stop acceleration, but it seems it is not a legitimate excuse.