Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Video criticizing Common Core - a bit disturbing!

This student citing his own authentic experience which leads him to form a viewpoint which you many not share does not make him a "pawn". While participants on gifted forums often decry labels, and other practices which may seem to judge an individual as "less than", seeking instead to raise awareness and serve needs which others may not see... let us also carefully consider the needs each person takes time to share with us, rather than claim these needs do not exist or do not create vulnerability for negative impact.

If you would like to share your own personal anecdote and experiences which lead you to draw a different conclusion, that would be received open-mindedly.

I have to say, the more I dig into the Common Core Standards, the more questions I have. There are impassioned people on both sides of the fence, but I see many, many more angry parents against them. Many cite the abusiveness of the standards. One father invited Arne Duncan to come to his house and watch as his 12 year old son cried over his math homework and called himself stupid because he couldn't solve a math problem that took his tutor, a math professor, twenty minutes to solve.

It's easy for me to be fairly unaffected because, while the math is proving to challenging for the first time for ds11, though he is grade-skipped and in compacted math so maybe the challenge is the missed material, the rest is fine. I think if I had a student whose gifts were not so academic I might be looking at these standards and expectations, particularly those of the early years, abusive as well.

In a perfect world, we would have the curriculum meet a variety of abilities without frustrating and turning off students. I just don't know if this is the answer...I'm still digging in and trying to push past the lobbyists for a clearer view of what the CCS are. And while I like some things so far, the explanations of why things work mathematically for instance, the jury is still out, I guess.

I'm continuing to explore Common Core as well. The official website is here... (link- http://www.corestandards.org/). Meanwhile there is much written ABOUT Common Core from other sources. For example, in writing about Common Core, other sources state CCSS is a floor, not a ceiling, however I have not found anything in the CCSS official website which promotes, endorses, encourages, allows, acknowledges, or mentions the possibility of teaching beyond the CCSS for pupils demonstrating readiness and ability. Due to the absence of such statement, the CCSS appears to be one-size-fits-all and that may be a concern for the healthy development of children needing additional academic challenge.

If I understand correctly, States signed on before the CCSS was written... or in some cases while CCSS was in the process of being written but was not complete. Due to the timing, States could not consider the content or impact of CCSS, prior to signing on.

His information on the history of CCSS, who participated, and how much research went into them, has nothing whatsoever to do with his authentic experience. He's regurgitating information he has received from elsewhere... information that is largely incorrect.

That may be, and yet he states that he compiled research. This would be his authentic experience. He also discusses his positive experience with teachers, and the impact as a student of witnessing the current teacher evaluation process. Seeming to exhibit a "growth mindset", not a fixed mindset, he states "I sincerely hope you disprove the research I compiled."

Therefore if posters on this forum have other facts to add to, refute, or correct his statements... please do share them...

I have sympathy for students who are struggling with this stuff. However, many or most of them are struggling because what they were taught before was bad or wrong, NOT because the Common Core is abusive. The Common Core isn't the problem. Poor math instruction --- a near-universal problem in this country --- is the problem.

As others have said, I'm very concerned that the textbook manufacturers don't have the expertise necessary to produce books with proper CC material (perhaps they simply won't pay for it). And I'm just as concerned that many members of the teacher corps don't understand the CC material.

But again, these problems aren't the CC's fault. We have to start somewhere, and people will be unhappy for a while, but if we can manage to get some good textbooks and upgrade the skills of the teachers (or simply switch to hiring math specialists), things will improve drastically in this country.

Or, we could go back to Everyday Mathematics or to memorizing algorithms and wondering why so many students fail math placement exams in college.

This sounds like a curriculum problem, not a standards problem. The standard says a child in grade X should be able to solve problem ABC. It does not necessarily say what strategies a child should be taught in order to solve it. That's a choice left to states, school districts, teachers, and curriculum developers. A great many math curriculi(?) out there do a wonderful job of taking simple operations and making them into unintelligible, overly complicated nonsense (particularly ones with the initials EM).

A good example of a bad math strategy we've talked about here recently is partial quotients as a substitute for long division. You won't find "partial quotients" anywhere in the standards.

This is why I referred to the PSAT as a universal benchmark there.

The cut scores for National Merit Scholar semi-finalists in each state are really telling. Same test, same age-cohort, and yet the 99.5th percentile in Massachusetts (thereby proving that I can, too spell it) is 230-something in any given year, and it's below 200 in Mississippi.

That speaks to a very different set of teaching standards, because the mean IQ levels estimated for the two states so do not account for the difference.

Well, okay-- but--

my OWN authentic experience suggests many, many things to me personally.

Many of my conclusions are subjective and have changed as I have become older, more sophisticated, more wise (at least I hope) and less naive and self-centered.

I've run into this precise impassioned hubris many times before. It's endemic in the population at 12-26 years old, honestly. The problem is that they can't know what they don't know.

I'll also add that a great many of my daughter's academic peers have NO idea how to authentically identify propogandized materials, how to do critical vetting of sources, etc. Not. a. clue.

So they're perfectly capable of placing a primary source from a named author and official agency on equal footing with an anecdote from a radicalized blogger or a corporate marketing ploy.

Like Val, I've spent significant time delving into the science (and math) standards in CC-- and there is a ton to love in there. Will parents and kids love it? Probably not, is my guess. It's distinctly devoid of fluff and edutainment opportunities, instead focused on developing the skills to acquire understanding by using a series of "big ideas" in order to generate DEEPER understanding rather than taking a hydroplane ride around the world. So to speak.

Is it fair to drop kids INTO CC when they've not experienced this kind of strategy before? No, probably not. I get why those families are feeling shellshocked and complaining. But like Val, I disagree with their conclusions about CC on that basis. It's essentially anecdata, not necessarily meaningful.

If I were going to ask for a better-designed curriculum, the subject-teams that worked on CC would be on my wishlist.

Do I agree with continued testing-frenzy? No, I don't. Frankly, I would have liked:

a) extensive teacher training for several YEARS prior to rollout,

b) non-copyrighted material so that publishers could actually USE the standards to create different types of materials to support them,

c) phased implementation-- starting with kids in K and 1. Modified implementation at grades 3-8, and phased modifications over the next four years for grades 9-12 (the same cohort currently in 8).

Yes, I agree with how they should have done it and I quite value your judgment as well as Val's.

But man, I feel for those kids that are being crushed right now and I do wish they could find a way to meet the standards without being so...standardized.