Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion struggles with Core Curriculum

And agreed here, too. Don't blame common core standards, blame the pointy heads buying a bad implementation. Read the standards at corestandards.org, and see where the mismatch is.

The curriculum may work for some kids absolutely.. but so far from what I have seen it is a one size fits all mentality and that is where my issue lies .

So I had never heard of the box method of multiplication/division either, but having looked it up, recognize it as similar to the method I and most of my siblings developed on our own for doing mental math. I think most of us think of it as multiplying/dividing "from the left". Similar to mental addition/subtraction, which we also do "from the left," but with some alterations involving making 10s, 100s, etc., in a technique I have also seen in some Common Core math curricula (it's in Singapore Math, too). (My apologies if this makes no sense without an example.) I still use the conventional algorithms (except for long division, where I use a modification of the traditional method that skips straight to the remainders) when computing on paper, though.

Anyway, I agree that the issue isn't the multiple methods per se--I teach my children multiple methods for anything I can, and let them pick by the problem--it's mandating that every method must be demonstrated on every problem. I would rather see them learn to select the most expedient method for the problem, and for their cognitive style.

Curiously, the one area of math that USA students are good at, compared to the international average, is procedural knowledge. Perhaps we are attempting to dismantle that, too?

You may be interested in the essays in this book, isbn 978-0-9908809, Common Ground on Common Core: As mentioned in this article, common core is "turning out to be a defining issue for our times."

The book of essays is available from Resounding Books; Essays are also available as ebooks on Amazon:
Volume 1
Volume 2
Volume 3
Volume 4

m.gwinnettdailypost.com/news/2014/aug/16/jenkins-three-good-reasons-to-oppose-common-core/?templates=mobile

I found this too which is what my thinking is. Thanks so much!

OP, I'd like to see an example of this box method. It seems to me that we're discussing something without knowing much about it.

As ZenScanner said, the standards aren't the problem. The implementation is. Some very intelligent people wrote some excellent math standards. They are now being destroyed by the textbook manufacturers/Big Education. People should be rebeling against wretched textbooks that were slapped together in a hurry by big companies focused more on big profits and less on good books, not the Common Core.

You can rebel against the Common Core and kill it, but your kids will have to deal with the same poor-quality textbooks come September.

Thank you for sharing that interesting article, which provides a great high-level summary.

Proponents of common core may forget that the official standards website specifies parameters for implementation, including key shifts in standards, and publisher's criteria "for selecting, developing, or revising instructional materials, textbooks, and other resources."

Especially pertinent to this conversation may be math K-8. Dear publishers, we are complaining about what has crept in. Do you hear us? Possibly the publishers hear the CCSS publisher criteria, rather than hearing us.

Other pages in these math k-8 publisher's criteria point readers to implementation guidance provided by the smarter balanced assessment and PARCC websites, the Council of Great City Schools and discussions on:
- how the shifts in standards will impact what is done in the classroom, necessitating instructional shifts
- "how we ask our students to present their learning"
- curriculum is prioritized by focus on standards, within concept clusters, within domains
- focus, described as meaning:
---- spending more time on fewer things
---- significantly narrowing the scope of topics covered

Examples include composing/decomposing numbers, bundling/unbundling, and changing problems to find "10" in them. A box method is shown at 31 minutes in this linked video, and described as a precursor to the distributive property. A closing statement at 55 minutes in the video presents that the purpose of common core is to help urban children.

The intentional slowing of progress (more time, more practice, gradual understanding) is described as the required implementation of the standards. Unfortunately, this slow pace is the opposite learning environment from that in which most kids tend to thrive and find the joy of challenge in their learning, rather than being steeped in the frustration of boredom which leads to underachievement.

Some have said that the problems inherent in implementation of the standards are not separate from the standards, rather they are planned and dictated by the standards. The above linked resources from the common core website are a source informing that view.

Here is a simple step by step illustration of the 'box method'. Like aeh, I remember working this out myself as a kid to do my problems in my head.
SG Maths adopts a similar approach in the very early stages of introducing multi digit multiplication.

Long winded but it gets there in the end

I agree on the absurdity of making kids perform every method instead of the one that works best for each of them individually. I am honesty becoming convinced that Common Core Maths is being implemented this badly to further slow bright kids down. Sad and paranoid, I know, but I can think of no rational motivation for this behavior that has positive intent.

It does, oh how it does.

DS was the ultimate math monster until school got their hands on him. By grade 2, he hated it. By grade 4, he also thought he was no good at it. He has serious writing issues. When I looked at the grade 4 notebooks and worksheets he brought home at the end of the year, the ratio of actual numbers he was required to produce, as compared to words, was ridiculous. A single page of worksheet would require at least two paragraph-long answers, and several sentence-form answers. Essay-format assignments were frequent.

We don't have Common Core, but our province seems to have embraced an approach that sounds a lot like your Everyday Math. I don't see deliberate malice in our standards, but I would certainly agree that the road to hell is paved with good intentions (and people who are keener on ideology than evidence). It took AoPS to show me that a "Discovery" approach to math could be a good thing. (I hope it will help re-convince DS that math itself can be a good thing.) But you can take that discovery concept, totally abuse and mis-use it, and watch your PISA scores plummet, as recently happened in Alberta (if you're interested, here's a random commentary on the Alberta debate: blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2014/03/28/does-education-minister-jeff-johnson-have-it-right-about-our-international-pisa-results-in-math/#__federated=1)

One of the few bits of actual evidence I could find about these approaches to math was this one, which makes some interesting suggestions as to why the kids struggle to apply what they are learning, despite the supposed focus on "real-life problems": www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/51662/83897_1.pdf?sequence=1

Oops. Somebody pushed my button

This is my problem with it too, in a nutshell. I really rather like the way they show them multiple methods, but I hate that they have to do the tedious ones over and over if they don't want to. DD is having this same issue right now with early algebra--there are all these intermediary steps I've never seen before and that she doesn't need, and it's making her nuts. DD did have one teacher who allowed them to do it however (this was the same one who allowed them not to show work). This teacher obviously understood giftedness, but in a sad way her approach was counterproductive, since the other teachers do/did not follow suit.