5 ms·

I've never personally heard any reasonable criticism of Common Core. The criticism tends to either be "The Federal Government is overreaching!" combined with so

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.

debacle 11y ago
The textbooks are crap and teachers, especially older ones in my experience, lack the proper training to teach the standard. These are more implementation problems, but as a parent they've been the biggest issue.
- minikites 11y ago
  That makes sense. To dramatically oversimplify, the idea is fine but the execution is lacking?
  - saboot 11y ago
    I've recently looked at one of the current "Common Core" textbooks for freshmen math in my sibling's school district in California. It is very different from the style of learning I was accustomed to. The textbooks I had introduced a new topic in some introduction pages, gave practice examples, and then a few pages of exercises of increasing difficulty. In contrast "Integrated Learning 1" by CPM takes a very different approach. It is very much continuous where the "text" of a topic is interwoven with a couple problems to do. Class room exercises and experiments constitute a lot of the main lessons. This is in contrast to Khan Academy where the progression of math knowledge is easily understandable and the step-by-step approach for learning by example and doing is emphasized. I was a bit taken aback by this approach. I can see it possibly working better in a class room setting. However I did most of my learning by reading. I'm also concerned that this approach will make it more difficult for students to catch up if their previous math education was not great as this continuous flow style doesn't lay out which topics to study. I'm not sure, but I'm not currently convinced. I'll be seeing how my younger sibling fares next semester, especially as our parents are not great at math and his education has some large holes in it (which we are working on). Thankfully he really enjoys Khan Academy so I anticipate him using that more if Common Core falls short.
irl_zebra 11y ago
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. [1] http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/14142835727258.jpg http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/0... (this was the first Google hit for the image I was looking for)
- bsder 11y ago
  Um, I think that diagram is wrong. The common core example I have seen would break the subtraction into "32 - 12" = "32 - 10 = 22 22 - 2 = 20" Which is how almost every engineer I know would do the math in their head. If they didn't just go "30 - 10 or roughly 20" (obviously most engineers can do that simple a subtraction completely--but the number of times I estimate something by lopping off everything except the leading digit is quite high). Note that this is teaching "estimation" almost by osmosis. The "standard" procedure of starting from the least significant digit and "borrowing" obscures estimation.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    The catch is: we engineers do that because we grok basic math so well that we can mentally juggle numbers fast. Yes, seems Common Core is trying to teach those methods - but to children who barely grasp the subject, and thus must memorize rote processes to scribble down all the obligatory steps without understanding why they're doing it. Children need learn math by concrete manipulatives, handling the physical-world form until they (individually!) internalize the process, then growing comfortable enough with those internalized processes to develop more sophisticated AND casual ways to mentally tear numbers apart & rearrange them to perform calculations fast.
    - bsder 11y ago
      > Yes, seems Common Core is trying to teach those methods - but to children who barely grasp the subject, and thus must memorize rote processes to scribble down all the obligatory steps without understanding why they're doing it. The rote processes Common Core teaches are closer to what you and I use. Why teach subtraction from least-significant to most significant manipulation and then make students throw that away and relearn the other direction? That is especially meaningless when tabular clerical calculation skills have no existence in the modern world. We don't teach children to read from right to left and then force them to relearn reading left to right to read fast. > Children need learn math by concrete manipulatives, handling the physical-world form until they (individually!) internalize the process, then growing comfortable enough with those internalized processes to develop more sophisticated AND casual ways to mentally tear numbers apart & rearrange them to perform calculations fast. And, yet, most significant to least significant is almost always how we manipulate things in the real world. I cut material down to rough size, and then I cut it to detailed length. Imperial recipes measure multiple cups and then fractional cups. A bolt looks like a 1/2 inch head, so I try the sockets around my estimate. etc.
sre_ops 11y ago
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.
dzdt 11y ago
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.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > he big problem with common core is the reform package into which it is embedded. [...] 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. None of that has anything to do with Common Core, and, AFAICT, politically, the groups that most oppose Common Core are the groups that have most supported the policies that have done the most to produce the effects you complain about.
inc0gneat0 11y ago
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.
ctdonath 11y ago
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.
protomyth 11y ago
> 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.
- debacle 11y ago
  > Basically they are trying to do abacus math without the abacus. My kids both had abacuses at their desks in Elementary school. > They also accept estimates instead of actual answers I haven't seen this at all. Like any math class, partial credit is given if the method was sound but there were arithmetic errors. > a total removal of the memorizing of tables. This has nothing to do with the Common Core, and was a decision made by the school. Both of my kids have numerous tools at their disposal, from the school, and mastery of basic math facts up to 12 is required as part of my daughter's second grade competency. You're conflating a lot of different things under the umbrella of "Common Core." When was the last time you went to a school board meeting?
  - protomyth 11y ago
    > My kids both had abacuses at their desks in Elementary school. Yeah, and I'm not sure that is a good thing http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/abacus/feynman.html http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/abacus/feynman.html > I haven't seen this at all. I have and the estimate is what was supposed to be the answer given, not the actual answer. This causes stress in parents and children who know math. > You're conflating a lot of different things under the umbrella of "Common Core." When was the last time you went to a school board meeting? Never went, also a school board meeting is not the be all and end all of the standard. I have a nephew and niece coming up and have seen the homework of my peer's children. Also, I've read the standard http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standards.pdf http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standar...
Chathamization 11y ago
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.

debacle 11y ago

The textbooks are crap and teachers, especially older ones in my experience, lack the proper training to teach the standard. These are more implementation problems, but as a parent they've been the biggest issue.

minikites 11y ago
That makes sense. To dramatically oversimplify, the idea is fine but the execution is lacking?
- saboot 11y ago
  I've recently looked at one of the current "Common Core" textbooks for freshmen math in my sibling's school district in California. It is very different from the style of learning I was accustomed to. The textbooks I had introduced a new topic in some introduction pages, gave practice examples, and then a few pages of exercises of increasing difficulty. In contrast "Integrated Learning 1" by CPM takes a very different approach. It is very much continuous where the "text" of a topic is interwoven with a couple problems to do. Class room exercises and experiments constitute a lot of the main lessons. This is in contrast to Khan Academy where the progression of math knowledge is easily understandable and the step-by-step approach for learning by example and doing is emphasized. I was a bit taken aback by this approach. I can see it possibly working better in a class room setting. However I did most of my learning by reading. I'm also concerned that this approach will make it more difficult for students to catch up if their previous math education was not great as this continuous flow style doesn't lay out which topics to study. I'm not sure, but I'm not currently convinced. I'll be seeing how my younger sibling fares next semester, especially as our parents are not great at math and his education has some large holes in it (which we are working on). Thankfully he really enjoys Khan Academy so I anticipate him using that more if Common Core falls short.

irl_zebra 11y ago

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. [1] http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/14142835727258.jpg http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/0... (this was the first Google hit for the image I was looking for)

bsder 11y ago
Um, I think that diagram is wrong. The common core example I have seen would break the subtraction into "32 - 12" = "32 - 10 = 22 22 - 2 = 20" Which is how almost every engineer I know would do the math in their head. If they didn't just go "30 - 10 or roughly 20" (obviously most engineers can do that simple a subtraction completely--but the number of times I estimate something by lopping off everything except the leading digit is quite high). Note that this is teaching "estimation" almost by osmosis. The "standard" procedure of starting from the least significant digit and "borrowing" obscures estimation.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  The catch is: we engineers do that because we grok basic math so well that we can mentally juggle numbers fast. Yes, seems Common Core is trying to teach those methods - but to children who barely grasp the subject, and thus must memorize rote processes to scribble down all the obligatory steps without understanding why they're doing it. Children need learn math by concrete manipulatives, handling the physical-world form until they (individually!) internalize the process, then growing comfortable enough with those internalized processes to develop more sophisticated AND casual ways to mentally tear numbers apart & rearrange them to perform calculations fast.
  - bsder 11y ago
    > Yes, seems Common Core is trying to teach those methods - but to children who barely grasp the subject, and thus must memorize rote processes to scribble down all the obligatory steps without understanding why they're doing it. The rote processes Common Core teaches are closer to what you and I use. Why teach subtraction from least-significant to most significant manipulation and then make students throw that away and relearn the other direction? That is especially meaningless when tabular clerical calculation skills have no existence in the modern world. We don't teach children to read from right to left and then force them to relearn reading left to right to read fast. > Children need learn math by concrete manipulatives, handling the physical-world form until they (individually!) internalize the process, then growing comfortable enough with those internalized processes to develop more sophisticated AND casual ways to mentally tear numbers apart & rearrange them to perform calculations fast. And, yet, most significant to least significant is almost always how we manipulate things in the real world. I cut material down to rough size, and then I cut it to detailed length. Imperial recipes measure multiple cups and then fractional cups. A bolt looks like a 1/2 inch head, so I try the sockets around my estimate. etc.

sre_ops 11y ago

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.

dzdt 11y ago

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.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> he big problem with common core is the reform package into which it is embedded. [...] 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. None of that has anything to do with Common Core, and, AFAICT, politically, the groups that most oppose Common Core are the groups that have most supported the policies that have done the most to produce the effects you complain about.

inc0gneat0 11y ago

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.

ctdonath 11y ago

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.

protomyth 11y ago

> 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.

debacle 11y ago
> Basically they are trying to do abacus math without the abacus. My kids both had abacuses at their desks in Elementary school. > They also accept estimates instead of actual answers I haven't seen this at all. Like any math class, partial credit is given if the method was sound but there were arithmetic errors. > a total removal of the memorizing of tables. This has nothing to do with the Common Core, and was a decision made by the school. Both of my kids have numerous tools at their disposal, from the school, and mastery of basic math facts up to 12 is required as part of my daughter's second grade competency. You're conflating a lot of different things under the umbrella of "Common Core." When was the last time you went to a school board meeting?
- protomyth 11y ago
  > My kids both had abacuses at their desks in Elementary school. Yeah, and I'm not sure that is a good thing http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/abacus/feynman.html http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/abacus/feynman.html > I haven't seen this at all. I have and the estimate is what was supposed to be the answer given, not the actual answer. This causes stress in parents and children who know math. > You're conflating a lot of different things under the umbrella of "Common Core." When was the last time you went to a school board meeting? Never went, also a school board meeting is not the be all and end all of the standard. I have a nephew and niece coming up and have seen the homework of my peer's children. Also, I've read the standard http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standards.pdf http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standar...

Chathamization 11y ago

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.