common core: issues and actions: focus on mathsummary comments . i would suggest that zimba's...
TRANSCRIPT
Common Core: Issues and Actions: focus on Math
I was the only mathematical content expert on Validation
There were 24 members, but about half were ex-officio.
Each state could nominate one person to serve on Validation, and I was the California nominee.
My duties were to oversee the work of the mathematics writing team.
Common Core Math Standards is a Political Document
Some of it is very good but some is terrible.
It is designed to look attractive to both education schools and content experts. However, these are mostly incompatible objectives.
Look at the table of Contents
Look at the table of Contents
Look at the table of Contents
It breaks into 4 incoherent parts: (1) Mathematical Practice Mathematical Content: (2) K-7 (3) Grade 8 (4) High School
4 incoherent parts: 1. Mathematical Practice
This is designed to attract the people who introduced the 1989 NCTM standards and the 1992 California Standards that initiated the math wars.
They claim to give an overview of what
mathematics actually is. They don’t.
4 incoherent parts: 1. Mathematical Practice
This is designed to attract the people who introduced the 1989 NCTM standards and the 1992 California Standards that initiated the math wars.
They claim to give an overview of what
mathematics actually is. They don’t.
4 incoherent parts: 1. Mathematical Practice
This is designed to attract the people who introduced the 1989 NCTM standards and the 1992 California Standards that initiated the math wars.
They claim to give an overview of what
mathematics actually is. They don’t.
4 incoherent parts: 1. Mathematical Practice
This is designed to attract the people who introduced the 1989 NCTM standards and the 1992 California Standards that initiated the math wars.
They claim to give an overview of what
mathematics actually is. They don’t.
The three pages of Standards for Mathematical Practice were included against advice, and should be universally ignored.
However, in practice, too many educators focus on them to the exclusion of the actual mathematics standards.
The three pages of Standards for Mathematical Practice were included against advice, and should be universally ignored.
However, in practice, too many educators focus on them to the exclusion of the actual mathematics standards.
As a result Core Standards are usually interpreted as re-creating the old 1989 NCTM standards
This is how it works out in practice (4th Grade, Connecticut)
4 incoherent parts: 2. K-7
K-7 is detailed discussions of the key topics students need to learn to be prepared for basic uses of mathematics in everyday life.
They are articulate and, mostly, well done. Strengths: fractions, basic geometry, place
value notation, standard algorithms. Weaknesses: ratios, rates, percents,
preparation for abstraction, algebra.
4 incoherent parts: 2. K-7
K-7 is detailed discussions of the key topics students need to learn to be prepared for basic uses of mathematics in everyday life.
They are articulate and, mostly, well done. Strengths: fractions, basic geometry, place
value notation, standard algorithms. Weaknesses: ratios, rates, percents,
preparation for abstraction, algebra.
4 incoherent parts: 2. K-7
K-7 is detailed discussions of the key topics students need to learn to be prepared for basic uses of mathematics in everyday life.
They are articulate and, mostly, well done. Strengths: fractions, basic geometry, place
value notation, standard algorithms. Weaknesses: ratios, rates, percents,
preparation for abstraction, algebra.
Overall K-7 standards are better than 90% of the old State Standards
• In fact they are nearly as good as the old California Standards – at least in K – 5.
• There is much that is positive in K-5 • Indeed, the strengths listed in the
previous slide are almost entirely in K-5
4 incoherent parts: 3. Grade eight
For political reasons, algebra in grade 8 was deemed unacceptable. (I was there for those discussions.) So grade 8 mostly marks time and does a tiny bit of algebra around the equations of lines in the plane.
It also begins a very strange development of geometry.
4 incoherent parts: 4. High School
Here, it appears that things fall apart. The strange development of geometry –
which is not research based – continues Algebra I is mostly complete. There is a weak set of Algebra II
standards. Then things simply stop.
4 incoherent parts: 4. High School
Here, it appears that things fall apart. The strange development of geometry –
which is not research based – continues Algebra I is mostly complete. There is a weak set of Algebra II
standards. Then things simply stop.
4 incoherent parts: 4. High School
Here, it appears that things fall apart. The strange development of geometry –
which is not research based – continues Algebra I is mostly complete. There is a weak set of Algebra II
standards. Then things simply stop.
4 incoherent parts: 4. High School
There were political reasons for these limitations. Marc Tucker was one of the leaders of the project, and NCEE believes that students only need Algebra I to be college and workforce ready.
The original draft stopped with Algebra I, but, with considerable effort, I was able to get them to add some of Algebra II.
4 incoherent parts: 4. High School
There were political reasons for these limitations. Marc Tucker was one of the leaders of the project, and NCEE believes that students only need Algebra I to be college and workforce ready.
The original draft stopped with Algebra I, but, with considerable effort, I was able to get them to add some of Algebra II.
Jason Zimba was one of the two lead authors of Common Core in mathematics. • The stated objective of the Common
Core Standards is “workforce and college readiness.”
• So it was crucial to have a definition of college readiness.
• Here is Zimba’s testimony about this in March of 2010.
What does data show? Here is the determination of the odds of
obtaining a 4 year college degree vs. the highest mathematics course completed in high school in 1982 and 1992.
Adelman also shows the distribution of high schools that teach the more advanced math courses.
This gives a pretty good picture of the inherent inequity in the definition of college readiness.
Returning to Zimba’s testimony
Later, Sandy Stotsky asked him to clarify the definition of “College Ready.”
Here is the resulting exchange
In the Version Zimba was discussing, there were place markers for a “third pathway”
They were incomplete but indicated the author’s intent to fill in the standards through calculus.
In the Version Zimba was discussing, there were place markers for a “third pathway”
They were incomplete but indicated the authors’ intent to fill in the standards through calculus.
And there was no reason they could not have been easily added to the document
However, even a hint of any material past Algebra II (except for a very small number of trigonometry standards) is completely absent in the final version of the Common Core Math Standards
What does this imply?
Two things to notice. First, the “third pathway” referred to in the video
does not exist in the final version. Second, “college readiness” is NOT FOR STEM,
and not for selective colleges.
It is important to understand that readiness is for “the colleges most kids attend, but not for the colleges most parents aspire to.”
And even this isn’t quite correct.
WHAT’S GOING ON?? It would have been entirely routine to put
in the remaining courses, Trigonometry, Pre-Calculus, Calculus.
It is reasonable to conjecture that the leaders of the Core Standards project had very little interest in the top 30% of the typical high school class.
(Aside from their being good citizens.)
This has huge consequences for STEM
• Only 2% of STEM intending students whose first college course is pre-calculus or lower ever graduate with a major in STEM areas today.
The inability of our kids to work in these areas has extremely serious consequences for our economic well being.
Summary Comments I would suggest that Zimba's statements at the March 2010 meeting tell people very clearly what Core Mathematics Standards are really about when he expands on the stated object of these standards "preparing students for entry into the work force and college readiness." I would summarize the discussion as saying that Core Standards are not for the top 30% of high school students, but instead for the truly "average" ones. So the main question is what will happen with the academically talented students. The expectation is that they will regress towards the mean, and we will lose a significant portion of them to mediocrity. This will be especially true for our most vulnerable students, those from the lower socio-economic classes.
Summary Comments I would suggest that Zimba's statements at the March 2010 meeting tell people very clearly what Core Mathematics Standards are really about when he expands on the stated object of these standards "preparing students for entry into the work force and college readiness." I would summarize the discussion as saying that Core Standards are not for the top 30% of high school students, but instead for the truly "average" ones. So the main question is what will happen with the academically talented students. The expectation is that they will regress towards the mean, and we will lose a significant portion of them to mediocrity. This will be especially true for our most vulnerable students, those from the lower socio-economic classes.
Summary Comments I would suggest that Zimba's statements at the March 2010 meeting tell people very clearly what Core Mathematics Standards are really about when he expands on the stated object of these standards "preparing students for entry into the work force and college readiness." I would summarize the discussion as saying that Core Standards are not for the top 30% of high school students, but instead for the truly "average" ones. So the main question is what will happen with the academically talented students. The expectation is that they will regress towards the mean, and we will lose a significant portion of them to mediocrity. This will be especially true for our most vulnerable students, those from the lower socio-economic classes.