Proposed national standards: Ready for your review
If anyone has a few hours, the new national standards are out and available for review. (I have only glanced at them, but there is a great emphasis on literacy and writing in the early grades.)
Ed Week has a good summation of the standards with quotes from a Georgia DOE official about the math section. (Thanks Attentive Parent.)
The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers released the draft of the K–12 standards as part of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, which was co-chaired by Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue.
“Common education standards and assessments aligned to those standards are in the best interest of both Georgia and the nation,” said Gov. Perdue. “They will allow for an authentic, credible scoreboard that tells us how we are doing compared to students in other states.” (Here is a link to a good Washington Post story in which Perdue is quoted.)
“Georgia has developed rigorous standards that are as good as any in the nation,” said state School Superintendent Kathy Cox. “The Common Core will allow us to accurately compare our students’ achievement with our neighboring states.”
Now, states maintain their own standards and their own testing of those standards, which makes national and international comparisons hard.
Bob Wise, president of the Alliance for Excellent Education and former governor of West Virginia, said, “Zip codes might be great for sorting mail, but they’re no way to educate America’s future workforce.Under the current education system, there is wide variation between states and even school districts on what students are expected to know and do—a situation that is unfair to all students, and one that is especially harmful to low-income students and students of color.These standards represent an unprecedented from-the-bottom-up effort by states to define the knowledge and skills necessary for students to be prepared for college and careers.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
29 comments Add your comment
David S
March 10th, 2010
12:49 pm
Oh goody, more failed proposals from Washington. Wonder how much more local monies will have to be wasted on administration and the like just to comply. The failure of the Bush presidency is now in its third term under Obama. The “change” is overwhelming.
Attentive Parent
March 10th, 2010
12:52 pm
Maureen,
You may want to add the EdWeek story to this as it quotes Douglas Reeves (8 APS schools in 1 day so I can issue a report), Martha Reichrath from GaDOE, and Kathy Augustine from APS.
My initial reaction from reviewing the standards is that there’s insufficient emphasis on mastery in math. Being able to give an example of a concept doesn’t really mean you understand it.
Others this morning see the emphasis on mathematical modeling as a desire to keep textbooks like Investigations, Everyday Math, and Connected Math on the prefeered textbook gravy train, whatever the actual cost to student learning.
No A+ country uses such weak texts.
Did not see much improvement in the English standards from earlier drafts. Noticed that they push literature from a variety of cultures so as to better appreciate the diversity of the classroom.
OMG
March 10th, 2010
1:09 pm
I looked at the math and OMG, Kathy, you really screwed up Ga. What I saw in the national plan put together by different states, was concise, and pretty clear in stating there has to be a college track and a career track. The STEM (sci, tech, eng, and math) courses are for those students that excel in math. It listed Algebra (with a general overview of what is in Algebra), Numbers and quantity; students need to know how to measure things… weights, length, time….
I have to say I’m impressed that other states seem to get the picture, and I know GA policitans can not be so inept as not to be able to see what the nation and even the president has said, “College or Career ready’.
I’m really sorry Kathy, but you need to go; “ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL”
Math
March 10th, 2010
1:15 pm
Looked at the math and GA has a long way to go; the national plan put it clear that some students excel in math and some dont. There has to be pathways to College or Career ready; unlike GA’s one size fits all. number and quantity (a bit of pre-geometry), alg, and modeling (math money mgt) would be great for a basic HS education. Those students that want a STEM (taken from the report sci, tech, eng, and math) career/college would take the higher level courses.
Kathy Cox and the GA legislature have really messed up GA; they all need to go.
ahh the filter
March 10th, 2010
1:17 pm
GA needs the career and college pathways; i hope that GA legislature and KC will learn from their mistakes and fix the new GA math curriculm and graduation pathways.
Singapore Math fan
March 10th, 2010
1:31 pm
Bill Bennett says that when he was Secretary of Education and someone asked about national standards he was told that it had no chance. The Republicans would be against anything “national” and the Democrats would be against any testing.
looks reasonable
March 10th, 2010
1:50 pm
@Attentive Parent: It looks to me like the draft standards are trying to strike a balance in the “math wars.” The standards talk about conceptual understanding and modeling, which are things traditionalists don’t like. But they also talk about fluency with the standard algorithms and memorizing the times tables, which are things reformers don’t like.
If mathematical modeling is important, then it’s important and it should be in the standards. If it’s not important, then it’s not and it should be taken out. This is not a conversation about gravy trains, but a conversation about desired outcomes for students.
Personally I think it is important for people to know how to apply math, not just solve textbook problems. That’s what the standards say modeling is about. But I also think it is important that modeling is mostly limited to high school in the standards. (Which undercuts your point about elementary school curricula like Everyday Math.)
You said, “Being able to give an example of a concept doesn’t really mean you understand it.” That sounds right, but the introduction to the standards makes the same point. There it says that if you can understand something, then you can explain why it’s true. That’s more than just giving an example.
teacher man
March 10th, 2010
2:01 pm
I don’t care what the standards are. Some kids, in some systems just aren’t going to get there. Sorry but its true. Discipline has to be first and then you can educate. Too few kids are robbing too many good ones of an education. Some systems are better but not many in or near the metro area. There are some serious societal woes. Nobody will talk about that though. Children can do whatever they want.
Dan
March 10th, 2010
2:02 pm
Here’s a small tip for parents, you have 100 times more impact on your childs success in school than Cox, Perdue, Obama, Bush, and all the other politicians put together, furthermore if you have 2 kids in school you are getting far more than you pay for just to have someone watch them for a day. Federal funding amounts to about 7-8% of local school budgets, it doesn’t really matter that much
fisher
March 10th, 2010
2:13 pm
Is the closing of so many of our schools the answer???????? Basic math is a must have for all, this is used every day by ALL. WAKE-UP people.
Tony
March 10th, 2010
2:25 pm
I’m not a fan of the national standards but I’m glad to hear the math standards have an emphasis on balance between conceptual understanding and computational fluency. These two components are essential for students to develop mathematical reasoning abilities.
Everyday Math is actually the ONLY math program that has been able to demonstrate an overall improvement in math achievement. Other programs both traditional and “reform”. Some of the junk that gets spouted about reform mathematics is based on emotional scare tactics rather than true understanding of the materials. When children can explain examples of math concepts, then they are demonstrating better understanding. When children simply mimic the computational algorithm, they are NOT demonstrating understanding. This seems to be where some of us are at odds with others.
In our school I expect to see time spent on conceptual understanding as well as computation. We do this because it is essential that kids have a grasp of the number facts so they can use those facts to solve problems. When kids get bogged down by counting on fingers, they lose track of how to solve problems. It takes time to develop true mathematical understanding and continuous practice of algorithms will not produce the kind of understanding needed.
LL
March 10th, 2010
2:33 pm
I thought that good standards didn’t cover a range of grade levels (I’m seeing 9-10 and 11-12 here). I suppose it’s better than 9-12 (which some states still have).
Attentive Parent
March 10th, 2010
3:02 pm
looks reasonable-
I don’t know anyone who says that conceptual understanding is not important. Let’s face it, we would laugh at such an ignorant absurd thought. Please don’t create strawmen and then ably knock them down.
Yes modeling of a mastered concept is an important application that affirms understanding. The question becomes whether the separate modeling thread is an attempt to approach the math concept initially through modeling of a “real life problem”. There’s a great deal of research that such an initial inquiry approach is ineffective for many and inefficient (time is finite) for all.
You are right about EM. Although that is the approach taken by the texts I mentioned, they are not high school texts.
Modeling and discovery are the approaches taken in the high school Discovering Series at issue in the Seattle lawsuit as well as the brand new NSF funded high school series – CME Project.
Are you disputing that the textbook industry can be a lucrative gravy train? You might want to read Pearson’s most recent financial releases on how CCSSI will help their business.
Balance is a good thing when it is real and not just rhetoric. Most students need worked examples, explanations, and plenty of practice to master the math concepts listed in CCSSI. They also need plenty of word problems that illustrate the real life applications of the mathematics. They should also be able to explain in words why they do what they do, what other concepts it relates to, and maybe model an extension.
They need textbooks that allow that and let both the student and parent know where they’ve been and where they are headed. Sequencing is important even if these draft standards disagree.
That was another tipoff that these standards are designed to be solid enough to get enacted but also fluid enough to allow the continued use of the so-called “fuzzy” textbooks.
Let’s view these standards as the floor, not the ceiling for academic achievement.
Tony
March 10th, 2010
3:20 pm
“Let’s view these standards as the floor, not the ceiling for academic achievement.”
Excellent idea.
What I fear with the way the Common Core has been framed by various political points of view relates to the “unfair” issue as stated by Bob Wise. States with strong standards and rigorous curriculum may have to abandon their plan in order to obtain federal funding. Attentive parent shared this view the other day and, at first, I disputed that states would have to give up stronger standards. Now, as more information is coming forth it appears I was incorrect on that stance. If states with more rigorous standards are expected to “align” with common core, this will be disastrous.
Paulo977
March 10th, 2010
3:22 pm
I Just wonder why Canada starts standardized testing in 6th grade ? What has happened to all we have gathered about early childhood and elementary kids’ways of learning ? As if state standards wasn’t bad enough , we are now going to oppress kids and teachers MORE with unrealistic STANDARDS!!! DUNCAN was a coach!
Elizabeth
March 10th, 2010
3:29 pm
Thank you, Teacher Man! You hit the nail on the head. No standards matter until there is order and discipline in the classroom, until students are held accountable for their work and their actions, until we stop babying kids and worrying about self esteem instead of self discipline, until we stop making teachers the scapegoat for educational woes, until we address the societal issues of which every school is a microcosm. Nothing will change until teachers feel physically safe and safe to challenge their students instead of teaching the test. Until every teacher is respected and has the ability to remove disruptors and indifferent students from the room so that others may learn. Until every administrator is required to teach a class daily ( and I don’t mean the gifted and AP students) so that they know what teachers have to do. Until the working conditions of teachers change and until we are respected as the real experts in educating students, no standards will matter because nothing will change.
td
March 10th, 2010
3:37 pm
For a differnt view of the situation.
http://johnbarge.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/for-sale-georgia-educational-system/
CDog
March 10th, 2010
4:28 pm
The College Board’s AP program has sort of been serving as a de facto national curriculum for awhile now. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution prevents a national curriculum or standards (or at least one that is legally binding), does it not? Probably, everything the feds do now involving education is unconstitutional, but no state wants to challenge it in court and cut off the gravy train of money that comes from Washington.
CDog
March 10th, 2010
4:34 pm
On the one hand, people complain about Georgia’s low SAT ranking (which has more to do with % overall participation and black and Hispanic populations than actual quality of education). And on the other hand, people want some students to be tracked into a career tech program with weak math classes that do not prepare them to take the SAT, which they take anyway. These two things are mutually exclusive. This only works if you ban the career tech students from taking the SAT which is not possible.
Attentive Parent
March 10th, 2010
5:04 pm
CDog-
It’s interesting you brought up the AP Curriculum. Tony-this relates to your point as well on states and rigor.
On Monday Arne Duncan in conjunction with the Office of Civil Rights decreed that they plan to start investigating high schools where the proportion of minority students in the college prep and AP classes is not consistent with their percentage of the student population.
This so-called disparate impact analysis has always been controversial (think last summer’s firefighter SCOTUS case) and the timing plus the stretching make it appear to be yet another insistence that all US K-12 schools offer the same coursework for all.
Sure they amended the math CCSSI drafts to add STEM topics but the Justice Dept almost simultaneously stated that these differences in coursework could be construed to be a civil rights violation.
If CCSSI will be so wonderful for the country, why is everything about it so heavy-handed?
high school teacher
March 10th, 2010
5:34 pm
You know how the teacher sounds on Charlie Brown? That’s what I hear in my head when I try to read the National Standards
Ken
March 10th, 2010
5:36 pm
Assumption: a resonable estimate of the genral quality of an educational environment (school) as well as the relative quality od education delivered to disaggregated groups can be be had through mass administration of the SAT (or ACT).
Operating on the above assumption, I worked w/ the NAACP to pitch the following to a local school district: That all students be required to sit for the SAT as a requirement of a college-prep diploma. The district already had a requirement on the books of an SAT-prep course for a college-prep seal. One would think that an SAT-test would be a natural derivative [an measure of relevance of the mandated SAT-Prep course. But the superintendent unequivically and intractably rejected the suggestion for a mass administration of the SAT.
Why? Unquestionably, the district's SAT-results, if inclusive of a larger group of students, would drop. As it was---and is---the posted SAT scores to not reflect the range and average quality of the learning environment (school). [Less competent kids are routinely dissuaded from taking the test.] But reality is a good starting point toward solutions. Unfortunately, there are too many educators that want to keep the public in the dark.
Incidentally, having taught the SAT-Prep course, I can reasonably estimate that the district’s College Board published scores would have dropped by more than 125 points had all students earning a “college prep” seal been tested.
The bottom line: we’ve had the means for assessing differences in the quality of high school graduates—and the environment from which they came—but administrators opt for a false impression rather than reality every time. Truth is not good for professional advancement.
Booklover
March 10th, 2010
5:47 pm
@Ken–
If you did your due diligence when you taught SAT prep, you would know that the SAT only tests certain subjects and is not by any means an adequate tool by which to judge a student’s high school experience. The SAT only tests vocabulary, reading, some math, and SOME writing skills (a 25-minute essay is not an adequate measure of a student’s writing ability or knowledge).
The truth is, even colleges know that the SAT is not the end-all and be-all, which is why they look at high school transcripts, etc. as well. Private universities with the means look at subjective measures such as student essays, teacher recommendations, portfolios, interviews, etc.
SAT scores are not strongly correlated with success in college or even later income. There is one thing with which SAT scores ARE highly correlated: parental income.
The SAT is also biased in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, region (those from the northeast score higher, all other variables held constant)….
Yes, lower-performing students often ARE dissuaded from taking the SAT. This is because the ACT, among other tests, is a better measurement of knowledge. The SAT primarily measures how good a test taker someone is.
FYI–I’ve taught SAT prep courses for over 10 years, and I scored 1470 out of 1600 in high school myself, without a prep course
Lisa B.
March 10th, 2010
5:48 pm
I reviewed the middle grade math standards today with 6-8 grade math teachers. The consensus was that the proposed standards for math grades 6-8 are easier than the recently implemented Georgia Performance Standards. Most of the Geometry gets moved back to 8th grade (like back in the QCC days), a big chunk of 8th grade numbers and operations are removed, and 7th grade gets to add back fraction, percents and decimals. WHAT??? We aren’t even finished implementing GPS and now we want to dumb down the whole country? I haven’t reviewed anything yet but 6-8th grade math, so this is just my first impression.
Ole Guy
March 11th, 2010
12:09 am
The year was 1965…”Six munces ago I cudent speil pielit, now I are wun”.
Tony
March 11th, 2010
10:01 am
After reviewing the standards, I must say I’m very concerned that Georgia would be taking steps backwards to adopt these standards. The language arts and the math standards are weaker than our present GPS – especially in middle school grades.
The rest of the world, including all those high achieving countries that many people are infatuated with, all complete the equivalent of Algebra I by the end of eighth grade. This was one of the major goals within the GPS as it was developed and implemented, and it must remain one of the primary goals of our math curriculum plan.
Another thing I noticed about the high school math was that it DID NOT organized the math topics into any specifically traditional sequence. Flexibility is given for states to organize their math sequences. It should be noted here that US is the only country to maintain the use of Alg I/Alg II/Geometry/Trig traditional sequence of courses. All other high achieving countries have more integrated math courses. I have seen the texts first hand. An advantage the other countries have in texts is very simple: they only have one text. Publishers do not compete at the school system level for book sells. These texts were concise, too. Short, in fact. One of our problems with texts in the US is they cram too much in them and water down the content in the process.
Lisa B.
March 11th, 2010
12:07 pm
Aren’t the current GPS math I and math 2 course integrated? I think math 3 and 4 will be integrated also, if GPS survives that long!
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO TEACH TO THE TEST? « Citizen Tom
March 15th, 2010
10:39 pm
[...] Proposed national standards: Ready for your review [...]
Concerned Teacher
April 6th, 2010
9:49 am
Teachers are in a very precarious occupation. Everyone is an authority except the ones in the classrooms.