They do what they do.
Thinking about schools and peers and parent-child attachments....I came across one of my favorite posts .
From the introduction:In reviewing the Common Core standards, we have done so with respect to what we believe are two overarching goals of these standards: 1) The math standards in grades K-8 should lead to mastery of key procedures, skills and problem solving abilities that will enable students to succeed in a full course in authentic algebra; and 2) The complete set of standards will fulfill the minimum mathematics requirements for 4-year universities in the United States and prepare students to take subsequent courses in mathematics without the need for remediation. With respect to the latter goal, we expect this would apply to students who are pursuing careers in STEM, as well as non-STEM students. We believe that the Common Core Standards for Mathematics fall short of these goals. While it is true that the standards as currently written are better than some states’ standards for mathematics, we do not feel that this is a legitimate criterion by which to base a review. If there are to be national standards, we would expect that such standards be world class—anything less than that is unacceptable. States are not required to adopt these standards, and a state wanting to improve its standards would do well to adopt those that are implemented in California, Massachusetts and Indiana. These standards do not offer a superior alternative to these states. In fact, by virtue of the pedagogical ideas that are inherent in them the standards may result in the adoption of severely deficient textbooks and programs that value process over content and that emphasize a student-centered and inquiry based approach. We are extremely concerned that in the current political climate, weak or politically expedient standards will result in states taking the path of least resistance and adopt them. While states may gain federal dollars in the short run, the standards as written will potentially undermine our educational system for the next decade or more. Given this possibility, the current situation may be better than states adopting a set of standards that cannot possibly live up to its promise of excellence.
Concerned - thanks for getting this up - I'm going to get a longer excerpt posted, too.
Speaking of standards,I know this is a math, not science, blog, but I thought this might be of interest to many of the readers here, esp. those in New York State:Click to get to the surveySTANYS is conducting a survey on the need for changes to the NYS science standards. The survey questions seem to have *ahem* a bit of a slant to them.Please see for yourselves.
Science teachers definitely need to check out the Common Core math standards too. They may have a negative impact on science coursework.
Hainish is right - everyone should go look at the science curriculum survey.
Amazing job!But I think the authors are being too nice in providing constructive criticism. My view is that the standards are fundamentally flawed."As such, the practical approachmay be to see how it will work before states are required to use them."Is it possible to evolve these standards into something proper?I see two fundamental flaws. The first is that they ignore what goes on in schools right now. That is the split track that usually happens in 7th grade; earlier in some school districts. They need to carefully define the content and skills required for these two paths. I would like to see a standard that defines a path to calculus in high school without the need for outside help. These standards don't do that. They don't even properly prepare kids for other college paths.The second major flaw is that their content is based on their own fuzzy workplace analysis of tasks, not the degree requirements for the job or the math requirements to get that degree.How difficult is it to translate jobs into degrees and to list all the math requirements for each degree? They could list degrees by college, math requirements (entry level and top level), and average SAT/ACT scores to get in. Also, an ACT/SAT analysis is not good enough by itself because some can get into a college, but fail to meet the course needs for certain degree programs. I remember that statistics was usually a big turning point for college students. They couldn't handle it so that forced a degree/career change.I don't like the "try it out first" idea, but that's better than forcing it on all states. The other alternative is to dump it, but where does that leave us? I guess I don't see a problem unless this ends up taking pressure off alternate parental choice paths. This is an issue in our area. School systems argue against choice based on meeting minimal state cutoff expectations. Schools won't improve much with the pressure of a poor national standard, but they will improve with the pressure of having parents and kids walk away.
But I think the authors are being too nice in providing constructive criticism. My view is that the standards are fundamentally flawed.I agree. We did say, however, that "If there are to be national standards, we would expect that such standards be world class—anything less than that is unacceptable. States are not required to adopt these standards, and a state wanting to improve its standards would do well to adopt those that are implemented in California, Massachusetts and Indiana. These standards do not offer a superior alternative to these states."
$350 Million 'Race to the Common Test' Starts NowIf states get letters of support from their colleges and universities, saying, for example, that they'll use these tests to exempt students from remedial work, then states will get bonus points in the competition.http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2010/04/350_million_race_to_the_common.html
Post a Comment