Discussion in 'General Education' started by Ms.Holyoke, Sep 2, 2018.
Sep 3, 2018
I think the majority of teachers are.
I’m not saying all public school teachers are not able to, but I’ve read about a fair few school districts that require their teachers to use guided curriculum (prepared lesson plans) and specific materials provided by a publisher. If I wanted to order an entirely new textbook of my choosing my admin would permit it, so long as I provided a valid explanation, and would purchase them without a second thought. I also am free to not even use the textbook at all if I want because my notes and problem sets are better than the textbook problems, according to my students. It’s totally up to the teacher and I like that approach to education.
I'm in a public school. We follow our state standards, but beyond that we're free to teacher however and whatever we want. I don't use a textbook at all and pick all of our short stories, novels, etc... I have complete autonomy over my curriculum. There are so many different ways and different works I can use to teach them to do things like cite textual evidence or provide a thorough and accurate summary. I like having that freedom and could never teach somewhere where I didn't.
If you are using California State Standards, then you are using standards. You made it sound like standards were nonsense and your school didn’t use them, so you were just making things up as you wished.
So you pick and choose which CA common core state standards you want to teach—as long as they’re not “stupid”?
No, I teach the standards, but not the methods that go with them. There is a difference.
To put it in football terms, futuremathsprof is still aiming for the endzone every time, for every standard, like every single other person should be, but is able to "play action" in each play, rather than having to have the play called from the sidelines from each play.
No, we teach all of the standards, but we use traditional methods of teaching math that aren’t moronic.
Examples of things we don’t do:
My colleagues and I always get a good laugh of when I find Common Core Math memes.
And don’t get me started on Integrated Math. Lol, Integrated “Math”.
I love this!
This digresses far from the initial topic, but remember that you're teaching high school math, not elementary math. These "memes" are taken out of context, and don't illustrate the importance/reasoning of certain strategies, not to mention they're often bad examples of teaching (being too absolutely strict). For example, the standard algorithm for multiplication is a standard, but is a fifth grade standard. In the years before that, the goal is building conceptual understanding (that actually will apply more broadly, that way, to future math they'll encounter). That doesn't mean I tell them they can never use the standard algorithm, but rather, looking at varieties of strategies. Naturally, my end goal is that they see the need for efficiency and thus the use of the standard algorithm.
What I always point to with my kids is illustrating how I can do 99999x7 (or something wild like that) in my head...not because I'm doing all the algorithmic steps, but because I know that that's just one 7 less than 700,000, which I know immediately is 699,993.
(And, as always, common core is a set of standards. Some curriculum / stuff within that curriculum is silly, certainly, but that's the publishers, not the set of standards.)
Meanwhile I'm playing hockey and wondering where everyone's sticks are
I agree with this for the most part. I don’t might having elementary students be taught using manipulatives to represent place value. But when the entire algorithm is built around that and you have to spend a significant amount of time doing one problem and it takes an entire page practically, it’s unnecessary and stupid. Math has worked the same way for centuries and now all of a sudden you’re telling me it’s too “hard”?
Hahahahaha! I just spit my drink everywhere. Gosh darn you!
I don't necessarily support these algorithms either, but I don't teach elementary so I don't really know a ton about them.
That said, it was you who stated earlier:
"Don’t discount some things because it requires you to do a little more work."
By your own philosophy, if some students need a different method because the standard one is not clicking for them, shouldn't they be given that tool?
I'm sure you could find research showing how the Common Core approach helps some students just like you found research showing that posting standards helps some students. I'm just reflecting your own philosophy back to you .
Can you give me an example? In ELA we teach so many different strategies to read, etc. . , which are covered in the standards. That's why I never know what to post.
He used the words "moronic" and "stupid" in two separate posts to describe the Common Core approach to math. Let's be a little more open-minded, @futuremathsprof
Math still works the same way. However, the difference is that, now, we try to help students understand why it works. We help them to develop number sense and reasoning skills rather than simply telling them to follow a series of steps to get an answer. It is necessary for elementary students. If you don't understand that and you're interested in forming an educated opinion (rather than just spewing out an antagonistic point of view), you might consider doing some research about elementary math instruction. Otherwise, please stick to advanced high school math and spare us your opinion of elementary math (It's not Common Core; it's just good math instruction. Even the states that have opted out of Common Core have standards requiring similar strategies be taught.).
I agree. I feel like I am teaching some elementary math in the beginning of 6th grade (long division, decimal compuation, etc.) I love the new direction that math instruction is going in. When I learned to multiply decimals, I was just told to move the decimal place over and multiply "normally". Now, in a lot of the lessons I've seen, students are taught to make estimates and understand the algorithm by connecting it to fractions. In my opinion, it's much harder to teach but it's better for students to develop a conceptual understanding and number sense.
No one is saying that math is too "hard" for kids. I would argue that we are making it MORE rigorous by asking kids to understand each process.
That’s funny, this kind of stuff wasn’t taught when I was in elementary school and my STEM friends and I did just fine in college without knowing that rubbish. Employers and people outside of public schools don’t take Common Core Math seriously, my colleagues and I included, and for good reason.
The Common Core Standards by themselves are great. Their implementation, as suggested in Common Core elementary math texts, is complete bull crap.
If these “methods” were so effective than math scores would be much higher than they are.
I "learned" math by memorizing formulas ans algorithms. I was able to remember the procedures and whar numbers to put where. I didn't understand the 'why" of much of what I was doing until I began teaching it.
In Ontario, our math standards all mention, "using a variety of methods or strategies". Most students will identify the methods that are most efficient and use those exclusively. Some will move between methods depending on the situation. Having more than one tool in the tool box is never a bad thing, Creative thinking is one quality that effective mathematicians (and students of all subjects) possess.
Let me repeat: It’s not Common Core. It’s just good math instruction. If there are specific textbooks or published programs that you have a problem with, that’s different. But do not confuse teaching students number sense and reasoning skills with those items. And, please, do your research. You’re better than that.
I’m not trying to make this in a public versus private debate, but what I’ve noticed when public middle schoolers come to my high school is that they have a huge deficit in basic math skills that they should have mastered earlier on. The common spread is that they took Integrated Math or did Common Core and they basically learned nothing from it. And this isn’t just in the subject of math.
ALL incoming students to my private school take a diagnostic test for each subject and quite a few of the students from public schools score abysmally. For example, we recently had some 11th graders tested for Spanish and some of the students got 0% on the diagnostic, meaning they got every single question wrong. The foreign language teachers were shocked as said students couldn’t write the opposite of “malo,” which is bueno, and the instructions were written in English. And here’s the scary part: They got A’s in Spanish 1 and 2 and the Spanish 2 teacher wrote great job on their progress report.
It’s ridiculous and it happens more and more every year. These incoming students barely know anything and it makes our jobs more difficult when I have to teach a student how to use order of operations and their multiplication tables in high school. Let’s stop making multiplication, for instance, out to be more difficult than it is. Products are commutative so the ordering doesn’t matter — the end result is the same, so A times B equals B times A. Take 5x3, for instance. You have five groups of three, or three groups of five. This gives us 3+3+3+3+3 or 5+5+5, which gives us 15 when summed or added together. Students quickly see that multiplication is really just repeated addition. Then, students begin to see that is more expeditious to use the standard algorithm.
I tutor students from their elementary years all the way up to the collegiate level for math and science. Every single time I see them doing Common Core “Math” I shake my head and show them the proper way — not just making them memorize things as I stress understanding and not just memorization. I’ve been very successful at helping students who struggle at math or don’t have an aptitude for math. And I *never* use Common Core “Math” as it is not used in the real world and would result in your termination if used in the workplace.
If your methods were as effective as declared, then students would be at least proficient in arithmetic. They’re not, so...
I have no problem with teaching students number sense and reasoning skills. I also private tutor elementary students and middle school students in small to large groups and they seem to understand the material and I don’t use the aforementioned methods. And these students are by no means “good” at math.
Our state standards are based on common core. For ELA standards, they are still ONE basic standard. I base my learning target from that standard.
And said texts just so happen to all be labeled Common Core. I use a few texts and they say “adapted to Common Core standards.” The texts without that label and just say Common Core utilize the methods I’ve discussed previously. That’s why I think what I do.
Common Core is a set of standards. It is not an instructional method.
I agree with you. I’ve said that many times now — are you all reading what I’m posting?
The instructional methods as outlined in Common Core Math texts are ludicrous. The standards themselves are great.
I don’t know what you think “Common Core ‘Math’” is... All of these texts you’re complaining about don’t teach things the exact same way. There are many ways to teach the CCSS. And, since it’s just math, it is, in fact, used in the real world. I don’t know about you, but, in my experience, my employer doesn’t watch how I solve math problems.
The way you described multiplication is pretty similar to how it’s taught in my school. We do t use CCSS, but ours are similar. I still think you have a lot to learn about elementary math if you want others to take you seriously.
I'm honestly a bit surprised, as is bella, with this coming from you; you're usually pretty on top of these things.
Common Core State Standards, are, as they say, standards. Those are the expectations we want the kids to achieve.
Like you said - you prefer to go your own way to those standards. The curriculum that you're mentioning certainly says CCSS on it...why? Because advertising that it aligns means they can pull in more money. But as teachers, again, like you said (though not specifically this - but alluding to it), should be utilizing that as a tool, not word-for-word.
Go back to a previous analogy: CCSS is the endzone. (or the net, if we're thinking hockey...ha) Envision, and the other curriculum, are one set of plays that could be called from the sideline (or in the huddle/bench). That said, there are other possible plays that could be called.
In the end, there's always been plenty of people that struggle when you get to middle/high school math. And there have been plenty of teachers in elementary who probably need additional training in math ed. But that doesn't mean that these set of standards led us to death and destruction or anything...
This just proves that no one is reading my posts or only the parts thy want to read. I just addressed this very comment in a previous post.
So your issue is with Pearson, Houghton Mifflin (or whatever it was), etc... - the core (no pun intended...ha) companies that develop these, not "common core". It's a distinct difference that, along with the rise of social media, has led to many protesting "common core", when really, those standards are virtually the same and/or better (or more applicable to modern times).
I know they don’t teach these methods the same way. I never said that, nor did I imply that. Show me the quotation where I said that.
What I said are the “instructional methods in Common Core Math texts... are ludicrous.”
Yes! You are correct.
I just say “Common Core Math” because it is an umbrella term and it is easier to lump all of the texts together instead of calling out individual publishers.
As aforementioned, I teach using a book that says adapted to Common Core Standards and it’s a great textbook, IMO. However, the publisher still uses traditional methods for solving math problems. The elementary and middle schools texts that I’ve seen, which say Common Core Math, use the methods that I strongly disagree with. They confuse students more than help them.
You said it (again) right here in the post. In one sentence, you say they don’t all teach math the same way. In the next sentence, you say that the methods are ludicrous. Seems contradictory to me. Are you really saying the every single method of teaching math is one of these texts is ludicrous simply because the book has a a CCSS label on it? I would think you’d look at each text individually rather than assuming them to all be equally bad.
Mathmagic was correct. This is not what I’d expect coming from you.
Your logic is invalid. Saying a series of texts are ludicrous does not equate to saying they all use the same methods. Really now?
To answer your second question, please read a few of my previous posts above this one where I addressed that very thing.
But I see the elementary books and resources as beneficial as you see the high school texts. I don’t claim to know anything about high school and wouldn’t dare to claim that I know what instructional methods are best for high school. Can’t you accept that your qualifications as a high school math teacher may not make you the best judge of elementary math resources? Those who teach it are in a better position to judge it than you.
I have laminated bright colored card stock which I velcroed to the wall beside my whiteboard. Since I have five separate classes, I need five separate Objectives per day. I use every surface in my whiteboard so I didn’t want them on there. Frankly, I find having to write them irritating, but for the frequent students that walk up to my desk every day before class to ask “what are we doing today?”, I remind them to read the objectives!
Well, this circles back around then, because then this implies a dislike of the standards, because this is exactly what the standards ask for: multiple methods that utilize place value meaning to approach problems, with the eventual push for more efficient/algorithmic strategies. I won't rehash everything I've said, as it'd be repetitious, but the companies purposefully put those strategies in there (i.e. box method, expanded algorithm, breaking apart - all for the eventual multiplication algorithm), as that's what the CCSS ask for. *sigh* Moving on...
I didn’t ask a second question.
Here are two instances in the same post where you mention students who “did Common Core math”. And that you never use Common Core math.
I don’t see how I’m misinterpreting that.