• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Common Core lessons blasted for sneaking politics into elementary classrooms

TML said:
I'm not saying its necessarily unique, I'm simply saying its a poor standard to give credit to young children for getting the wrong answer to a question as logical as mathematics.
Click to expand...

What??? Kids will get marked down for correct answers if not explained in written form. That means the math formula and answer are correct but in a constructed response they need to write out the step by step procedure. Kids don't get credit for wrong answers.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
What??? Kids will get marked down for correct answers if not explained in written form. That means the math formula and answer are correct but in a constructed response they need to write out the step by step procedure. Kids don't get credit for wrong answers.
Click to expand...

This is true. But it's also not something that's new. When I taught 3rd grade a few years ago they had to do that too.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
What??? Kids will get marked down for correct answers if not explained in written form. That means the math formula and answer are correct but in a constructed response they need to write out the step by step procedure. Kids don't get credit for wrong answers.
Click to expand...

Getting “marked down” for correct answers if not explained in written form is a good, and strong, standard that demands they know how and why the answer is correct, as opposed to giving credit for showing your work, regardless of if the answer is correct.
 
TML said:
Getting “marked down” for correct answers if not explained in written form is a good, and strong, standard that demands they know how and why the answer is correct, as opposed to giving credit for showing your work, regardless of if the answer is correct.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point. You have to explain your answer regardless, but only get credit if the answer is correct. With that said, they will not get full credit for correct answers unless the verbal part is also fully developed. So, you may have a math genius who can solve math problems using formulas rather easily but suffers weaker language skills (which effects written language) who will no longer receive full credit for his mathematical skills. Someone like Einstein would have been deemed below the standard due to his weak language skills even though he had outstanding visual/ spacial/ perceptual skills. That was the whole point of the article about China. High test scores coupled with low innovation. What if you have an exceptional person in a particular area deemed not good enough to receive proper merit? Outside the box thinkers may not at all be good test takers or even students for that matter. Some of our most innovated people in the US didn't even finish college because they were doers. Schools should be encouraging creative thinking not test taking skills!!!
 
It's not just Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who didn't earn degrees. Here is a list of 19 innovators in the US who do not have college degrees. Most Successful College Dropouts - Business Insider

As an aside, I'm not promoting that a college degree is insignificant. Just trying to prove my point that high stake test are dangerous and should NOT be used for high stake decisions. Also, Schools should not be made into test taking factories. We have lost our vision.
 
It looks like our job may be done here, at least for now.

It has been established that the big tests have created a test centered curriculum that actually serves no one well, that the whole idea was started as a way to make money for people with connections, and that over reliance on test scores makes for poor decision making.

So, the lovers of the test scores have momentarily gone away. When will they resurface, once again wringing hands and telling the world that our public schools suck due to the test scores that they've seen, and that the schools are indoctrinating children in some liberal mind control plot?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I think you missed my point. You have to explain your answer regardless, but only get credit if the answer is correct. With that said, they will not get full credit for correct answers unless the verbal part is also fully developed. So, you may have a math genius who can solve math problems using formulas rather easily but suffers weaker language skills (which effects written language) who will no longer receive full credit for his mathematical skills.
Click to expand...
that is not how i understand it based on a brief discussion with a HS math teacher this summer regarding the new CC standards. he stated that the math exam is now a two-part test. the students first are given an array of problems and are directed to explain the process they would use to solve those problems. the second segment is the more conventional test when the math solutions are performed. while it imposed more work - and time requirements - the teacher noted that he views this as a better testing instrument since it allows an assessment of the students' true understanding of the material presented

Someone like Einstein would have been deemed below the standard due to his weak language skills even though he had outstanding visual/ spacial/ perceptual skills.
Click to expand...
another outcome - today - might be that Einstein's verbal shortcomings could have been identified and addressed early, enabling him to even better articulate the deepest thoughts that he may have been unable to otherwise convey

That was the whole point of the article about China. High test scores coupled with low innovation. What if you have an exceptional person in a particular area deemed not good enough to receive proper merit? Outside the box thinkers may not at all be good test takers or even students for that matter. Some of our most innovated people in the US didn't even finish college because they were doers. Schools should be encouraging creative thinking not test taking skills!!!
Click to expand...
why not both ... or is that too far out of the box?
japan has long been instructive regarding the culture's deep skills to enhance but weak ability to innovate. and i would posit that it stems from cultural thinking; one that says 'the nail that sticks up gets hammered down'. homogenous thinking/acting is instilled into their kids from birth. the individual is expected to sacrifice for the whole. our culture's attitude is quite different. we praise those who differentiate themselves from the pack. my point is that test taking skills are not the difference in approach. it is cultural distinctions. we should not hinder those traits which allow our people to develop in unconventional/out-of-the box ways. but neither should we hinder the development of skills - especially STEM skills - which will provide our kids the personal toolbox to use to develop innovations. and testing is the mechanism to allow the teachers to assess which of the students can go forward to master more difficult material and which require remedial instruction essential to have the understanding necessary to proceed toward more difficult study. without such testing, we find the schools teaching to the lowest common denominator ... a tragic practice which slows the development - and love of learning - of the brighter students
 
Dittohead not! said:
It looks like our job may be done here, at least for now.

It has been established that the big tests have created a test centered curriculum that actually serves no one well, that the whole idea was started as a way to make money for people with connections, and that over reliance on test scores makes for poor decision making.

So, the lovers of the test scores have momentarily gone away. When will they resurface, once again wringing hands and telling the world that our public schools suck due to the test scores that they've seen, and that the schools are indoctrinating children in some liberal mind control plot?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily agree that test scores were strictly designed to increase profit for certain connected businesses. I would reemphasize that easily quantified data is quite luring in its prospects. It seems to be evidence-based by itself, and could thus tell us a great deal about the state of the American education system. While we have been lured by science for centuries, quantified social science has been a particular popular fascination since the late 19th century and really kicked steam over the past 100 years in terms of centering public policy around it. The problem, of course, was that it told us a lot less than we thought it did, and furthermore, the design of the examinations are also lacking in careful thought.
 
justabubba said:
that is not how i understand it based on a brief discussion with a HS math teacher this summer regarding the new CC standards. he stated that the math exam is now a two-part test. the students first are given an array of problems and are directed to explain the process they would use to solve those problems. the second segment is the more conventional test when the math solutions are performed. while it imposed more work - and time requirements - the teacher noted that he views this as a better testing instrument since it allows an assessment of the students' true understanding of the material presented


another outcome - today - might be that Einstein's verbal shortcomings could have been identified and addressed early, enabling him to even better articulate the deepest thoughts that he may have been unable to otherwise convey


why not both ... or is that too far out of the box?
japan has long been instructive regarding the culture's deep skills to enhance but weak ability to innovate. and i would posit that it stems from cultural thinking; one that says 'the nail that sticks up gets hammered down'. homogenous thinking/acting is instilled into their kids from birth. the individual is expected to sacrifice for the whole. our culture's attitude is quite different. we praise those who differentiate themselves from the pack. my point is that test taking skills are not the difference in approach. it is cultural distinctions. we should not hinder those traits which allow our people to develop in unconventional/out-of-the box ways. but neither should we hinder the development of skills - especially STEM skills - which will provide our kids the personal toolbox to use to develop innovations. and testing is the mechanism to allow the teachers to assess which of the students can go forward to master more difficult material and which require remedial instruction essential to have the understanding necessary to proceed toward more difficult study. without such testing, we find the schools teaching to the lowest common denominator ... a tragic practice which slows the development - and love of learning - of the brighter students
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the HS level since I currently teach 3rd grade. Perhaps, he feels it appropriate for HS students but what I am saying is I have deep concerns for younger students. When we are looking at test devices for them they should without a doubt be developmentally appropriate, otherwise, it's not a valid assessment. This issue has been brought forward already by developmental experts. Perhaps, things will change. I don't know. All I know for fact is that two states did field testing with dismal results. In my mind red flags are happening. If these weren't high stake test, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

Here is the reason I question how developmentally appropriate the test is: This task asks students to demonstrate their understanding and explain their thinking in ways to which many American students have not been exposed. Future research might address more broadly how students respond to tasks that call for deep understanding, supported by precise explanations, and what the influence of such assessment tasks might be on instruction.
CCSSTOOLBOX.COM

Precise explanation through written language skills is another measurement and should not be part of mathematical logic IMHO. We have been giving our children open responses once a week for test practice and not only do they have to solve a word problem and show their work and math equation (old standard which is expected in MA) but now they have to write nearly a page long essay on their critical analysis of the problem which is hard for over half the class. Keep in mind these are NOT norm reference test where a bell curve is expected. These are criterion reference test where every single student is expected to master that skill.

If CC was being used as a baseline, fine. It is not. It is being used as high stake testing for students, teachers, and schools alike. Many states have since dropped out of the PARCC. Quite frankly, I don't blame them.

Since this post is getting long, I will comment on the rest of your post below.
 
justabubba said:
another outcome - today - might be that Einstein's verbal shortcomings could have been identified and addressed early, enabling him to even better articulate the deepest thoughts that he may have been unable to otherwise convey


why not both ... or is that too far out of the box?
japan has long been instructive regarding the culture's deep skills to enhance but weak ability to innovate. and i would posit that it stems from cultural thinking; one that says 'the nail that sticks up gets hammered down'. homogenous thinking/acting is instilled into their kids from birth. the individual is expected to sacrifice for the whole. our culture's attitude is quite different. we praise those who differentiate themselves from the pack. my point is that test taking skills are not the difference in approach. it is cultural distinctions. we should not hinder those traits which allow our people to develop in unconventional/out-of-the box ways. but neither should we hinder the development of skills - especially STEM skills - which will provide our kids the personal toolbox to use to develop innovations. and testing is the mechanism to allow the teachers to assess which of the students can go forward to master more difficult material and which require remedial instruction essential to have the understanding necessary to proceed toward more difficult study. without such testing, we find the schools teaching to the lowest common denominator ... a tragic practice which slows the development - and love of learning - of the brighter students
Click to expand...

Another thing to keep in mind is the PARCC is not at all similar to international test. They don't include construct responses. Now to respond to your other comment. Standardized testing is a limited measure. Teachers do a wide array of both summative and formative testing as well tons of data driven assessments. If people want this PARCC assessment because they don't think we have enough data, I'm speechless. The joy of school themes and projects (not stated in CC) like the topical rainforest and/or dinosaurs are said by administration to take up too much time. They have it all backwards.
 
Fiddytree said:
I wouldn't necessarily agree that test scores were strictly designed to increase profit for certain connected businesses. I would reemphasize that easily quantified data is quite luring in its prospects. It seems to be evidence-based by itself, and could thus tell us a great deal about the state of the American education system. While we have been lured by science for centuries, quantified social science has been a particular popular fascination since the late 19th century and really kicked steam over the past 100 years in terms of centering public policy around it. The problem, of course, was that it told us a lot less than we thought it did, and furthermore, the design of the examinations are also lacking in careful thought.
Click to expand...

Did you happen to catch the post I made above (way back there somewhere) about the McGraw family of McGraw Hill (publishers of the test and of materials to teach what's on the test) and the Bushes?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Did you happen to catch the post I made above (way back there somewhere) about the McGraw family of McGraw Hill (publishers of the test and of materials to teach what's on the test) and the Bushes?
Click to expand...

I think so, yeah. I mean, I am not denying financial motives. What I am suggesting is that a large amount of the reason why this exists is because people literally think that quantified data derived from these means provides a means of measuring and improving an entire system.
 
Josie said:
They had to do it on Saxon Math and the state assessments.
Click to expand...

The MCAS has what we call the long response question which was nothing at all like the construct responses we are being told to do with the students to prepare them for field testing this Spring for PARCC. I've been told PARCC is much longer and will be done twice a year. I've also read two different things about PARCC. One claims it is similar to MCAS in many ways. The other claims it is not at all similar. I guess I will find out soon enough.
 
trfjr said:
Common Core lessons blasted for sneaking politics into elementary classrooms | Fox News

And this is how liberalism gained a foot hold in todays politics. with them propagandizing our children over the generations. why do you think most teachers and college professor lean to the left

"Whoever controls youth, controls the future" was the slogan, given the German National club to the Communist thieves' den.
Click to expand...

Its nothing new. The left controls academia, most of the media (changing though), and popular culture.
 
Fiddytree said:
Actually really useful for getting students to pipe up about complex topics, who do not want to look stupid or who may zone out. We use it all the time to get students to come out and have extended conversations beyond one or two participants.
Click to expand...

Participating is the bare minimum of what a student is supposed to do in school. It's a given. Now the kids who AREN'T participating should be marked down. Those who are participating shouldn't be marked up for just doing what they're supposed to do.

Also, many kids are very shy and don't like to speak much in class. They shouldn't get a lower grade just because they're more socially awkward than other kids. Participation grades should be separate from academic grades and it shouldn't just be about speaking in class.
 
Josie said:
Participating is the bare minimum of what a student is supposed to do in school. It's a given. Now the kids who AREN'T participating should be marked down. Those who are participating shouldn't be marked up for just doing what they're supposed to do.

Also, many kids are very shy and don't like to speak much in class. They shouldn't get a lower grade just because they're more socially awkward than other kids. Participation grades should be separate from academic grades and it shouldn't just be about speaking in class.
Click to expand...

Granted, it would to some extent impact those of us, like myself who grew up immensely shy, but on the other hand, it has done quite well in encouraging discussion, should the classroom atmosphere prove welcoming. I think we ought to be liberal with it, but I like the policy.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I think you missed my point. You have to explain your answer regardless, but only get credit if the answer is correct. With that said, they will not get full credit for correct answers unless the verbal part is also fully developed. So, you may have a math genius who can solve math problems using formulas rather easily but suffers weaker language skills (which effects written language) who will no longer receive full credit for his mathematical skills. Someone like Einstein would have been deemed below the standard due to his weak language skills even though he had outstanding visual/ spacial/ perceptual skills. That was the whole point of the article about China. High test scores coupled with low innovation. What if you have an exceptional person in a particular area deemed not good enough to receive proper merit? Outside the box thinkers may not at all be good test takers or even students for that matter. Some of our most innovated people in the US didn't even finish college because they were doers. Schools should be encouraging creative thinking not test taking skills!!!
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I think you miss the point, since my initial post and succeeding arguments are limited young children at the learning stage of “3X4”. As sangha pointed out; some schools give credit just for showing your work, regardless of if the answer is correct (as some sort of incentive). I think this to be a very poor standard.
Your explanation becomes a strawman regarding literature (language skills) in this context. Perhaps that is the problem with standards such as Common Core that apply learning strategies across the board without respect to the actual elements of what you are trying to teach, and to whom you are trying to teach.

In the context of my argument (mathematics to young children), ‘creative thinking’ comes later once the logical process is understood.
 
TML said:
On the contrary, I think you miss the point, since my initial post and succeeding arguments are limited young children at the learning stage of “3X4”. As sangha pointed out; some schools give credit just for showing your work, regardless of if the answer is correct (as some sort of incentive). I think this to be a very poor standard.
Your explanation becomes a strawman regarding literature (language skills) in this context. Perhaps that is the problem with standards such as Common Core that apply learning strategies across the board without respect to the actual elements of what you are trying to teach, and to whom you are trying to teach.

In the context of my argument (mathematics to young children), ‘creative thinking’ comes later once the logical process is understood.
Click to expand...

So, you weren't talking about CC? If so, exactly what standard allows a child to give the wrong answer? TIA
 
Fiddytree said:
I think so, yeah. I mean, I am not denying financial motives. What I am suggesting is that a large amount of the reason why this exists is because people literally think that quantified data derived from these means provides a means of measuring and improving an entire system.
Click to expand...

Yes, the rationale for the testing program is to provide a means of measuring and improving the entire system. The motivation for it, at least originally, was money. The result has been a test centered curriculum.

Further, the data are flawed. If we were to use a matrix sample, put the questions on a computer with immediate feedback and rewards for correct answers, then we'd get accurate measures and we'd see the test results increase dramatically.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
So, you weren't talking about CC? If so, exactly what standard allows a child to give the wrong answer? TIA
Click to expand...

Perhaps that question is better asked to ask the Common Core curriculum director I quoted in my initial post.

“Even if they said, ’3 x 4 was 11,’ if they were able to explain their reasoning and explain how they came up with their answer really in, umm, words and oral explanation, and they showed it in the picture but they just got the final number wrong, we’re really more focused on the how,” - Amanda August, Common Core Curriculum Coordinator, Chicago, Illinois.
 
TML said:
Perhaps that question is better asked to ask the Common Core curriculum director I quoted in my initial post.

“Even if they said, ’3 x 4 was 11,’ if they were able to explain their reasoning and explain how they came up with their answer really in, umm, words and oral explanation, and they showed it in the picture but they just got the final number wrong, we’re really more focused on the how,” - Amanda August, Common Core Curriculum Coordinator, Chicago, Illinois.
Click to expand...

Oh, thanks for the context or should I say lack of......

First, Common Core is just a bunch of standards that schools must be held accountable for which is not really my issue. Nothing in the Common Core says that answers are marked correct if they are wrong. What Amanda August was trying to say is that the standards should focus on teaching methods so children can understand how to arrive at an answer. That is logical. If an answer is wrong, we as educators should be more concerned at how a student arrived at the answer not just solely focus on the fact the answer is wrong. Good educators already have been doing that btw.

My beef is with the PARCC and how the Common Core will be misused to harm students, teachers and schools.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Oh, thanks for the context or should I say lack of......
Click to expand...

The context that answers are marked correct if they are wrong came from the discussion with sangha which ended with his statement, “showing your work got partial credit even if the final answer was wrong”, as he stated was his experience in school (my reply to that is where you entered the discussion) - and which parallels the directors comments. “[E]ven if they said 3x4=11… …we’re really more focused on the how [rather than the answer being correct]” doesn't sound good coming from a supposed educator, especially regarding 2nd or 3rd grade mathematics. I understand what you are saying; that an educator has to know where in the process the child went wrong, in order to steer them back on course. But I think many people express this incorrectly which leads to giving a child credit, even if they got the answer wrong, for no other reason than showing their work.

rabbitcaebannog said:
My beef is with the PARCC and how the Common Core will be misused to harm students, teachers and schools.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom