Common Core Education Standards (1 Viewer)

[Pick]

The issue I have and some of it isn't all Common Core stuff is that fringe subjects are getting pushed out as kids are pushed to focus on science, math, and english. Sure the Asians are smart but they are also socially motarded. Balance and moderation here not an army of nerds please.

 

[Ilov80s]

The issue I have and some of it isn't all Common Core stuff is that fringe subjects are getting pushed out as kids are pushed to focus on science, math, and english. Sure the Asians are smart but they are also socially motarded. Balance and moderation here not an army of nerds please.

I am with you to an extent. What is wrong with a kid wanting to focus on art or a trade?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

The issue I have and some of it isn't all Common Core stuff is that fringe subjects are getting pushed out as kids are pushed to focus on science, math, and english. Sure the Asians are smart but they are also socially motarded. Balance and moderation here not an army of nerds please.

I am with you to an extent. What is wrong with a kid wanting to focus on art or a trade?

Nothing. The whole idea that "we need to prepare ALL of these kids for college" is a noble one but also a pretty stupid one.

 

[Buckfast 1]

The issue I have and some of it isn't all Common Core stuff is that fringe subjects are getting pushed out as kids are pushed to focus on science, math, and english. Sure the Asians are smart but they are also socially motarded. Balance and moderation here not an army of nerds please.

I am with you to an extent. What is wrong with a kid wanting to focus on art or a trade?

Where do you guys get the idea that these standards are somehow affecting elective courses? I know that elective courses like art and music have had it tough in recent years due to state budget constraints, but how are these standards affecting other course elective classes at all? Every student takes math, English, and science every year of school. These standards apply only to those classes. As far as I am aware, no one is canceling art to take an extra math class just to meet federal education aspirational standards.

 

[Ilov80s]

The issue I have and some of it isn't all Common Core stuff is that fringe subjects are getting pushed out as kids are pushed to focus on science, math, and english. Sure the Asians are smart but they are also socially motarded. Balance and moderation here not an army of nerds please.

I am with you to an extent. What is wrong with a kid wanting to focus on art or a trade?

Where do you guys get the idea that these standards are somehow affecting elective courses? I know that elective courses like art and music have had it tough in recent years due to state budget constraints, but how are these standards affecting other course elective classes at all? Every student takes math, English, and science every year of school. These standards apply only to those classes. As far as I am aware, no one is canceling art to take an extra math class just to meet federal education aspirational standards.

My comment was more of a comment the geberal trends in education. When you put specific math and science standards in place that are universal, what happens is the kids that are weak in those areas end up failing and repeating classes, and to taking extra support classes etc. That eliminates room for electives. Then there are the addition of classes specifically designed to prep for the tests, that eats up another elective or two. Again, that is more of statement against the current trend towards total standardization of education as opposed to a more individualized approach.

 

[Buckfast 1]

The issue I have and some of it isn't all Common Core stuff is that fringe subjects are getting pushed out as kids are pushed to focus on science, math, and english. Sure the Asians are smart but they are also socially motarded. Balance and moderation here not an army of nerds please.

I am with you to an extent. What is wrong with a kid wanting to focus on art or a trade?

Where do you guys get the idea that these standards are somehow affecting elective courses? I know that elective courses like art and music have had it tough in recent years due to state budget constraints, but how are these standards affecting other course elective classes at all? Every student takes math, English, and science every year of school. These standards apply only to those classes. As far as I am aware, no one is canceling art to take an extra math class just to meet federal education aspirational standards.

My comment was more of a comment the geberal trends in education. When you put specific math and science standards in place that are universal, what happens is the kids that are weak in those areas end up failing and repeating classes, and to taking extra support classes etc. That eliminates room for electives. Then there are the addition of classes specifically designed to prep for the tests, that eats up another elective or two. Again, that is more of statement against the current trend towards total standardization of education as opposed to a more individualized approach.

Believe me, I appreciate that you have approached this issue with a more practical realistic approach than the typical knee-jerk reaction of "we don't want the Feds in our local schools" approach that many others have had in this thread. However, I'm just not convinced that any of your specific concerns are likely to happen in practice as a result of the Common Core standards. If you are right, then I believe that they are valid criticisms. If not -- as I expect, then I don't think they are valid critiques of setting nationwide aspiration standards for education. I guess we will not know the answer to the question for several years.

 

[Ilov80s]

The issue I have and some of it isn't all Common Core stuff is that fringe subjects are getting pushed out as kids are pushed to focus on science, math, and english. Sure the Asians are smart but they are also socially motarded. Balance and moderation here not an army of nerds please.

I am with you to an extent. What is wrong with a kid wanting to focus on art or a trade?

Where do you guys get the idea that these standards are somehow affecting elective courses? I know that elective courses like art and music have had it tough in recent years due to state budget constraints, but how are these standards affecting other course elective classes at all? Every student takes math, English, and science every year of school. These standards apply only to those classes. As far as I am aware, no one is canceling art to take an extra math class just to meet federal education aspirational standards.

My comment was more of a comment the geberal trends in education. When you put specific math and science standards in place that are universal, what happens is the kids that are weak in those areas end up failing and repeating classes, and to taking extra support classes etc. That eliminates room for electives. Then there are the addition of classes specifically designed to prep for the tests, that eats up another elective or two. Again, that is more of statement against the current trend towards total standardization of education as opposed to a more individualized approach.

Believe me, I appreciate that you have approached this issue with a more practical realistic approach than the typical knee-jerk reaction of "we don't want the Feds in our local schools" approach that many others have had in this thread. However, I'm just not convinced that any of your specific concerns are likely to happen in practice as a result of the Common Core standards. If you are right, then I believe that they are valid criticisms. If not -- as I expect, then I don't think they are valid critiques of setting nationwide aspiration standards for education. I guess we will not know the answer to the question for several years.

What I said above was not a set of predictions, it was what happened when Michigan redid their standards and graduation requirements.

 

[Skipdog77]

I am opposed to the Common Core. When Michigan put in very specific graduation requirements for the state, I was opposed to that as well. The more that can be kept local, the better. Before Michigan put in their state requirements, the school had the ability to tailor a curriculum for each student based on their strengths, weaknesses, likes, and goals. However, with the new state requirements, we essentially have to put all students on the same curriculum. Nationalizing the standards and the testing is only going to make the situation worse. There is no way a parent, student, teacher, or administrator can have interaction or input with the forces driving their education.

Also, I am pretty sure these test scores are going to be a nightmare. All the tests are on the computer. We don't have enough computers for every kid to take the tests. The "hypemen" for Common Core keep saying not to worry and that we will get what we need. Doubtful. This means to do the testing, we are going to have to do it in blocks which means we will lose a week or more every time we test. There are talks about testing anywhere from 2x a year to monthly. This is costing states billions of dollars to reinvent their curriculum. All while many schools are physically falling apart, can't pay teachers, have a lack of technology, etc.

Here is a summarized version of a 7th grade math question:

You have been hired to help remodel a bedroom. Here are the paint color options that the couple like. It lists a few different pains and their price per gallon. It then lists it takes x gallons per square feet and tells you the dimensions of all the bedroom walls. Students must calculate how many cans of paint to buy and how much it will cost. (They have to know on their own that walls require 2 coats of paint and to subtract out the area of the windows).

Then, there is a list of the flooring the couple likes. Students will decide which flooring, how much they need, and calculate cost based on prices.

Then there are multiple furniture options they have to choose from based on price and size. The couple has an heirloom rug which must be in the space so that has to be factored in while laying out the furniture.

Finally, students must calculate a price that they will charge the couple based on the cost of the supplies and the amount of work they have done.

Can you post the actual question instead of a slanted summary? I find it impossible to believe that it didnt list the sizes of the windows and mention that it takes two coats if that was necessary for the proper answer.Paint doesnt require two coats quite frequently. In fact probably over 50% of the paint jobs I did as a painting contractor only required one coat. It would have to list the sizes of the windows in order to even be rooted in math. I dont have a problem with forcing kids to think logically that they shouldnt paint windows. I suspect it was worded MUCH differently than what you listed.

I don't have the question, it was presented at a Common Core workshop. It did list the measurements of the windows, the room, furniture options, etc. The question did not tell students to use two coats, but the presenter said it was expected that they did. There was also a budget and some expectations of how long the job will take. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems very challenging for a middle schooler. Most adults I know that remodel their house screw this stuff up. Anyway, that was just one example. Most of the questions are still multiple choice. Instead of circling in an oval on a scantron, it's dragging and dropping or pointing and clicking on a computer.

Isn't this the point of trying to teach this type of logical thinking in school? If they learn how to think properly to solve such a problem in school, maybe they won't screw it up when they are adults.

Absolutely. That is a fair point. I will concede here as I don't teach middle school so I don't really know exactly how reasonable that question may be. It just struck me as challenging for that age especially being that the context of the question is something very unfamiliar to the average 13 year old. Perhaps I am mistaken.

I definitely agree that it is a challenging question in middle school, no doubt. But in today's no attention span-iPad/Netflix/Xbox world, I have no qualms with challenging kids to strive higher in school and pushing themselves.

My son is in 3rd grade, and completed the Common Core tests in NYS last spring. We still haven't seen his test scores yet, and while I am worried that he may not have done as well as we may have liked or thought he would do (based on what we've seen in the aggregate scores for the school), I think 'm willing to take the hit for a couple of years to hopefully help him grow and achieve more.

I do worry that this is being pushed as quickly as it is, with the necessary resources to support it lagging behind.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

The federal government is dumbing down the level of education, not raising it up.

This assumes all school districts across the country are they same. For some districts we're setting up a standard that will be impossible to meet. For others they're already operating at a level far above those standards.

As a teacher with 10+ years experience, I can assure you that the common core standards are not "dumbed down". I can't imagine that there are many districts across the country with more rigorous standards in place already. Maybe some of the standards, but across the board? If districts were performing at a higher level before common core, they have no reason to now come down to new standards. They can simply keep doing what they were doing and they will be just fine when it comes assessment time.

And again, common core standards were NOT developed by the federal government, nor were they forced upon any states to adopt.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Textbook prices are supposed to lower (because textbook publishers don't have to make as many different books) and assessments should be more affordable, valid, and reliable.

Do you have any links to support this?

Links, no...and I'm too lazy to look. But I have heard this directly from publishing companies and people at my state education department.

 

[Ilov80s]

Textbook prices are supposed to lower (because textbook publishers don't have to make as many different books) and assessments should be more affordable, valid, and reliable.

Do you have any links to support this?

Links, no...and I'm too lazy to look. But I have heard this directly from publishing companies and people at my state education department.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/some-states-see-costs-spike-with-common-core-tests-94586.html

"About half the states in one testing group using controversial Common Core standards will spend more than they already do on their current exams, new figures released Monday show."

Here is a good, fair read as well. The general story is that some districts will pay more, some may pay less, but there may be hidden costs. For example the cheaper of the two consortium tests does not include scoring. States will have to figure out how to score it themselves. Also, they are already conceding the tests aren't what they had hoped and will need to be redone in the very near future.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/07/24/new-common-core-tests-worth-the-price/

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Textbook prices are supposed to lower (because textbook publishers don't have to make as many different books) and assessments should be more affordable, valid, and reliable.

Do you have any links to support this?

Links, no...and I'm too lazy to look. But I have heard this directly from publishing companies and people at my state education department.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/some-states-see-costs-spike-with-common-core-tests-94586.html

"About half the states in one testing group using controversial Common Core standards will spend more than they already do on their current exams, new figures released Monday show."

Here is a good, fair read as well. The general story is that some districts will pay more, some may pay less, but there may be hidden costs. For example the cheaper of the two consortium tests does not include scoring. States will have to figure out how to score it themselves. Also, they are already conceding the tests aren't what they had hoped and will need to be redone in the very near future.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/07/24/new-common-core-tests-worth-the-price/

I don't have the time to dive into the actual study quoted by the article, but doesn't the headline actually indicate a positive for common core (even though it was definitely written with a negative slant)?

If "about half" of the states in "one testing group" showed an increase in cost, one could infer that half (or more) of the states tested showed decreased costs or at worst stayed the same.

 

[Hooper31]

The issue I have and some of it isn't all Common Core stuff is that fringe subjects are getting pushed out as kids are pushed to focus on science, math, and english. Sure the Asians are smart but they are also socially motarded. Balance and moderation here not an army of nerds please.

I am with you to an extent. What is wrong with a kid wanting to focus on art or a trade?

Where do you guys get the idea that these standards are somehow affecting elective courses? I know that elective courses like art and music have had it tough in recent years due to state budget constraints, but how are these standards affecting other course elective classes at all? Every student takes math, English, and science every year of school. These standards apply only to those classes. As far as I am aware, no one is canceling art to take an extra math class just to meet federal education aspirational standards.

Yes. Yes they are.

I teach in a smallish high school. We have about 100 students per graduating class. We had a three person math department for my first fifteen years. Over the past six years we've seen such an increase in the mathematics requirements that we had to hire another full time math teacher. That's not in addition to the entire staff. That means that we couldn't hire back another teacher. If kids are taking more math, they're taking less of something. Get it?

 

[Prince Myshkin]

The issue I have and some of it isn't all Common Core stuff is that fringe subjects are getting pushed out as kids are pushed to focus on science, math, and english. Sure the Asians are smart but they are also socially motarded. Balance and moderation here not an army of nerds please.

I am with you to an extent. What is wrong with a kid wanting to focus on art or a trade?

Where do you guys get the idea that these standards are somehow affecting elective courses? I know that elective courses like art and music have had it tough in recent years due to state budget constraints, but how are these standards affecting other course elective classes at all? Every student takes math, English, and science every year of school. These standards apply only to those classes. As far as I am aware, no one is canceling art to take an extra math class just to meet federal education aspirational standards.

Yes. Yes they are.

I teach in a smallish high school. We have about 100 students per graduating class. We had a three person math department for my first fifteen years. Over the past six years we've seen such an increase in the mathematics requirements that we had to hire another full time math teacher. That's not in addition to the entire staff. That means that we couldn't hire back another teacher. If kids are taking more math, they're taking less of something. Get it?

that's not caused by common core...that's caused by NCLB. With NCLB, schools were required to test reading and math every year and those 2 subject areas pretty much completely comprised any federal accountability.

 

[timschochet]

The federal government is dumbing down the level of education, not raising it up.

This assumes all school districts across the country are they same. For some districts we're setting up a standard that will be impossible to meet. For others they're already operating at a level far above those standards.

As a teacher with 10+ years experience, I can assure you that the common core standards are not "dumbed down". I can't imagine that there are many districts across the country with more rigorous standards in place already. Maybe some of the standards, but across the board? If districts were performing at a higher level before common core, they have no reason to now come down to new standards. They can simply keep doing what they were doing and they will be just fine when it comes assessment time. And again, common core standards were NOT developed by the federal government, nor were they forced upon any states to adopt.

You're making a lot of good points in this thread, IMO.

 

[RCon]

The federal government is dumbing down the level of education, not raising it up.

This assumes all school districts across the country are they same. For some districts we're setting up a standard that will be impossible to meet. For others they're already operating at a level far above those standards.

As a teacher with 10+ years experience, I can assure you that the common core standards are not "dumbed down". I can't imagine that there are many districts across the country with more rigorous standards in place already. Maybe some of the standards, but across the board? If districts were performing at a higher level before common core, they have no reason to now come down to new standards. They can simply keep doing what they were doing and they will be just fine when it comes assessment time.

And again, common core standards were NOT developed by the federal government, nor were they forced upon any states to adopt.

You kind of snipped my point, which is that the very existence of standardized tests and the basing of funding on those tests is what dumbs down education. Instead of teaching actual thinking and thought processes, teachers are forced to teach rote memorization and "teach to the test".

 

[Hooper31]

So is there some specific standard(s) in the Common Core you disagre with?

I took the time to point out a very specific standard in the Geometry section. Would love to hear your response to what I posted.

• CCSS.Math.Content.HSG-SRT.D.10 (+) Prove the Laws of Sines and Cosines and use them to solve problems.

LINK

Feel free to give reasons why being able to prove the Law of Sines and the Law of Cosines are fundamental basics for a well rounded education. Mind you, we're not just talking about using the formula to solve a problem and get a number. We're talking about being able to prove that it works in general using right triangle trig and the pythagorean theorem.

 

[Hooper31]

The federal government is dumbing down the level of education, not raising it up.

This assumes all school districts across the country are they same. For some districts we're setting up a standard that will be impossible to meet. For others they're already operating at a level far above those standards.

As a teacher with 10+ years experience, I can assure you that the common core standards are not "dumbed down". I can't imagine that there are many districts across the country with more rigorous standards in place already. Maybe some of the standards, but across the board? If districts were performing at a higher level before common core, they have no reason to now come down to new standards. They can simply keep doing what they were doing and they will be just fine when it comes assessment time.

And again, common core standards were NOT developed by the federal government, nor were they forced upon any states to adopt.

If you're 10+ years add some form of weight to your opinion, what do my 20+ years add to mine?

I don't think they're dumbed down, and I didn't say that I thought so. I pointed out that in specific districts (Bellevue, Mercer Island, Issaquah in WA state) they are well above the curve. Students in these districts are almost all taking 100% AP courses during their senior years. I agree this is the exception, not the rule.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You kind of snipped my point, which is that the very existence of standardized tests and the basing of funding on those tests is what dumbs down education. Instead of teaching actual thinking and thought processes, teachers are forced to teach rote memorization and "teach to the test".

The not so "unintended consequences" of the right's demand for "accountability" with education funding.

 

[timschochet]

You kind of snipped my point, which is that the very existence of standardized tests and the basing of funding on those tests is what dumbs down education. Instead of teaching actual thinking and thought processes, teachers are forced to teach rote memorization and "teach to the test".

The not so "unintended consequences" of the right's demand for "accountability" with education funding.

Yeah, this is an issue I've thought about for some time, though it doesn't have much to do with Common Core in particular. It's not just the right that demands accountability in public schools. And yes, there are problems with ANY kind of standardized testing. Rich is right: they DO dumb down education, IMO. But I don't see an alternative. We need to have some sort of measuring stick to determine how good or bad our educational system is. How to accomplish that other than standardized testing?

 

[RCon]

You kind of snipped my point, which is that the very existence of standardized tests and the basing of funding on those tests is what dumbs down education. Instead of teaching actual thinking and thought processes, teachers are forced to teach rote memorization and "teach to the test".

The not so "unintended consequences" of the right's demand for "accountability" with education funding.

Yeah, this is an issue I've thought about for some time, though it doesn't have much to do with Common Core in particular. It's not just the right that demands accountability in public schools. And yes, there are problems with ANY kind of standardized testing. Rich is right: they DO dumb down education, IMO.But I don't see an alternative. We need to have some sort of measuring stick to determine how good or bad our educational system is. How to accomplish that other than standardized testing?

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Why do we need this? Why does it need to be universal?

 

[timschochet]

You kind of snipped my point, which is that the very existence of standardized tests and the basing of funding on those tests is what dumbs down education. Instead of teaching actual thinking and thought processes, teachers are forced to teach rote memorization and "teach to the test".

The not so "unintended consequences" of the right's demand for "accountability" with education funding.

Yeah, this is an issue I've thought about for some time, though it doesn't have much to do with Common Core in particular. It's not just the right that demands accountability in public schools. And yes, there are problems with ANY kind of standardized testing. Rich is right: they DO dumb down education, IMO.But I don't see an alternative. We need to have some sort of measuring stick to determine how good or bad our educational system is. How to accomplish that other than standardized testing?

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Why do we need this? Why does it need to be universal?

If schools in Detroit, Michigan are failing compared to schools in Orange County, California, then we need to know so that we can allocate funds and resources to help out the schools in Detroit, Michigan. That's a proper role of government- (and federal government, IMO). There is no means to determine this without some kind of universal standard.

 

[RCon]

You kind of snipped my point, which is that the very existence of standardized tests and the basing of funding on those tests is what dumbs down education. Instead of teaching actual thinking and thought processes, teachers are forced to teach rote memorization and "teach to the test".

The not so "unintended consequences" of the right's demand for "accountability" with education funding.

Yeah, this is an issue I've thought about for some time, though it doesn't have much to do with Common Core in particular. It's not just the right that demands accountability in public schools. And yes, there are problems with ANY kind of standardized testing. Rich is right: they DO dumb down education, IMO.But I don't see an alternative. We need to have some sort of measuring stick to determine how good or bad our educational system is. How to accomplish that other than standardized testing?

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Why do we need this? Why does it need to be universal?

If schools in Detroit, Michigan are failing compared to schools in Orange County, California, then we need to know so that we can allocate funds and resources to help out the schools in Detroit, Michigan. That's a proper role of government- (and federal government, IMO). There is no means to determine this without some kind of universal standard.

Couldn't disagree more.

 

[timschochet]

You kind of snipped my point, which is that the very existence of standardized tests and the basing of funding on those tests is what dumbs down education. Instead of teaching actual thinking and thought processes, teachers are forced to teach rote memorization and "teach to the test".

The not so "unintended consequences" of the right's demand for "accountability" with education funding.

Yeah, this is an issue I've thought about for some time, though it doesn't have much to do with Common Core in particular. It's not just the right that demands accountability in public schools. And yes, there are problems with ANY kind of standardized testing. Rich is right: they DO dumb down education, IMO.But I don't see an alternative. We need to have some sort of measuring stick to determine how good or bad our educational system is. How to accomplish that other than standardized testing?

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Why do we need this? Why does it need to be universal?

If schools in Detroit, Michigan are failing compared to schools in Orange County, California, then we need to know so that we can allocate funds and resources to help out the schools in Detroit, Michigan. That's a proper role of government- (and federal government, IMO). There is no means to determine this without some kind of universal standard.

Couldn't disagree more.

I get that. It's a central disagreement between us.

 

[RCon]

You kind of snipped my point, which is that the very existence of standardized tests and the basing of funding on those tests is what dumbs down education. Instead of teaching actual thinking and thought processes, teachers are forced to teach rote memorization and "teach to the test".

The not so "unintended consequences" of the right's demand for "accountability" with education funding.

Yeah, this is an issue I've thought about for some time, though it doesn't have much to do with Common Core in particular. It's not just the right that demands accountability in public schools. And yes, there are problems with ANY kind of standardized testing. Rich is right: they DO dumb down education, IMO.But I don't see an alternative. We need to have some sort of measuring stick to determine how good or bad our educational system is. How to accomplish that other than standardized testing?

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Why do we need this? Why does it need to be universal?

If schools in Detroit, Michigan are failing compared to schools in Orange County, California, then we need to know so that we can allocate funds and resources to help out the schools in Detroit, Michigan. That's a proper role of government- (and federal government, IMO). There is no means to determine this without some kind of universal standard.

Couldn't disagree more.

I get that. It's a central disagreement between us.

So here's where we're at with that, then:

One of us thinks the federal government should create a universal measuring stick for education, one of us doesn't. At least one of us thinks the Constitution specifically prohibits the federal government from creating that measuring stick. We both recognize that the measuring stick itself causes negative consequences. Seems better not to have something that creates negative consequences, when that something may well be illegal in the first place.

 

[Jaysus]

I'm sorry... late to the party.

So... people think Common Core is illegal, huh? Neat.

 

[Ilov80s]

I'm sorry... late to the party.

So... people think Common Core is illegal, huh? Neat.

As someone that is clearly anti common core, I can say firmly that it is not illegal.

 

[RCon]

I'm sorry... late to the party.

So... people think Common Core is illegal, huh? Neat.

I think an awful lot of things the federal government does, and that we take for granted, are illegal.

 

[Buckfast 1]

So is there some specific standard(s) in the Common Core you disagre with?

I took the time to point out a very specific standard in the Geometry section. Would love to hear your response to what I posted.

• CCSS.Math.Content.HSG-SRT.D.10 (+) Prove the Laws of Sines and Cosines and use them to solve problems.

LINKFeel free to give reasons why being able to prove the Law of Sines and the Law of Cosines are fundamental basics for a well rounded education. Mind you, we're not just talking about using the formula to solve a problem and get a number. We're talking about being able to prove that it works in general using right triangle trig and the pythagorean theorem.

How is this any different that the typical complaint of your average 8th grade kid: "But when are we ever going to use trigonometry in real life?" It's really not a good argument for not teaching trigonometry in school.

 

[Slapdash]

So is there some specific standard(s) in the Common Core you disagre with?

I took the time to point out a very specific standard in the Geometry section. Would love to hear your response to what I posted.

• CCSS.Math.Content.HSG-SRT.D.10 (+) Prove the Laws of Sines and Cosines and use them to solve problems.

LINKFeel free to give reasons why being able to prove the Law of Sines and the Law of Cosines are fundamental basics for a well rounded education. Mind you, we're not just talking about using the formula to solve a problem and get a number. We're talking about being able to prove that it works in general using right triangle trig and the pythagorean theorem.

How is this any different that the typical complaint of your average 8th grade kid: "But when are we ever going to use trigonometry in real life?"It's really not a good argument for not teaching trigonometry in school.

And this isn't a good argument for why it needs to be taught mastered.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

If schools in Detroit, Michigan are failing compared to schools in Orange County, California, then we need to know so that we can allocate funds and resources to help out the schools in Detroit, Michigan. That's a proper role of government- (and federal government, IMO). There is no means to determine this without some kind of universal standard.

We all know why this happens and it has nothing to do with funding, resourses, or standards.

 

[Psychopav]

So is there some specific standard(s) in the Common Core you disagre with?

I took the time to point out a very specific standard in the Geometry section. Would love to hear your response to what I posted.

• CCSS.Math.Content.HSG-SRT.D.10 (+) Prove the Laws of Sines and Cosines and use them to solve problems.

LINKFeel free to give reasons why being able to prove the Law of Sines and the Law of Cosines are fundamental basics for a well rounded education. Mind you, we're not just talking about using the formula to solve a problem and get a number. We're talking about being able to prove that it works in general using right triangle trig and the pythagorean theorem.

How is this any different that the typical complaint of your average 8th grade kid: "But when are we ever going to use trigonometry in real life?"It's really not a good argument for not teaching trigonometry in school.

In order to learn trigonometry you have to have a solid background in geometry and algebra. In order to have solid geometry and algebra backgrounds, you have to have solid arithmetic and concept backgrounds. All of these things depend on elementary school foundation as well as parental involvement - two items which common core do not (and can not?) address.

 

[Buckfast 1]

So is there some specific standard(s) in the Common Core you disagre with?

I took the time to point out a very specific standard in the Geometry section. Would love to hear your response to what I posted.

• CCSS.Math.Content.HSG-SRT.D.10 (+) Prove the Laws of Sines and Cosines and use them to solve problems.

LINKFeel free to give reasons why being able to prove the Law of Sines and the Law of Cosines are fundamental basics for a well rounded education. Mind you, we're not just talking about using the formula to solve a problem and get a number. We're talking about being able to prove that it works in general using right triangle trig and the pythagorean theorem.

How is this any different that the typical complaint of your average 8th grade kid: "But when are we ever going to use trigonometry in real life?"It's really not a good argument for not teaching trigonometry in school.

And this isn't a good argument for why it needs to be taught mastered.

Get out your torches and pitchforks! Conservatives are marching to Washington, D.C. in protest of trigonometry!

 

[Slapdash]

So is there some specific standard(s) in the Common Core you disagre with?

I took the time to point out a very specific standard in the Geometry section. Would love to hear your response to what I posted.

• CCSS.Math.Content.HSG-SRT.D.10 (+) Prove the Laws of Sines and Cosines and use them to solve problems.

LINKFeel free to give reasons why being able to prove the Law of Sines and the Law of Cosines are fundamental basics for a well rounded education. Mind you, we're not just talking about using the formula to solve a problem and get a number. We're talking about being able to prove that it works in general using right triangle trig and the pythagorean theorem.

How is this any different that the typical complaint of your average 8th grade kid: "But when are we ever going to use trigonometry in real life?"It's really not a good argument for not teaching trigonometry in school.

And this isn't a good argument for why it needs to be taught mastered.

Get out your torches and pitchforks! Conservatives are marching to Washington, D.C. in protest of trigonometry!

I hope these aren't good examples of the perception and debating skills you use in the courtroom.

 

[timschochet]

If schools in Detroit, Michigan are failing compared to schools in Orange County, California, then we need to know so that we can allocate funds and resources to help out the schools in Detroit, Michigan. That's a proper role of government- (and federal government, IMO). There is no means to determine this without some kind of universal standard.

We all know why this happens and it has nothing to do with funding, resourses, or standards.

What does it have to do with then?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

If schools in Detroit, Michigan are failing compared to schools in Orange County, California, then we need to know so that we can allocate funds and resources to help out the schools in Detroit, Michigan. That's a proper role of government- (and federal government, IMO). There is no means to determine this without some kind of universal standard.

We all know why this happens and it has nothing to do with funding, resourses, or standards.

What does it have to do with then?

What does what have to do with what?

 

[timschochet]

If schools in Detroit, Michigan are failing compared to schools in Orange County, California, then we need to know so that we can allocate funds and resources to help out the schools in Detroit, Michigan. That's a proper role of government- (and federal government, IMO). There is no means to determine this without some kind of universal standard.

We all know why this happens and it has nothing to do with funding, resourses, or standards.

What does it have to do with then?

What does what have to do with what?

You wrote that "we all know why this happens" (referring to the discrepancy between Orange County and Detroit in terms of education) and that it has nothing to do with allocation of funding or resources. What does it have to do with then? What is, in your opinion, the reason for the discrepancy which "we all know"?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I have no idea what the correct answer is.

Yeah, we know

 

[Buckfast 1]

So is there some specific standard(s) in the Common Core you disagre with?

I took the time to point out a very specific standard in the Geometry section. Would love to hear your response to what I posted.

• CCSS.Math.Content.HSG-SRT.D.10 (+) Prove the Laws of Sines and Cosines and use them to solve problems.

LINKFeel free to give reasons why being able to prove the Law of Sines and the Law of Cosines are fundamental basics for a well rounded education. Mind you, we're not just talking about using the formula to solve a problem and get a number. We're talking about being able to prove that it works in general using right triangle trig and the pythagorean theorem.

How is this any different that the typical complaint of your average 8th grade kid: "But when are we ever going to use trigonometry in real life?"It's really not a good argument for not teaching trigonometry in school.

And this isn't a good argument for why it needs to be taught mastered.

Get out your torches and pitchforks! Conservatives are marching to Washington, D.C. in protest of trigonometry!

I hope these aren't good examples of the perception and debating skills you use in the courtroom.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that I am having to explain to a grown man why kids should aspire to learn basic geometric principles in high school.

Learning to apply a general geometric rule to a specific problem promotes the development of a high school student's problem-solving skills while providing them with a foundation for higher level mathematical reasoning. How can we expect our next generation of children to compete in the international marketplace as engineers and architects if they are not introduced to basic geometric principles in high school? With regard to Hooper's concern about aspiring to be able to show the "proof" of the Law of Sines and Cosines, this is simply intended to ensure that the students actually understand how the rule was logically derived rather than just blindly applying a formula that has been provided to them. It promotes true understanding of geometry rather than just rote recitation and application of formulas without understanding the supporting reasoning for doing so.

It has been days since I first asked which specific aspirational Common Core standards people were opposed to. The only answer I've received involves a basic geometric principle. That's pretty sad.

 

[Hooper31]

Get out your torches and pitchforks! Conservatives are marching to Washington, D.C. in protest of trigonometry!

Really? I'm about as far from conservative as you can get.

Where is the line to be drawn for what counts as an item that needs to be mastered by everyone? Should it be something that less than 1% of the population can handle? Actually, I feel pretty comfortable saying that way less than one tenth of one percent could handle the specific standard I mentioned.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

So is there some specific standard(s) in the Common Core you disagre with?

I took the time to point out a very specific standard in the Geometry section. Would love to hear your response to what I posted.

• CCSS.Math.Content.HSG-SRT.D.10 (+) Prove the Laws of Sines and Cosines and use them to solve problems.

LINKFeel free to give reasons why being able to prove the Law of Sines and the Law of Cosines are fundamental basics for a well rounded education. Mind you, we're not just talking about using the formula to solve a problem and get a number. We're talking about being able to prove that it works in general using right triangle trig and the pythagorean theorem.

How is this any different that the typical complaint of your average 8th grade kid: "But when are we ever going to use trigonometry in real life?"It's really not a good argument for not teaching trigonometry in school.

And this isn't a good argument for why it needs to be taught mastered.

Get out your torches and pitchforks! Conservatives are marching to Washington, D.C. in protest of trigonometry!

I hope these aren't good examples of the perception and debating skills you use in the courtroom.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that I am having to explain to a grown man why kids should aspire to learn basic geometric principles in high school.

Learning to apply a general geometric rule to a specific problem promotes the development of a high school student's problem-solving skills while providing them with a foundation for higher level mathematical reasoning. How can we expect our next generation of children to compete in the international marketplace as engineers and architects if they are not introduced to basic geometric principles in high school? With regard to Hooper's concern about aspiring to be able to show the "proof" of the Law of Sines and Cosines, this is simply intended to ensure that the students actually understand how the rule was logically derived rather than just blindly applying a formula that has been provided to them. It promotes true understanding of geometry rather than just rote recitation and application of formulas without understanding the supporting reasoning for doing so.

It has been days since I first asked which specific aspirational Common Core standards people were opposed to. The only answer I've received involves a basic geometric principle. That's pretty sad.

who said they shouldn't be introduced to basic geometric principles?

what % of high school students will become engineers and architects and mathematicians? <1%?

i'm pretty sure a lot more than 1% of HS students are already taking higher level math courses.

 

[Hooper31]

It has been days since I first asked which specific aspirational Common Core standards people were opposed to. The only answer I've received involves a basic geometric principle. That's pretty sad.

You are so far out of your element here its beyond discussion. You have no idea what "basic" is with regard to geometry.

EDIT to add the specific question:

For any Triangle ABC, prove that c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2abCos©

 

[Lutherman2112]

So is there some specific standard(s) in the Common Core you disagre with?

I took the time to point out a very specific standard in the Geometry section. Would love to hear your response to what I posted.

• CCSS.Math.Content.HSG-SRT.D.10 (+) Prove the Laws of Sines and Cosines and use them to solve problems.

LINK

Feel free to give reasons why being able to prove the Law of Sines and the Law of Cosines are fundamental basics for a well rounded education. Mind you, we're not just talking about using the formula to solve a problem and get a number. We're talking about being able to prove that it works in general using right triangle trig and the pythagorean theorem.

Please note the (+) following the math standard. This denotes mathematical mastery of necessary skills prior to address this standard for the high school student. This standard is not for every student.

Courses & Transitions

The high school portion of the Standards for Mathematical Content specifies the mathematics all students should study for college and career readiness. These standards do not mandate the sequence of high school courses. However, the organization of high school courses is a critical component to implementation of the standards. To that end, sample high school pathways for mathematics – in both a traditional course sequence (Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II) as well as an integrated course sequence (Mathematics 1, Mathematics 2, Mathematics 3) – will be made available shortly after the release of the final Common Core State Standards. It is expected that additional model pathways based on these standards will become available as well.

The standards themselves do not dictate curriculum, pedagogy, or delivery of content. In particular, states may handle the transition to high school in different ways. For example, many students in the U.S. today take Algebra I in the 8th grade, and in some states this is a requirement. The K-7 standards contain the prerequisites to prepare students for Algebra I by 8th grade, and the standards are designed to permit states to continue existing policies concerning Algebra I in 8th grade.

A second major transition is the transition from high school to post-secondary education for college and careers. The evidence concerning college and career readiness shows clearly that the knowledge, skills, and practices important for readiness include a great deal of mathematics prior to the boundary defined by (+) symbols in these standards. Indeed, some of the highest priority content for college and career readiness comes from Grades 6-8. This body of material includes powerfully useful proficiencies such as applying ratio reasoning in real-world and mathematical problems, computing fluently with positive and negative fractions and decimals, and solving real-world and mathematical problems involving angle measure, area, surface area, and volume. Because important standards for college and career readiness are distributed across grades and courses, systems for evaluating college and career readiness should reach as far back in the standards as Grades 6-8. It is important to note as well that cut scores or other information generated by assessment systems for college and career readiness should be developed in collaboration with representatives from higher education and workforce development programs, and should be validated by subsequent performance of students in college and the workforce.

 

[msommer]

So is there some specific standard(s) in the Common Core you disagre with?

I took the time to point out a very specific standard in the Geometry section. Would love to hear your response to what I posted.

• CCSS.Math.Content.HSG-SRT.D.10 (+) Prove the Laws of Sines and Cosines and use them to solve problems.

LINK

Feel free to give reasons why being able to prove the Law of Sines and the Law of Cosines are fundamental basics for a well rounded education. Mind you, we're not just talking about using the formula to solve a problem and get a number. We're talking about being able to prove that it works in general using right triangle trig and the pythagorean theorem.

That's part of the curriculum I was taught. Can't say I've used any of it after college. But frankly neither have I used my drawing skills or all the stuff about the history of the industrial revolution (to name a few things)..

IMHO a broad base education with solid pillars in math and science, the language of your country, at least one addtl language, literature (analysis) of authors in your mother tongue will enable children/teens to develop a sense of their interests and allow them to follow them to the extent of their talent. I cannot see how having common standards detract from that, rather they facilitate that children are given an education to a certain level in several topics and not just focus on whatever your local school board thinks might be important now.

 

[Hooper31]

Please note the (+) following the math standard. This denotes mathematical mastery of necessary skills prior to address this standard for the high school student. This standard is not for every student.

Hence the discussion. Should it be included? Where do we draw the line and who gets to decide? I'm of the opinion that we have the wrong groups of people making those decisions.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Please note the (+) following the math standard. This denotes mathematical mastery of necessary skills prior to address this standard for the high school student. This standard is not for every student.

Hence the discussion. Should it be included? Where do we draw the line and who gets to decide? I'm of the opinion that we have the wrong groups of people making those decisions.

Your posts in this thread have been great.

What if a particular locality decides that their children should all become farmers and therefore decides not to provide them with any education other than what they need for farming? That strikes me as unfair to the kids who are deliberately being denied opportunities to make choices about how they want to live their lives. That seems far less likely to happen on a federal level than on a local level.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

If schools in Detroit, Michigan are failing compared to schools in Orange County, California, then we need to know so that we can allocate funds and resources to help out the schools in Detroit, Michigan. That's a proper role of government- (and federal government, IMO). There is no means to determine this without some kind of universal standard.

We all know why this happens and it has nothing to do with funding, resourses, or standards.

What does it have to do with then?

What does what have to do with what?

You wrote that "we all know why this happens" (referring to the discrepancy between Orange County and Detroit in terms of education) and that it has nothing to do with allocation of funding or resources. What does it have to do with then? What is, in your opinion, the reason for the discrepancy which "we all know"?

Spoiler

It's the community

 

[Hooper31]

What if a particular locality decides that their children should all become farmers and therefore decides not to provide them with any education other than what they need for farming?

What if? Has this ever happened? Do you have a reasonable belief that it will happen given the opportunity? I don't think there's a reasonable chance that this is possible.

However, if a community was to provide opportunities to specialize in specific trades/occupations would this be a problem? I don't think so. I think it would be wonderful if public schools had the ability to offer curriculum designed around a local economy.

That strikes me as unfair to the kids who are deliberately being denied opportunities to make choices about how they want to live their lives. That seems far less likely to happen on a federal level than on a local level.

Again, I don't think this is even remotely possible, but I will play along... Unfair to kids? Is it unfair to a kid for a parent to dictate what religion they will be introduced to? What if the kid doesn't want to be a Buddhist?

 

[msommer]

What if a particular locality decides that their children should all become farmers and therefore decides not to provide them with any education other than what they need for farming?

What if? Has this ever happened? Do you have a reasonable belief that it will happen given the opportunity? I don't think there's a reasonable chance that this is possible.

However, if a community was to provide opportunities to specialize in specific trades/occupations would this be a problem? I don't think so. I think it would be wonderful if public schools had the ability to offer curriculum designed around a local economy.

So everyone in Dearborn should just know enough to work at Ford?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What if a particular locality decides that their children should all become farmers and therefore decides not to provide them with any education other than what they need for farming?

What if? Has this ever happened? Do you have a reasonable belief that it will happen given the opportunity? I don't think there's a reasonable chance that this is possible.

However, if a community was to provide opportunities to specialize in specific trades/occupations would this be a problem? I don't think so. I think it would be wonderful if public schools had the ability to offer curriculum designed around a local economy.

That strikes me as unfair to the kids who are deliberately being denied opportunities to make choices about how they want to live their lives. That seems far less likely to happen on a federal level than on a local level.

Again, I don't think this is even remotely possible, but I will play along... Unfair to kids? Is it unfair to a kid for a parent to dictate what religion they will be introduced to? What if the kid doesn't want to be a Buddhist?

Yeah, my hypo isn't completely far-fetched -- it was based on a Supreme Court case from the 1970s involving Amish people. The Amish said that their kids would be better off if they could quit school in the 8th grade, because by then they knew more than enough to live the Amish lifestyle. Here's a wiki link about the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder I could see something similar happening in other close-knit religious or ethnic communities.

I've thought about the case a lot since reading about it in law school. I'm still not sure what the right outcome is. Every child is at least somewhat limited in his opportunities by the choices made by his parents and communities. There are no top-level violinists in the world that first started playing violin as an adult. With that said, I sorta feel like the state needs to step in if parents or a local community are denying children too many opportunities. I don't think we should sit idly by and let kids learn creationism in school just because that is what their parents want. I don't know, these are tough questions.