Common core dumbing down the US? | Page 5 | INFJ Forum

Common core dumbing down the US?

So I have an interesting take on this because I’ve had some exposure to it from an educator’s point of view, and I don’t see it as an attempt to over complicate things.

In general it’s been understood that systems like Common Core and the other versions of “new math” that have been circulating through our schools are programs that are meant to help prepare kids for higher learning. And because such a small percentage of kids grasped the more abstract, or what was going on behind the scenes when they worked with numbers, this “preparing kids for higher learning” started to take a certain shape. Since one of the main focuses of these programs is to teach and explore relationships, which in turn prepares them to grasp theory, what goes on at the lower grade levels looks to be a step backwards and you don’t start to see kids leap ahead until later. For many, from the outside looking in, it just looks like you’re making the easy stuff harder, and for no obvious reason. The reason becomes more obvious when the harder stuff becomes remarkably easier, but for many, this is yet to be realized and understandably so. And it’s true that some aspects of these programs are so foreign to some that they seem scary.

I’m not denying that there are very real hurdles to overcome and I don’t think anything has been perfected. There is still debate about how much theory can be taught at what age. There is much to be done in regard to educating the educators, and most parents aren’t going to get on board until they see an improvement in their own child’s abilities, or understand the approach well enough to be able to anticipate it. And we also need to acknowledge the potentially huge problems for the kids who get caught in between systems, and the variety of ways in which that can happen. Anyway, my list of “very real hurdles€ could go on, but I’ll shut up now.
 
How many kids will take maths to 'higher learning'?
 
I forgot that my signature is appropriate for this thread.

Anything practical you learn will be obsolete before you use it, except the complex math, which you will never use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
How many kids will take maths to 'higher learning'?

Actually, many - especially if you want to go into any sort of sciences university/college.

I actually think [MENTION=10605]Wildfire[/MENTION] makes a good point - integrating difficult concepts early on, will help them pick up more complex ideas later.
 
Actually, many - especially if you want to go into any sort of sciences university/college.

I actually think @Wildfire makes a good point - integrating difficult concepts early on, will help them pick up more complex ideas later.

I think that you begin learning the basics and progress from there

if you kill learning for the kids early on you will lose them early on

[video=youtube;zjxBClx01jc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjxBClx01jc[/video]
 
I going to borrow [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] image here...
fvejqg.png


This is a good example of some of the things that are being taken out of context. But it’s also true that most parents and many teachers have no idea how to teach in this way. Most often, when these are being used correctly, these kinds of questions with missing information are used to teach very young children algebra. They aren’t actually expected to arrive at a specific answer, but are allowed to play with the problem applying their own variables and then follow those variables to an appropriate answer. It’s amazing to watch 3rd graders come up with multiple scenarios incorporating the information provided and identifying their own variables as variables and being able to basically say, if this, then this, but if this, then this, and so forth.
 
I haven't read the article, nor all of the OP.
Regarding the "new" subtraction method: The first instinct for many nerds would be to question the additional steps, and immediately regard it as bullshit. The way I do math in my head has always adopted a method of imagining various ways to solve the problem in the many ways I understand math. As a result of my unorthodox method, I usually solved problems faster than my fellow classmates who worked it out on paper the only way they were taught.
 
I going to borrow @sprinkles image here...
fvejqg.png


This is a good example of some of the things that are being taken out of context. But it’s also true that most parents and many teachers have no idea how to teach in this way. Most often, when these are being used correctly, these kinds of questions with missing information are used to teach very young children algebra. They aren’t actually expected to arrive at a specific answer, but are allowed to play with the problem applying their own variables and then follow those variables to an appropriate answer. It’s amazing to watch 3rd graders come up with multiple scenarios incorporating the information provided and identifying their own variables as variables and being able to basically say, if this, then this, but if this, then this, and so forth.

I don't understand the point you are making here...could you please explain your point and put it in the context of the common core

Also you may be interested in the film i posted above called 'building the machine' which interviews many people involved in education; i'd be interested to hear your opinion on it if you are interested
 
Last edited:
I haven't read the article, nor all of the OP.
Regarding the "new" subtraction method: The first instinct for many nerds would be to question the additional steps, and immediately regard it as bullshit. The way I do math in my head has always adopted a method of imagining various ways to solve the problem in the many ways I understand math. As a result of my unorthodox method, I usually solved problems faster than my fellow classmates who worked it out on paper the only way they were taught.

Well get ready to be beat around the head with the common core stick until you do it the way bill gates and his buddies want you to do it...they don't want you to think for yourself!
 
Last edited:
*Facepalm* :rant: :censored: :der:
:laser: :usa:
 
Well, to get back to talking about the Common Core, I see some giant positives and giant negatives, and this is coming from someone who is within the system (and is completely against "the system" and "the man").

Positives:
-one could theoretically apply to any college/university/training/job and have theoretically the same chance at education as anyone else in the nation. This is highly important because just because you grew up in a poor area or a crazy-ass state like Texas wouldn't leave you far behind what is expected of you at any grade level
- schools have to be sure their curriculum isn't shit just so that their graduation rates are high (and trust me, shitty curriculum are not uncommon, but that's due to a plethora of different reasons)
- higher-order thinking is valued and important in the common core (and it's really fucking valuable to any population that can think for themselves) That question about adultery is actually really good for a fourth grader. If it weren't for marital infidelity, any fourth grader that can answer those questions is doing really well.
- there is absolutely NO common core curriculum. No rich fat-cat is deciding what your second grader is going to do on Tuesday. All of the approach is left up to the states, districts, and individual teachers. Almost all of those examples are given without context, and quite realistically, information missing. That being said, any problems in questions/approaches is left to the individual creator to defend. The CCS has no curriculum.
- when implemented with a rational approach and fedelity, it can show significant gains. My students, while their grades are lower, are showing marked improvement in high-order thinking and cognitive levels (but, this is English and not math. I cannot speak to the success of CCSS in math). Their grades are lower (and my day is filled with complaining) because they haven't ever been asked to think beyond the text.

Negatives:
- parents are stupid, like really fucking stupid, and I'm tired of wasted time listening to half-hour rants about how Obama is destroying the nation with space alien gold when what's actually pressing and important at that moment is that your kid doesn't know how to spell his name, and he's 18!
- there is almost no uniform or even rational way to truly implement CCSS into the classroom. I've spent 5 days out of the classroom this year rewriting curriculum for the district. My education in pedagogy comes from the top school in the US, so I've been asked to do a lot of the footwork. It sucks and it's exhausting. I should be with my students, not writing curiculum for classes that I won't teach
- there is no real help from the state government to implement CCSS (that I have witnessed) this means a loss of productivity at the expense of the students
- many people have no idea how to actually change and adapt curriculum to fit the CCSS
- why does the federal government have such a big say (and you can't argue it doesn't; $$$ means everything in education) in what I teach Jimmy tomorrow, and why is my job on the line if my students can't show "growth" that is measurable on a stupid fucking test given once a year? A real education is about so much more than that


Overall, I cannot speak for or against it. On one hand, I finally have the justification to ask my students to think beyond the text. I don't give a shit about whether or not you know why George killed Lennie in Of Mice and Men, but it means a whole hell of a lot if you can take a position and rationally build an argument that is sound and built off of logical thoughts and reasoning while analyzing the action of characters in the context of the social and economic background of a certain historical period all in order to persuade your reader. On the other hand, fuck standardization and standardized testing, fuck the man, and fuck being told what's important and the only "true" way to get there. Essentially, especially from the educator's standpoint, you're damned if you do and your damned if you don't.

Sidenote: the biggest threat to our nation is smartphones and the scary-fast integration of technology into our most basic functions. I'm pretty sure my kids would die if they didn't have their phones. I'm talking about immediate death.
 
[MENTION=1009]bamf[/MENTION] [MENTION=10605]Wildfire[/MENTION]

I understand your points. The idea is to try and teach critical and theoretical thinking, to look beyond the problem.

But how do you use another problem, the thing they aren't already looking beyond, to teach them to look beyond it? My opinion is that you don't. If you could do this, people would understand Zen by now!

It is my opinion (just my opinion) that teaching number lines and such doesn't really teach holistically how numbers relate to each other - it teaches how number lines relate to number lines. If there's some problem with theoretical and critical thinking, then giving more examples to uncritically follow is not going to erase that.
 
[MENTION=1009]bamf[/MENTION]
It is also my position, since you mention that it must be done with rationality and fidelity, that the abstract theory arises from the intuitive connection between teacher and student.

It does not arise from the text or the curriculum. This is why it must be a rational approach, because it is you that is teaching and not the book.
 
I don't understand the point you are making here...could you please explain your point and put it in the context of the common core

Also you may be interested in the film i posted above called 'building the machine' which interviews many people involved in education; i'd be interested to hear your opinion on it if you are interested
There are a few different conversations taking place in this thread, but I understand that you are trying to discuss the implementation of Common Core standards. I’m sorry. I should have been clearer. Within the article quoted in the opening post there were some examples of common complaints about current approaches, and my post was in response to some of those questioning what’s going on in these instances and what kind of learning may or may not be taking place.

And I really do want to watch the video you posted, I just haven't gotten to it yet. :redface:
 
I understand your points. The idea is to try and teach critical and theoretical thinking, to look beyond the problem.

But how do you use another problem, the thing they aren't already looking beyond, to teach them to look beyond it? My opinion is that you don't. If you could do this, people would understand Zen by now!
I’m not quite sure I get your question. Do you mean, if they can’t see the problem, how can they look beyond it?

Kids are actually amazingly capable of seeing the question within the question, or the problem within the problem, when you invite them down this road. But you have to allow it, or make room for it. And once you’ve flipped this switch within it helps keep learning alive for them.



It is my opinion (just my opinion) that teaching number lines and such doesn't really teach holistically how numbers relate to each other - it teaches how number lines relate to number lines.
I think I get what you’re saying here, but you should know that number lines are usually understood to be an accumulation of dots. So what you said here…
But if you have a fundamental understanding of numbers, no matter how, even if it is dots, you can bend them to your will.
is very applicable. The number line is just a tool like the odometer you have in your head.



If there's some problem with theoretical and critical thinking, then giving more examples to uncritically follow is not going to erase that.
I agree with you and I hope you don’t think that teachers are being instructed to allow anything. When playing around with a scenario similar to the question posed in the image you posted kids are really expected to pick a path and take it to the end, to a correct answer. And kids that are alive to the problem within the problem see the variables and can take it in many directions, still arriving at an end point and an answer.

Anyway, I hope this was helpful. Like I said, I'm not entirely sure I understood your question.
 
I’m not quite sure I get your question. Do you mean, if they can’t see the problem, how can they look beyond it?

Kids are actually amazingly capable of seeing the question within the question, or the problem within the problem, when you invite them down this road. But you have to allow it, or make room for it. And once you’ve flipped this switch within it helps keep learning alive for them.

No, I mean if they can't see beyond one problem, then how can they look beyond another problem?

I think I get what you’re saying here, but you should know that number lines are usually understood to be an accumulation of dots. So what you said here…is very applicable. The number line is just a tool like the odometer you have in your head.
A linear accumulation of dots annotated by numerals (usually base 10)

This is ok for understanding base 10 by the numerals under specific rules. But I do not see that as giving a theoretical or critical understanding - it gives the adequate and passing understanding.

What baffles me is how different numeral bases for example aren't understood even though they are not theoretically any different. Binary for example is actually incredibly simple - kindergarten simple - yet people somehow come out of the system believing it isn't. If one actually has the theoretical fundamentals, then all bases should intuitively make sense. The fact that it doesn't make sense to a lot of people indicates to me that there is something off with the fundamentals. Proper fundamental theory will let you work with binary, ternary, hexadecimal, figuring out what change to give out of the register, and so forth.

You might ask "Well why do we need other bases?" My answers are these:
1. They are useful. And if you understand them, not only can you use them but you can find new uses for them.
2. Different bases are used more often than one thinks. Currency denominations work in a slightly similar fashion to bases. Time is base 60. Some circuit logics use ternary to indicate different voltage states. Binary counts more efficiently than dots because each place is a power of 2. There's myriad reasons why bases are useful.
3. Numbers and numerals are not the same thing. Numbers are quantitative and numerals are descriptive. For example with a quarter - a 25 cent coin - when you have one of them it is 'worth' 25 cents. But you don't actually have 25 of something if you only have one quarter, you only have one of something that describes 25 of another thing. A quarter is like a numeral. 25 pennies is the number it represents.

I agree with you and I hope you don’t think that teachers are being instructed to allow anything. When playing around with a scenario similar to the question posed in the image you posted kids are really expected to pick a path and take it to the end, to a correct answer. And kids that are alive to the problem within the problem see the variables and can take it in many directions, still arriving at an end point and an answer.
Well I hope it's actually better than I thought it was.

Anyway, I hope this was helpful. Like I said, I'm not entirely sure I understood your question.
It's not very easy to explain which in itself kind of illustrates the nature of the problem.
 
There are a few different conversations taking place in this thread, but I understand that you are trying to discuss the implementation of Common Core standards. I’m sorry. I should have been clearer. Within the article quoted in the opening post there were some examples of common complaints about current approaches, and my post was in response to some of those questioning what’s going on in these instances and what kind of learning may or may not be taking place.

And I really do want to watch the video you posted, I just haven't gotten to it yet. :redface:

I think it is well worth the time spent on it to get insight into the common core from people who have been involved in the process high up

My concern is that the salesmen who are selling the common core to teachers on the front line will sell the new system to you

But to see around their sales pitch it might help to hear the perspectives of some of the people in that film to keep a perspective on the wider implications of common core
 
Well, to get back to talking about the Common Core, I see some giant positives and giant negatives, and this is coming from someone who is within the system (and is completely against "the system" and "the man").

Positives:
-one could theoretically apply to any college/university/training/job and have theoretically the same chance at education as anyone else in the nation. This is highly important because just because you grew up in a poor area or a crazy-ass state like Texas wouldn't leave you far behind what is expected of you at any grade level
- schools have to be sure their curriculum isn't shit just so that their graduation rates are high (and trust me, shitty curriculum are not uncommon, but that's due to a plethora of different reasons)
- higher-order thinking is valued and important in the common core (and it's really fucking valuable to any population that can think for themselves) That question about adultery is actually really good for a fourth grader. If it weren't for marital infidelity, any fourth grader that can answer those questions is doing really well.
- there is absolutely NO common core curriculum. No rich fat-cat is deciding what your second grader is going to do on Tuesday. All of the approach is left up to the states, districts, and individual teachers. Almost all of those examples are given without context, and quite realistically, information missing. That being said, any problems in questions/approaches is left to the individual creator to defend. The CCS has no curriculum.
- when implemented with a rational approach and fedelity, it can show significant gains. My students, while their grades are lower, are showing marked improvement in high-order thinking and cognitive levels (but, this is English and not math. I cannot speak to the success of CCSS in math). Their grades are lower (and my day is filled with complaining) because they haven't ever been asked to think beyond the text.

Negatives:
- parents are stupid, like really fucking stupid, and I'm tired of wasted time listening to half-hour rants about how Obama is destroying the nation with space alien gold when what's actually pressing and important at that moment is that your kid doesn't know how to spell his name, and he's 18!
- there is almost no uniform or even rational way to truly implement CCSS into the classroom. I've spent 5 days out of the classroom this year rewriting curriculum for the district. My education in pedagogy comes from the top school in the US, so I've been asked to do a lot of the footwork. It sucks and it's exhausting. I should be with my students, not writing curiculum for classes that I won't teach
- there is no real help from the state government to implement CCSS (that I have witnessed) this means a loss of productivity at the expense of the students
- many people have no idea how to actually change and adapt curriculum to fit the CCSS
- why does the federal government have such a big say (and you can't argue it doesn't; $$$ means everything in education) in what I teach Jimmy tomorrow, and why is my job on the line if my students can't show "growth" that is measurable on a stupid fucking test given once a year? A real education is about so much more than that


Overall, I cannot speak for or against it. On one hand, I finally have the justification to ask my students to think beyond the text. I don't give a shit about whether or not you know why George killed Lennie in Of Mice and Men, but it means a whole hell of a lot if you can take a position and rationally build an argument that is sound and built off of logical thoughts and reasoning while analyzing the action of characters in the context of the social and economic background of a certain historical period all in order to persuade your reader. On the other hand, fuck standardization and standardized testing, fuck the man, and fuck being told what's important and the only "true" way to get there. Essentially, especially from the educator's standpoint, you're damned if you do and your damned if you don't.

Sidenote: the biggest threat to our nation is smartphones and the scary-fast integration of technology into our most basic functions. I'm pretty sure my kids would die if they didn't have their phones. I'm talking about immediate death.

You have my sympathies man being on the front line of this one

Common core will make kids dumber...it is about homogenising minds

The whole agenda of bill gates, the rockefellers and their other co-conspirators is to create a centrally controlled economy

Common core is about killing original thought....it is about creating the worker bees of tomorrow....creating a hive mind

They want everyone thinking the same way and that same way is going to be the way THEY want everyone to think

We're talking 'Brave New World' stuff here

They are control freaks and they want TOTAL control over every aspect of our lives ('totalitarianism') see: common core, NSA spying, codex alimentarius, agenda 21, SMART meters, the 'internet of things', RFID chips etc

You and me have been discussing this stuff here since 2009!

We were both saying the bankers were corrupt and then the banking scandals proved it, we said the politicians were corrupt then the expense scandals and other scandals proved it, we said the corporations were taking over and we have seen plenty of proof of that since, we said the state was spying on us and snowdens revelations proved it, we said there would be a backlash from the people and then we saw the occupy movement and protests all around the world etc

We've been talking about all this for years....and now it is all materialising in front of our eyes

Common core is just another aspect of this whole thing....this is a struggle over how our society is going to be shaped and run

The corporate elite...they're control freaks.....they want everything in nice neat boxes...like an electrical circuit....but we're humans damn it....we're not neat little categories...we're not robots and the more we give into these guys the more uncomfortable our daily lives are going to get because we are going to find ourselves more and more controlled, more and more stiffled, more and more hemmed in on all sides by rules, regulations and barriers both tangible and intangible...they're building us a prison...a matrix of control
 
Last edited:
http://www.usnews.com/news/technolo.../gates-funded-student-data-group-to-shut-down

[h=1]Gates-, Carnegie-funded student data group to close after NY pulls out amid privacy fears[/h]
BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — The student data processing organization inBloom will shut down in the coming months, its chief executive officer said Monday following criticism that led to the recent loss of the startup's last active client — New York state.
"It wasn't an easy decision and the unavailability of this technology is a real missed opportunity for teachers and school districts seeking to improve student learning," a statement from CEO Iwan Streichenberger on the inBloom website said.
Launched in 2013 with $100 million in financing from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Carnegie Corp., the nonprofit's goal was to give educators a data-based tool to personalize instruction. InBloom, based in Atlanta, offered to store and synthesize student data, such as grades, disciplinary actions and disability records in cloud-based servers.
Nine states initially signed on but backed out as parents, school administrators and lawmakers raised questions about privacy and security. Opponents feared the information could be subject to data-mining, sold or sought by colleges during competitive admissions processes.
Despite inBloom's assurances that the data would be safe, New York earlier this month became the latest state to sever ties and directed inBloom to delete any stored data. Illinois was allowing districts to use inBloom, but none had uploaded data, the company said.
"We stepped up to the occasion and supported our partners with passion," Streichenberger said, "but we have realized that this concept is still new, and building public acceptance for the solution will require more time and resources than anyone could have anticipated."
The Gates Foundation, in a statement, said: "Anything that limits the tools teachers and school districts can use to directly benefit their students is disappointing. Teachers should be able to easily support the individual learning needs of students. We believe the technology behind inBloom is an important part of making that a reality."
New York's largest teachers union said the closing "demonstrated the power that parents and teachers hold when they work together and fight for what's best for students." New York State United Teachers had pushed the state to cancel its contract with inBloom.
"Promoting equity of access for students to personalized learning, while ensuring the highest levels of security and privacy protection, has always been our goal in supporting inBloom," a Carnegie Corp. statement said.
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
[h=1]Debunking Myths of the Common Core[/h]
Development Process and Adoption
Myth: The standards tell teachers what to teach.
Fact: The Common Core State Standards define what students need to know; they do not define what teachers should teach or how students should learn. The best understanding of what works in the classroom comes from the teachers who are in them. The standards will actually help preserve freedom for curriculum choice. These decisions are left to each state, and local teachers, principals, superintendents and school boards will continue to make important decisions about curriculum and how their school systems operate.
Myth: The standards will be implemented through NCLB—signifying the federal government will be leading them.
Fact: The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort that is not part of No Child Left Behind, and adoption of the standards is in no way mandatory. States began the work to create clear, consistent standards before the Recovery Act or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act blueprints were released because this work is being driven by the needs of the states, not the federal government.
Myth: These standards amount to a national curriculum for our schools.
Fact: The Common Core State Standards are not a national mandate or a national curriculum. They are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed. Local teachers, principals, superintendents and others will decide how the standards are to be met. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms. States voluntarily chose whether or not to adopt the standards and retain full authority for implementation, preventing the possibility of a federal takeover. State leaders, accountable to their constituents, can withdraw their states from the standards at any time.
Myth: The standards will cost more by requiring states to spend on training, tests, etc.
Fact: The Common Core State Standards make economic sense. Improving the quality of education delivered in American classrooms through higher standards has the potential to lessen the next generation’s reliance on our ever-expanding entitlement and corrections programs. Higher standards will prepare our future workforce for the global economy, strengthening our nation’s competitiveness. They will also save taxpayer money by reducing the need for costly remediation in college. The cost of current tests that are not aligned to college- and career-ready standards is high. Reducing those costs will make money available for better tests.
Myth: The standards are an intrusion on student privacy rights and will allow student data to be inappropriately tracked.
Fact: As part of broader education reform efforts, states have adopted data systems that allow educators and parents to measure the progress of student achievement and growth from year to year. Regardless of adopting the Common Core, states remain in control of their students’ private information, just as they are now. The federal government does not have access to individual student-level data—just aggregate information by school on how kids are performing, a result of No Child Left Behind’s focus on accountability. States must remain vigilant in working with local school districts to continue protecting student information.
Myth: The federal government will take over ownership of the Common Core State Standards Initiative.
Fact: The federal government will not govern the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The initiative was and will remain a state-led effort.
Myth: The federal government made states adopt the standards by threatening to withhold federal education dollars.
Fact: The federal government provided incentives through the optional Race to the Top program for states to adopt bold education reforms, including college- and career-ready standards and teacher evaluation systems, but each state voluntarily made the decision to adopt the Common Core and followed its own specific constitutional, legislative or administrative processes to do so. A state’s decision to adopt these standards played a very minor role in the Race to the Top competitive scoring process (making up just 8 percent of an individual state’s score under the federal application).
Quality and Content: General
Myth: Adopting common standards will bring all states’ standards down to the lowest common denominator, which means states with high standards, such as Massachusetts, will be taking a step backward if they adopt the Common Core State Standards.
Fact: The standards are designed to build upon the most advanced current thinking about preparing all students for success in college and their careers. This will result in moving even the best state standards to the next level. In fact, since this work began, there has been an explicit agreement that no state would lower its standards. A study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank, showed that Common Core State Standards are superior to standards currently in use in 39 states in math and 37 states in English. For 33 states, the new standards are superior in both math and reading. The shared standards will increase accountability by providing transparent data that allows for true comparisons across state lines. Additionally, an analysis by ACT found that three-fourths of young men and women entering college “were not adequately prepared academically for first year college courses.” Therefore, current standards are not effectively preparing our students to be college- and career-ready.
Myth: The standards are not internationally benchmarked.
Fact: International benchmarking played a significant role in the development of the standards. In fact, the college- and career-ready standards include an appendix listing the evidence that was consulted in drafting the standards, and the international data consulted in the benchmarking process is included in this appendix. More evidence from international sources is presented together with the final draft.
Myth: The standards include controversial science curriculum content.
Fact: Contrary to purported myths about the Common Core, these standards encompass only English language arts and mathematics, focusing on improving needed critical-thinking and analytic skills. State and local officials will continue to make important curriculum decisions when it comes to teaching history or specific issues such as evolution and “intelligent design,” in line with what is right for their students and communities.
Quality and Content: English Language Arts
Myth: The standards suggest teaching The Grapes of Wrath to second-graders.
Fact: The English language arts standards suggest The Grapes of Wrath as a text that would be appropriate for ninth- or 10th-grade readers. Evidence shows that the complexity of texts students are reading today does not match what is demanded in college and the workplace, creating a gap between what high school students can do and what they need to be able to do. The Common Core State Standards create a staircase of increasing text complexity, so that students are expected to both develop their skills and apply them to more and more complex texts.
Myth: The standards are just vague descriptions of skills; they don’t include a reading list or any other similar reference to content.
Fact: The standards do include sample texts that demonstrate the level of text complexity appropriate for the grade level and compatible with the learning demands set out in the standards. The exemplars of high-quality texts at each grade level provide a rich set of possibilities and have been very well received. This gives teachers the flexibility to make their own decisions about what texts to use—while providing an excellent reference point when selecting their texts.
Myth: English teachers will be asked to teach science and social studies reading materials.
Fact: With the Common Core English language arts standards, English teachers will still teach their students literature as well as literary nonfiction. However, because college and career readiness overwhelmingly focuses on complex texts outside of literature, these standards also ensure students are being prepared to read, write and research across the curriculum, including in history and science. These goals can be achieved by ensuring that teachers in other disciplines are also focusing on reading and writing to build knowledge within their subject areas.
Myth: The readings assigned in the English standards are 50 percent “informational” texts instead of great literature and classics. The result is that the Common Core standards are very political.
Fact: Common Core State Standards continue to provide a heavy focus—at least 50 percent—on the reading and comprehension of great literature classics, such as The Grapes of Wrath, To Kill a Mockingbird and Pride and Prejudice.
Students will be required to read more “informational” texts, which means reading original works, but which texts are read is left up to the teacher—just as it is today. Examples of informational texts are: Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, President Ronald Reagan’s address to students at Moscow State University, and the Declaration of Independence. Other examples of informational texts are maps, charts, graphs and infographics.
The increased focus on information and original texts is to prepare students for college and real-world reading and writing requirements. For example, 80 percent of the reading and writing done in the workplace requires workers to read material, analyze the material using critical-thinking skills, and articulately write or verbally respond to the material.
Quality and Content: Math
Myth: The standards do not prepare or require students to learn algebra in the eighth grade, as many states’ current standards do.
Fact: The standards do accommodate and prepare students for Algebra 1 in eighth grade, by including the prerequisites for this course in grades K‐7. Students who master the K‐7 material will be able to take Algebra 1 in eighth grade. At the same time, other grade 8 standards are also included; these include rigorous algebra and will transition students effectively into a full Algebra 1 course.
Myth: Key math topics are missing or appear in the wrong grade.
Fact: The mathematical progressions presented in the Common Core are coherent and based on evidence.
Part of the problem with having 50 different sets of state standards is that, today, different states cover different topics at different grade levels. Coming to a consensus guarantees that in any given state, some topics will have to be moved up or down in the grade-level sequence. This is unavoidable. What is important to keep in mind is that the progression in the Common Core State Standards is mathematically coherent and leads to college and career readiness at an internationally competitive level.
Myth: The standards only include skills and do not address the importance of content knowledge in math.
Fact: In mathematics, the standards lay a solid foundation in whole numbers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions and decimals. Taken together, these elements support a student’s ability to learn and apply more-demanding math concepts and procedures. The middle school and high school standards call on students to practice applying mathematical ways of thinking to real-world issues and challenges; they prepare students to think and reason mathematically. The standards set a rigorous definition of college and career readiness, not by piling topic upon topic, but by demanding that students develop a depth of understanding and ability to apply mathematics to novel situations, as college students and employees regularly do.
https://www.aft.org/issues/standards/nationalstandards/debunkingmyths.cfm