![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I followed some links on a friend's page and found a PDF of the new Core Common Standards, which are now adopted by 34 states and the District of Columbia, making them the basis for curriculum across most of the U.S. For the sake of simplicity, I'm starting with the math standards. Language standards tend to be harder to compare because they often differ by only a word or two from one year to the next.
I was hoping to find that the standards were based on the NCTM standards for primary/junior math. I confess myself somewhat disappointed in this regard. While the language all points to a constructivist method of instruction, it seems to move faster than the NCTM standards in a couple of areas, specifically multiplication and division, and much slower in others. There's no introduction of probability at all until grade seven, no statistics at all until grade six, no measurement of angles in any capacity until grade seven. These are all key mathematical understandings that can be taught effectively much earlier, and provide a context for other mathematical understandings.
Meanwhile, the standards for multiplication and division lead me to suspect that the authors of the curriculum subscribe to a back-to-basics model. The level of multiplication and division expected of grade fours is very high, and without the added context provided by a firm basis in measurement and probability, it looks like the constructivist language is nothing but lip-service. It's too fast, and the size of the numbers the students are expected to master goes past the level of abstraction that most kids in grade four are developmentally ready for.
As I go deeper into the primary grades, I'm looking for references to constructing understanding using manipulatives. I'm not finding them. There are occasional uses of the word "represent," which could mean anything from writing number sentences to elaborate models. It's so vague it might as well not be there at all. But the absence of specific expectations related to manipulatives really worries me. It strikes me that it would be very, very easy to teach to these standards using nothing but pencil-and-paper activities. Manipulatives should be an accepted part of the curriculum at all levels - yes, even high school, though obviously they'd be very different manipulatives there - and the lack of references to them is another indication of a back-to-basics philosophy. It's destined to fail because it pushes students to a level of abstraction they aren't ready for, without giving them the opportunities they need to move from concrete concepts to representations of those concepts to symbolic and then to abstract reasoning.
In short, after this very brief look at the core common standards, I'm beyond unimpressed - I'm actively concerned for the colleagues whose attempts to teach constructively are about to be undermined and for the children. They're going to get the kind of math instruction that led to a society where it's perfectly acceptable to ask someone else to calculate your portion of the tab in a restaurant because you're not very good with numbers. They're going to get that instruction on the basis of a political climate that sees knowledge in an outdated way that fits a certain political agenda, and the U.S. public education system will continue to be undermined by it as they see that, exactly as has happened before, it doesn't work.
Has anyone taken a closer look at the other subject areas?
I was hoping to find that the standards were based on the NCTM standards for primary/junior math. I confess myself somewhat disappointed in this regard. While the language all points to a constructivist method of instruction, it seems to move faster than the NCTM standards in a couple of areas, specifically multiplication and division, and much slower in others. There's no introduction of probability at all until grade seven, no statistics at all until grade six, no measurement of angles in any capacity until grade seven. These are all key mathematical understandings that can be taught effectively much earlier, and provide a context for other mathematical understandings.
Meanwhile, the standards for multiplication and division lead me to suspect that the authors of the curriculum subscribe to a back-to-basics model. The level of multiplication and division expected of grade fours is very high, and without the added context provided by a firm basis in measurement and probability, it looks like the constructivist language is nothing but lip-service. It's too fast, and the size of the numbers the students are expected to master goes past the level of abstraction that most kids in grade four are developmentally ready for.
As I go deeper into the primary grades, I'm looking for references to constructing understanding using manipulatives. I'm not finding them. There are occasional uses of the word "represent," which could mean anything from writing number sentences to elaborate models. It's so vague it might as well not be there at all. But the absence of specific expectations related to manipulatives really worries me. It strikes me that it would be very, very easy to teach to these standards using nothing but pencil-and-paper activities. Manipulatives should be an accepted part of the curriculum at all levels - yes, even high school, though obviously they'd be very different manipulatives there - and the lack of references to them is another indication of a back-to-basics philosophy. It's destined to fail because it pushes students to a level of abstraction they aren't ready for, without giving them the opportunities they need to move from concrete concepts to representations of those concepts to symbolic and then to abstract reasoning.
In short, after this very brief look at the core common standards, I'm beyond unimpressed - I'm actively concerned for the colleagues whose attempts to teach constructively are about to be undermined and for the children. They're going to get the kind of math instruction that led to a society where it's perfectly acceptable to ask someone else to calculate your portion of the tab in a restaurant because you're not very good with numbers. They're going to get that instruction on the basis of a political climate that sees knowledge in an outdated way that fits a certain political agenda, and the U.S. public education system will continue to be undermined by it as they see that, exactly as has happened before, it doesn't work.
Has anyone taken a closer look at the other subject areas?
