Love This Research Map!

 

From Digital Promise

It's not about politics!

On progressive ideals and reform math...

Alice Crary and W. Stephen Wilson. The Faulty Logic of the ‘Math Wars’. New York Times, New York, NY, June 16 2013.

"it would be naïve to assume that we can somehow promote original thinking in specific areas simply by calling for subject-related creative reasoning"

"It is easy to see why the mantle of progressivism is often taken to belong to advocates of reform math. But it doesn’t follow that this take on the math wars is correct. We could make a powerful case for putting the progressivist shoe on the other foot if we could show that reformists are wrong to deny that algorithm-based calculation involves an important kind of thinking."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

W. S. Wilson. SBAC Math Specifications Don’t Add Up. 
Flypaper, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, September 19, 2011.
It's [23] on the Professor's website here.

The conceptualization of mathematical understanding on which SBAC will base its assessments is deeply flawed. The consortium focuses on the Mathematical Practices of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M) at the expense of content, and they outline plans to assess communication skills that have nothing to do with mathematical understanding.

"Adaptive Reasoning" in Mathematics Education

Adding It Up page 129-131

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9822&page=129

Adaptive reasoning refers to the capacity to think logically about the relationships among concepts and situations. Such reasoning is correct and valid, stems from careful consideration of alternatives, and includes knowledge of how to justify the conclusions. In mathematics, adaptive reasoning is the glue that holds everything together, the lodestar that guides learning. One uses it to navigate through the many facts, procedures, concepts, and solution methods and to see that they all fit together in some way, that they make sense. In mathematics, deductive reasoning is used to settle disputes and disagreements. Answers are right because they follow from some agreed-upon assumptions through series of logical steps. Students who disagree about a mathematical answer need not rely on checking with the teacher, collecting opinions from their classmates, or gathering data from outside the classroom. In principle, they need only check that their reasoning is valid.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9822&page=130

Research suggests that students are able to display reasoning ability when three conditions are met:  They have a sufficient knowledge base, the task is understandable and motivating, and the context is familiar and comfortable.³⁷

Principles of Effective Instruction and the 3rd Common Core Standard for Mathematical Practice

^{This list is adapted from Principles of Instruction: 
Researched-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know}

 

^{1. Begin a lesson with a short review of previous learning:  Daily review can strengthen previous learning and can lead to fluent recall.} 

^{The most effective teachers ensured that students efficiently acquired, rehearsed, and connected knowledge.  Many went on to hands-on activities, but always after, not before, the basic material was learned.}

^{2.  Limit the amount of material students receive at one time.  Present new material in small steps with student practice after each step, and assist students as they practice this material.}

^{3.  Give clear and detailed instructions and explanations.  Provide many examples.}

^{4.  Think aloud and model steps.  Providing students with models and worked examples can help them learn to solve problems faster.}

^{Many of the skills taught in classrooms can be conveyed by providing prompts, modeling use of the prompt, and then guiding students as they develop independence.}

^{5.  Use more time to provide explanations.}

^{6.  Ask a large number of questions and check the responses of all students:  Questions help students practice new information and connect new material to their prior learning.}

^{7.  Provide a high level of active practice for all students.}

^{8.  Guide students as they begin practice.  Successful teachers spend more time guiding students’ practice of new material.}

^{9.  Check for student understanding at each point to help students learn the material with fewer errors.}

^{The most successful teachers spent more time in guided practice, more time asking questions, more time checking for understanding, and more time correcting errors.}

^{10.  Ask students to explain what they have learned.}

^{11.  Obtain a high success rate:  It is important for students to achieve a high success rate during classroom instruction.}

^{12.  Require and monitor independent practice:  Students need extensive, successful, independent practice in order to develop well-connected and automatic knowledge and skills.}

^{13.  Provide systematic feedback and corrections, reteach material when necessary.}

 

 

^{Common Core Standard for Mathematical Practice (see MP3)}

^{Construction viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.} 

^{Mathematically proficient students understand and use stated assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments.  They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures.  They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples.  They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others.  They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose.  Mathematically proficient students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and-if there is a flaw in an argument-explain what it is.  Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions.  Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades.  Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies.  Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.}

 

 

 

#CommonCore and #Sovereignty

Let's start with a couple of recent quotes - (discovered here)

“I can’t think of anything that has had this much controversy,” said Linda Johnson, who served on Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education from 1999-2011.

“This is the first time there has been anything like this,” said Leslie Jacobs, another former Louisiana BESE member, who played a major role in creating Louisiana’s public school accountability system.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When [Diane Ravitch] testified to the Michigan legislative committee debating Common Core in Aug. of 2013, she told them to "listen to their teachers and be prepared to revise the standards to make them better"

When asked if states were "allowed" to change the standards, Ravitch responded, "Why not? Michigan is a sovereign state. If they rewrite the standards to fit the needs of their students, who can stop them? The federal government says it doesn't 'own' the standards. The federal government is forbidden by law from interfering with curriculum and instruction"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



By now, you must be wondering "What's your point?"  It's strange that relatively few people, throughout the political spectrum, have been very concerned about the sovereignty of states, or that of individuals and communities, throughout the FedLed Common Core Standards *Initiative* process. 

If there is a silver lining, it is that growing numbers of citizens are becoming concerned and engaged in education issues.  The "sleeping giant" has awaken just in time, in my opinion, "little dictators" and "social engineers" have infiltrated every political party. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In March of this year, Ravitch explained...

The reason to oppose the Common Core is not because of their content, some of which is good, some of which is problematic, some of which needs revision (but there is no process for appeal or revision).

The reason to oppose the Common Core standards is because they violate the well-established and internationally recognized process for setting standards in a way that is transparent, that recognizes the expertise of those who must implement them, that builds on the consensus of concerned parties, and that permits appeal and revision.

The reason that there is so much controversy and pushback now is that the Gates Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education were in a hurry and decided to ignore the nationally and internationally recognized rules for setting standards, and in doing so, sowed suspicion and distrust. Process matters.

The Common Core lacks most of the qualities [of the ANSI core principles for setting standards] — especially due process, consensus among interested groups, and the right of appeal — and so cannot be considered authoritative, nor should they be considered standards.  (emphasis added by me)

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another fabulous recent article on this issue can be found here.

The Tension - Passion and Logic

The Tension. . . (from July 5, 2010)

I was listening to a financial show yesterday, while waiting in the car...
One of the guys talking said something that I think may be a common misperception. 
He said,

Democrats are a party of PASSION
and
the Republicans are a party of LOGIC

It was such a revelation for me, I had to write it down because I didn't want to forget exactly what he said and the visceral reaction I felt at the time.

It's apropos that it happened on Independence day, too! 

It explains exactly why I haven't been able to identify with either party (and their misperceptions) exclusively, and why I consider myself independent. 

I reject this overgeneralization as an idea used to disparage individuals and minimize their opinions and concerns.  Passion and logic are not mutually exclusive in my life - politics included.  Any good decision that I have been able to make along the way has been a confluence of both logic and passion, rarely in equal parts.

I believe each of us has our own synergism of passion and logic.  Our unique way of interpreting and utilizing the information gathered from the world around us. 

See people as individuals... address issues as issues we all face...
Don't lazily rely on partisan rhetoric...

These are reminders to self.   

Princeton Study Concludes that American is Basically an Oligarchy

Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It's Not a Democracy   
April 16, 2014

A new scientific study from Princeton researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn't a democracy any more. And they've found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.

This is a familiar topic to those of us who oppose the Common Core Standards Initiative.  I've been scratching my head, literally for years, trying to understand how Common Core took hold, quietly and quickly, in America's representative Republic.  In Missouri, it became clear to me that the "initiative" capitalized fully on the top-down governance structure in our education policies and their implementation.  I believe that Missouri state statutes were violated in the adoption process, but unfortunately, there was no oversight mechanism in place to stop Common Core from the onset.

After researching the opposition to the Common Core Standards Initiative throughout the country for a number of years, there is no doubt in my mind that our American oligarchs were well aware that state legislatures were not equipped to investigate and address adoption of Common Core Standards in 2009-2010. 

Missouri Needs an Elected Board of Education #tlot #tcot #Liberty #Freedom

Back in July of 2009, I posted THIS about the adoption of Common Core in Missouri.  I was in the process of discovering that our governance structure regarding education in Missouri was incredibly top-down.  Missouri citizens and their representatives in the legislature were not even aware of Common Core, let alone the strangle hold it would place on the daily functions of our local schools and the lives of our students and their families. 

Changing the governance structure in Missouri's educational system is of utmost importance to ensure that any "initiative" like Common Core is publicly scrutinized and vetted by our education leaders, our legislators, and Missouri citizens.   

This is why I strongly support HJR 74 which would allow Missouri voters to decide on the November ballot if they would like to see their State Board of Education members ELECTED, with one coming from each of OUR congressional districts.  I think it's a FABULOUS idea!! 

If you agree, you can show your support for HJR 74 here:
http://www.libertytools.org/LibertyTools/witness/witness2.php?template=48

Since the hearing was schedule for TOMORROW NIGHT (AT 9PM!!) when few citizens can attend, it is very important to have as many witness forms completed in support of HJR as possible to present to the committee.

Fight the Good Fight!!
Lisa Jones

Legislation on Education in Missouri

Please take a few short minutes to look up your legislator’s email

and drop them a note with your opinions on the following:

 

(I SUPPORT THESE)

HB 1161 http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills141/biltxt/intro/HB1161I.htm

Establishes the Joint Committee on the Tenth Amendment

 

SB 514 http://www.senate.mo.gov/14info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=27723569

Prohibits the State Board of Education, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and school districts from implementing the Common Core State Standards

 

HB 1490 http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills141/biltxt/intro/HB1490I.htm

Prohibits the State Board of Education from adopting and implementing the standards for public schools developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative

 

(I OPPOSE THIS)

HB 1139 Cookson

http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB1139&year=2014&code=R

167.227. 5.  A school district shall require a student who scores less than proficient on a statewide assessment to attend the summer school term immediately following the school term in which the student was assessed.

      

DESE “Thumbing Its Nose” at #MOLEG

Happy New Year Everyone!!

HB 2   Appropriates money for the expenses, grants, refunds, and distributions of the State Board of Education and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education                                                                             Effective Date: 8/28/2013

Section 2.050.  To the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

2  For the purpose of receiving and expending grants, donations, contracts,

3  and payments from private, federal, and other governmental

4  agencies which may become available between sessions of the

5  General Assembly provided that the General Assembly shall be

6  notified of the source of any new funds and the purpose for which

7  they shall be expended, in writing, prior to the use of said funds,

8  and further provided that no funds shall be used to implement the

9  Common Core Standards
From Federal and Other Funds………………….........$10,000,000

 

I wonder if DESE disseminated any information to districts on HB2’s restriction on Common Core implementation?  Are local school boards aware that their current practices may be in conflict with this legislation.

 

All of DESE’s math and science discretionary grants involve implementation of Common Core Standards and were not revised after passage of HB2.  The deadline for these was September 18, 2013.

http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/fedprog/discretionarygrants/Math-Science/

Page 6 of the K-6 Math Initiative (which is the same for the K-6 Science excepts it reads "National Educational Standards for Science" rather than Common Core, the ELL reads "Common Core")

C.  Use of Funds

(3) Provide follow-up training throughout the year to the academy mathematics science teachers that shall:  (a) Directly relate to the mathematics curriculum, and focus secondarily on pedagogy;  (b) Enhance the ability of the teacher to understand and use the Missouri Mathematics Grade-Level Expectations and the Common Core State standards for mathematics to develop and/or revise appropriate curricula;  (c) Train teachers to use curricula that are based on scientific research, aligned with the Missouri Mathematics Grade-Level Expectations and Common Core State Standards for mathematics, and are active learning-oriented, inquiry-based, differentiated to meet diverse student needs, and concept/content-based; 

 
 

I was also interested in this part of HB2 because high quality PD, focused on content, really is essential to professional growth in teaching. 

 

Section 2.115.  To the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

2  For the Instructional Improvement Grants Program pursuant to Title II

3  Improving Teacher Quality

From Federal Funds……………………...........................$59,348,890

 

So I googled:

DESE Instructional Improvement Grants Program Title II Improving Teacher Quality

and I found the second document had been revised in Aug 2013.  (The same month that HB2 had passed)  I find no mention of Common Core with respect to Professional Development at all in the revised document, however ALL of the high school math PD currently taking place in my district is on Common Core. 

 

This (again) leads me to believe that local school boards are not aware of the legislation.  

And then of course, we have the real kicker!!  DESE’s October 3, 2013 News Release announced the *New* Missouri Learning Standards website:  http://www.missourilearningstandards.com/  

Any confusion that may be caused by their re-labeling Common Core as Missouri Learning Standards can quickly be dispelled by following the content supports for teachers here: http://www.missourilearningstandards.com/teachers/ which lead straight back to CCSS.

 

 

Professor Milgram's Nov 4, 2013 Statement on Common Core Math Standards

Many parents across the country are currently expressing concerns over the content of their childrens' math lessons, many of which are said to be "common core" aligned.  The statement below is published with permission of Professor Milgram.  It may provide a little insight on math education issues brought to light recently due to the common core initiative. 

I believe that although the elementary math standards are an improvement over those of many states, unfortunately the focus on the "Standards for Mathematical Practice" - rather than math content - creates an avenue for unproductive folly. (yes, that's my opinion) The secondary content standards are too weak, a point that I've made many times before.

Best wishes to all parents, grandparents and teachers as they seek the truth on the best way forward in improving education for children.  Lisa Jones   

Statement of Jim Milgram, November 4, 2013

 

I don't endorse a blanket condemnation of the Common Core Math Standards since there are definite positives in the lower grade content standards.  They really are significantly better than the standards that were written by 90% of the states IN GRADES K-6 or K-7. But the problems with the overall math standards are huge, or even more than huge.

First, while some of the Mathematical Practices standards are ok, they provide a forum for the fuzzy math cranks and a path to re-approve most of the horrible math texts we found 15 or so years back and mostly got rid of then. They also provide a poor perspective on "what mathematics is" and should never have been at the beginning of the document where they give the superficial reader the impression that this is what mathematics is all about.  It isn't.

Second, the objectives of the 8 - 12 material are not what one might think they should be. The real intent appears to be a total focus on the "efficiency" aspect of Ed School dogma. Since most students will never "use" higher level math, it is mostly suppressed, except for the part that I more or less forced them to add covering Algebra II. But that material is horribly incomplete and only provides a pathway for most students that leads nowhere and prepares them for nothing but truly dead end jobs.

Third, the standards were put together too fast by McCallum and Zimba, with the obstructive tactics of Daro only designed to minimize content as far as I can tell. All three of them were amateurs at standards writing, and appear to have had little to no idea of what actually goes on in the curricula of the high achieving countries. As a result, there are too many errors and inconsistencies in the standards and exemplars themselves.

So, all in all, I judge that we would be better off if the standards would just go away.

Jim

In his first point, I believe that Professor Milgram is referring to the Open Letter to  U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, from 1999.  Check It Out Here

An Interesting Common Core Exchange

From Fordham

Common Core and CurriculumControversies

54min50sec

Question: Garrett Fryer American Youth Policy Forum

Was there ever a discussion, when you all were designing it, to implement it on a kindergarten level and letting it grow with the students as they aged on through each grade, as oppossed to implementing it with the entire school system nation wide?

Answer: Jason Zimba

This is something that states have each approached differently.  Some states have done something more like that, some states have done something less like that.  I seem to remember at one point I saw a MA plan where the grade level wasn’t the key parameter, but they had a Venn diagram, what we do now the Common Core doesn’t do, what the Common Core does that we don’t, and then what sort of overlap, where we want to do it better. In year one, we’re gonna focus on the overlap and do it better. In year two, we’ll drop things… and then in year three, we’ll add…  I got the details of that wrong, but…  my only point is that different states all approached it differently, and we may find out that some states were much wiser than others in this way.

Singapore has a long standing, high functioning system in which they not only revise their syllabus ever so often, but they do it actually on the basis of how kids do, so think about that, a performance-based loop, a feedback loop. Which is something we are taking halting steps toward, but can only image.  And so roughly every six years or so, they’ll put out tweaks to the thing.  This year I noticed that they’ve rolled out a new thing in kindergarten.

 

I wonder... How in the world can one "image" OR take "halting steps toward" creating a "high functioning system" based on a "performance-based feedback loop" when we are STARTING with a top-down DESIGN by the name of Common Core?

 

A problem with Common Core Math Standards at the High School Level

I've explained my concern about the weak high school math in Common Core many times before, but here it goes again as I’ve had many questions lately.

In the Common Core Math Standards, Algebra I is not completed in 8th. That creates a problem for students interested in stem fields, and also for students that may have latent abilities in mathematics which may not develop in high school as a result.

CC high school math (years 1 to 3) is an amalgam similar to Alg1, Geo, Alg2(light) in my opinion.

There are currently 4 years in high school. Common Core lays out 3 years but did not provide a stem alternative for acceleration during those 3 years, so this is what we have to work with:

1- CC hs math year 1
2- CC hs math year 2
3- CC hs math year 3 – doesn’t complete Alg 2 imo and would not prepare
students to take PreCalc/Trig at my school currently.
4 - Students have the following options for math during their senior year. None of these include AP Calculus. Remember, the College Board found that Common Core high school math does not “reconcile” with AP Calculus (and I agree!)

The students’ choices at this point are limited to three options:
A) AP Statistics B) PreCalc/Trig or C) try to complete both simultaneously

Option A) If they chose the AP Stats class senior year, to try to get some college credit while in high school, then they would really be two years behind in stem math progression on entry to college, and would have also had a entire school year between Algebra 2 (light) and PreCalc/CollegeAlg/Trig - (definitely not an ideal situation...)

BTW – This option is what a College Board Senior Vice President recommended to school superintendents! “If you’re worried about AP Calculus and fidelity to the Common Core, we recommend AP Statistics and AP Computer Science”

Option B) They could take precalc/trig during senior year, but as some of you know, the ACT determines scholarship money for many, many students. Efforts on that test and applications for colleges and scholarship start late junior year and finish early senior year for most students. (Ask one!)

Option C) is not viable in my opinion. The slow pace of Common Core math from 7th though 11th grades leaves students woefully underprepared for trigonometry in particular and will create an unnecessarily steep learning curve if they choose this “option” during senior year.

Professor Milgram's Letter to Diane Ravitch

This is the letter from Diane Ravitch's Blog post
"James Milgram on the Common Core Math Standards"
September 11, 2013


Dear Diane,

In your own writings you mention that the biggest issue with Core Standards is the lack of evidence. This is largely true. But at least in math there is significant international evidence that major parts of the standards will not work. For example, the only area we could find that has had success with CCSS-M's method of treating geometry is in Flemish Belgium. But it was tried on a national scale in Russia a number of years back, and was rapidly dropped.

Likewise, the extremely limited high school level content is so weak that Jason Zimba, one of the three main writers described it as follows: First, he defined "college readiness" by stating: "We have agreement to the extent that it's a fuzzy definition, that the minimally college-ready student is a student who passed Algebra II." Perhaps this explains why the only math at the high school level, aside from a snippet on trigonometry, is material from Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry. Moreover, the Algebra II component does not describe a complete course. Zimba's definition is taken verbatim from his March 23, 2010 testimony before the MA State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Later, in the question period, Sandy Stotsky asked for some clarification.

The following is a verbatim transcript:
Zimba stated "In my original remarks, I didn't make that point strongly enough or signal the agreement that we have on this - the definition of college readiness. I think it's a fair critique that it's a minimal definition of college readiness." Stotsky asked "For some colleges?" and Zimba responded by stating: "Well, for the colleges most kids go to, but not for the colleges most parents aspire to." Stotsky then asked "Not for STEM, not for international competitiveness?" and Zimba responded "Not only not for STEM, it’s also not for selective colleges. For example, for UC Berkeley,whether you are going to be an engineer or not, you'd better have precalculus to get into UC Berkeley."

Stotsky then pointed out: "Right, but we have to think of the engineering colleges and the scientific pathway." Zimba added "That's true, I think the third pathway goes a lot towards that. But your issue is broader than that." Stotsky agreed saying "I'm not just thinking about selective colleges. There's a much broader question here," to which Zimba added "That's right. It's both, I think, in the sense of being clear about what this college readiness does and doesn't get you, and that's the big subject."

Stotsky then summarized her objections to this minimalist definition by explaining that a set of standards labeled as making students college-ready when the readiness level applies only to a certain type of college and to a low level of mathematical expertise wouldn’t command much international respect in areas like technology, economics, and business. Zimba appeared to agree as he then said "OK. Thank you."

So these are the standards that Sybilla Beckmann recently described by stating that "No standards I know of are better than the CCSS-M." Well, if you believe that then perhaps I can interest you in large bridge in NYC. As to the "third pathway" that Zimba mentioned above, it never actually existed. The version of CCSS-M Zimba was talking about was the March 10 public draft. It had placemarkers for the key calculus standards, but aside from those placemarkers, this version contained about the same material -- only in Geometry, Algebra I, Algebra II and a trig snippet -- as appears in the final version.

Moreover, the calculus placemarkers and any hint of a third pathway are gone in the final version. It is also worth noting that Clifford Adelman did an analysis of the odds of completing a college degree based on the highest level math course completed in high school. The odds for Geometry were 16.7%, for Algebra II they were 39.3%, but for Trigonometry they were 60%, 74.6% for Precalculus, and 83.3% for Calculus. So we can estimate that a "minimally college ready student" has a less than 40% chance of completing a college degree. Is this really what the National Governor's Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the Gates and Broad Foundations want for our youth?

Yours,
Jim Milgram

School Performance

I absolutely love the Interactive Map on School Performance in last week's St. Louis Post Dispatch! These are the percentages of students proficient or advanced on Missouri's state assessments in the districts where I live and work.


This is the district where I work…

Francis Howell High
English: 82.4
Math: 68.2
Science: 92.6
Social Studies: 70.6

Francis Howell Central High
English: 76.5
Math: 53.5
Science: 91.5
Social Studies: 61.4

Francis Howel North High
English: 80.1
Math: 54.4
Science: 93.4
Social Studies: 62.2

This is the district that my taxes support…

Ft. Zumwalt North High
English: 75.8
Math: 53.1
Science: 92.8
Social Studies: 57.4

Ft. Zumwalt South High
English: 83.6
Math: 51.1
Science: 94.2
Social Studies: 58.3

Ft. Zumwalt West High
English: 78.6
Math: 40.6
Science: 92.6
Social Studies: 58.3

Ft. Zumwalt East High
English: 72.7
Math: 34.2
Science: 87.4
Social Studies: 59


Ft. Zumwalt's highest math score is lower that Francis Howell's lowest. Considering Zumwalt's dismal math performance, how can these two districts be so close on the MSIP5 score card?

Francis Howell: 96.4%
Ft. Zumwalt: 92.9%

In my opinion, academic performance should be the focus in scoring schools.

No Algebra 1 in 8th Grade => No Opportunity to Take Calculus while in High School

Full Article Here => Boston Globe North, August 15


[Reading MA] has adopted a new sequence that leaves more than 80 percent of eighth-graders without a direct path to a high school calculus course. Only 18 percent will be enrolled in algebra 1, compared with 60 percent to 65 percent in previous years, according to Craig Martin, Reading’s assistant superintendent for learning and teaching.


[Parents] have expressed concern that the school system’s departure from the traditional math sequence, which required a majority of students to take algebra 1 in eighth grade, may leave little room for a high school calculus class, a requirement at many colleges for acceptance into a science or engineering undergraduate program.

Why restrict opportunities for students in an effort to reconcile with Common Core's Weak HS Math Content?

Let's look at the AP 9th Annual Report to the Nation


On page 15, figure 8 shows that the number of students that took a math and science AP exam inceased from 250,465 in 2002 to 497,924 in 2012, while the number of those students earning a score of 3 or higher (on a 5 point scale) increased from 154,450 in 2002 to 268,251 in 2012.

Figure 9 shows the breakdown of the number of exams taken by subject in 2012, and the score distributions.

Many of the calculus students at the school where I teach take APStats concurrently with the precalc study during their junior year, or they opt to take APStats concurrently with APCalc senior year. My point is that it has always been an option for students to take both AP Calc and AP Stats while in high school.

I've been hoping that our district would offer APCompSci for quite a while. I've had many Calc and Alg 2 students who have indicated an interest in computer science. I really think we would have enough student interest to offer the course. Even if our district needed the comp sci teacher to travel amoung our three high schools, it will still be worth it to give our students this opportunity.

I really don't understand why the College Board would consider "supplanting" AP Calculus and make a recommendation that restricts opportunities for students in an effort to reconcile Common Core's Weak HS Math Content?

Moreover, the College Board may offer an AP Algebra course (although no plans are definite), which may supplant AP Calculus, particularly in schools rigidly adhering to the Common Core standards.

Yeah, so what about fidelity to #STEM Fields? Info for #parents #teachers #legislators #edreform #CommonCore

I was so shocked by the information that the College Board was giving to school superintendents, that I decided to do a little more research.

Please feel free to share my findings.

My source for the information below is from the College Board's website "Chart an AP Course to Your Future"

I only looked at CalcAB, CalcBC, Statistics, and Computer Science A because those were the courses under consideration in my previous post.

I went through their lists of careers for each of these four AP courses. An important thing to know if you're not that familiar with AP Calculus is that many colleges and universities consider AP Calc AB equivalent to their Calc I course and AP Calc BC equivalent to both Calc I and Calc II. So it's a little confusing if you see a career on the College Board's Calc BC list that is not on the Calc AB list and that is because that career would required both Calc I and Calc II.

So, with that in mind, I interpret the information they've provided to mean that:

If a student is NOT prepared for the study of calculus (at some point), they would NOT have an opportunity to pursue these fields.

Accounting
Aerospace Engineering
Agricultural Engineering
Agriculture, General
Air Transportation
Anthropology
Applied Mathematics
Applied Physics
Architecture
Architectural Engineering
Astronomy
Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology
Biomedical Engineering
Business Administration and Management
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
Communication Sciences and Disorders
Computer Engineering, General
Computer Graphics
Computer Networking and Telecommunications
Computer Science
Computer Software Engineering
Economics
Electrical Engineering
Engineering and Industrial Management
Engineering Technology
Entrepreneurial Studies
Environmental Engineering
Environmental Science
Environmental Studies
Exercise Science
Finance
Fishing and Fisheries
Forestry
Geology
Human Resources Management
Industrial Engineering
Information Science
Information Technology
International Business
Management Information Systems
Management Science
Marine Biology
Marketing
Materials Engineering
College Major
Mathematics
Mechanical Engineering
Molecular Biology
Natural Resouces Management and Policy
Neuroscience
Nuclear Engineering
Nursing (RN)
Nutrition Sciences
Operations Management
Physical Education Teaching and Coaching
Physics
Predentistry
Premedicine
Real Estate
Statistics


On the other hand, students who are NOT prepared to study Calculus COULD use their APStats and/or AP CompSciA credit by exam toward pursuing these fields:

(careers on the College Board's Stats or CompSci list which are not on either Calc list)

Botany
Computer Forensics
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Database Management
Design and Visual Communications
Ecology
Education
Electronics Technology
Ethnic Studies, General
Foods, Nutrition, and Wellness Studies
Geography
Insurance
Library and Information Science
Linguistics
Natural Resouces Management and Policy
Physician Assistance
Psychology
Public Administration
Public Policy Analysis
Robotics Technology
Social Work
Studio Arts
Urban Studies
Web Development
Zoology


I really hope that “Public Policy Analysis” isn’t supposed to be on this second list!

I also suspect that many professionals working in the fields on the second list actually did need calculus for their particular degree.

What about "fidelity" to #STEM fields? #HigherEd #APCalc #Math #EdReform

College Board: Reconciling AP Exams With Common Core


Despite these measures, there are still difficulties in reconciling many AP courses with the Common Core. In particular, AP Calculus is in conflict with the Common Core, Packer said, and it lies outside the sequence of the Common Core because of the fear that it may unnecessarily rush students into advanced math classes for which they are not prepared.

The College Board suggests a solution to the problem. of AP Calculus “If you’re worried about AP Calculus and fidelity to the Common Core, we recommend AP Statistics and AP Computer Science,” he told conference attendees.

Moreover, the College Board may offer an AP Algebra course (although no plans are definite), which may supplant AP Calculus, particularly in schools rigidly adhering to the Common Core standards.


THESE STATEMENTS ARE DISTURBING...I'm very concerned that Common Core will limit opportunities for students in mathematics.

No, I'm not "worried about AP Calculus and fidelity to the Common Core" but this statement seems to show that proponents of Common Core should definitely reconsider the claims of "rigor" - regarding 7-12 math in particular.

My mission is preparing students for their future endeavors, being responsible to their parents, my school leaders, our community and our locally elected school board, and being honest about education "reforms" that haven't proven beneficial to anyone.

Right now, Common Core seems to be in conflict with my primary mission, especially as it relates to APCalc and PreAPCalc vertical alignment... i.e. Alg2, and PreCalc.

Lisa Jones
@proudmomom

From Aug 2011 Weak Math

#Education with #Representation #KeepEdLocal #StopCommonCore

I read an article in the paper last week about the Fort Zumwalt school board’s support for Common Core. Only one board member expressed opposition to Common Core. While addressing the board, a person in charge of curriculum for the district explained how bad it would be for district teachers who have been working to implement these standards if their board didn’t support them.

Does it seem strange to you that a purported feeling would be used as reason to continue supporting Common Core Standards?

Some educators don’t seem to understand that they are public servants. Local school board members are representatives of the people in their districts. Their positions to support or oppose something should come from their constituents. The problem with the Common Core Standards issue is that few board members and district patrons have had time to research this Initiative. Citizens are just now becoming informed and school boards must respond accordingly.

I’m writing this to urge citizens to research the Common Core Standards Initiative. Don’t play into the hegemony created by the education “experts” to silence your voice, remind local school board members that they represent you, demand that state legislature’s reign in all state entities that knowingly signed away state rights in joining the Common Core Standards Initiative.

Pioneer Institute: The Road to a National Curriculum


I’m a teacher whose respect for individual liberty far outweighs my desire to go along and get along. . .

Support MO SB210 and HB616