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

Common Core played a large role in my moving to Texas

the problem is the kid wrote what a valid response to the question should be.
share with us why the student providing a correct answer is a problem

The one guy's pizza was bigger that is how he ate more.
which makes that a great - outside the box - answer
the student had to know that only if one pizza was larger than the other could the problem be correct as presented

the teacher marked it wrong and said no that isn't possible as 4/6 is smaller than 5/6's.
the teacher was correct about fractions ... however (s)he was wrong about pizza - assuming they were of differing sizes
still waiting to see why this is found to be a flaw within common core

the kids answer was correct based on the lack of information in the question.
yes, it was
which is why it was such a great question

the teacher was making an assumption that both pizza's were the same size.
which again causes me to ask 'why is common core found to be a problem'

the question was flawed in not providing enough information and on top of that hitting and giving that
the answer it gave was correct.
to limit the answer to the one the teacher was expecting, that question was without a piece of key information, being that the pizzas were of the same size
but that in no way speaks to a common core deficiency. common core is not responsible for that question's wording ... or for that teacher's inability to recognize that the student understood that the only way the scenario would work was if one pizza was larger than the other
which is my point. you want to blame common core for something common core did not cause

it doesn't have to be simpler but it has to contain enough information that the child can learn and understand the problem.
not put down a correct response and then get told it is wrong.
actually, the question was a good one. that student recognized that there was only one way that 2/6 could be less than 1/6 and that is if the size of the pizzas were different
why would we not want kids to develop such incisive, problem-solving skills?
 
thanks to her dad doing her homework


she got the C. you received the B ... for elementary math

no she had to do the work and pass the tests.
she did all the work. I can't take the tests for her.
 
share with us why the student providing a correct answer is a problem


which makes that a great - outside the box - answer
the student had to know that only if one pizza was larger than the other could the problem be correct as presented


the teacher was correct about fractions ... however (s)he was wrong about pizza - assuming they were of differing sizes
still waiting to see why this is found to be a flaw within common core


yes, it was
which is why it was such a great question


which again causes me to ask 'why is common core found to be a problem'


to limit the answer to the one the teacher was expecting, that question was without a piece of key information, being that the pizzas were of the same size
but that in no way speaks to a common core deficiency. common core is not responsible for that question's wording ... or for that teacher's inability to recognize that the student understood that the only way the scenario would work was if one pizza was larger than the other
which is my point. you want to blame common core for something common core did not cause


actually, the question was a good one. that student recognized that there was only one way that 2/6 could be less than 1/6 and that is if the size of the pizzas were different
why would we not want kids to develop such incisive, problem-solving skills?

wow you can't be more dishonest in your posts can you.
making my post say things that it doesn't shows the height of dishonesty.

the teacher told the kid he was wrong. marked it wrong and the kid missed the question.
so what did it teach the kid?

nothing.

the teacher marked it wrong because his common core answer books said it was wrong.
 
I don't have much to add but what I've gotten from this debate:
• Common Core has not been improved. It still builds math skills only through Algebra (the common core guidelines go through Algebra II lite whatever the hell lite is supposed to mean). It makes some attempt at improving education sectors that are sorely failing but at the expense of pulling down those that are excelling (which is never a good thing).
• There are those who will argue the validity of something to the least logical ends if it is something that a favored team came up with.
• Pizzas are not all the same size.
 
I think I will go with the schools and teachers that says it is crap.
even the teachers at the school hate it.

So despite all of the discussion and/or evidence to the contrary, your de facto line is: "bah, logic. I hate it."

I said all along, Common Core is (mostly) an ineffective reform effort, but that is because they are just standards--standards hardly better or worse than the already-required standards that were found in the 50 states. Furthermore its creators and heaviest supporters tried to use it as a stepping stone to bigger changes when there's little to no chance of that happening.

But, that doesn't mean it's a force for evil either.
 
It makes some attempt at improving education sectors that are sorely failing but at the expense of pulling down those that are excelling (which is never a good thing).

Not really. On the whole what it does or sought to do is attempt to make things more challenging, thus have more "rigor" (a rightly critiqued buzzword in education circles). So in some sense that tries to make improvements for all demographics and all ability levels by way of stressing it is going to be more difficult. What critics will point to is whether or not certain circles of the standards are "developmentally appropriate" (i.e. "too hard" for "all students", even the "gifted" ones). But when you look at the whole, you end up finding out that even in middling state standards, Common Core was roughly on balance with the existing standards (see my 30-30-30 split reference on an individual state's preexisting standards).

But that is largely in the abstract. Standards are very much removed from actual conditions on the ground, because standards are mostly vague suggestions that become "well, duh I'm going to do that" moments in the classroom.

Again, this ought to leave people with the feeling that there's a whole lot of fuss from both Common Core supporters and detractors, but in the end what's it all going to do one way or the other? In that question, it will be prudent to argue "nothing."

Cue Peter Rossi's laws:

The Iron Law of Evaluation: The expected value of any net impact assessment of any large scale social program is zero.

The Stainless Steel Law of Evaluation: The better designed the impact assessment of a social program, the more likely is the resulting estimate of net impact to be zero.

However, attaching additional initiatives on top of Common Core may influence positive or negative outcomes one direction or the other. This would not indict or support Common Core, but it would support or indict additional efforts. The administration's emphasis on testing gives us a number of clues.

1) If the administration succeeded in delivering a NAEP-like testing environment where you could directly compare results from one state to the next, would that deliver positive or negative impact?
1A) Too early to tell, because it hasn't happened.

1B) Will it merely highlight how poorly American students already perform, regardless of whether or not teachers and administrators attempt to improve the scores?
1BI) A definite possibility.

2) Does variability in testing requirements, as already exists, benefit or detract from the administrations efforts at delivering reform?

2A) We can't directly compare results from one state to the next, but it feeds into this federalist argument that customization is needed.

3) Does the construction of the testing effort highlight problems? One company designs the test questions, the other creates the digital examination. What happens if one or the other link in the chain bends or breaks?
3A): This happened last year. Will see what happens this year.

4) Are test results given in a timeful and meaningful way?
4A) Early indications are that they are neither timely nor meaningful.
 
Last edited:
That's the fault of curriculum selected by states and schoolboards, not the standards.

You said yourself in a previous post grants are tied to common core adoption.. yes a state can opt out or opt for common core with its own changes.. however the testing is geared toward common core.
So if you change your platform significantly from the common core standard students will likely underperform on a test.
 
You said yourself in a previous post grants are tied to common core adoption..

This is a simple misunderstanding of the Race to the Top Act.

Yes, the standards. The standards are not curriculum, nor do they dictate what happens with curriculum. This is why you can have "New Math" texts and how you have "older Math" texts. The Obama administration, furthermore, puts no grant money toward the adoption of certain curriculum.
 
This is a simple misunderstanding of the Race to the Top Act.

Yes, the standards. The standards are not curriculum, nor do they dictate what happens with curriculum. This is why you can have "New Math" texts and how you have "older Math" texts. The Obama administration, furthermore, puts no grant money toward the adoption of certain curriculum.

perhaps I am using 'curriculum' a bit loosely but there are specifics that must be in the curriculum to meet the standard yes? and those are tied to the grants.. and the tests are geared toward those specifics.
 
perhaps I am using 'curriculum' a bit loosely but there are specifics that must be in the curriculum to meet the standard yes? and those are tied to the grants.. and the tests are geared toward those specifics.

Standards are connected to the curriculum, but as I said, the standards themselves are incredibly vague, succinct statements that more or less will be covered in curriculum regardless of whether or not Common Core made mention of them to begin with. Curriculum existed long before standards became the norm in, if I recall correctly, the early 1990s. So, at best, if someone wants to make the argument that standards matter, it is because they are trying to make adjustments to what would be covered in curriculum, but standards can't really do much in that regard.

What people largely complain about is the proliferation of New Math methodology in curriculum packages. Common Core, because it is a standards collection, is agnostic on this. There is no reason why New Math methodology needs to be given the light of day other than it being a different method and a publishing company decided to go with it. There's plenty of more traditional texts out there that also meet Common Core compliance, which as I also said, is not much of a feat.

But as others have said, the original post in question was more or less a poorly stated question. This happens all the time with publishing companies, pre-Common Core or not. If you had listened to teachers for the last several decades or more, you would always have teachers complain about whether or not a book had one thing right or wrong or if something was stated poorly or not. In order to get certified in one field or the other, I have come across poorly phrased or crafted questions that could have even had wrong answers. It happens.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom