Skip to main content

Common Core - Studying Structure & A Personal Fight Against Politicking

I am tired of the #CommonCore bashing, so I am just going to start writing some posts about things I have learned that have helped me realize how powerful and SUPPORTIVE of student learning these standards and practices can be.

Don't get me wrong - I never needed to be convinced that the Common Core State Standards for Math (CCSSM) were a good thing for math education.  I cheered their adoption because to me, these standards supported what I had been practicing and preaching, both as a teacher and a professional development provider. But - even though I have spent the last several years studying and coaching others in implementing the Common Core in a variety of ways, I just recently learned more to solidify, for me, their power. It was sort of an ah-ha moment: if I, who consider myself very familiar with the CCSSM, just learned something new, imagine how those who have spent little, if any, time with these standards (i.e. parents, news reporters, politicians) could benefit from looking a little more deliberately at the standards instead of relying on the rhetoric or a cursory glance to make their decisions?!

I've been working with The Charles A. Dana Center at UT Austin supporting math teacher training. As part of this endeavor, I participated and delivered some training that focused on looking at and understanding the structure of the CCSSM and alignment of the standards (within grade and vertical). My huge take-away was how important this process is for any educator who is implementing the CCSSM. This in depth look is something I think is missing in much of the PD that surrounds these standards, which might explain a lot of the confusion about how to teach and help students understand the standards and practices, which in turn leads to the confusion among parents, the media and politicians.

My plan here is to write a couple posts about some of the ways looking deeply at the standards can bring clarity and understanding to how they work. More importantly, it emphasizes the importance of seeing the Math Content Standards and the Standards of Mathematical Practice as equally important in helping students learn, understand, and apply mathematics. You cannot look at isolated standards or practices or problems and hope to know how the standards and practices work to BUILD mathematical competence over time - (which, unfortunately, seems to be what is happening - looking at isolated components versus the overall picture).

This post is going to focus on the structure of the Standards of Mathematical Practice. Pretty simple really - there are 8 practices, and their structure contains the title and then the narrative description. The problem here being the title  is what most educators focus on, and the title DOES NOT give you enough information to really know what students need to do and what educators need to do to support students.  You really need to read the description to get a better sense of what students, as mathematicians SHOULD BE SAYING AND DOING, which then informs what resources the teacher needs to provide and what the teacher should be saying and doing.

I am guilty of assuming the title of the practice was enough. I will use Standard of Mathematical Practice #4 as my example. The title of this practice states that students should be able to:
Model with mathematics.
Seems pretty simple. On its surface it seems to imply using models - i.e. manipulatives or physical objects to help students understand math - which is wrong, or rather very incomplete thinking. Here's the narrative description of this practice:
Mathematically proficient students can apply the mathematics they know to solve problems arising in everyday life, society, and the workplace. In early grades, this might be as simple as writing an addition equation to describe a situation. In middle grades, a student might apply proportional reasoning to plan a school event or analyze a problem in the community. By high school, a student might use geometry to solve a design problem or use a function to describe how one quantity of interest depends on another. Mathematically proficient students who can apply what they know are comfortable making assumptions and approximations to simplify a complicated situation, realizing that these may need revision later. They are able to identify important quantities in a practical situation and map their relationships using such tools as diagrams, two-way tables, graphs, flowcharts and formulas. They can analyze those relationships mathematically to draw conclusions. They routinely interpret their mathematical results in the context of the situation and reflect on whether the results make sense, possibly improving the model if it has not served its purpose.
I've highlighted just a few key phrases that show what this standard really means is students can USE mathematics to model and explain problems, which is NOT the same as using manipulatives to learn mathematics, which in my experience is what many educators think this practice means. What the practice says is students can approach a real-world problem and APPLY and use some type of mathematical model (i.e. equation, function, geometric figure) as a way to explain the problem and and come up with a solution. If you continue reading the narrative, you will see that it references students ability to make assumptions, approximate solutions, interpret their results and create mathematical models that help them solve the problem.  It's a lot more descriptive than just the titl, and something all educators need study and understand so that they are not misinterpreting what the titles alone might be saying.

The pictures to the right are of some of the work I did with teachers that shows their end-result of studying structure of the practices. These t-charts show an understanding of how the narrative informs both students and teacher actions (sorry, they are a bit out of focus!)

The point I am making here is that the title is not enough - the narrative is more important than the title because it gives expectations for what students should be saying and doing, which in turn informs what the teacher should be saying and doing. The structure of the practices, if looked at as a whole, provides information to help teachers create a classroom that supports student learning - you need to go beyond the title.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Implementation Dip - It's Not Just Test Scores, It's Any Change

I read this article yesterday by Andrew Ujifusa entitled New Tests Put States on Hot Seat as Scores Plunge . Basically, states that have implemented new standardized tests to address revised academic standards, such as the Common Core State Standards, have seen a drop in student scores, so panic has ensued. What I want to know is: has no one ever heard about the implementation dip? Whenever you try to implement something new, there is going to be a period of adjustment, scores will go down if we are talking tests, classroom behaviors will change and achievement will go down if new teaching strategies are being implemented - in short, any time you try something new, it is NOT going to go exactly as planned!  Mistakes will happen, things will be bad before they get better - it's part of the whole change process.  Which is why we need to be implementing changes slowly, early, and over time so that things that go wrong can be adjusted. Image from images.google.com What is th

Social Media's Impact on Personal Life - Personal Reflections

The question - does social media impact personal life? The answer - yes.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing? The answer - it depends. I have been on vacation the past week or so and am currently on personal leave to finish writing my dissertation proposal (which, as you can see, I am procrastinating!) During my vacation, I swore I would take a break from blogging, Twitter, email, and all things electronic. I lied. I admit - I did honestly make the attempt and in fact, did not turn on my computer one time.  However, the iPad is a constant companion, especially since the books I am reading (currently, the Game of Thrones series) are on there, so I had the iPad with me a lot - even on the beach.  It was very easy to check if I had emails, to check out my Facebook or to send a Twitter or two.  Long story short, I failed miserably at the disconnecting aspect. View from chair and under canopy! Which brings me back to the question of does social media impact personal life? The o

Lecture, Direct-Instruction or Talk - There's the Confusion!

In yesterday's weekly #edchat Twitter collaboration the discussion focused on the flipped classroom, where, naturally, there was quite a bit of debate around the idea of video lectures. What became apparent was the many different interpretations of the term 'lecture'. This came to the forefront for me when I offered up the idea of TED Talks as one option for learning rather than a teacher's video lecture, and someone said "TED talks are just lectures, so how is that better?" This stumped me as I have never thought of a TED talk as a lecture, which is funny, because now, forced to think about it, I guess they could be construed as lectures, depending on your definition. Which of course has led me to this post!  Obviously, my perception of a lecture is not the same as others. What is MY definition of a lecture? Perhaps it's my many years of being both a student and a teacher, but for me a 'lecture' has rather negative connotations, as I envisio