Greenhaus Education and Other "Effects"

I swore to myself I wouldn't do my next post on the Common Core, but I just get so irritated by the postings I see out there about it, I can't help myself! On Facebook, I see silly things like this: And then the current huge controversy about the math quiz and the teacher grading the problems wrong: Let's not forget the multitude of articles and storylines on the news talking about parents being angry and states opting out. Thank goodness there are some people who are trying to bring reason back to this madness about the Common Core. Great response here to the quiz example above by Andy Kiersz. Or this one in response to a parents obnoxious use of what he calls "Common Core Math".  I have already written my own response to my nieces and sisters hatred of what they perceived as Common Core math in a post last year, Common Core: It's Not the Devil . The problem with all these pictures and stories and examples of problems that are "common c

Today is October 21, 2015 and Marty McFly is set to arrive this evening, so of course, a post about the technology that actually exists today compared to what the movie predicted is in order! Someone else has done all the work for me and gone through 22 things that the movie got both right and wrong - I will let you check that out on your own. Here's a movie trailer clip that shows the some of the "things" of the future:  What I find amazing to consider is that the writers/creators of the movie were making predictions about a future 25 years down the road in a time, 1989, where none of this technology existed.   Heck - the World Wide Web was just being born in 1989. And yet now, 25 years later, some of their predictions are in fact a reality. We have 3D TVs & movies, we have Google Glasses, digital cameras, tablets, talking computers who can do things for us (Siri), and while we don't have flying cars, we do have electric cars. It's like Star Trek t

In my final in this Common Core Structure series, I want to just spend a little time discussing the three Key Shifts of the Common Core: Focus, Coherence, and Rigor . The CC are standards - states have always had standards. The difference here is a clearer set of aligned standards, throughout K-12, that ensured the standards built on each other within a grade, between the grades, and provided a cohesive set of understandings, skills and application. Hopefully the previous four posts have given a clearer understanding of how the structure of the CC was designed to support these shifts, so now lets actually look at these three shifts in depth. I am going to use some specific standards to exemplify each shift, as I think it helps make sense of them. Focus The CC is really focused on students conceptual understanding of mathematics and their ability to apply these understandings to real-world problems. So, within each grade, there are "less" standards, and more focus to help

In my last post , I went in great detail into the structure of the Common Core Math Standards for K-8.  Long story short, the picture at the right is a visual of the structure showing the funnel effect – where the standard itself is the end product of so much more: Introduction, Domain, Cluster. The gist of the last post was that it is important to look at all the components, not just the specific standards themselves, so that you understand how the standard fits into the learning progression. When looking at the high school content, the structure of the standards is the same, with an additional component, the conceptual categories.  There are six conceptual categories at the high school level: Number and Quantity, Algebra, Functions, Modeling, Geometry, and Statistics & Probability. Within these conceptual categories, there are the Introduction, Domains, Clusters and specific standards.  The idea behind the conceptual categories is that students acquire these understand

My last two posts focused on the structure of the Common Core Standards of Mathematical Practice.  The big idea of those posts was the title of the practice is NOT enough - you need to read the narrative to get to what students should be doing and saying. The theme of this post is much the same - the Common Core Math Content standard alone is NOT enough to truly understand what it is students should know and be able to do if they have mastered the content. The content standard, which is often what is posted in textbooks or put on the board, is in fact, a small part of the big picture and without seeing the big picture, we end up teaching isolated skills and facts. Understanding the structure of the content standards provides a big picture at each grade level (focusing on K-8 right now) of where students are going, and how the standards, as a whole, are continuing to develop and expand mathematical content knowledge. It is a "learning progression".I am going to focus on K-