Monday, October 25, 2010

Setting up the Codes

"Detail the process by which you arrived at your *initial* set of codes. How did you generate them? What did you consider when deciding whether or not to include them or not? Was it frustrating? What would have made the task easier? What did you learn from the process?"

I began generating my set of codes by narrowing my topic to estimation.  I found that area was too narrow for my grade level (4) and fractions was too broad.  I then went on to the Nevada State Standards page and pulled all the standards for estimation off the website.  Then I visited the CCSS site and did the same.  There were a few standards that I "threw out".  Any standards dealing with the estimation of fractions were the first to go.  I wanted to deal with estimation of whole numbers only.  Once I had a good group of codes I assigned letter acronyms to represent each one.  I generally followed the format the Dr. Olsen used, just not as detailed.

Once I understood what we were doing the task wasn't that frustrating.  I feel a lot of wasted time figuring out what we were suppose to be doing could have been solved by some guidance and going through a mock process in glass.  Dr. Olsen's concept of "coding" is great but I think looking at his work confused me more than anything. 

From this process I have learned how to look at a new text series, math center, or game from a more detailed point.  I feel that now I can be given any set of standards and once I know them I can measure my teaching resources against these standards.  It would have been beneficial for me as a student to have had that presented to me at the beginning of the discussion so that I could see the value of doing this activity.  It took me a while to see why we were doing this.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

NCTM vs. CCSS

     Common Core State Standards and NCTM Standards have some common themes and some differences.  In analyzing both I found that all the standards required by Common Core can be found with in the NCTM standards.  However, there are a few standards found in the NCTM that are lacking in the CCSS. 
     I analyzed the fourth grade math curriculum for Common Core.  Within CCSS, each intermediate elementary grade is set up essentially the same.  Operations and Algebraic Thinking, Number and Operations in Base 10, Number and Operations in Fractions, Measurement and Data, and finally, Geometry.  These strands are the same for 3rd-5th grade, which is the span of matriculation that I followed.  Some of the oddities I found were mainly found within the Number and Operations in Fractions strand.  For CCSS 4th grade students will not be required to add or subtract numbers with unlike denominators.  However, they do have to multiply a fraction by a whole number.  This seems backwards to me considering that students are usually asked to master the addition concept prior to the multiplication.
     NCTM standards seemed to be more encompasing.  Number and Operations, Algebra, Geometry, Measurement, Data Analysis and Probablity, Problem Solving, Reasoning and Proof, Communication, Connections, and Representations make up the ten categories for the NCTM. 
     What I found to be a little disheartening was that written within the language of the CCSS the concepts of the NCTM's standards on Communication, Connections, and Representations were embedded.  However, they are so embedded that they are easily over looked.  NCTM devotes an entire standard to "Communication" where as CCSS uses language like "express using fractional models" written within the standard.  At first glance a teacher may think that the CCSS are more streamlined and focus on fewer topics allowing the students to master concepts.  However, in reality they are missing some of the very standards that push students past the point of rote memorization and into deeper understanding.  NCTM's standardards that deal with expressing math concepts and how these ideas connect are separated from the other standards in order to draw attention to them.  In CCSS they are hidden and do not stand out as the ultimate end goal for any math teacher at any grade level.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Livin' the Dream!!

As the resisdent expert on Common Core State Standards I have been given unlimited funds and unlimited authority!  Awesome!  My principal has asked me to implement change in each area of our school that would need to be changed in order to make CCSS work to it's fullest potential.  This is exactly what I would do.

At the end of the school year teachers would be given two weeks off.  At that point everyone would return to school for "summer planning".  Teachers would be paid DOUBLE OVERTIME!  Money is no object.  All summer long we would spend time studying the new standards, planning instruction, sharing ideas about how to teach each subject in a student centered classroom, what type of assessments (formal and informal) would be appropriate for CCSS, what type of evaluations we are going to used for the end of each trimester, and what type of progress report and report card would be the SIMPLEST way to document our students progress.
Teachers would be given three weeks to plan, analyze, and communicate with their peers to develop the best plan of action for the year that would ensure each of the standards was covered in a logical timeline. 
While General Ed and Special Ed teachers are busy planning, the Specialist will be planning thier curriculum as well.  Thier assignment would be to use music, art, drama, and PE objectives to enrich math, reading, science, and social studies standards.
With all our extra money we would higher three on-site ESC specialists.  One ESC would care for the computers school, the other two would be divided into primary and intermediate grades.  Thier job would be to train teachers and students on various programs that would align with the CCSS objectives.  Each class would have two to three hours of computer lab time in addition to having access to laptops in the classroom.  The ECS would be in the computer lab at all times and esentially be a specialist like the art or music teacher. 
With the computer savvy kids we would have there would be no need for paper because each child would have thier own laptop.  When we purchase our new textbooks for the year each child would get a text book, but all worksheets would be downloaded on the laptop and students would turn them in electronically.
Standardized tests would be eliminated with the exception of one pre-test and post-test twice a year.  Beginning of the year pretes with mid year post test, then a mid year pre test with a end of the year post test.  Each test would be analyzed by teachers over the course of three days.  We could adjust instruction accordingly and share ideas with each other about the best direction to take in order to fullfull the CCSS.
On Staff development day the teachers themsleves would do NONE of the presenting.  OUtside Education Research Specialist would be brought in to get us up to date on the latest human learning reasearch, and curriculum specialist would be brought in to help us plan and think outside the box.  We would need help thinking at the point because our brains would be fried. 
One helper per grade would be hired to do the teadious things that take teachers away from instructional analysis.  That helper would put up bulletin boards, change out instructional information on the classroom walls, organize classroom materials, file paper work for the teacher, prepare mailers to communicate with parents, serve on recess duty, etc.
THere would be a paid Mentor Teacher whose sole job would be to council and work one on one with new teachers for the first two years of thier teaching experience.  They would be required to be a CCSS expert as well. 
In conclusion, the AP would handle all building, and budget realted problems, there would be a Dean of Students whose sole job would be to handle discipline, and the Principal would work directly with teachers in the classroom, planning, analyzing, testing, setting goals and helping to set up student interventions.
This is how I would set up my school if I were in charge.  One final thought.  Each teacher would be given a raise and the principal and teachers would be in charge of the budget for thier school.  The district would provide us with our annual budget and then let us spend it how we feel our students would benefit best.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Visit this Site

If you are interested in reading some plain language arguments against CCSS that are not on the CCSS website go to:
http://www.gpee.org/fileadmin/files/pdf/GPEE_Policy_Brief_Common_Standards.pdf

They had some very interesting points.

Dr. Wu's Quote

The Common Core mathematics standards succeed in being both mathematically coherent and grade level appropriate. Overall, they are the best standards that I have seen in the past twenty years. If we can design a professional development program of the same caliber to go with these standards, then our nation will be making a substantial first step towards educational excellence in mathematics.


- Dr. Hung-Hsi Wu, Professor of Mathematics, University of California at Berkeley

I watched the entire power point presentation.  I can't seem to find it again.  However, his overall statements were not in protest of the CCSS, he was bringing awareness to the lack of discussion about professional development.

Common Core Standards Grades 3-5 and High School

Contrary to my prior post, I now see the differences in the Common Core Standards and the CEF Benchmarks put in place by the Clark COunty School District.  Upon further examination I see that the Common Core Standards state the objective clearly and give examples.  In addition to this there are differences in the actual standards themselves.  For example, one of the fourth grade Common Core Standards calls for students to decompose fractions.  They are to understand that 3/8=1/8+1/8+1/8.  This standard is absent in the CCSD or NV State Standards. 
In examining the standards I chose one math objective, Fractions, and followed it through grades 3-5.  In addition I also examined the High School math standards that were the "culmination" of the fraction standards for the primary grades, Statistics and Probability.  After reading the presententation by Dr. Hung-Hsi Wu, I realized he was a proponent of the CCSS, but was not of the California State Standards, or the lack of higher order thinking skills involved in any of the current state standards.  The CCSS uses specific verbage that lends itself to be taught as a collection of critical thinking skills and not rote memorization.  For example, in the each of the standards, students are to model thier answers using fractionlal models.  In addition to fractions, the authors of the third grade standards call for the the students to express thier knowledge of the properties of multipilication and division.  At no point does it say that students will memorize math facts. 
I do believe that rote memorization of the math facts, especially multiplication, is essential. However, the authors of the CCSS standards strive to have third grade students understand the concept prior to memorization.  What I believe Dr. Wu was trying to say was that we have these great standards being proposed but the teacher education was lacking.  He wasn't bashing teachers by any means but he was expressing the lack of understanding and proffesional development on the part of teachers and state educators.
There are many entities that are supporters of the CCSS for several reasons.  One of the arguments is that this is a better culmination of standards that will better prepare students for college level courses.  The way that the fractions standards are laid out in my examination of grades 3-5 and the High School Statistics and Probablities shows that this is a true statement.  There seems to be an enhanced idea of the sprialling curriculum.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Review of Core Standards

I read through the core standards for fourth grade.  As far as I can tell there aren't any standards that are new compared to the NV State Power Standards.  My first thought was how much money will be spent by our state or district to adopt "new" set of standards that are very similar to what we already have in place?  I am sure that the switch from state standards to a "national" standard will cost a signifigant amount of money.  However, I can't completly disagree with the core standards.  Streamlining can be a good thing when done correctly.  I am just not sure how they are going to go about this, how it will affect standardized testing, and if this is going to play into the notion of perfomanced based pay for teachers. 
One of the complaints that educators have is that our current curriculum is "an inch deep and a mile wide".  I don't see how the new common core standards are going to alleviate this issue.  All the same material is required to be covered.  While I agree with this statement, I also see the benefits of a spiraling curriculum.  Students are exposed to algebraic and geometric concepts early therefore they form ideas about those subjects and can expand on them as they learn more each year.  HOwever, the spiraling curriculum seems to leave some students behind.  I see my resource students stuck in second grade math concepts because there is no time to master them.  They simply repeat addition and subtraction over and over and become completly lost in multiplication and division, not to mention geometric and algebraic concepts.  THat's not to say that it is fair to hold back students who do pick up the concepts easily. 
My overview of the common core standards was not as detailed as the people who put it together, I am sure.  However, I did not see anything new.

Test Run

Just figuring out how this works before I type a bunch of stuff.  Giving it a test run.