1 hour ago
A math teacher sent me this informative e-mail, which I am sharing with the author’s permission. In essence, the teacher reports that state school chief John Barge has been telling groups that Georgia will follow “traditional” math in its Common Core Georgia Performance Standards — the merger of our state curriculum with the new Common Core State Standards.
But the teacher cautions that the “traditional” math path should not be viewed as “going back to” how math was taught in the past, and that integration remains.
And the teacher says the same problems with math remain.
(Here is an earlier Get Schooled blog on this issue.)
Here is the teacher’s note:
Dr. Barge has announced to various groups over the past two days that Georgia will follow the “traditional” path for the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards in High School Math. I am sure that the blog will light up yet again as word gets around.
Please, please, please do your best to write this (or talk with those that do) to accurately report that this is a re-ordering of the current GPS. About four total units are swapped around from the current “integrated” sequence, AND some topics are moved up from middle school GPS. There is even MORE content in the CCGPS.
Please do what you can to make sure that the phrase “go back to” is not a part of any blogs or articles from the AJC. The Common Core Georgia Performance Standards is not Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 of days gone by.
Statistics content is integrated into every CCGPS high school math class. Here are the titles and sequences as released to math teachers via superintendents today:
CCGPS Coordinate Algebra
CCGPS Analytic Geometry
CCGPS Advanced Algebra
Accelerated CCGPS Coordinate Algebra/Analytic Geometry A
Accelerated CCGPS Analytic Geometry B/Advanced Algebra
Accelerated CCGPS Pre-Calculus
The use of the terminology “Analytic Geometry” should clearly indicate that the content of the second course is not the traditional “Euclidian Geometry,” which is now largely taught in 8th grade. Analytic Geometry used to be taught in the second half of the traditional Algebra 2.
I no longer have any emotional attachment to any of the delivery models. I am tired of fighting and of hearing others fight. There is so little difference between the two traditional and integrated sequences as presented by Common Core, it is not even worth discussing.
The courses are all integrated in some way, at least in terms of what the word integrated has come to mean. I really pity those that think that the sequence of courses will solve all of the problems with math curriculum. I mean, really? How does the sequence of courses fix the very real problem that there is too much content to master every year?
How does the sequence of courses fix the very real problem that there is not any “review” of content in any year? Students are expected to know 100 percent of the content of the previous years courses so they can master the current year. Last time I looked, 70 percent is passing for a class, and around 50 percent is passing for a state test.
Both of those numbers are waaaaaay below 100 percent. If a student makes a 70 in a math class four years in a row, they will be significantly behind going into the fifth year class. Does anyone really think that every student receiving a high school diploma should have to pass Pre-Calculus?
Looks like to me the questions are all still there. However, I am sure that many people will applaud this sequence because the terminology seems to be close to “the way it was.” Oh, and if any teachers were involved in this decision, I don’t know about it.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog