7/25/2019 James Wilson Standards Review

1/2

J.R. WilsonThe standards are not written in a clear and concise manner. Many standards have embeddedpedagogy similar to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M. !n loo"ingthro#gh the $-% standards& while ! see similarities li"e the one '#st mentioned& it does not appear theCCSS-M served as the model for these standards. The introd#ction indicates the CTM standards andsome others were #sed. There are better standards that co#ld be #sed as models than the CTM

standards or those of any states the intro indicates were #sed. ! and C) had e*cellent standardsthat are well written& clear& concise& and relatively free of pedagogy& yet they were not #sed.The +ision and ,#iding rinciples indicate these standards as having st#dents becomingmathematically proficient and literate. rom loo"ing at the standards& it appears they may be o"ay formath literacy b#t it is /#estionable these standards will develop mathematical proficient st#dents.These standards lend themselves to the same "inds of things parents are not li"ing abo#t materialsbeing #sed with their children to address the CCSS-M. Standards for re-$ are incl#ded in this draft.While ! have some concern abo#t the developmentally appropriateness of some standards in the early

grades& the concern is not as great as with the CCSS-M. ! wo#ld leave determination ofdevelopmental appropriateness to others better /#alified. Too m#ch emphasis is placed on theMathematical )ctions and rocesses by having them appear with each standard. The standardsdoc#ment wo#ld be well served by simply listing clear and concise pedagogy free standards. Therelated Mathematical )ctions and rocesses for each standard can be presented in a doc#ment to

s#pplement the standards.Many of the standards co#ld easily be rewritten to strengthen them. )s an e*ample& here is a secondgrade standard0

2.N.1.6 Use place value to compare and order whole numbers up to 1000 using comparativelanguage, numbers, and symbols (e.g., 425 > 2!, " # 10, page "51 comes a$ter "50, 5" isbetween 00 and %00&.This co#ld be rewritten to read0Compare and order whole n#mbers #p to 1222 #sing place val#e& comparative lang#age& n#mbers&and symbols.

3ven better& clearer& cleaner& and crisper0Compare and order whole n#mbers #p to 1222.What is it we want st#dents to do4 What do we want to emphasi5e4 6se place val#e or compare andorder4 With this standard& ! wo#ld want st#dents to compare and order. )s it is written& the emphasisis on place val#e. lace val#e is important and ! do want st#dents to #nderstand and #se it& b#t itappears this standard calls for st#dents to compare and order. !f well ta#ght& given a standard li"e7Compare and order whole n#mbers #p to 12228 st#dents will #se place val#e witho#t it needing to bein the standard. Co#ld they s#ccessf#lly compare and order witho#t #sing place val#e4Many of the standards present themselves in a manner similar to the one below.2.N.1.5 'ecognie when to round numbers to the nearest 10 and 100. )mphasis on understanding

how to round instead o$ memoriing the rules $or rounding.This is an e*ample of a standard that may help develop st#dent math literacy while not helping

st#dents become mathematical proficient. This standard only calls for st#dents to recogni5e whenwith an emphasis on #nderstanding and does not act#ally as" or re/#ire st#dents to do any ro#nding.9ow do yo# #nderstand how to do something if yo# don:t remember how to do it4The standards do not clearly re/#ire st#dents to learn or #se the standard algorithm for eachoperation. St#dents can and sho#ld learn and #se the standard algorithm for adding and s#btractingm#lti-digit n#mbers in second grade. The CCSS-M does not re/#ire this #ntil the fo#rth grade& b#t it

7/25/2019 James Wilson Standards Review

2/2

does re/#ire it. This new draft for ;"lahoma does not clearly re/#ire the #se of the standardalgorithm. 9ere is the third grade standard that addresses addition and s#btraction03.N.2.2*dd and subtract multi+digit numbers, using e$$icient and generaliable procedures andstrategies based on nowledge o$ place value, which may include standard algorithms.7Which may incl#de8 does not re/#ire the #se of standard algorithm. ;ther standards #se wording

li"e 7#sing efficient and generali5able proced#res& incl#ding standard algorithms8. While different& it isa"in in ways to the CCSS-M:s fre/#ent #se of 7strategies based on place val#e8. Most of thosestrategies and proced#res are not as efficient or generali5able as a standard algorithm. The standardrelated to division calls for 7incl#ding standard algorithms8. That is not a strong re/#irement andact#ally p#ts it on e/#al gro#nd with other proced#res that will not serve st#dents well as their mathed#cation progresses. St#dents will need to be well gro#nded in the #se of the standard algorithm fordivision in order to s#ccessf#lly divide polynomials. St#dents will need to be able to do this in thesecond year of algebra and beyond. So& by not re/#iring the #se of the standard algorithm fordivision& these standards will& as early as grade < and =& effectively set limits on the math a st#dent

will be s#ccessf#l with later in their ed#cation. They will not be prepared for performing polynomialdivision or synthetic division as called for in the high school standard )>.).1.