This week I received two comments on the Common Core math standards which are worth reading and understanding. This first is from Ze’ev Wurman, a former member of California’s Academic Content Standards Committee, and a U.S. Dept. of Education official under George W. Bush. Someone asked Ze’ev about Euclidean geometry in Common Core’s standards. This is his response:

“Common Core did not throw out Euclidean Geometry. Common Core replaced the way the fundamental theorems of Euclidean Geometry (relating to triangle congruence such as ASA, SAS, SSS) are supposed to be proven in the classroom to an experimental method with a track record of failure. Consequently, proving Euclidean Geometry theorems is bound to be no more than arm waiving under Common Core, and the beautiful edifice of logical air-tight deductive geometrical reasoning is bound to be lost. To add insult to injury, Common Core only lightly touches on traditional body of theorems relating to triangles and circles, making it’s geometry a shallow course.

In Common Core’s defense one could argue that many Geometry courses already today give a short shrift to logical proofs and to exploring geometrical relationships of triangles and circles. This is true for some courses, yet not for all of them. What Common Core does is that it codifies such shallow treatment of geometry to be the normative one, forcing even serious courses to be dumbed down to mediocre and shallow levels.”

This next comment is from Dr. Wayne Bishop, mathematician at California State University. Long time opponent of fuzzy math, he helped bring down the awful standards California adopted in the 90’s that devastated their state, and brought about their excellent 1999-2000 standards and framework which were among the best in the nation prior to their downgrading them for Common Core. This letter was in response to one of the questions on Governor Herbert’s recent survey. I don’t know which question this was a response to. Emphasis mine.

Although the words claim otherwise, the effect is highly pedagogical in support of a philosophy called “constructivism” that has a long history of repeated failure. I was very active in replacing California’s model of such in the 1990s with superb standards, the California Mathematics Content Standards with approved curricula and consistent assessments. Regrettably, California made the same mistake as Utah to “buy into” the misguided Common Core State Standards mirrored in the Utah ones. The words that the CCSS-M are tied to the best international standards are simply meaningless.

FAR better would be to abandon the Utah form of theCCSS-M and replace the document with the far clearer and appropriate former California MathematicsContent Standards.One of the problems is a deliberate, but disguised, avoidance of competence with arithmetic in the early grades. They are filled with nice-sounding words that are essentially content-free; pedagogy trumps specified/testable competency that is so critically important through ordinary fractions, percent, and ratio and proportion word problems. The lack of confirmation of arithmetic competence is dismissed by professional math education “experts” by ubiquitous, and inappropriate, access to calculators. By contrast, Japanese classrooms look very different:

http://www.linfield.edu/linfield-news/students-and-prof-examine-why-japan-outsmarts-u-s-in-math-scores/

“Students sit in rows and are expected to listen quietly. Teachers rely on direct instruction rather than investigative mathematics, but although they ask few questions, the questions they do ask are useful in guiding student understanding.”

The biggest surprise was a shocking lack of technology in Japanese classrooms. “Not a single student pulled out a calculator during class,” Drickey said. There were no overhead projectors, televisions, computers or laptops.

“But lack of reliance on technology may lead to higher scores for Japanese students,” she said. “The ability to think mathematically, without the aid of an outside source, could help students process mathematical problems more accurately and efficiently.”

As an experienced professor of mathematics who has taught our course designed to prepare prospective high school geometry teachers (Math 430 Modern Geometry), I am especially appalled the geometry standards that, again, echo the CCSS-M. To actually prove congruence (much less similarity) using transformations instead of the traditional sophomore Euclidean geometry approach, is something that no high school student is capable of doing without exceptional leadership, in part, because it is in none of the available books.

Insteadof making the subject harder (as an honest treatment would), the effect is the removal of proof from the highschool mathematics curriculum. The very words in the CCSS-M and Utah Standards pass traditionalsophomore proof on to college geometry which denies high school students the greatest gift of the ancientGreeks to modern human thought, semi-formal deductive logic.Sin has many forms but one of its more insidious ones is failing to educate students to the best of our ability under the misguided notion that if it’s especially challenging for some students, water it down so that everybody can “succeed”.Professor of Mathematics

California State University, LA

Due to the disaster that common core math has become, and the havoc it is wrecking on my kids, I have attempted to pull my sophomore out of his math class so he could work on math from home through a fully accredited non common core online university math program. Said program provides not only alg 1, Geometry, Alg 2, but also Trig, and Pre-Calc. When I let the school counselor know what I was doing he ran it by the principle who said that I would not be able to choose another way for my son to learn math. He said he would not graduate if he did not complete the Secondary Math Program. Is it really true that they don’t have to allow me to opt out of public math class?

No, it’s not true. It varies from state to state as to what proof will be accepted of math courses taken, but he must allowed to graduate if he has fulfilled the math requirements. If the school is accredited the district will have to give him high school credit for it. I’ve looked into this myself, being a homeschool mom, but if I’m wrong speak up. Also, you might want to watch out for college entrance exams that will be geared towards CCSS and designed to test how well he does math the CCSS way. After all, the one who wrote common core is also in charge of those exams and has been making devastating changes. In my opinion it’s best to give your child the best education even if the tests are used to further the CCSS cause and not to test actual math competence, but if that’s the route you want him to take, then you can fill in the blanks with CCSS tutoring and ACT test prep classes. Best of luck!

I need HELP! My children (grade K and 4) are at a school that just adopted the Eureka math program. I f I could afford it, I would send them to a private school- since that is not an option- I will be supplementing math at home. I am trying to find a solid “home school” math curriculum. Any advice?

Saxon math is very popular with homeschoolers because it’s a solid program. Another good one is the Primary math series at http://www.singaporemath.com.

Just a quick comment about the device and noise from the Pearson Website: Oak reported an older student I recall reading but do not remember the specifics…who ALSO said the brashness of the tones on wrong answers were weird and he could not continue. This sounds familiar. I’m retired, thankfully don’t have to go through these commandments from Principals and District Leaders anymore, whom I ceased to respect at all by the time I left. Teacher have plenty to say but aren’t saying it – their financial futures are at stake. They WILL lose their jobs if they speak against it. Parents – KEEP SPEAKING UP – get Oak Norton’s messages daily and follow through. Today – call the governor’s office and ask that Governor Herbert stop deleting names of people running for the State School Board. We have to cause waves – the teachers CAN’T – I retired so I COULD – at a cut in my own future – but your kids are WORTH it. Speak up – and take charge of what goes into your child’s mind. Do NOT see yourself as contrary to do so, because they will make you FEEL that way if you let them. We are SO CAREFUL here in Utah about what our children believe and buy into. They aren’t even GETTING a choice in school now – they are being indoctrinated. Teacher HAVE to follow a very liberal social climate at school or they are in trouble. Take them out, or FIGHT for better morals for them in their school environments. If the schools lose enough of their students because of THEIR OWN poor behavior as leaders (they are sure experts on disciplining children for every little movement they make….) then we can DISCIPLINE THEM back into common sense and following parents’ rights to choose for their children what they are taught. Don’t lose this right – NOT SPEAKING UP will be all you need to do to lose it. There is no more time to sit home and be a couch griper. Get up, turn off your favorite shows, use your phones and apparatuses for good, and take part in this fight.