It Gets Better - A Look Behind the Numbers

I don’t call my blog By the Numbers for nothin’.  If the administration can justify a recommendation to not do a math curriculum review because, in part, only 8% of the standards are new and only “some” of the standards need to be adjusted for grade level, then those numbers need to be examined. 

I found the source document for the administration’s reply.  And they quoted it correctly, and in some cases verbatim.  But let’s look at what they failed to include in their reply. 

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/CCSS/CCSS_CT.pdf

First, a 92% match, requiring only 8% new material to be introduced, is not bad.  However, if we look at the strength of the match (see page 11 and 13), the picture changes greatly.  Twenty four percent (24%) of the matches are deemed “Weak” meaning “major aspects of the CCSS are not addressed; standards may be related but only generally.”  Standards are supposed to be clear and specific, not generally related, and definitely not “not addressed.”  So out of about 500 standards, about 160 (a third) need to be introduced in whole or in major part.

Second, “some current standards will move to a different grade.”  How big is some (see page 21)?  About 25% (or 125) of the CC standards occur in grades BEFORE the old CT standards (covering K through 8).  Leaving aside Kindergarten, 13% of the CC standards occur in grades AFTER the old CT standards.  Focusing on fourth and fifth grades, almost half (48% and 47%, respectively) of the standards and the associated curricula material need to be moved.  And this does not include the 8% new material.

Third, we can’t just “spiral” back to the topic the next year, if we glossed over it in the year of the standard.  One of the CCSS Key Assumptions (see page 4) is that:  “CCSS assume 100% mastery of the preceding year’s standards.”  Makes you wonder if Everyday Math’s spiraling structure is aligned to the new standards, doesn’t it?

There may not be a one-to-one correlation between a standard and the teaching time spent on that standard.  And, as per the Key Assumptions: “Standards are not curriculum.”  But there should be significant correlation between the Standards and the curriculum, in order for the district to meet goals.  Any way you add it up (no pun intended), a major portion of the curriculum needs to change in order to address the new standards.

The Connecticut State Department of Education recommended that districts begin revisions in 2010, and complete revisions by 2014 (see page 29).

Still, the administration’s recommendation is to wait.   I am sure we can supplement, and cut and paste, and make do with what we have, until 2014 or 2015 or 2016, but is it fair to our students?

Brian BTN