Common core concerns

This site has the most complete list I have found with information about who is CC aligned curriculum and details http://www.hsroadmap.org/common-core-project/

HSLDA has good information and their new video “Building the Machine” is a great introduction of what common core is and how it effects our children and their (and our future) http://www.hslda.org/commoncore/

As far as RS edition 2, the same basic methods and concepts are used.  RS edition 2 does meet common core – but it exceeds it.  (edition 1 mostly exceeds it too)

I don’t have edition 2, but this is my understanding….

Edition 2 uses the manipulatives more, and a larger variety throughout the levels.  (Edition 1 really has some manipulatives that get used a couple of times and that is it….)

Edition 2 uses more games, and specifies for you to play them more often in the lessons.

Edition 2 level A breaks the lessons up more – in Level A ed 1, the lessons were to take 2 lesson sessions… in ed 2 they are to take 1 lesson (but there are more of them)

Edition 2 level A seems to have a lot more worksheets – still few compared to most programs.

Edition 2 uses ideas from further research by Dr. Cotter  

Have you seen the information on the RS website – including the webinar or video on choosing edition 1 or 2?

I actually stopped using RS 1st ed. because it was too much like CC math for me to be comfortable with. I went all the way back to Ray’s Mathematics.

In addition to hsroadmap linked above, if you’re on FB, check out The Educational Freedom Coalition. Best group on the ‘net for all things CC.

When I talked to Math U See about the differences, they said all that they did to align was add an extra page of word problems to the lessons in the workbook. If I didn’t want to do it, I didn’t need to.  They said the textbook changed to be more detailed and clear on how to do something – something that Mr. Demme was planning anyway. The DVDs did not change at all.

We are just starting to hear about Common Core, but it has been around for at least five years and probably more. In some ways, the companies were placed in unsustainable positions over Common Core. Either they align somehow or they lose business. If they lose business, they end up getting rid of employees. That affects more families. I would guess that many of the curriculums that are choosing not to be CC aligned are not in the position of losing a lot of business due to their mostly homeschooling market. Others like Math U See are used by both public and homeschools, which makes it much more complicated for the company. And, of course, other companies completely embrace CC. 

Having said that: I am disturbed by CC and the national tracking system of each child. Very alarming to me both as a parent and citizen!

I would like to urge a bit of caution when looking at this issue because there is a lot of hype and fear going around right now. Unfortunately, there are those who stand to gain from fear mongering, which makes matters worse.

First. let me be clear that SCM’s materials are not CC aligned and we have no intentions of making them so. In fact, some of the CC standards are incompatible with the order in which Charlotte Mason built layers of skills and concepts upon one another.

It’s important to separate CC’s standards from the political wrangling and things that have been tacked on in implementation. The CC standards basically say what particular topics and skills a child should know by each grade level. CC does not specify particular textbooks or curriculum and it does not say anything about data mining or tracking children. Now, because of the politics of implementation, those other things are being tacked on and we all sort of refer to CC as the whole package.

But the difference between standards and implementation shenanigans becomes important when evaluating a curriculum or publisher. Let’s look at Math-U-See as an example.

Before CC, MUS was a solid math program that exceeded any government standards. CC came along and MUS added a couple enrichment pages with extra practice to each chapter. Now MUS is a solid math program that still exceeds government standards.

Notice what’s not there. They did not change the vast majority of the content. They did not change how MUS works as a mastery-based curriculum. They did not dumb down the materials. They did not fill the books with indoctrination. They did not endorse data mining, tracking our children, or a federal takeover of local education standards.

It would be more accurate to say that CC aligned with MUS, but didn’t go far enough.

Yet those simple changes have made MUS evil incarnate in the eyes of some. Seriously, they’ve had their Christian salvation questioned over this—extra practice problems! That’s sad.

So how should we proceed?

1. Educate yourself. There are currently CC standards for math and language arts. Go read them and see what they actually contain. Figure out what you agree and don’t agree with and incorporate that into your decision making. Also find out what your particular state is doing with implementation and act accordingly, if needed.

2. Take the time to research any curriculum’s changes or alignment and find out why rather than assume the all-evil worst.

It’s possible for materials to be unintentionally aligned. For example, we’ve seen some good living books now sporting a CC aligned logo on the cover. It doesn’t stop being a good living book (assuming it’s not abridged or altered) but the publisher thinks the logo will help market the book to schools. 

Back to the example of MUS, they have published exactly what they did and why near the end of their parents FAQ page. (It starts at the topic “Why is there a new discussion of state standards?”) They also have PDFs showing exactly what and where CC grade topics are covered in their materials. For example, here’s grade 2. Study those kinds of things and see if there are aspects you disagree with or not.

In response to a recent Facebook question on CC, MUS explained that they cover most CC topics but are not fully aligned because they are not grade based. They also pointed out that the changes should make homeschool students better prepared for changes in standardized tests, where required.

3. Give grace to homeschool publishers and don’t always trust the lists. If you look online, you’ll see that there are many lists of publisher and their stance on CC. We are on several of those lists as not supporting CC, which is good and accurate. But let me tell you how that sometimes works behind the scenes.

We’ve been contacted several times for our official stance on CC. In some cases, we were asked open-ended questions. Someone took what we said and decided which list to put us on and our comments were not included with our listing. That’s an error-prone process that could easily put good publishers on the “bad list” through simple misunderstandings.

I’ve heard small homeschool publishers express how they’re walking on egg shells with concern that they might unintentionally be aligned or have a comment misunderstood, and that it would cost them their entire livelihood.

I know that was a bit of a long rant, but there is so much at stake for our families that I thought it worth the time to dig into the details. I hope it was helpful.

*LOUD APPLAUSE*   Doug, thank you for this.  I wish I could give this to all the people I know who think that somehow, adding a page of optional problems at the end of a chapter suddenly makes a good program into the Devil.  Remember, people YOU ARE IN CHARGE and no materials are *perfect.*  All parents should look over curricula and decide how to implement it into their own families.  Just because something might or might not “align” with something we like doesn’t make it evil!!!!!  Good grief.  CC is stupid.  It is a bad idea.  It will hasten taking down our miserable school system.  We have to watch, as there are those who will try to apply it to us.  But we really don’t need to be flipping out over this!  There are starving people in the world.  We as homeschoolers are the best witness when we simply follow the Lord, produce good, intelligent human beings, and calmly say what we know to be true.  Pay attention.  Vote.  Educate your family.  Just like before.  CC is just one more in a long line of dumb ideas.  It will not be he last.  

Great Discussion Doug!

Just wanted to comment on RightStart.    

Edition 1 was developed in 2001 – my understanding is that it fairly much covers (and exceeds) common core – but was developed before common core.  It was developed due to research by Dr. Cotter.   

Edition 2 has recently been developed.  It was developed due to more reasearch by Dr. Cotter, and has been in the works for quite a while now.  It does meet and exceed common core.   My understanding, the main difference between Edition 2 and Edition 1 is in regards to the use of the manipulatives more, games more, the common ‘walls’ in edition 1 have been smoothed out, more metric, and some topics introduced earlier.

Like MUS, in the homeschooling community each level isn’t assigned to specific grades.  (That said, it is easy to figure out what grade the same level is in the public school.)

RightStart IS used in public schools (I don’t know how much) – so I’m sure that affects their decision.

All that said – I think it is a fantastic program in teaching math.

Choose a program based on how you like how a program lays out its material, how much you think you will enjoy teaching it, how much you think your kids might learn from it, the quality of the instruction, whether it fits your beliefs (itself), the cost, and things like that.    Why base it on if some checkmark on some list somewhere?