Disney in December

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 290-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue E. Hoge ◽  
Karin E. Perry
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Common Core State Standards ◽  
Real Life ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Core State ◽  
The Common ◽  
Factual Data

Math by the Month is a regular department of the journal. It features collections of short activities focused on a monthly theme. These articles aim for an inquiry or problem-solving orientation that includes at least four activities each for K–Grade 2, Grades 3–4, and Grades 5–6. This month's problem set aligns with the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, includes factual data from Disney Parks, and makes connections between mathematics and real-life applications.

All hands on deck!

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (8) ◽  
pp. 478-479
Author(s):  
Lynn Columba
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Common Core State Standards ◽  
Current Issue ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Core State ◽  
Hands On ◽  
The Common ◽  
Principles And Standards

Math by the Month is a regular department of the journal, featuring collections of short activities focused on a monthly theme. These articles aim for an inquiry or problem-solving orientation that includes at least four activities each for grade bands K–2, 3–4, and 5–6. In the current issue, the problems are designed to actively engage your students in a literacy-rich mathematics environment, which is recommended by the NCTM Principles and Standards and the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics.

Challenging the Research Base of the Common Core State Standards

2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (7) ◽  
pp. 381-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Gamson ◽  
Xiaofei Lu ◽  
Sarah Anne Eckert
Keyword(s):  
Common Core ◽  
Common Core State Standards ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Core State ◽  
The Common

The Back Page: My Favorite Lesson: Modeling Exponential Decay

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (5) ◽  
pp. 400
Author(s):  
Alison L. Mall ◽  
Mike Risinger
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Exponential Decay ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Common Core State Standards ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Core State ◽  
Statistics And Probability ◽  
The Common

Our favorite lesson, an interactive experiment that models exponential decay, launches with a loud dice roll. This exploration engages students in lively data collection that motivates interest in key components of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: functions, modeling, and statistics and probability (CCSSI 2010).

Getting College-Ready during State Transition toward the Common Core State Standards

2018 ◽  
Vol 120 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-36
Author(s):  
Zeyu Xu ◽  
Kennan Cepa
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Student Learning ◽  
College Readiness ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Common Core State Standards ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Core State ◽  
Act Scores ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
The Common

Background As of 2016, 42 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Tens of millions of students across the country completed high school before their schools were able to fully implement the CCSS. As with previous standards-based reforms, the transition to the CCSS-aligned state education standards has been accompanied by curriculum framework revisions, student assessment redesigns, and school accountability and educator evaluation system overhauls. Purpose Even if the new standards may improve student learning once they are fully implemented, the multitude of changes at the early implementation stage of the reform might disrupt student learning in the short run as teachers, schools, and communities acclimate to the new expectations and demands. The goal of this study is not to evaluate the merits and deficiencies of the CCSS per se, but rather to investigate whether college readiness improved among high school students affected by the early stages of the CCSS implementation, and whether students from different backgrounds and types of high schools were affected differently. Research Design We focus on three cohorts of 8theighth-grade students in Kentucky and follow them until the end of the 11th -grade, when they took the state mandatory ACT tests. The three successive cohorts—enrolled in the 8theighth -grade between 2008 and 2010—each experienced different levels of exposure to CCSS transition. Using ACT scores as proxy measures of college readiness, we estimate cohort fixed-effects models to investigate the transitional impact of standards reform on student performance on the ACT. To gauge the extent to which the implementation of CCSS is directly responsible for any estimated cross-cohort differences in student ACT performance, we conduct additional difference-in-differences analyses and a falsification test. Data Our data include the population of 3 three cohorts of 8theighth -graders enrolled in Kentucky public schools between 2008 and 2010. The total analytic sample size is 100,212. The data include student test scores, student background characteristics, and school characteristics. Findings In the case of the CCSS transition in Kentucky, our findings suggest that students continued to improve their college -readiness, as measured by ACT scores, during the early stages of CCSS implementation. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the positive gains students made during this period accrue to students in both high- and low-poverty schools. However, it is not conclusive that the progress made in student college -readiness is necessarily attributable to the new content standards. Conclusions As we seek to improve the education of our children through reforms and innovations, policymakers should be mindful about the potential risks of excessive changes. Transition issues during the early stages of major educational changes sometimes lead to short-term effects that are not necessarily indicative of the longer-term effects of a program or intervention. Nevertheless, standards-based reforms are fairly frequent, and each takes multiple years to be fully implemented, affecting millions of students. Therefore, we encourage researchers and policymakers to pay more attention to the importance of transitional impact of educational reforms.

“Common” Instruction? Logics of Ability and Teacher Decision Making Across Tracks in the Era of Common Standards

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 638-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily M. Hodge
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Common Core State Standards ◽  
Curriculum And Instruction ◽  
State Standards ◽  
School Structure ◽  
Instructional Decisions ◽  
Core State ◽  
The Common ◽  
Instructional Decision

This article investigates the interaction between the Common Core State Standards and curricular tracking by examining instructional decision making across tracks in a large metropolitan district. This study draws on institutional logics as a framework to analyze 106 instructional decisions from 24 participants involved in middle school literacy instruction. In lower-track classes, participants often adapted the curriculum and adopted a more teacher-centered approach. About half of the rationales for those decisions reflected a logic of tracking, less than a fifth reflected a logic of differentiation, and almost a third reflected elements of both logics. These findings demonstrate that despite common standards, a tracked school structure continues to serve as a powerful signal about the curriculum and instruction seen as appropriate for different groups of students.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document