Career and Tech Education (CTE) Doesn’t Boost College Attendance

Career and Tech Education (CTE) is another top-down education reform that Congress has waded into, and philanthropists have funded.

Like other education reforms, it does its results do not match the hype.

Education Week reports:

Policymakers are increasingly touting CTE as a road to college, and the new paper adds to evidence that questions how solid that linkage is.

The study was published today in the American Educational Research Journal, the peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association. It was conducted by two scholars from the University of California at Santa Barbara: Michael A. Gottfried, an associate professor of education, and Jay S. Plasman, a doctoral student. They tracked a cohort of about 10,000 students from 2002 to 2006, starting when the students were 10th graders, and following up as they moved into their first couple of years after high school….

….They found that taking CTE courses had no effect on whether students went to college right after high school. They found only a small effect on college application, and only for students who took one or more CTE classes in 12th grade. And they found that 11th graders who took CTE were .8 of a percent more likely to attend college, and .8 of a percent more likely to go to college within two years. But that effect was absent at other grade levels.

Career-tech-ed study and college-going might not be strongly linked because CTE students learned skills in those courses than enable them to go directly into the workforce, so they are less likely to perceive a need to go to college, Gottfried and Plasman write in the paper.

Data that the two authors gathered show that students who took more CTE courses were more likely to report that they weren’t seeking a bachelor’s degree in the future, and more likely to have parents with only a high school diploma. But in an interview, Gottfried and Plasman said their findings controlled for those factors.

The authors aimed their findings at the policymaking conversation about career and tech ed, and its potential to supply the college pipeline. The lack of strong, positive links to postsecondary outcomes is noteworthy, they wrote, and suggests “the need for further assessment of the reach of high school CTE coursetaking if indeed policymakers wish to more effectively rely on CTE to address college-going gaps.”

They do note that CTE does make a positive impact on the drop-out rate which makes sense. It fills the role vocational tech played back when I was in school. If done well, it gives students an opportunity to learn employable skills before they graduate high school.

CTE and the push to make education about workforce development will evitably have a negative impact on college attendance (and college readiness).

Who Is Surprised Hackers Are Targeting Schools?

CNN recently reported that the U.S. Department of Education warned about hackers targeting schools.

The U.S. Department of Education is now warning teachers, parents, and K-12 education staff of a cyberthreat targeting school districts across the country.

So far, at least three states have been targeted by the extortion attempt from hackers asking schools to give them money or the group will release stolen private records, according to the department.

“In some cases, this has included threats of violence, shaming, or bullying the children unless payment is received,” the department wrote in an advisory this week.

Bradshaw, the superintendent of schools in Columbia Falls, Montana said a hacking group broke into multiple school servers and stole personal information on students and possibly staff. He said after the threatening messages came, hackers asked for ransom.

In a ransom note sent to a number of Columbia Falls school district members and released by the county’s sheriff’s department, the hacking group called the Dark Overlord threatened the district and demanded up to $150,000 in bitcoin to destroy the stolen private data.

Gee, with all of the student data mining and storing those records electronically who is surprised by this development?

Not us.

The U.S. Department of Education made the following suggestions for school IT staff:

IT Staff at Schools / Districts are encouraged to protect your organizations by

  • conducting security audits to identify weaknesses and update/patch vulnerable systems;
  • ensuring proper audit logs are created and reviewed routinely for suspicious activity;
  • training staff and students on data security best practices and phishing/social engineering awareness; and
  • reviewing all sensitive data to verify that outside access is appropriately limited.

 

 

 

One suggestion noticeably missing….

Stop collecting and storing student data where it can be hacked.

Protecting Student Privacy By Promoting Student Data Collection?

Photo credit: Nick Youngson (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Gates-funded Data Quality Campaign is going to Congress to weigh in on the Student Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 3157 – 114th Congress) that will be reintroduced this session of Congress.

What could possibly go wrong?

Morgan Polikoff, who they are helping send to DC, is an Associate Professor of K-12 Policy at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. In a blog post, he made the following suggestions to “strengthen” the bill.

  • Enable states and districts to procure the research they need. The Every Student Succeeds Act’s evidence tiers provide new opportunities for states and districts to use data to better understand their students’ needs and improve teaching and learning. FERPA must continue to permit the research and research-practice partnerships that states and districts rely on to generate and act on this evidence. Section 5(c)(6)(C), should be amended to read “the purpose of the study is limited to improving student outcomes.” Without this change, states and districts would be severely limited in the research they can conduct.
  • Invest in state and local research and privacy capacity. States and districts need help to build their educators’ capacities to protect student privacy, including partnering effectively with researchers and other allies with legitimate educational reasons for handling student data. In many instances, new laws and regulations are not required to enhance privacy. Instead, education entities need help with complying with existing privacy laws, which are often complex. FERPA should provide privacy protection focused technical assistance, including through the invaluable Privacy and Technical Assistance Center, to improve stakeholders’ understanding of the law’s requirements and related privacy best practices.
  • Support community data and research efforts. In order to understand whether and how programs beyond school are successful, schools and community-based organizations like tutoring and afterschool programs need to securely share information about the students they serve. Harnessing education data’s power to improve student outcomes, as envisioned by the Every Student Succeeds Act, will require improvements to FERPA that permit schools and their community partners to better collaborate, including sharing data for legitimate educational purposes including conducting joint research.
  • Support evidence-use across the education and workforce pipeline. We recommend adding workforce programs to Section 5(c)(5)(A)(ii) and to the studies exception in Section 5(c)(6)(C), . Just as leaders need to evaluate the efficacy of education programs based on workforce data, the country also needs to better understand the efficacy of workforce programs. FERPA should recognize the inherent connectivity between these areas to better meet student and worker needs.

Strengthen the bill for who? Not parents, certainly not students. The only groups that stand to gain are those who promote Big Data. What a nightmare if they are successful.

Five Steps to End Fed Ed

I wanted to highlight U.S. Parents Involved in Education’s (USPIE) blueprint to close the U.S. Department of Education and end federal mandates.

In their executive summary, they note an inconvenient truth for those who advocate for more centralization for education at the federal level. It just hasn’t worked.

Despite dramatic increases in federal intervention and funding in the public education system since the 1960s, educational achievement has not improved. The most widely used measure of school achievement are scores from National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which shows no significant change. Efforts to improve educational outcomes for low income children have also been expensive and unproductive. Even the federal college grant and loan programs have been ineffective for students. The evidence is inarguable, the federal government’s intervention in education has been a dismal failure.

They offer five steps to eliminate federal intervention into education:

  1. Send all Program Management and Funding to the states including Pell Grants for college.
  2. Repeal all laws permitting federal intervention in K-12 education starting with ESSA.
  3. Privatize college loan programs through savings & loan institutions.
  4. Eliminate all offices and divisions in the US Department of Education and related spending.
  5. Reduce federal tax collection, shifting education revenue responsibilities entirely back to the states.

You can read the entire document below or here:

USPIE on their website also highlights a great summary video by The Cato Institute called “Downsize the Department of Education.

British Back Away From Skills-Based Education

The Rt Hon Nick Gibb MP speaking at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, Australia.

The United States is not the only country that has experienced a shift in K-12 education away from knowledge-based education towards a skill-based one. The United Kingdom has experienced that trend as well but backed away from it.

The Rt Hon Nick Gibb MP, who was elected a Member of Parliament in 1997 and later appointed Minister of State for School Standards at the UK Department of Education, discussed the importance of knowledge-based education at an event last week.

He first noted the shift towards skills-based education in 2007:

The way the curriculum is discussed in this country has changed dramatically over the last 10 years. In 2007, the previous government launched a national curriculum that had been stripped of knowledge content in favour of skills.

Could do Better’ – a review of the then National Curriculum carried out by Tim Oates in 2010 – found that the National Curriculum for England had been subjected to a protracted process of revision, with the 2007 reforms failing to adequately draw from emerging analysis of high-performing systems around the globe.

A change of government in 2010 prevented the Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum recommendations being brought in. This review argued that the primary national curriculum should place less emphasis on subject areas and a greater emphasis on so-called areas of learning and development:

  • personal, social and emotional development
  • communication,
  • language
  • and literacy
  • problem solving, reasoning and numeracy
  • knowledge and understanding of the world
  • physical development
  • creative development

He said the latest review highlighted the shift that Finnish Education took toward skills-based education, but cautioned that Finnish success in education is not attributable to this shift.

But as Gabriel Sahlgren argued in Real Finnish Lessons, Finland’s success – often a catalyst for skills-focused education reforms in other countries – is probably not explained by their more recent curriculum changes. These changes have been wrongly credited with education success, which is more likely to be due to Finland’s traditional educational culture until that point at about the turn of the millennium when it changed.

Instead, Sahlgren argues persuasively that Finland’s recent fall in performance – albeit from a very substantial height – is due to a movement away from this culture. In particular, the teacher-centred educational culture is being replaced by more pupil-led ways of working.

He then defends the knowledge-based curriculum that has been implemented in the UK once again:

Academies and free schools have control over the curriculum they teach, and with the National Curriculum setting the standard high, innovative schools led by exceptional head teachers have developed world-class curricula. But shifting a school’s focus towards a knowledge-based curriculum is not a short-term commitment, as Stuart Lock – the newly appointed headteacher of Bedford Free School – explains:

I think there is a real danger that developing a knowledge-based curriculum might be seen as “done” after a year or two. In reality, we are just over one year into a long-term job. There is no moving on to another initiative; we are playing the long game. This is what is important in schools, and hence is our continued focus for development over the next few years. Everything is subservient to curricular questions. So pedagogy, assessment, tracking and qualifications must lead on from us developing further our understanding of what makes a pupil knowledgeable, and ensuring we get as close to that understanding as possible.

This view is shared by Luke Sparkes and Jenny Thompson of Dixons Trinity Academy, which achieved outstanding results this year. Their excellent free school serves a disadvantaged community in Bradford, and is one of a number of high performing free schools and academies that demonstrate that a stretching, knowledge-rich curriculum, a sensible approach to behaviour and evidence-informed teaching result in exceptional results for all pupils.

High performing free schools and academies are providing empirical evidence of what it is possible to achieve when teachers and headteachers – given freedom to innovate with their curriculum – pursue an evidence-based approach. The exceptional results achieved by schools such as King Solomon Academy, Mossbourne Community Academy and Harris Academy Battersea demonstrate that disadvantage need be no barrier to achieving academic excellence.

He continues:

The West London Free School – run by Hywel Jones – is determined to provide a classical liberal education for all of its pupils. Too often, when considering what comprises a knowledge-rich curriculum, the arts are not given the prominence they deserve.

In tired arguments against the English Baccalaureate, opponents of the policy sometimes characterise proponents of a knowledge-rich curriculum as opposing the development of human creativity and appreciation of the arts. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is an interesting development from across the pond. You can read his whole speech here.

New Hampshire Sees Decline in Math and ELA Proficiency

The New Hampshire Department of Education released last year’s Smarter Balanced and SAT scores which showed a decline in math and ELA proficiency.  New Hampshire’s students take Smarter Balanced in grades 3-8 and grade 11 they take the SAT.

Each grade that took the Smarter Balanced Assessment saw a decline in math and ELA proficiency. The lone bright spot was with 11th-graders taking the SAT who had a three percent gain (44 percent) in math from last year. Even so, less than half of the Granite State’s juniors are proficient in math.

“We are obviously concerned about the decline in student performance and will be working closely with schools to understand the underlying drivers,” commented Frank Edelblut, Commissioner of Education. “It is interesting that all of the states that participated in the Smarter Balanced consortium for 2016-2017 saw a similar decline in their English language arts results, except California, which stayed even.”

“Now that the data has been certified, we will do some deep analysis to understand the results, looking at how our districts, schools, and subgroups performed,” stated Sandie MacDonald, the administrator for the Bureau of Instructional Support and Student Assessment. “While schools and families have had individualized student information to assist in supporting students since last spring, this is the Departments first opportunity to look at the aggregate state and district data we need to support our schools.”

I suspect what they will probably find as they do “deep analysis,” as other states have seen, is that they have a widening proficiency gap with their minority students.

Something that jumped out at me looking at these scores is how New Hampshire lacks California’s “hope.” In California, educrats were latching onto hope because of their third graders, who started kindergarten under Common Core, saw a slight increase collectively than previous third graders.

It is a false hope as I wrote:

Some are getting excited about less than one-half of California’s third graders meeting and exceeding standards. Also, apparently the definition of “relatively high” has changed. These students have been under Common Core since the beginning and still, only 47 percent meet or exceed the standards.

In 2016, 46 percent of third-graders met or exceeded standards. As fourth-graders this year only 40.45 percent do. In 2015, 40 percent of third-graders met or exceeded standards, but as fifth-graders this year only 33.83 percent do.

So the only thing I see here is that students’ collective scores worsen the longer they are under Common Core.

New Hampshire can still point to a higher proficiency rate, but they also have fewer ESL learners, fewer minority students, etc. who historically have not performed as well on standardized assessments. What New Hampshire can’t point to is collective growth in their proficiency rate among third graders.

More Gates Money Is Coming Down the Pike

Photo credit: World Economic Forum (CC-By-SA 2.0)

Bill Gates during his speech at the Council of the Great City Schools in Cleveland, OH yesterday said that he plans to spend another $1.7 Billion on more education initiatives in public schools.

As we have reflected on our work and spoken with educators over the last few years, we have identified a few key insights that will shape our work and investments going forward.

Teachers need better curricula and professional development aligned with the Common Core. And we see that they benefit the most from professional development when they are working with colleagues to tackle the real problems confronting their students.

Schools that track indicators of student progress — like test scores, attendance, suspensions, and grades and credit accumulation – improved high school graduation and college success rates.

And last, schools are the unit of change in the effort to increase student achievement and they face common challenges – like inadequate curricular systems and insufficient support for students as they move between middle school, high school and college. And they need better strategies to develop students’ social and emotional skills. But solutions to these problems will only endure if they are aligned with the unique needs of each student and the district’s broader strategy for change.

So, what does this mean for our work with you and others?

First, although we will no longer invest directly in new initiatives based on teacher evaluations and ratings, we will continue to gather data on the impact of these systems and encourage the use of these systems to improve instruction at the local level.

Second, we will focus on locally-driven solutions identified by networks of schools, and support their efforts to use data-driven continuous learning and evidence-based interventions to improve student achievement.

Third, we are increasing our commitment to develop curricula and professional development aligned to state standards.

Fourth, we will continue to support the development of high-quality charter schools.

There is some great learning coming from charters, but because there is other philanthropic money going to them, we will focus more of our work with charters on developing new tools and strategies for students with special needs.

Finally, we will expand investments in innovative research to accelerate progress for underserved students.

Overall, we expect to invest close to $1.7 billion in U.S. public education over the next five years.

We anticipate that about 60 percent of this will eventually support the development of new curricula and networks of schools that work together to identify local problems and solutions . . . and use data to drive continuous improvement.

So, they’re doubling down on Common Core to develop curriculum because the lack of aligned curriculum and professional development was the problem with Common Core. *Cough*

Then of course… data collection, data collection, data collection. Look at how he describes the school networks he plans to fund.

Over the next several years, we will support about 30 of these networks, and will start initially with high needs schools and districts in 6 to 8 states. Each network will be backed by a team of education experts skilled in continuous improvement, coaching, and data collection and analysis.

As if schools are not doing enough data collection on students.

So Gates will inflict “We the People” with another round of education spending that will inevitably drive education policy in areas that receive the funds. As we’ve seen with Common Core, his teacher evaluation efforts, and other Gates pet projects, this will be a waste of money as well.

Schools Grading Parents?

Success Academy Parent Investment Card

Education Week published a story last week about how the Success Academies, a charter school network in New York City, grades their parents on their involvement. Success Academies whose founder and CEO is Eva Moskowitz who was on President Donald Trump’s suspected short list for U.S. Secretary of Education.

They wrote:

Success Academy, which is based in New York City, is known as both an academic powerhouse serving mostly low-income, minority students and a prominent adherent to the controversial “no excuses” charter school philosophy, which promotes strict codes of student conduct.

The network began issuing the parent report cards this month.

It’s not uncommon for charter schools to place a premium on parental involvement. Some charters have even gone so far as to mandate that parents volunteer at their children’s school (an issue that got a lot of attention in California relatively recently).

Success Academies describes the Parental Investment cards in their parent handbook this way:

Schools issue parent/guardian Parent Investment Cards throughout the year to share feedback on fulfilling important parent responsibilities. Your scholar simply cannot achieve his or her greatest potential without you. The card will reflect three areas of focus and highlight feedback on a green, yellow, and red scale.

Homework Supervision

What is expected:

You make homework completion and reading a priority at home. Your child completes at least 96% of all regular and vacation homework.

Why this is important:

Effective homework advances a child’s understanding and knowledge. In elementary school, the primary purpose of homework is to foster a love of reading and practice essential skills like spelling words or quick math facts. It also factors into whether a scholar is ready to advance to the next grade. By middle school, homework becomes an essential part of learning by doing and impacts scholars’ GPA. Homework assignments count for 25% of a high school scholar’s course grade and help develop self-discipline and the time-management skills critical for success in college, where almost all work is done outside of class.

School Readiness

What is expected:

Your child attends school everyday and arrives on time and in uniform. Your child has no unexcused absences, tardies, uniform infractions, or suspensions. Your child acts responsibly at school and while in transit to and from school.

Why this is important:

Scholars miss so much learning when they aren’t in school. Each day is packed full, and even being a few minutes late can impact your scholar’s progress. Disruptive behavior takes away from important learning time as well. Understanding the importance of being on time and embodying the honor code will help scholars succeed long after they leave Success Academy. Together, we are helping them become responsible and productive citizens.

Parent Responsiveness and Investment

What is expected:

You respond to all communications (including meeting requests) from your child’s teachers, principal, or school staff within 24 hours —  just as you can expect us to respond to your requests in a timely way. You complete requests (like submitting required scholar forms) by the stated deadline. You attend all required school events and meetings, such as Your Scholar’s Success meetings. You are respectful when interacting with your child’s teachers, principal or any school staff, just as we are respectful to you.

Why this is important:

First and foremost, good communication between school staff and parents and guardians is essential. When issues arise—good or bad— it is important they are addressed in-the-moment to assure scholars are getting the support, reinforcement, or congratulations they need for progress. Second, our community is built on respect. Even if you don’t agree with something happening at school, discussing it from a place of respect allows for progress. Some meetings are required when information is best delivered in person with the opportunity to ask and respond to questions.

Parent Investment Expectations Per Reporting Period  

Homework Supervision (Completion of regular and vacation homework)

Green: Meeting Expectations

  • During the reporting period, my scholar’s homework completion rate was a 96.0% or above.

Yellow: Approaching Expectations

  • During the reporting period, my scholar’s homework completion rate was between 85.1% to 95.9%.

Red: Below Expectations

  • During the reporting period, my scholar’s homework completion rate was an 85.0% or below.

School Readiness

Green: Meeting Expectations

  • During the reporting period, my scholar had: no unexcused absences; and
  • no tardies; and
  • no uniform infractions; and
  • no suspensions.

Yellow: Approaching Expectations

  • During the reporting period, my scholar had: 1 unexcused absence; or
  • 1 tardy; or
  • 1 uniform infraction; and
  • no suspensions.

Red: Below Expectations

  • During the reporting period, my scholar had: 2+ unexcused absences;
  • 2+ uniform infractions; or
  • 2+ tardies; or
  • a suspension.

Parent Responsiveness and Investment

Green: Meeting Expectations

  • During the reporting period, I: responded to all communications within 24 hours; and
  • completed all requests (including forms) on time; and,
  • attended all required meetings; and
  • always showed respect when interacting with members of the school community.

Yellow: Approaching Expectations

  • During the reporting period, I: responded to all but 1 communication within 24 hours; or
  • completed all but 1 request (including forms) on time; or
  • missed 1 required meeting; and
  • always showed respect when interacting with members of the school community.

Red: Below Expectations

  • During the reporting period, I didn’t respond to at least two communications within 24 hours; or
  • didn’t complete at least 2 requests (including forms) on time; or
  • missed at least 2 required meetings; or
  • had disrespectful interactions with members of the school community.

There is no doubt that parental involvement is the number one factor in whether a child will succeed in school. It is commendable for schools to stress and encourage parental involvement. I know when I taught I appreciated parents who were communicative and involved in making sure their students were staying on top of school work.

This is the first time I’ve heard of a school grading parents. I have not seen this with private schools, who typically do have parental expectations, let alone a public school. I don’t think this is the way to go about improving parental involvement. They do not know what is going on at home, as well as, with a parent’s work. The school just put itself in a position of accountability over a parent when it should be the other way around.

Your thoughts?

Federalized Dataless Education Reform Impacting Kindergarten

Education Week last week ran an article entitled “Kindergarten Assessments Begin to Shape Instruction.” Here’s an excerpt:

But in recent years, the school has tried to shift instruction in a way that they say works better for young children. And they credit the use of a comprehensive method of evaluating kindergarten students, called kindergarten entry assessment, as one of the tools that allowed them to do that.

Kindergarten entry assessments, which some states call “kindergarten readiness assessments” or “kindergarten entry inventories,” are intended to guide a teacher’s instructional practice. They may include direct assessment of children’s skills, teacher observations, or both. They’re intended to give teachers a well-rounded picture of the whole child, including his or her academic, social, and physical development.

While these assessments are becoming more widespread—boosted by federal support during the Obama administration—they’re offering mixed results for teachers and for school districts.

Supporters say they’re useful in supporting all elements of a child’s development during their important early school days.

Others have criticized the assessments as an additional burden that doesn’t let teachers know what they should do with all the data they’re expected to collect. And the assessments also raise concerns for some that they’ll be used for high-stakes purposes, like evaluating teachers or sorting children into educational tracks.

These were pushed through Race to the Top as the article notes:

Kindergarten entry assessments or inventories are not new, but they received a big push through the federal Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge grants, which required applicants to outline a plan of how they were going to use these assessments to promote school readiness. The assessments were required to measure “language and literacy, cognition and general knowledge, approaches to learning, physical well-being and motor development, and social-emotional development,” the grant said.

The U.S. Department of Education also had a different grant program just to support state creation of kindergarten-entry assessments.

Researchers have raised questions about whether the assessments meet one goal of providing an academic boost for students. In 2016, the Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands wrote a report saying that using kindergarten entry assessments did not produce statistically significant improvements on students’ early reading or math skills.

But the students in that study would have started school well before the Education Department started giving money to states to create or improve their entry assessments.

Have to love the spin here. If the study authors looked at students using kindergarten entry assessments does it really matter whether there were federal dollars? Education Week also makes the assumption that the assessments were poor before the RTTT dollars. Evidence of that?

No, what we see here is another education reform pushed onto states through federal money that had absolutely no basis in evidence.

But sure, let’s continue to assess kindergartners because that’s what all the trendy educrats are doing.

Common Core Soon to Be No More in Kansas?

I read a slightly obnoxious article in Lawrence Journal-World about how Common Core will suddenly become a thing of the past in Kansas. I call it obnoxious because it just spouted off Common Core advocate talking points, and did not cite a single opponent. It also said Common Core would be “no more” without demonstrating how the new standards will be different.

The Kansas State Board of Education adopted new math standards in August. I looked on the Kansas Department of Education website, and it said they were not available yet.

Not available yet when the Board just approved the final draft? That was in August; it is now October.

I was able to find them by digging through the Board’s packet of materials for their August Board meeting and scrolling down to page 185.

Since the final draft of the 2017 math standards has been approved, I wanted to compare their “new” math standards with their 2010 standards.

Kansas’ new standards still include the Common Core Standards for Mathematical Practice verbatim.

Kindergarten

They tweak some of the standards. An example: K.CC.1 (2010) says, “Count to 100 by ones and by tens.” The 2017 standard says, “Count to 100 by ones and by tens and identify as a growth pattern.”

They moved around some of the standards. For example, they split up K.CC.3. The 2010 standard reads, “Write numbers from 0 to 20. Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0–20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects).” K.CC.3 now reads, “Read and write numerals from 0 to 20.” The rest of the 2010 standard, “Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects)” now becomes K.CC.4d.

First Grade

They rewrote 1.NBT.4 which did not change the standard, but made it easier to read.

Here’s the old standard: “Add within 100, including adding a two-digit number and a one-digit number, and adding a two-digit number and a multiple of 10, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used. Understand that in adding two-digit numbers, one adds tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose a ten.”

The new standard:

1.NBT.4. Add within 100 using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used including: (1.NBT.4)

1.NBT.4a Adding a two-digit number and a one-digit number (1.NBT.4)
1.NBT.4b Adding a two-digit number and a multiple of 10 (1.NBT.4)
1.NBT.4c Understanding that when adding two-digit numbers, combine like base-ten units such as tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose a ten. (1.NBT.4)

Second Grade

They added a new 2.NBT.1c to 2.NBT.1., “Show flexibility in composing and decomposing hundreds, tens, and ones.” It then gave examples.

2.MD.9 is new, “Identify coins and bills and their values.”

Third Grade

They split the 2010 3.MD.2 standard into two standards, beyond that the language is the same.

Fourth Grade

Several Measurement and Data standards have been moved to the 8th-Grade Geometry standards (see below). Beyond that nothing has changed.

Fifth Grade

I did not notice any significant changes.

Sixth Grade

6.RP.3 has been reorganized. They combined part of 6.RP.3a and 6.RP.3b. 6.RP.3c (2010) is now 6.RP.3b. 6.RP.3d (2010) is now 6.RP.3c. It did not change the standard at all.

6.NS.5 has been similarly reorganized to include 6.NS.5a and 6.NS.5b. All of the original language from the 2010 standard is still present.

The 2010 6.EE.3 and 6.EE.4 2010 standards have been combined. It now reads (without the examples), “Apply the properties of operations and combine like terms, with the conventions of algebraic notation, to identify and generate equivalent expressions.” The phrase “with the conventions of algebraic notation” is the new language in that standard.

Seventh Grade

The 2010 7.NS.1c standard was changed. It originally reads, “Understand subtraction of rational numbers as adding the additive inverse, p – q = p + (–q). Show that the distance between two rational numbers on the number line is the absolute value of their difference, and apply this principle in real-world contexts.”

It’s now 7.NS.1c and 7.NS.1d:

7.NS.1c Model subtraction of rational numbers as adding in the additive inverse, p – q = p + (-q).

7.NS.1d Model subtraction as the distance between two rational numbers on the number line where the distance is the absolute value of their difference.

They replaced 7.G.2 with G.GMD.4 which reads, “Identify three-dimensional objects generated by rotating a two-dimensional (rectangular or triangular) object around one edge.”

7.G.5 has been replaced. The 2010 standard, “Use facts about supplementary, complementary, vertical, and adjacent angles in a multi-step problem to write and use them to solve simple equations for an unknown angle in a figure.”

Now reads:

 

Eighth Grade

They eliminated the 2010 8.EE.1 standard that reads, “Know and apply the properties of integer exponents to generate equivalent numerical expressions. For example, 32 × 3–5 = 3–3 = 1/33 = 1/27.”

A new standard has been added. It’s 8.EE.6, and it reads:

Describe the relationship between the proportional relationship expressed in = and the non-proportional linear relationship = + as a result of a vertical translation. Note: be clear with students that all linear relationships have a constant rate of change (slope), but only the special case of proportional relationships (line that goes through the origin) continue to have a constant of proportionality.

The 8th-Grade Geometry standards have been changed quite a bit. They moved 4th-Grade Measurement and Data standards 4.MD.5a and 4.MD.6 to become 8.G.1a and 8.G.1b, as well as, 8.G.2.  Also, 4.MD.7 becomes 8.G.3. The 7th Grade Geometry standard 7.G.5 and 7.G.2 become 8.6.4 and 8.G.6.

8.G.5, 8.G.7, and 8.G.8 are original standards from 2010. 8.G.10 and 8.G.12 are new. 8.G.11 is the 2010 G.GMD.3 standard.

High School

They added grade classifications to the standards.

N.RN.1 for 9/10-Grades was the Eight Grade Geometry standard 8.EE.1.

They divided up N.CN.3 into two standards. (N.CN.3 and N.CN. 4).

They added two new standards to the Arithmetic with Polynomials and Rational Expressions (A.ARP) section.

A.APR.2 is new, it reads, “Factor polynomials; identifying that some polynomials are prime.”

A.APR.7 is also new, and it reads, “(+) Add, subtract, multiply, and divide rational expressions.”

The Reasoning with Equations and Inequalities (A.REI) section has been reorganized.

A.REI.3b is new, it reads, “(+) Solve exponential and logarithmic equations.”

A.REI.5d is new, it reads, “(+) Solve quadratic inequalities and identify the domain.”

Some 8th-Grade Expressions and Equations standards have been moved to the high school A.REI section. 8.EE.8a, 8.EE.8b, and 8.EE.8c have become A.REI.6a, A.REI.6b, and A.REI.6C.

A.REI.7 combines the 2010 A.REI.8 and A.REI.9 standards.

In the Interpreting Functions (F.IF) section there have been some changes. F.IF.7 sub-standards have been reorganized, but it does not contain new language (beyond grade classifications).

F.IF.8a is new it reads, “(9/10) Use different forms of linear functions, such as slope-intercept, standard, and point-slope form to show rate of change and intercepts.”

Under the Building Functions section (F.BF) there have been some changes. F.BF.1a is a new standard. It replaces the 2010 F.BF.1b standard. F.BF.4b and F.BF.4c have switched places compared to the 2010 standards.

Under the Geometry Congruence Standards (G.CO) there have been some changes.

G.CO.1 was replaced with the 2010 8.G.1 standard. G.C0.3 was replaced with the 2010 8.G.3 standard.

G.CO.9 is a new standard.

Under the High School Geometry Similarity, Right Triangles, and Trigonometry section (G.SRT) there have been a few changes.

G.SRT.2 and G.SRT.3 standards reflect new 2017 language.

I already mentioned that some Geometry Geometric Measurement and Dimension standards (G.GMD) had been moved to 8th-Grade Geometry (G.GMD.3).

Conclusion:

I see few changes to their early elementary math standards. They have delayed some fourth grade standards to eighth grade. Their most significant differences can be observed in the 8th Grade and High School Geometry standards, and then they were primarily swapping standards around.

There have been few new standards added. The Standards for Mathematical Practice from Common Core is still in use. The most significant change for high school is the addition of grade classifications which, I’m sure, is helpful.

The Lawrence Journal-World may think Common Core is gone, what I see is merely a rebrand.