Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: PARCC
Replies: 16   Last Post: Aug 22, 2011 1:57 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Roberta M. Eisenberg Posts: 269 Registered: 10/9/09
Re: Geometry #21
Posted: Aug 18, 2011 1:06 PM
 att1.html (7.3 K)

Yes, it would because in that case a trap could be a parallelogram.

I remember the back-and-forth of a few years ago that you mention because in my first years of teaching (1962+) I had a Regents geom class and an honors geom. The textbook for the Regents geom had the usual def of a trapezoid while the book for the honors class had the other def. that you mentioned.

Bobbi E

On Aug 18, 2011, at 10:32 AM, elizwaite@aol.com wrote:

> I believe isosceles trapezoid is correct. Although I do recall an earlier conversation on this list from several years ago where a few people defined a trapezoid as a quadrilateral with AT LEAST one pair of parallel sides where most of us used EXACTLY one pair of parallel sides. This would make a difference, I think.
> Liz Waite
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan <jd2718@gmail.com>
> To: nyshsmath <nyshsmath@mathforum.org>
> Sent: Thu, Aug 18, 2011 10:24 am
> Subject: Geometry #21
>
> The diagonals of a quadrilateral are congruent but do not bisect eac other. The quadrilateral is:
>
> Iso trapezoid
> Parallelogram
> Rectangle
> Rhombus
>
> But none of these are necessarily correct (kite, anyone?)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 10, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Iva Jean Tennant <tennantij@aol.com> wrote:
>

>> Hi All-
>> Sorry this is a bit late, but I have been away for the last week. I hope you are all enjoying some time off over the summer.
>> I know most of you have seen the news around the release of the PARCC Model Content Frameworks for public comment. For those of you who have not, read on.
>> · The Model Content Frameworks in Mathematics and English language arts/literacy were released for public review on August 3rd, after several rounds of feedback from the PARCC states. This public review period is an opportunity for an even wider group of interested parties to provide feedback on all parts of the frameworks, including the introductions and the grade level analyses, which contain suggested areas of emphasis and priority.
>> · By following the this link, http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-content-frameworks, you will be able to review the draft Model Content Frameworks and provide your feedback through an on-line survey. All feedback is due to PARCC by Wednesday, August 17th.
>> During this public review period, PARCC hopes that teachers in particular will provide their feedback on the draft Model Content Frameworks. While teachers have helped to develop the frameworks to this point, the feedback of a broader group of educators is critical. The Model Content Frameworks are being shared directly with NCTM, NCSM, NCTE, AFT, and NEA, as well as others, so these organizations can share them with their members, as well.
>>
>>
>> ·
>>
>> John Svendsen
>> Mathematics Associate
>> Office of Curriculum and Instruction
>> NYS Education Department
>> EB 320
>> Albany, N.Y. 12234
>> (518) 474-5922
>> (518) 486-1385 (fax)
>> jsvendse@mail.nysed.gov
>> http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/math/home.html
>> www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai
>>
>>