
Re: trapezoid clarification
Posted:
May 18, 2014 8:12 AM



Yes. A parallelogram is a trapezoid. I would like to see the clarifications but until they come we might want to look to earlier grades where they are defining these shapes. They have a venom diagram in the 5 th grade modules that show parallelograms are trapezoids. Michelle
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 17, 2014, at 4:25 PM, JFish@csufsd.org wrote: > > > So are you claiming that a parallelogram IS a trapezoid?????????? > > Jim > > ownernyshsmath@mathforum.org wrote:  > To: "<nyshsmath@mathforum.org>" <nyshsmath@mathforum.org> > From: Gene Jordan > Sent by: ownernyshsmath@mathforum.org > Date: 05/17/2014 04:11PM > Subject: Re: trapezoid clarification > > Here's the chart. > > I thought there was a trapezoid thread earlier, the geometry standards clarification document has it there. It should be released soon. > > I think Euclid defined Trapezoia as "all other quads". I tweeted the above image with the hope the end of the trapezoid wars was near. I remain neutral on inclusive or exclusive superiority, but would always appreciate our continued request for releasing a CCLS glossary to help us with precise language. > Sorry for my brevity ( and imprecision) it's a cool yet beautiful day to be outside. > > > ~Gene Jordan > > Broome County AMTNYS chair (Southern Tier) > > > On May 17, 2014, at 8:35 AM, "Meg Clemens" <mclemens@twcny.rr.com> wrote: > >> At training in Albany this past week, NYSED released a standards clarification document for Geometry that states (among other items) that a trapezoid is now defined with the ?inclusion? definition: a trapezoid has at least one pair of parallel sides. Although this might be a surprise to NYS teachers who have used the exclusive definition, this is a common definition for trapezoid. >> >> >> >> Three questions: >> >> >> >> 1. Is this standards clarification memo posted on engageny anywhere yet? I couldn?t find it. >> >> >> >> 2. How do we treat conflicting definitions next year when we are preparing students for both regents? >> >> >> >> 3. With the new definition, what is an isosceles trapezoid? I think we need clarification on this. >> >> >> >> a. If I use trapezoid w/ one pair of opposite sides congruent, then a parallelogram is an isosceles trapezoid but its base angles are not congruent. >> >> b. If I use trapezoid w/ one pair of opposite sides congruent and base angles are congruent, then rectangles and squares are isosceles trapezoids, which might be OK. >> >> c. There is an alternative definition that uses one axis of symmetry and one w/ no symmetry to yield the usual depiction of an isosceles trapezoid. >> >> >> >> >> >> Meg Clemens >> >> Canton Central School >> > > Spam > Not spam > Forget previous vote > > > [attachment "image.png" removed by James Fish/Teachers/CheektowagaSloan/Erie1] > [attachment "image.jpeg" removed by James Fish/Teachers/CheektowagaSloan/Erie1] > ******************************************************************* * To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email the message * "unsubscribe nyshsmath" to majordomo@mathforum.org * * Read prior posts and download attachments from the web archives at * http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumIDg1 *******************************************************************

