Date: Aug 19, 2011 6:53 AM
Author: Eleanor Pupko
Subject: RE: Geometry #21
This discussion is precisely why I am alarmed about the new Core. At the high school level I really don't see much in the way of what I am supposed to teach. I get that students need to be problem solvers, persistent, etc. and am on board with that, but unless we know more about the skills needed to solve these problems, students will be continually penalized by the system.
Here is an example on the Algebra 2/Trig exam that actually involved a skill I KNEW needed to be taught. Students were required to solve an absolute value inequality and graph the solution set on a number line drawn in the booklet. Many of my students did exactly that and did it correctly. Yet they lost one or two points because the rubric REQUIRED that the answer also be written as an inequality with the word OR, in addition to graphing it on the number line. NOwhere did it state that it had to be done algebraically. It could have been done graphically.
The new Core is too vague and will lead to way more unpleasant surprises. And if the test questions are not released, we will never know what we failed to cover.
I would like to see something similar to the Acorn book for Advanced Placement Calculus issued by the College Board. Without mandating when or how, it conveys to a teacher exactly what needs to be accomplished.
Subject: Re: Geometry #21
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:06:46 -0400
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.
On Aug 18, 2011, at 10:32 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
From: Jonathan <email@example.com>
To: nyshsmath <firstname.lastname@example.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:
But none of these are necessarily correct (kite, anyone?)
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 10, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Iva Jean Tennant <email@example.com> wrote:
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.
Office of Curriculum and Instruction
NYS Education Department
Albany, N.Y. 12234
(518) 486-1385 (fax)