Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I asked about this at NCTM and got the response below. Bill, please correct me if I paraphrase incorrectly:
The progressions are still under work. The article by Wu is essentially the first draft of the progression document. There is a geometry blueprint up on IllustrativeMathematics (https://www.illustrativemathematics.org/blueprints/G).
I responded, “So did you end up going with the Wu approach or did you couch it as Harel recommends?”
Bill said that essentially the blueprint goes with a transformation first approach as opposed to a Euclidean approach.
My opinions: I find Harel’s argument very convincing. That said, I am glad that Bill is making this decision. I much prefer a thoughtful decision I disagree with from him, that includes a solid explanation and a lot of coherence, over a decision from publishers with less coherence.
I’ve gotten confirmation that the high school level PARCC tests will be given as end-of-course exams and not correlated to grade level. This is described here:
http://www.parcconline.org/mcf/mathematics/high-school-standards-analysisThese are some additional useful documents relating to PARCC if you are, like me, trying to figure out precisely which content standards will be covered on the exam:
http://parcconline.org/for-educators
http://parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCMCFMathematicsNovember2012V3_FINAL_0.pdf – Version 3, updated framework
http://www.parcconline.org/math-plds – Math Performance Level Descriptors
https://www.parcconline.org/assessment-blueprints-test-specs – Assessment BlueprintsAny thoughts on Guershon Harel’s article that is essentially a response to Wu’s article?
Do we know how the annual tests will work with students who are not following the same schedule? The standard schedule at my school has 8th grade students taking Algebra 1, 9th grade students taking Geometry and 10th grade students taking Algebra 2. Will the 10th grade students be taking the Geometry version of the PARCC exam? Does it depend on the state?
