> This is how I felt when I first tried to figure out what common core math was, after I kept hearing about it. It sounded like the people who made it were trying to create a process around what I would do in my head to try and solve a problem when I didn’t have paper or a calculator handy.
> What common core, and this reading approach, seem to miss is that those are things that come after learning the foundations and rules.
The CA Common Core for math¹ is a very tiny spec that can be easily read in a day for the entirety of K-12. It's a spec meant to coordinate textbook publishers, test makers, and other content creators.
It offers very little restriction or guidance, in other words wide latitude, on pedagogical vision.
And what's there isn't too different from what's before, though pedagogical ideas that are now more in vogue (use of tape models) are mentioned prominently, and there's a lot more emphasis on students being able to explain what they've done and why it works.
> What common core, and this reading approach, seem to miss is that those are things that come after learning the foundations and rules.
The CA Common Core for math¹ is a very tiny spec that can be easily read in a day for the entirety of K-12. It's a spec meant to coordinate textbook publishers, test makers, and other content creators.
It offers very little restriction or guidance, in other words wide latitude, on pedagogical vision.
[1]: https://www.cde.ca.gov/BE/ST/SS/documents/ccssmathstandardau...