GaDOE Common Core Standards Survey for Middle and High School Teachers--Middle GA RESA Region

Transcription

1 GaDOE Common Core Standards Survey for Middle and High School Teachers--Middle GA RESA Region 1. What level and subject do you teach? Response Percent Response Middle School Math 23.4% 36 Middle School ELA 26.6% 41 High School Math 25.3% 39 High School ELA 24.7% 38 answered question 154 skipped question Overall, the standards for Reading (Grades 6 and up) are learly written 17.3% (13) 58.7% (44) 13.3% (10) 6.7% (5) 5.3% (4) 75 focused on key content 20.3% (15) 62.2% (46) 9.5% (7) 5.4% (4) 4.1% (3) 74 appropriately rigorous 24.7% (18) 60.3% (44) 9.6% (7) 2.7% (2) 4.1% (3) 73 age/grade appropriate 18.9% (14) 60.8% (45) 12.2% (9) 5.4% (4) 4.1% (3) 74 answered question 76 skipped question 92 1 of 19

2 3. Overall, the standards for Writing (Grades 6 and up) are clearly written 19.7% (15) 60.5% (46) 11.8% (9) 3.9% (3) 3.9% (3) 76 focused on key content 23.0% (17) 59.5% (44) 10.8% (8) 2.7% (2) 4.1% (3) 74 appropriately rigorous 25.0% (18) 58.3% (42) 9.7% (7) 2.8% (2) 4.2% (3) 72 age/grade appropriate 23.3% (17) 56.2% (41) 12.3% (9) 4.1% (3) 4.1% (3) 73 answered question 76 skipped question Overall, the standards for Speaking and Listening (Grades 6 and up) are clearly written 19.2% (14) 61.6% (45) 11.0% (8) 4.1% (3) 4.1% (3) 73 focused on key content 19.7% (14) 63.4% (45) 8.5% (6) 4.2% (3) 4.2% (3) 71 appropriately rigorous 18.8% (13) 65.2% (45) 8.7% (6) 2.9% (2) 4.3% (3) 69 age/grade appropriate 21.7% (15) 60.9% (42) 8.7% (6) 4.3% (3) 4.3% (3) 69 answered question 73 skipped question 95 2 of 19

3 5. Overall, the standards for Language (Grades 6 and up) are clearly written 15.8% (12) 60.5% (46) 10.5% (8) 6.6% (5) 6.6% (5) 76 focused on key content 18.9% (14) 59.5% (44) 9.5% (7) 5.4% (4) 6.8% (5) 74 appropriately rigorous 19.4% (14) 58.3% (42) 9.7% (7) 5.6% (4) 6.9% (5) 72 age/grade appropriate 21.9% (16) 56.2% (41) 9.6% (7) 5.5% (4) 6.8% (5) 73 answered question 76 skipped question Overall, the standards for Reading in History/Social Studies and Science are clearly written 17.6% (13) 43.2% (32) 10.8% (8) 5.4% (4) 23.0% (17) 74 focused on key content 19.4% (14) 40.3% (29) 12.5% (9) 4.2% (3) 23.6% (17) 72 appropriately rigorous 20.8% (15) 44.4% (32) 8.3% (6) 2.8% (2) 23.6% (17) 72 age/grade appropriate 20.8% (15) 44.4% (32) 6.9% (5) 4.2% (3) 23.6% (17) 72 answered question 74 skipped question 94 3 of 19

4 7. Overall, the standards for Writing for History/Social Studies and Science are clearly written 16.4% (12) 43.8% (32) 9.6% (7) 4.1% (3) 26.0% (19) 73 focused on key content 16.7% (12) 43.1% (31) 9.7% (7) 4.2% (3) 26.4% (19) 72 appropriately rigorous 19.4% (14) 45.8% (33) 4.2% (3) 4.2% (3) 26.4% (19) 72 age/grade appropriate 20.8% (15) 44.4% (32) 4.2% (3) 4.2% (3) 26.4% (19) 72 answered question 74 skipped question Please use this area to give any specific feedback on your overall impression of the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards. Your responses are critical in determining any changes that need to be made to the standards in order to make them better. Response 28 answered question 28 skipped question Overall, the standards for Grade 6 mathematics are clearly written 5.3% (4) 20.0% (15) 9.3% (7) 0.0% (0) 65.3% (49) 75 focused on key content 8.1% (6) 23.0% (17) 2.7% (2) 1.4% (1) 64.9% (48) 74 appropriately rigorous 13.5% (10) 16.2% (12) 4.1% (3) 1.4% (1) 64.9% (48) 74 age/grade appropriate 8.2% (6) 20.5% (15) 4.1% (3) 1.4% (1) 65.8% (48) 73 answered question 75 skipped question 93 4 of 19

5 10. Overall, the standards for Grade 7 mathematics are clearly written 5.3% (4) 18.7% (14) 13.3% (10) 0.0% (0) 62.7% (47) 75 focused on key content 10.8% (8) 20.3% (15) 5.4% (4) 1.4% (1) 62.2% (46) 74 appropriately rigorous 13.5% (10) 20.3% (15) 2.7% (2) 1.4% (1) 62.2% (46) 74 age/grade appropriate 8.3% (6) 26.4% (19) 1.4% (1) 1.4% (1) 62.5% (45) 72 answered question 75 skipped question Overall, the standards for Grade 8 mathematics are clearly written 6.7% (5) 24.0% (18) 9.3% (7) 0.0% (0) 60.0% (45) 75 focused on key content 12.5% (9) 23.6% (17) 2.8% (2) 1.4% (1) 59.7% (43) 72 appropriately rigorous 15.3% (11) 18.1% (13) 4.2% (3) 1.4% (1) 61.1% (44) 72 age/grade appropriate 9.7% (7) 23.6% (17) 5.6% (4) 1.4% (1) 59.7% (43) 72 answered question 75 skipped question 93 5 of 19

6 12. Overall, the standards represent a clear and coherent vision of mathematics and are age/grade appropriate. Response Percent Response 5.4% % % % % 35 answered question 111 skipped question The standards define "what" and "when" content is taught, and avoid describing "how" it should be taught. Response Percent Response 9.6% % % % % 21 answered question 115 skipped question 53 6 of 19

7 14. Overall, the standards for the High School - Numbers and Quantity section are clearly written 3.2% (3) 16.8% (16) 16.8% (16) 5.3% (5) 57.9% (55) 95 focused on key content 4.2% (4) 26.3% (25) 6.3% (6) 5.3% (5) 57.9% (55) 95 appropriately rigorous 3.2% (3) 26.3% (25) 6.3% (6) 6.3% (6) 57.9% (55) 95 age/grade appropriate 3.2% (3) 24.7% (23) 7.5% (7) 7.5% (7) 57.0% (53) 93 answered question 95 skipped question Overall, the standards for the High School - Algebra section are clearly written 3.2% (3) 15.8% (15) 17.9% (17) 4.2% (4) 58.9% (56) 95 focused on key content 3.3% (3) 26.7% (24) 5.6% (5) 5.6% (5) 58.9% (53) 90 appropriately rigorous 2.1% (2) 25.5% (24) 6.4% (6) 8.5% (8) 57.4% (54) 94 age/grade appropriate 3.2% (3) 21.1% (20) 8.4% (8) 9.5% (9) 57.9% (55) 95 answered question 95 skipped question 73 7 of 19

8 16. Overall, the standards for the High School - Functions section are clearly written 1.1% (1) 19.1% (18) 17.0% (16) 4.3% (4) 58.5% (55) 94 focused on key content 3.2% (3) 26.9% (25) 6.5% (6) 6.5% (6) 58.1% (54) 93 appropriately rigorous 2.1% (2) 27.7% (26) 4.3% (4) 8.5% (8) 57.4% (54) 94 age/grade appropriate 3.2% (3) 23.4% (22) 7.4% (7) 8.5% (8) 57.4% (54) 94 answered question 94 skipped question Overall, the standards for the High School - Modeling section are clearly written 1.1% (1) 19.4% (18) 14.0% (13) 5.4% (5) 61.3% (57) 93 focused on key content 2.2% (2) 26.9% (25) 3.2% (3) 6.5% (6) 61.3% (57) 93 appropriately rigorous 1.1% (1) 26.1% (24) 4.3% (4) 6.5% (6) 62.0% (57) 92 age/grade appropriate 1.1% (1) 23.1% (21) 7.7% (7) 6.6% (6) 62.6% (57) 91 answered question 93 skipped question 75 8 of 19

9 18. Overall, the standards for the High School - Statistics and Probability section are clearly written 3.2% (3) 17.9% (17) 13.7% (13) 5.3% (5) 60.0% (57) 95 focused on key content 3.2% (3) 26.3% (25) 4.2% (4) 7.4% (7) 58.9% (56) 95 appropriately rigorous 4.2% (4) 23.2% (22) 6.3% (6) 7.4% (7) 58.9% (56) 95 age/grade appropriate 3.2% (3) 22.6% (21) 8.6% (8) 7.5% (7) 58.1% (54) 93 answered question 95 skipped question Overall, the standards for the High School - Geometry section are clearly written 2.1% (2) 14.7% (14) 17.9% (17) 5.3% (5) 61.1% (58) 95 focused on key content 2.1% (2) 24.2% (23) 7.4% (7) 7.4% (7) 60.0% (57) 95 appropriately rigorous 4.2% (4) 22.1% (21) 6.3% (6) 8.4% (8) 60.0% (57) 95 age/grade appropriate 2.1% (2) 22.1% (21) 8.4% (8) 8.4% (8) 60.0% (57) 95 answered question 95 skipped question Please use this area to give any specific feedback on your overall impression of the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards. Your responses are critical in determining any changes that need to be made to the standards in order to make them better. Response 32 answered question 32 skipped question of 19

10 10 of 19

11 11 of 19

12 Page 2, Q8. Please use this area to give any specific feedback on your overall impression of the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards. Your responses are critical in determining any changes that need to be made to the standards in order to make them better. 1 As a 12th grade British Literature teacher, I was/am concerned about the standards for 11th and 12th grade literature being the same--no standards are course specific. There are no standards specific to British Literature or to American Literature. 2 The units written for CCGPS in ELA are poor;y written and not always aligned properly with the standards. The Units leave out too many key works in every grade level and often focus on obscure and irrelevant selections. 3 Some standards, especially in language and reading, are very general and not specific. For example one standard basically says, "students will enjoy literature." Sep 13, :48 AM Sep 12, :30 AM Sep 12, :07 AM 4 NA Sep 11, :03 PM 5 The CCGPS is a great tool to have to help teachers, students, and parents to understand the aspects of transitioning from one grade to the next through mastering the standards from district to district. Sep 11, :21 PM 6 CCGPS Standards for ELA are clearly written and understandable. Sep 5, :34 AM 7 I feel that the CCGPS standards focus on core skills that students need to master to be successful in society. I also feel that the standards are progressive by grade level and foster critical thinking skills. 8 I teach science and have been through a great deal of literacy training (literacy consortia's with Dr. Patillo). BUT, I feel that people who have not received the amount of training I have are LOST in terms of how to implement the CCGPS for science. 9 Please support CCGPS in ELA. I don't know how we will compete if we don't follow what the rest of the country is doing. We will be further handicapping our students if we don't standardize BOTH our teaching AND our testing. 10 CCGPS is a critical move in giving Georgia students a more competive education nationwide. The level of higher order thinking required will raise educational standards statewide 11 The CCGPS does not meet the needs for the average-below average learners. Also, we can not expect teachers to be a "cookie cutter" of one another. I am gald that we a no longer a part of the PARCC system and I appreciate that you are looking at the role of the CCGPS in Georgia schools. I appreciate you giving us a voice. If we continue on this path, I am afraid that we are going to continue to lose students to private schools. 12.These standards are verbose and repetitive. They obfuscate rather than clarify and they are inordinately cumbersome. There are far too many of them, and the language in which they are written is jargon laden. Such language would receive poor marks in my classroom, and is hardly a model for clear and effective writing for our students. Sep 5, :22 AM Sep 5, :45 AM Sep 5, :17 AM Sep 4, :42 AM Sep 3, :54 PM Sep 3, :52 PM 13 need to address connections classes Sep 3, :49 AM 12 of 19

13 Page 2, Q8. Please use this area to give any specific feedback on your overall impression of the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards. Your responses are critical in determining any changes that need to be made to the standards in order to make them better. 14 I have been using the CCGPS for SS for 2 years and I think they really address student weaknesses and demand teachers teach a more rigorous curriculum. If we want to compete with the rest of the US and the rest of the industrialized world then we have to continue to push for greater rigor 15 Students are not accustomed to being educated this way. They will be challenged exponentially because the common core forces them to cite textual evidence. Students in Georgia have not been taught to learn this way. Struggles will be evident throughout the state. Sep 3, :48 AM Sep 3, :00 AM 16 overwhelmed by the amount of work required by the ccgps addition Sep 3, :10 AM 17 I do not currently teach ELA or Math, but am SPED Science and Social Studies. Aug 30, :03 PM 18 I do not believe the standards are written in terms that are student friendly. Most students cannot explain what a standard means and rely on teacher-generated essential questions to guide their focus. 19 The Georgia Middle Grades Writing Assessment administered in grade 8 requires no student accountability. Despite a teacher's great instructional practices and teaching methods, students may choose to avoid improving in writing skills, and sometimes do, since this skill requires great concentrated effort over time. I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard a student say, "I don't have to pass the writing test." High expectations combined with no accountability is a no win situation for all concerned. 20 The Common Core standards are, in my opinion, an intensified version of the GPS. Most fifth-graders are not now, nor will they any time soon, come to sixth grade having mastered the conventions of the English language or the reading skills needed to be successful. Yet, the sixth-grade CC standards assume that they have. Common Core is particularly difficult for students with reading and math challenges, and that includes many of our students. I have also found CC standards to be written with more verbage than is necessary. In many ways, the reading standards are similar to the GPS, but the actual skills are hard to clearly define and teach. 21 I do not see how teachers and students are suppose to achieve academic proficiency given the overwhelming amount of reading and writing required within the current frameworks and suggested coarses of study. The pace needed to cover the material does not lead to deep understanding, only confusion and frustration for students and teachers. 22 Speaking and Listening standards often have tasks that are either too difficult for the students to complete or too time consuming for students to complete on campus. They do not always have the technology resources at home to complete the tasks at home. Aug 30, :05 AM Aug 29, :26 AM Aug 28, :45 PM Aug 27, :17 AM Aug 27, :46 AM 23 N/A Aug 27, :30 AM 24 The students are not prepared enough in the areas of reading and writing, once they get to the 9th grade, to master some of the more rigorous standards. Some Aug 27, :16 AM 13 of 19

14 Page 2, Q8. Please use this area to give any specific feedback on your overall impression of the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards. Your responses are critical in determining any changes that need to be made to the standards in order to make them better. are...not all. 25 The standards are written in an age-appropriate, rigor-appropriate manner for the "ideal" set of students. I have never taught ideal students. My students struggle year after year, and for them the standards are unattainable. The standards are well-written, and obviously took much effort and hard work. I applaud the outcome on paper. However, for those of us in the classroom, it is hard when we know our students can't reach a certain level. They work hard, and can improve, but may never find success based on these standards. Aug 26, :21 PM 26 N/A Aug 26, :09 PM 27 While I do not think CCGPS has been given enough time to fully see concrete results, I think the glaring mistake is the lack of focus on actual literature. Using historical documents, non-fiction texts, etc. is all well and good but as a literature teacher I want to teach just that literature. Taking the focus off classics (both older and modern) is robbing our students of culture they may never get anywhere else. 28 CCGPS is very well written and I am especially impressed with the writing standards. However, CCGPS requires an assessment that assesses the standards taught in a specific grade as opposed to a grade band. Aug 26, :09 PM Aug 26, :03 PM 14 of 19

15 15 of 19

16 Page 4, Q20. Please use this area to give any specific feedback on your overall impression of the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards. Your responses are critical in determining any changes that need to be made to the standards in order to make them better. 1 The change from GPS to CCGPS was a strong step in the right direction for 6th grade math; however, I believe that the content is still too challenging and not age appropriate. The math transition from sixth grade to seventh grade is a drastic change. The seventh grade standards seem to be more age appropriate than the sixth grade. Students have always struggled with sixth grade math standards and been successful with seventh grade math standards. 2 There is still some overlap between units creating confusion when trying to understand what to teach at what time. 3 The standards are not clearly written. It is hard to determine from the wording exactly what should be taught and what the students will be responsible for knowing. Specifically the standards over functions, linear functions, and linear models and tables. 4 The Geometry course has WAY too many standards for students to master. I do not think they can come close to mastering 75% of what is currently required. 5 The CCGPS are not age appropriate and do not adequately prepare students for post secondary mathematics courses. The CCGPS standards are deigned as a one size fits all curriculum which is not an acceptable approach to enabling school to provide a meaningful education to our students. Sep 13, :31 AM Sep 13, :25 AM Sep 12, :29 PM Sep 12, :47 AM Sep 12, :40 AM 6 NA Sep 11, :06 PM 7 Some standards should be written more clearly. The language used can sometimes be confusing. 8 Some standards are a bit wordy, complicating the key content we should focus on teaching. In certain circumstances, clear examples are needed to accompany the standards to help clarify them. 9 Do not spend the money to change them again. Teachers can adapt to anything that is mandated with reason. 10 Factoring should be taught earlier...gcf factoring should be taught in 8th grade, Trinomial factoring and difference of perfect squares should be taught in 9th grade. Factoring should build each year. Currently it is not taught until 10th grade. It takes more than once to master factoring. The analytic geometry should be pure geometry. The 2nd part of it is more algebra than anything. Even and Odd functions should be taught with polynomial functions. A lot of the statistics should not be taught. When students get to AP statistics, the teacher has to reteach it all over again because either the students don't remember it, or it was taught incorrectly. Only Mean, Median, and Mode should be taught...maybe basic probability and odds. Anything higher than that should be left to the AP Statistics Teacher. 11 I really think I am doing a disservice to my students. I really think Geometry should be pure geometry and not algebra and statisitics. Geometry is a course that is built on definitions, theorems and postulate.. The problem with this is most of the prior knowledge need for geometry is taught in the 7th and 8th grade Sep 11, :19 AM Sep 9, :45 PM Sep 8, :23 PM Sep 5, :25 PM Sep 5, :43 AM 16 of 19

17 Page 4, Q20. Please use this area to give any specific feedback on your overall impression of the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards. Your responses are critical in determining any changes that need to be made to the standards in order to make them better. which is not on the level that students need for highschool greometry. The standards do not require the students to learn the theorems, only the names of the theorems. Standards within units should flow into the next standard. I think statistics should be left for a 11th of a 12th grade course. The Quadratic unit in 10 grade should be place back in the 9th grade. 12 I feel the curriculum is harder for students to grasp because the concepts are blocked in artificial units instead of flowing in formation like algebra-geometryalgebra 2-etc. Some content needs to be visited more than once - like factoring. Currently factoring is not introduced until 10th grade. Students need GCF introduction in 8th, trinomial in 9th and 10th and then polynomials in 11th. Also, functions are very difficult to teach in the order we now have. We are trying to teach even vs. odd functions when the students only have knowledge of linear and exponential functions. The dimensional analysis is basically a science concept. I am not sure why we are teaching this! 13 We are failing our students in math regarding content. They do not know which disciplines they are learning, and there are vast gaps in their mathematic knowledge. Many teachers are struggling with this inferior content. 14 It was difficult to complete this survey because some of the sections you are asking about do not match the names of the sections being taught. 15 The hardest part I faced in planning the new curriculum was knowing what previous knowledge to students had in middle school. And knowing how in depth to go on certain standards. Sep 5, :39 AM Sep 5, :21 AM Sep 3, :37 AM Sep 3, :16 AM 16 this doesn't apply to my content Sep 3, :51 AM 17 Work in progress Sep 3, :40 AM 18 I am not familiar with these standards related to math or high school curriculum. Sep 3, :02 AM 19 The CCGPS standards are entirely too vague, are not organized well, and are worse than the GPS standards that we had to follow. I know the QCC standards were supposed to be "bad", but at least they gave teachers a clear picture of exactly WHAT we were supposed to teach. Right now, these CCGPS standards leave us guessing as to what we are suppose to teach and every school system, school, and teacher may interpret them differently. No wonder are students are so confused. Also, ALL students are expected to learn the same standards. That is once again setting some kids up to fail, just like we did with GPS. When is GADOE going to announce that we going to offer credit for the support classes again (with school approval)? I am sure that is going to be the next step. Surely the fact that we have to offer support classes at all should be a sign to someone that we are heading down the wrong path. 20 The standards are vague and inappropriate for all learners. It is a lofty, idealistic goal to think that alllllllllllllllllll 9th graders are ready for all the standards in Coordinate Algebra. Lower level students need more time to master standards. The Alg an Geo courses should be offered as 2 years courses for lower level students. I have been teaching for 28 years by the way, and if anyone had told Aug 30, :05 PM Aug 30, :04 PM 17 of 19

18 Page 4, Q20. Please use this area to give any specific feedback on your overall impression of the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards. Your responses are critical in determining any changes that need to be made to the standards in order to make them better. me 15 years ago what I would be dealing with now, I would never have believed them. 21 In my opinion, the standards themselves could be revised to be more clearly written in a form that states strictly what portion of material in content areas are to be taught at which grade level. As they are now written it is very difficult to understand what students are coming to each grade level having already been taught, as well as difficult to interpret where to "cut off" teaching any given concept because a portion is to be taught in a subsequent school year. 22 I teach CCGPS Algebra and AP math as well. I also taught GPS Math 1 and QCC math. I have noticed over the past several years that students lack fundamental Algebra skills to be successful in other disciplines. It is my assertion that this is due to the stranded nature of the math courses. A solid year long focus on Algebra (like with QCC) is needed to be successful in subsequent math courses. Aug 30, :29 AM Aug 30, :34 AM 23 I am especially happy with the focus and coherence of the standards. Aug 28, :49 AM 24 I feel there should be more tools or resources for teachers to help better prepare the students with learning disablitlies or who are acdemically challeged with the standards. I also feel that there should be a test designed for resource students that are academically approrpiate so that they will have a better success rate in passing standardize test. 25 It is sometimes difficult to determine just what we need to teach to fufull each standard. The standards are not always clearly written. 26 The standards are too general and can be interpreted in several ways. The QCCs although there were over 100, were very specific. 27 Anyway to make it less laborious in regards to terminology and examples is great. Aug 28, :01 AM Aug 28, :55 AM Aug 27, :03 AM Aug 27, :38 AM 28 none Aug 27, :54 AM 29 As a department, the teachers at my school were teaching with application to real world, even under QCCs. The CCGPS are too vague, and so open for interpretation that it is impossible to know what to teach. It is also very frustrating that example problems from the EOCT have not been available before the test. In addition, changes to the curriculum should not be implemented in the middle of a student's progress through school. If the curriculum is to be changed, it should start with the child's Kindergarten year and change from year to year instead of beginning all of a sudden in the 6th or 9th grade. This is the biggest issue with the Math 1-4 curriculum and the Coordinate Algebra/Analytic Geometry/Advanced Algebra changes. Middle school teachers were not given enough time to learn HOW to teach the new topics they were asked to teach and subsequently students have not retained what they were taught. The "chopping up" of the material also contributes to the students' not retaining the information. If classroom teachers had been the ones to help rewrite the curriculum, or had been surveyed before the changes were made, we could have told the State this Aug 27, :39 AM 18 of 19

19 Page 4, Q20. Please use this area to give any specific feedback on your overall impression of the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards. Your responses are critical in determining any changes that need to be made to the standards in order to make them better. ahead of time. ( that it would have made a difference, as it doesn't seem to make a difference now when we make suggestions or share opinions. We are labeled as complainers instead of anyone listening to what we think. We are asked to behave as professionals, but are not treated as professionals.) 30 Why do you keep giving us these surveys? You will never listen to what teachers believe needs to be taught. We are teaching too much math to kids from k-12. The kids have been taught too much and can't master anything by the time they get to high school. It is sad that over half of the kids can't add and subtract single digit numbers, yet you think they can comprehend the advanced math we are teaching them. 31 There needs to be other mathematical course options at every grade level for the career/tech students, not just their senior year. More students are dropping out because the math content is not developmentally appropriate for them. Every student should not have to take Coordinate Algebra, Analytical Geometry, Advanced Algebra, etc. There needs to be other options! 32 I believe the standards should be written to be more specific. Some math standards are interpreted differently by teachers with regard to the depth at which a concept should be taught. Aug 27, :31 AM Aug 27, :54 AM Aug 26, :56 PM 19 of 19