We know parents in New Hampshire want the best education for their children. We also know that the Obama Redesign (with Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards) do not provide that for our children. That is why many parents across the state have started to fight for better standards and testing in our local schools.
We’d like to thank parents and teachers who’ve spoken out and are demanding better in New Hampshire.
We now ask you to send a message to all of the State Reps and Senators in New Hampshire and ask them what they did this legislative session to STOP Common Core in New Hampshire.
E-MAILS including the NH Board of Ed members:(copy and paste)
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Kevin.Avard@leg.state.nh.us, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, HReps@leg.state.nh.us, TomRaffio@nedelta.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
You will be pleasantly surprised to know that some of them DID try to support parents by supporting legislation like SB101. Here are the State Reps that supported parents and SB101. Here are the State Reps. who ignored your voice and chose to side with the dumbed down standards.
We ask you to copy the Common Core Math and English flaws listed below and send them to the NH legislators with this message:
Thank the legislators who supported SB101 and remind them that the Common Core Math and English standards have serious flaws that put our children at a disadvantage. Why would those who did not support SB101 continue to support flawed academic standards for our children?
It might also be a good idea to take this list to your next school board meeting and ask your board members what the administrators have done to correct these flaws? Ask for proof.
Whether this is addressed at the state or local level, has anyone attempted to make any of these improvements to the state or local Common Core standards used in your district?
Missing or Delayed in Common Core’s Mathematics Standards
R. James Milgram (Stanford University)
I. Kindergarten through Grade 7
1. CC does not require proficiency with addition and subtraction until Grade 4 (a grade
behind our international competitors).
2. CC does not require proficiency with multiplication using the standard algorithm
(step-by-step procedure for calculations) until Grade 5 (a grade behind standard
3. CC does not require proficiency with division using the standard algorithm until Grade 6
(two grades behind our international competitors).
4. CC starts teaching decimals in Grade 4 (about two years behind the more rigorous
5. CC fails to teach in K-7 key geometrical concepts (e.g., sum of angles in a triangle,
isosceles and equilateral triangles, etc.).
6. Excludes fluent conversion between different forms of fractions: regular fractions,
decimals, and percents.
7. CC fails to teach prime factorization. Consequently, it does not include teaching about
least common denominators or greatest common factors.
8. CC fails to teach compound interest and the associated formula, (x
A(n+l) – l)/(x-l) =
1 + x + x
A2 + … + xAn.
II. Algebra 1: Missing components needed for Algebra II and Calculus
1. Division of monomials, polynomials (only addition, subtraction & multiplication are
2. Derivation and understanding of slopes of parallel and perpendicular lines
3. Manipulation and simplification of rational expressions
4. Multi-step problems with linear equations and inequalities
5. Multi-step problems with four operations between polynomials
6. Multi-step problems involving manipulation of rational expressions
7. Solving two linear inequalities in two variables and sketching the solution sets
8. Solve problems with quadratic expressions (added to CA’s CC standards)
9. Solve problems with equations and inequalities with absolute value (same)
Geometry: Key topics missing include properties of triangles, circles
II: Key topics missing include composite functions,
combinations and permutations, structure of logarithms and
conversion between bases
in Common Core’s English Language Arts and Literacy Standards
Presented at National Principals Leadership Institute (NPLI)
I. Missing Standards
1. No standard on the history of the English language
2. No standard on British literature aside from Shakespeare
3. No standard on authors from the ancient world
4. No standard on selected pieces from the Bible as literature so that students can learn
about its influence on English and American literature
n. Overall Deficits
1. Stress on writing, not reading
2. Stress on reading informational texts, not complex literary texts
3. Reduction in opportunities to develop critical thinking
4. Reduction hi literary study in the K-12 English class to 9 of 19 reading standards
5. No list of recommended authors, literary movements, literary periods
6. Poorly written standards
lH. Murky, badly written standards, not fewer, clearer, deeper
For example, a literature standard for grades 9/10 asks students to: “determine a theme or
central idea of a text and analyze in detail its development over the course of the text, including how it
emerges and is shaped and refined by specific details; provide an objective summary of the text.”
This poorly constructed and self-contradictory sentence is a jumble of at least three different
activities: determining a theme, analyzing its development, and summarizing a complete text.
IV. Literacy standards for history
1. Inappropriate exemplars for informational reading in high school history classes.
2. Inappropriate literacy strategies for the study of history: a non-historical approach to
the study of historical texts. The study of history requires, among other things, the use
of skills like contextualization, sourcing, and corroboration. These skills differ from
those used in literary analysis.
* Sandra Stotsky is professor of education emerita at the University of Arkansas, where she
held the 21st Century Chair hi Teacher Quality. She served as Senior Associate
Commissioner at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
from 1999-2003, where she was hi charge of developing or revising all the state’s K-12
standards, teacher licensure tests, and teacher and administrator licensure regulations. She
served on the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education from 2006-2010,
on the National Mathematics Advisory Panel from 2006-2008, and on the Common Core
Validation Committee from 2009-2010. She was one of the five members of the Validation
Committee who would not sign off on the standards as being internationally benchmarked,
rigorous, or research-based.