the fact that the CA standard is easy to read and the Mass. standard (and the Common Core standard) is hard to read makes the latter evil.

I’m not sure that “easy to read” should be the goal. The problem with the CA standards being so easy to read is that the way they are assessed is so locked-in that math has been reduced to a series of discrete skills.

By the way, I’m not exactly sure why Wurman’s opinion matters much here. I get that he was part of the team that put together the state framework and was appointed by the governor to serve on the content standards commission However, the California Math Framework has a lot of names in the credits many of them preceded by “Dr.” and followed by words like “Stanford” and “UC Berkeley”.

What do the math ed folks have to say about CCSS?

I find the language in the standards themselves quite interesting in that Mass. has placed an emphasis on multiple representations as well as understanding yet CA simply wants students to perform a specific task.

I read from one essay (I don’t have the link offhand, alas, but I’m pretty sure it was Wurman from the essay Dan linked to) the fact that the CA standard is easy to read and the Mass. standard (and the Common Core standard) is hard to read makes the latter evil.

http://i.imgur.com/XL09M.jpg

She looks pretty helpful this time, much better than the last time I saw her:

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3534bz/

“In selecting test questions for release, three criteria are used: (1) the questions adequately cover a selection of the academic content standards assessed on the Grade 3 Mathematics Test; (2) the questions demonstrate a range of difficulty; and (3) the questions present a variety of ways standards can be assessed.”

Fawn also points out the “tricky” nature of the instructions. I’d also add that Mass. and Hong Kong use the word “smallest” as opposed to CA’s use of “least” and “greatest.” I wonder what the consequences of word choice may be.

I find the language in the standards themselves quite interesting in that Mass. has placed an emphasis on multiple representations as well as understanding yet CA simply wants students to perform a specific task.
Massachusetts:

3.N.1 Exhibit an understanding of the base ten number system by reading, modeling, writing, and interpreting whole numbers to at least 100,000; demonstrating an understanding of the values of the digits; and comparing and ordering the numbers.

California:

3.NS1.2 Compare and order whole numbers to 10,000.

Keep in mind that CA Standard 3.NS1.2 isn’t considered a “key standard” in that it is a support standard for the larger 3.NS 1: Students understand the place value of whole numbers. However, if you look through the entire document, there aren’t many (if any) questions assessing a thorough understanding of the content. And in my opinion, this has had a detrimental effect on how math is actually being taught in CA.

I can see reasons for having lots of instructions, but I found the MA item much less to the point- it seemed like it was testing reading comprehension at least as much as mathematical reasoning. While that is important and appropriate for some questions, I would be left wondering if my students had trouble reading the directions, or if they had trouble completing the task.

Also, at what level are all three full tests designed to give valid scores or ratings? (individuals, classroom, school, state?) Are the tests meant to be formative or summative? I would think this makes a difference if you expect to get diagnostic information for individual students.

Finally, I’m curious how the MA and HK items are scored. I’ve scored open response items for KY (almost 20 years ago), and it was an interesting, although unintentional professional development experience. It was the beginning of my obsession with looking at student work. I’ve also seen open response items on local CA tests for which students could not get the top score unless they used a method specified in the corresponding standard. The choice of how to reliably score these items is a big deal.

Keep in mind, folks, that the dropout rate in high school in some California public school systems is 60%.