In which the CCSS website makes changes to the notation of the standards without really communicating it.
So today I am working on the Exeter Project, aligning questions to the CCSS, and one of the persons I am working with is using this notation for the standards that confuses me greatly.
After some research, I discover that there are TWO different notations for the SAME standards! What the hell? So I do some further research and find out what is going on. I was so irritated that I had to write this up and ask for help.
First, let’s compare the website to the PDF for a grade 8 standard.
http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/8/NS
which is compared to the PDF below:
Hmm, one says the standard is Math.Content.8.NS.A.1 while the other says the standard is 8.NS.1.
Okay, the Math.Content is throw away, but where does the extra A in the first standard notation come from? Any guesses? After a bit of research and finding a memo on it, I discover the extra A means, “Know that there are numbers that are not rational, and approximate them by rational numbers.”
No joke. Read it for yourself.
… In math, however, cluster headings have an important design function in organizing the subject matter and in adding important meaning to the individual content standards; math cluster headings are also proving crucial in implementation efforts. Therefore math cluster headings have been given identifiers (such as A, B, C, for example). By this means, the identifiers preserve links between standards and clusters, which is necessary to ensure that applications using the system can preserve the meanings that arise from considering the cluster headings and the individual content standards in conjunction with one another.
…
To differentiate the Common Core State Standards from state standards (in other domains or as part of the optional, up to 15 percent standards additions), CCSS is now added to the front of the dot notation identifiers. For example, what appears in the PDFs as RL.2.1 is officially CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.2.1. It is assumed that educators will continue to use the shorter RL.2.1 in conversation, but the official dot notation identifier will contain the CCSS component.
The publication year of 2010 is provided in the metadata and XML for the standards but is not included in identifiers. Any future refinements to the CCSS will be appended with a revision number, for example CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.4.4r2, or http://corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/4/4r2, reflects the second revision, or third version of CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.4.4. http://www.corestandards.org/common-core-state-standards-official-identifiers-and-xml-representation
Great. We haven’t even fully implement the CCSS, and we are already forcing down a new naming structure.
At the high school level, this ends up looking like this:
http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/HSA/SSE
vs the PDF:
Why does this matter? Why does it upset me and cause me some heartburn? Because if I am doing a search for a standard, and I am using the official PDF standard, I search for A.SSE.1a and I will find some problems / lessons. However, now the CCSS group has doubled the amount of searching work for me, because I also have to search for A.SSE.A.1a in order to get full results.
Computers are very literal, and they are NOT going to give me results for both searches.
To make matters worse, the CCSS group says explicitly that they expect teachers will continue to use the shorter version (and I don’t think anyone in their right mind will add the useless CCSS.Math.Content.HSA to the front).
Aren’t the CCSS FOR the teachers and learners? Clearly not. It is clear the standards are being written for someone not in the the classroom and using them daily. If they were, we would have one nomenclature to use that is consistent and easy to search. These standards are only in implementation for about a year and we already have a bifurcation of nomenclature.
Seriously, can we fix this? Teachers need 1 name, 1 set of search terms, not two. What happens next year when they decide to add a third for whatever reason?
This is ridiculous.
So what do you think? Which name should we, as teachers, use for these standards? Which one will you use? Which one should I use for my project?
They also, at some point this fall, changed the url without putting any redirects in place. Documents we hosted that pointed to the old url all had to be updated. I’m all for releasing beta versions of things, but I agree with you that if they’re going to make changes like changes to url and nomenclature, there needs to be a lot more transparency and support for making the switch from an old system to a new system.
As for the standards not being written for teachers and learners, I’ve always heard that their primary audience is test writers. There are a lot of cynical things that makes me grumble about, but I did appreciate the candor with which people said that — now, of course, I can’t find who said it or when, but I know I saw it re-tweeted!
Max
Okay, that is RIDICULOUS! That violates a main rule of web design. Never change a file name once you have created it unless you redirect. People link to your stuff, you can’t go around changing names on them.
Arg. My next post is a letter I am sending to them.