Common Sense About the Common Core

Is the Common Core the best thing since sliced bread, or the work of the devil? Is it brand new, or a rehash of old ideas? Is it anything more than a brand name, or is there substance? Can it work, given the implementation challenges in our political and school systems? Opinions about the Common Core are everywhere, but the op-eds I’ve seen are often short on facts, and equally short on common sense. A mathematician by training, I’ve worked for nearly 40 years as an education researcher, curriculum materials developer, test developer, standards writer, and teacher. What follows is a Q&A based on that experience. I focus on the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, known as CCSSM, but the issues apply to all standards (descriptions of what students should know and be able to do)

Reflections on Problem Solving Theory and Practice

In this article, the author reflects on the current state of mathematical problem solving, both in theory and in instruction. The impact of the book Mathematical Problem solving (Schoenfeld, 1985) is also discussed, along with implications of problem solving today with the advent of 21st century technologies

If you really want to get ahead, get a bunch of theories… and data to test them

This paper addresses questions of mathematics teachers’ professional development. My goal is not to provide “answers,” although I have worked for some years to enhance teachers’ capacity to create rich learning environments for their students. Rather, my goal is to problematize the issue, to ask: How do we frame questions of professional development in ways that are theoretically grounded? What theories do you need to know, in order do a good job of professional development? In the light of this kind of theoretical framing, I will discuss two related attempts at supporting teachers in their work

Scholastic Standards in the United States – The Discussion concerning the ‘Common Core’

Preface: This article has been developed based on a personal discussion between the German author Günter Törner and Alan Schoenfeld, who is an expert in the field of mathematical didactics. Basically there are three reasons for us to share our insights with the public: (1) Readers, having subscribed to Jerry Becker’s e-mail information network, have received numerous messages over the past few months; what do we need to know about this fact in Germany? (2) Scholastic standards – a keyword that sounds very familiar to us in terms of educational policy… But it is also a hot topic in other countries. What can we conclude from these discussions? (3) Scholastic standards – if they are developed, people will be eager to test their implementation. A very complex problem in the United States and maybe even in Germany!

Assessment in the service of learning: challenges and opportunities or Plus ça Change, Plus c’est la même Chose

This paper begins with a brief overview of literature indicating that, although there have been significant advances in the field’s capacity to conduct both formative and summative assessments over the past decades, those advances have not been matched by comparable impact. The bulk of the paper is devoted to a series of examples from the Mathematics Assessment Project that illustrate issues of methods, and the unrealized potential for advances

Are We Focused on the Wrong Early Postoperative Quality Metrics? Optimal Realignment Outweighs Perioperative Risk in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery

BACKGROUND: While reimbursement is centered on 90-day outcomes, many patients may still achieve optimal, long-term outcomes following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery despite transient short-term complications. OBJECTIVE: Compare long-term clinical success and cost-utility between patients achieving optimal realignment and suboptimally aligned peers. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of a prospectively collected multicenter database. METHODS: ASD patients with two-year (2Y) data included. Groups were propensity score matched (PSM) for age, frailty, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and baseline deformity. Optimal radiographic criteria are defined as meeting low deformity in all three (Scoliosis Research Society) SRS-Schwab parameters or being proportioned in Global Alignment and Proportionality (GAP). Cost-per-QALY was calculated for each time point. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) adjusting for baseline disability and deformity (pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL)) were used to determine the significance of surgical details, complications, clinical outcomes, and cost-utility. RESULTS: A total of 930 patients were considered. Following PSM, 253 optimal (O) and 253 not optimal (NO) patients were assessed. The O group underwent more invasive procedures and had more levels fused. Analysis of complications by two years showed that the O group suffered less overall major (38% vs. 52%, CONCLUSIONS: Fewer late complications (mechanical and reoperations) are seen in optimally aligned patients, leading to better long-term cost-utility overall. Therefore, the current focus on avoiding short-term complications may be counterproductive, as achieving optimal surgical correction is critical for long-term success

Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: The ESPAC-3 trial showed that adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard of care based on similar survival to and less toxicity than adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Other clinical trials have shown better survival and tumour response with gemcitabine and capecitabine than with gemcitabine alone in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We did a phase 3, two-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised clinical trial at 92 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had undergone complete macroscopic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) within 12 weeks of surgery to receive six cycles of either 1000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine alone administered once a week for three of every 4 weeks (one cycle) or with 1660 mg/m(2) oral capecitabine administered for 21 days followed by 7 days' rest (one cycle). Randomisation was based on a minimisation routine, and country was used as a stratification factor. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxicity was analysed in all patients who received trial treatment. This trial was registered with the EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434. FINDINGS: Of 732 patients enrolled, 730 were included in the final analysis. Of these, 366 were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine and 364 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine. The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested reporting of the results after there were 458 (95%) of a target of 480 deaths. The median overall survival for patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group was 28·0 months (95% CI 23·5-31·5) compared with 25·5 months (22·7-27·9) in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-0·98], p=0·032). 608 grade 3-4 adverse events were reported by 226 of 359 patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group compared with 481 grade 3-4 adverse events in 196 of 366 patients in the gemcitabine group. INTERPRETATION: The adjuvant combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma