<---- Teacher
I welcome the change. Though, there have been some rough bumps in getting it implemented, and some materials appear to have been rushed out (though, the one I'm thinking of off the top of my head still says "pending editorial review" - good thing, it's filled with errors.)
Increased emphasis on real reading skills. No longer do you water down 10th grade texts and describe them at a level that 6th graders can understand - the time is taken (in all subjects) to examine grade level material and follow close reading to discern what is meant.
When I first saw the ELA shifts a couple years ago, I applauded them. And, I've spent countless hours this summer going over the new math stuff.
For those unfamiliar, the math can be summarized like this: More focused, deeper instruction, emphasis on understanding, rather than gimmicky methods for getting to a solution. And, the common core mathematics was developed by looking at programs that worked, as well as actually listening to advice from experts this time. I believe the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) was instrumental.
Further, it should bring the standards up significantly in many states. One of our new teachers had taught in Kentucky for a couple of years. She was amazed that their students are behind NY students by at least a grade level in the district she was at, and was very disappointed in the lack of rigor. So, most of the states are adopting the same set of standards, and students from throughout the nation will be taking the same standardized tests, rather than a separate assessment made by each individual state. This, I welcome. For many years, NY was well ahead of most states, and had the Regents system of final exams for most subjects. But, in the past couple of decades, with "increasing standards", meaning "everyone needs to pass", they've made passing those exams a joke. (31 points out of 87 on the Algebra Regents exam converts to a 65%.) A lot of grades have already shifted over to the common core, and expectedly, the results weren't pretty. I think of it as we have a new baseline to start improving from. Part of the reason the results weren't pretty was, as I said early in this post, it was a pretty rocky transition. It was kind of, "hey, teach this new curriculum." "What curriculum?" "Well, you'll get to see it before the end of the year. Oh yeah, and your students will be tested based on the new curriculum. Good luck."
NY's implementation of the Common Core Algebra starts in less than 3 weeks. There are 5 modules (major units) for the course. So far, I think they're only up to publishing the 2nd of 5. Teachers are getting a bit anxious, waiting for materials (promised they'd be out by December.)
But, for instance, NY's curriculum for Algebra II/Trig used to be a mile wide and an inch deep. Now it'll be much more focused. I spent 8 hours on Wednesday with a couple dozen other geometry teachers from the area, getting a head start on our new curriculum that'll go into effect a year from now. I'm quite pleased with what I've seen so far. Though, as we examined the math curriculum from 8th through 11th, and then glanced at the planned schedule for pre-calculus, I was thinking, "wtf? there's no where near enough planned time to cover trigonometry. I spend 1 1/2 months on trig - and that's with students who already spent a significant amount of time on trig in A2/trig." Probably will be a moot point for me - I've been working on getting my course approved by a university - I'll teach it with a bit more rigor & kids will get at least 4 credit hours for it.