Common Core State Standards Mathematics-Grade 4
The learning trajectories for this Grade in reference to algebraic and mathematical calculations require that the student understands some basic rules regarding mathematics. There has been intensive input into this area from the state and as a standard requirement.
Some of them include the need to understand concepts abstractly and objectively. Secondly, the students should have the capacity to reason, make sense of various problems, and come up with ways of solving them analytically. In mathematics, various tools are used. Students should have a clear understanding of using these tools in structuring answers and questions as per the outputs of those tools.
Grade 4 standards are an improvement of Grade 3 as per the universal need for educational structuring. In this Grade, students learn numbers and fractions operations, measurement of data, and an overview of geometry. In fractions, students are expected to understand the order of fractions. Students should also learn how to relate fractions to whole numbers.
They should also have the capacity to change fractions into decimals and be able to build concepts from an earlier understanding of operations of whole numbers. In measurement of data, students learn how to solve problems of conversions of large amounts of data into smaller ones.
They also learn data representation and interpretations. Lastly, the contents of geometry require that students be able to draw lines and angels and indentify relationships. A clear understanding of characteristics of these lines and angels is also quite crucial.
In order to meet these standards adequately, practice standards should be put in place to adequately measure understanding of students. Under these standards, students participate in classroom discussions; sit for midterm and weekly quizzes and exams at the end of a specified period. Before embarking on subsequent topics, it is a requirement that tutors have confidence that students have a clear understanding of the prevailing work.
Grade Level Expectations
There have been developments in this area since 1993. The state of Missouri has been constantly reviewing each grade level’s expectations to meet prevailing and future trends so that students can be prepared to meet such needs from a low level.
Under the content standards, the state has developed succinct and clear definitions of what a student in a certain Grade should achieve before embarking on another Grade. Under mathematics in Grade 4, Missouri has outlined a number of expectations.
Considering the standards, first, the students should have a mental capacity that reflects the needs of that particular grade. In solving solutions, the students should then demonstrate a clear understanding of critical areas such as perimeters, areas, and additions. This will auger well in trying to foster the development of the students.
A tutor should have a standard for which students’ understanding and performance are evaluated to reflect their grasp about the topic and question at hand. Additionally, it is critical for the students to demonstrate that they can work with numbers, fractions, understand simple relationships between them, and evaluate them before completing Grade 4.
The processes are simple and direct. The state directs enough resources to ensure that there are clear processes that lead to consistent standards. This spans various areas including evaluation, impartation of concepts, reviews of general performances and students versus tutor relationships and their effectiveness.
The state reviews its expectations periodically to reflect the ever-changing labor market and technology. This ensures that the processes remain up-to-date.
DESE Website Resources
Importance of education in human capital formation is subject to debate in formulating education policies. The influence of globalization, impact of conflict on education, performance measurements for the various stages in education and knowledge transfer with the aim of creating a knowledge economy form the basis of discussion in instilling lifelong learning and forming human capital.
Experts in education argue that governments have had structures to link education to the labor market for a long time. The authors reiterate these using six points of view regarding the informing nature of economies and labor market demands on education. It is also a credible argument from academic and expert circles that political and economic efficiency of the production process of education are critical to its success.
Although globalization centers on policymaking in divulging knowledge, some experts digress from this assumption. They argue that universities’ adherence to Lifelong Learning is hampered, to some extent, by national policies, academic traditions and financial pressures.
The manner in which international discourse on Lifelong Learning affects policy-making remains vague and subject to the above factors. This contrasts with another school of thought that critically elucidates on the massive opportunities and threats that globalization and embracing of ICT has brought to human capital formation and policy formulation and standardization in education.
A comparison between knowledge societies and knowledge economies of developing nations and developed nations, shows developed nations pursue knowledge economies, which is the basis for comparative advantage.
A 2008 study compares systems of education in France and England based on the PISA 2000 benchmark. She looks critically at the PISA program concerning inequality in attainment of education and inequality levels. The study finds the PISA program useful for comparison of inequality but finds fault in its use as a performance tool in comparing pupils and students.
The study finds that the traditional setting of a country is a contributor to the performance of students. Previous studies carried out in early 2002 and 2005 echo the same sentiments. Additionally, the study questions the universal applicability of the parameters PISA uses to measure the level of proficiency in reading literacy. This includes retrieving information, interpreting texts and reflection.
Other studies dissect the PISA program as a tool to measure students’ performance. The study finds that institutional contribution to students’ performance is significantly low compared to other factors such as family backgrounds, inputs from home and availability of useful education resources. They term these as ‘student characteristics’.
In contrast to a similar study in 2008, this study analyzes the effect of external exam and budget formulation. Additionally, the two look at the autonomy of a school while selecting crucial learning materials (such as textbooks), hiring tutors, and the allocation of budget within the school. This has been contentious and empirical evidence has not conclusively supported or negated the findings of this study.
Over time, the definition of education concerning policymaking and its consequences has been a subject of many studies. A study in 2011 examines the speeches of political leaders and policymakers over a period of seven years. This rhetoric, as the study finds, centers on the efficiency that education brings to the economy.
The two conclude that the rhetoric that seems to define education with an economic dimension ignores other important needs for education. They state other crucial educational benefits such as self-realization, civic responsibility, development of human relationships and economic efficiency. A discussion of the issue of exit examinations is looked into thoroughly by yet another 2007 study.
They conclude that performance in math and science subjects have a positive correlation with exit exams. They also find that private institutions have a higher performance than public institutions. This study, however, notes that public institutions with private finding do not measure up with private institutions. Other empirical studies had concluded as such with a little digression when it comes to the science subject.
Currently, the world is constantly engulfed in fear of war. Selected countries have had long spells of unrest especially in the developing world. The effect of war on education has been passively mentioned in various studies. Such is the study carried out in 2005.
It takes an in-depth look into the effects of war on education and the ways in which education contributes or propagates wars. The study argues that education creates divisions (religious, ethnic, status) which make some people feel inferior.
The root of this is selective application of education, distortion of curricula, creation of fear and competition. She reiterates that this may not be obvious to curriculum developers. However, continued emphasis in media, and at the society level makes education seem like a demigod.
However, a 2005 study looks at it from a positive and negative side, empirically, proves that sentiments of this nature do not solve the underlying problems. Additionally, some experts digress by saying that this view is archaic.
His study on the globalization and education impact on war, suggests that time has come for each person to have an education. However, the study states clearly that advancement of knowledge societies should be the concern of governments. Rather, governments should not focus on knowledge economics since this creates divides and hence sentiments towards educated segments.
It is imperative to point out positive aspects such as global education citizenship and peace education initiatives. The study outlines initiatives that the author finds possibly useful in quelling the fear of the educated. However, these initiatives may not be universally applicable.
However, it is evident that there are some lamentations regarding the fact that war and aggression will never cease in the world. This means that education may continue to be threatened or it may continue to threaten peace in the world.
Although many international organizations have been trying to enact universal education through LLL, majority of countries have disseminated national LLLs. They are specifically configured to make the countries more competitive. This includes EU and US. The two main objectives of LLL are social and economic.
However, in countries where precedence over the proposed LLL has been overlooked, there are other priorities. This includes solving unemployment problems, labor market development, and career development. This is similar to the situation in the United States. In Canada, policies tend to be geared towards nationalization. However, there is a relaxed adherence to LLL.
Lifelong learning in the education sector benefits nations that have increasingly seen the need for universal education. The disadvantage with LLL is that there are countries that are barely able to meet the needs of the basic education, let alone other issues like health care and infrastructure developments.
Making these countries take on LLL exposes them to financial difficulties. Learning on a globalized scale has various effects on different countries. With the practice, demography change and globalization are seen to determine the education system and its influence in the lives of the individuals.
Curriculum Focal Points
In Grade 4, there are various curriculum focal points. These are geared towards ensuring that students get the best they can and that education and the needs for labor market and society expectations are met.
In Grade 4, there is clear emphasis on the need to enhance measurement and algebraic needs of the students. This ensures that the students are ready to enter a new Grade.
Additionally, literacy levels of the students are evaluated. This is to ensure that they have a better understanding of technical question. It also enhances their ability to formulate and solve problems. A critical look at the standards enumerated before points out to a situation where efforts towards ensuring a good understanding of a problem before solving it are enhanced.
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics
In Grade 4 mathematics, a certain level of standard of contents is emphasized. As noted earlier, there is State direct effort towards ensuring that students are prepared mentally. This is achieved through the structuring of questions and it is achieved through tests and exams. In Grade 4, students learn four major topics according to Common Core State Standards Mathematics-Grade 4.
These topics are measurements and data, numbers and operations, operations and algebraic thinking and fractions, and geometry. Under measurements and data, the students learn conversions where large units are conversed into smaller units and vice versa. In the same breadth, they learn relationships of such data, their representation, and how to interpret them.
In numbers and operations, there is direct effort towards learning use of fractions, generations and operation of patterns in numbers, use of multiples and factors and a clear understanding of how to use whole numbers in various situations. In geometry, a grade four student learns development of lines and angles, their relationships and formation of various types of drawn shapes.
This refers to the manner in which the content standards are met. It outlines how tutors go about ensuring that the above standards for content are met. First, a certain amount of time is stipulated to meet the above content. Tutors’ daily time is divided as per the number of subjects they are expected to handle in that day.
This allows them enough time to continually asses the students during their time in that grade. Additionally, failure to cover all content enumerated in the standard is highly discouraged and tutors that fail to meet may face disciplinary measures.
Regarding the content, the students put in effort through use of homework and constant reading. However, the standard requires that this effort should emanate from the tutor. After classroom effort to make students understand the various concepts, the standard requires that a test be given to evaluate understanding of the students.
This is done after a series of weekly quizzes and home assignments. A tutor should decide if a student is fit to continue to fifth grade or not.
Comparison CCSSM and Missouri GLEs
Evidently, human capital formation is the central theme in the dissemination of knowledge. However, it has taken an economic and national dimension. Although this may be the formula for solving national, economic, and political problems, it does not auger well in the globalization of education.
Production and use of human capital should not have one goal. Additionally, it should reflect the need to have a safer world. The growing need for knowledge, labor market uncertainties, and complicated ways of acquiring education requires explicit investigation into production and use of human capital. This is because there is an economic dimension to it.
In my own opinion, the education sector will not be standardized in the future since it has failed in the past. Globalization will bring more options to the education sector without necessarily standardizing it. The need to have economic and labor market superiority will continue to dampen efforts at making education to be all-round.
Additionally, education will propagate more wars than before especially in the developed nations. In the developing nations, the same may happen but this means that resources will be redirected which may cause an international outcry.
This is evident is United States where statutory and federal standards regarding education are greatly divided. A classic example is in Missouri. A focal look at Grade 4 highlights huge differences in the impartation of education. Missouri GLEs are broader and more comprehensive that CCSSM.
They bring about a need for more individual student effort and tutorial effort. Students’ expectations in terms of performance are higher. For example, while CCSSM standards require some basic understanding of geometry in grade four, Missouri recommends a detailed look. It is also imperative to note that some subjects studied in Grade four under Missouri GLEs are not recommended under CCSSM.