Defending the Early Years (DEY), an advocacy group for young children, has published an excellent critique of K-3 Common Core math standards by Dr. Constance Kamii, a scholar of early childhood learning.
Here is a brief summary by DEY of Dr. Kamii’s study:
In this report, Dr. Kamii explains that most of the CCSS are written as if the authors are not aware of logico-mathematical knowledge; they seem to think that the facts and skills in the mathematics standards can be taught directly. Dr. Kamii goes on to explain why the CCSS are set at grade levels that are too early. She selects specific standards for each grade from kindergarten to grade 3 and shows, based on her research, why young children cannot grasp the mathematical concepts these standards require. Dr. Kamii’s explanations are thorough and grounded in child development research and understandings. They will give any interested reader a deep appreciation for the term “developmentally inappropriate.”
According to Dr. Kamii, in an effort to meet the standards, teachers will try to accelerate learning by directly teaching specific and too-advanced concepts and skills. This, she explains, will result in empty “verbalisms” children learning by rote what they don’t truly understand. Children will learn to accept answers on the basis of what teachers and books say and will lose confidence in their own ability to think for themselves.
The powerful ideas found in Dr. Kamii’s paper are echoed in the recent essay released by Defending the Early Years in April, 2015 called Lively Minds: Distinctions between academic versus intellectual goals for young children by Dr. Lilian G. Katz (Katz, 2015). Dr. Katz is Professor Emerita of Early Childhood Education at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign). Dr. Katz is Past President of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and the first President of the Illinois Association for the Education of Young Children. She is an influential leader in the field of early childhood education.
In Dr. Katz’s paper, she explains the importance of intellectual goals for young children and contrasts them with academic goals. Intellectual goals and their related activities are those that address the life of the mind in its fullest sense – reasoning, predicting, analyzing, questioning – and include a range of aesthetic and moral sensibilities. Academic goals, on the other hand, involve mastery of small discrete elements of disembodied information designed to prepare children for the next levels of literacy and numeracy learning. Items designed to meet academic goals rely heavily on memorization and the application of formulae versus understanding. As Dr. Katz explains, intellectual dispositions may be weakened or even damaged by excessive and premature focus on academic goals.
In Dr. Kamii’s critique of the Common Core Math Standards, she shows how many of the standards further academic but not intellectual goals. Many of the standards she describes require children to master discrete bits of information and rely heavily on rote learning. For Dr. Kamii, genuine math learning engages children’s intellectual dispositions. In her opinion, the CCSS redirect education away from thinking and genuine meaning making and focus it on more limited academic goals.
For both scholars, Dr. Katz and Dr. Kamii, an appropriate curriculum for young children is one that supports children’s in-born intellectual dispositions, their natural inclinations. In Selected Standards from the CCSS for Mathematics, Grades K-3: My reasons for not supporting them, Constance Kamii makes plain that most of the CCSS involve logico-mathematical knowledge and are therefore, not directly teachable. Dr. Kamii also maps out clearly in each of the examples why specific standards for the early grades are set at grade levels too early and are therefore developmentally inappropriate. She asks why the authors of the CCSS did not consider the large body of data available from research. And she concludes that any teacher of children in grades K-3 would easily understand that the standards are too hard for most children.
At Defending the Early Years, we are persuaded by the evidence from early childhood experts about the many failings in the CCSS for young children. We therefore call for removing kindergarten from the Common Core and for the convening of a task force of early childhood educators to recommend developmentally appropriate, culturally responsive guidelines for supporting young children’s optimal learning from birth to grade 3.
The DEY reports Selected Standards from the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, Grades K-3:
My reasons for not supporting them and Lively Minds: Distinctions between academic versus intellectual goals for young children are available to download at our website http://www.DEYproject.org.

Kamii is absolutely right.
Buts let’s also understand that very little in school mathematics supports constructivism and does any better than CCSS.
With the few shining exceptions like Deborah Ball and Maggie Lampert.
LikeLike
Peter,
What do you mean by “. . . very little in school mathematics supports constructivism . . .”? What is your definition of constructivism?
TIA,
Duane
LikeLike
Peter,
How does CCSS math do? When was it tested? What is the evidence that it is successful? I haven’t see it.
LikeLike
“Children will learn to accept answers on the basis of what teachers and books say and will lose confidence in their own ability to think for themselves.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing. In fact, I’m coming to believe that’s exactly what’s intended.
LikeLike
Dianne (and Duane), accepting just what the teacher says, without question, as factual is a bad thing – and may be intended, but it’s already the way of things in many classrooms.
Constructivism is the idea that learners construct their own understanding, that ultimately make their own sense of things. Kamii is a pure constructivist – children develop their own rules, say, for area. Others tend to guide exploration. One thing they have in common is that what we learn, at least in math, is not a copy, but own own .
LikeLike
This doesn’t completely answer Duane’s question, which I’m also curious about. You seem to oppose constructivism? On what grounds? Do you have research to support such position? There is, in fact, abundant research that shows that kids, especially younger kids, do not learn from direct instruction. As Kamii says, they learn to parrot well, but they don’t understand the concept, so they forget the information that has been stuffed into their heads. But when children are allowed to explore and experiment and develop their own understanding of the concept, they retain it.
LikeLike
Peter,
It seems to me that, yes indeed, we all “construct our own understanding”. How else could it be, even with Pavlovian training/brainwashing the individual still constructs their own meaning of their perceptions of the world around them. So constructivism per se doesn’t enlighten me that much as it’s relationship to or influence on the teaching and learning process. How do you see constructivism in regards to the teaching and learning process?
Those “rules” that we all make/have made as children, especially in regards to language acquisition, are normally “sub conscious” (with sub meaning below conscious perception) and not very often conscious until later in childhood as schooling kicks in to, hopefully, help us to understand better our own thought processes in regards to life in general and/or the teaching and learning process.
LikeLike
If I may correct one sentence in an otherwise excellent expose: “We therefore call for removing kindergarten THROUGH GRADE 12 from the Common Core. . . “
LikeLike
What good are academic goals when they don’t match the intellect of the learner! Years ago Lillian Katz trained our staff to use the “Math Their Way” materials in K-1. We had a great deal of success with it because the academic goals and the intellect of the young students were in sync, especially for the kids that don’t have that internal math gift. The children were able to gain understandings using hands-on materials that enabled them to connect the concepts.
It is so sad that the government and billionaires have been able to tear down effective programs for a lot of elite mumbo jumbo that is setting us back twenty years. They understand nothing about teaching and learning, but they dictate everything.
LikeLike
These studies are essential for academicians but seemingly have NO weight whatsoever with the politicians whose jobs depend on money supplied by the corporate greedy CEOs.
I think it is difficult for great scholars seeking “truth” to realize that not everyone has the same view of “truth” as do they. Scholars seek “ultimate truth”, politicians that part of truth which secure their jobs and that “truth” is pretty myopic.
LikeLike
“Never the Twain shall meet”
The scientist’s goal:
Expose the truth.
The goal of pol:
To hide, forsooth
LikeLike
Elizabeth Spelke is another leader in research on the psychology of mathematics, particularly for early childhood http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/index.html?spelke.html
Children are already perceiving patterns and quantities. A creative teacher is going to be better able to help children expand their abilities in this regard than a script. It’s difficult to teach math creatively, but a script is not a substitute.
Contrary to our current epigones of “Scientific Management” for education, there isn’t “one best way” to teach. Teaching cannot be Taylorized.
LikeLike
At this point we now have much large sample sizes of children than any article cited in this paper attempting to learn the standards in K-3. Have their been any large scale studies of what the outcomes are?
LikeLike