Alignment Between Children’s Numeracy Performance, the Kindergarten Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, and State-Level Early Learning Standards

Abstract

The current study examined preschoolers’ (N = 801) age-related performance on one measure of verbal counting and two measures of cardinality (“how many” and “give n”) aligned with the kindergarten Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) and included in the majority of states’ early learning guidelines for mathematics. Children were grouped into five age categories (3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5), and within-age-group average rates of correct responses for each item within these three measures were calculated. Results demonstrated that the majority of children were already successfully meeting the CCSSM standards for both cardinal number knowledge tasks (86.5% and 53.3%, respectively) prior to kindergarten entry but that only 18.9% of the children were meeting the standard for verbal counting. Findings indicate potential misalignment between children’s existing capabilities and the CCSSM standards for cardinality and underscore the need to conduct large, nationally representative studies measuring children’s abilities on items that more closely assess the specific mathematics skills included in the CCSSM and early learning guidelines.

Response to Fuson, Clements, and Sarama Commentary on Litkowski, Duncan, Logan, and Purpura (2020)

“…That standard (and others) should go where they are intended to go—as preschool standards. There is significant variability in state preschool standards (see Table 1 of Litkowski et al, 2020), which suggests a need for alignment across states and across the transition to kindergarten. When the Common Core State Standards—Mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) were created, there were dramatic differences across states in their support for prekindergarten programs (Barnett & Carolan, 2013).…”

“…Fuson and colleagues acknowledge that one of the standards we highlight is too easy (cardinality: "How many?") and is really a preschool standard (Litkowski et al, 2020; National Research Council, 2009), but maintain that it should remain as a kindergarten standard because it is foundational for early numeracy development. We were not intending to imply that it is not foundational; however, the standards outline end of kindergarten expectations.…”

Efforts To Improve Students' Mathematical Communication Ability Through Reciprocal Teaching Learning Model For Class VIII SMPS Development National School Of Milk Base

“…(Leung & Hasratuddin, 2018) stated that mathematics is a science that supports human potential and can increase logical, critical thinking patterns, and the value of human potential and rational thinking patterns. Thus, one of the benchmarks and the original goal of learning mathematics is the ability to communicate mathematically to gain more interest in learning (Litkowski, Duncan, Logan, & Purpura, 2020). (Harahap, 2012) states that communication plays an important role, because using good communication among students, teachers, and the environment can exchange inspiration (Li & Peng, 2012).…”

Commentary on “Alignment Between Children’s Numeracy Performance, the Kindergarten Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, and State-Level Early Learning Standards”

“…Litkowski et al (2020) raise several issues in early childhood mathematics education in their comparison of preschoolers’ performance on three counting items to the Common Core State Standards–Mathematics (CCSSM; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) and to individual state standards. They raise the question of whether two cardinality standards are appropriate for kindergarten children and suggest the “need to conduct large, nationally representative studies measuring children’s abilities on items that more closely assess the specific mathematics skills included in the CCSSM and early learning guidelines.” We believe the study is a valuable contribution, but we wish to clarify and justify the inclusion of the cardinality tasks in the CCSSM kindergarten standards and present alternatives to Litkowski and colleagues’ implications.…”

“…The issue of the appropriateness of the CCSSM for kindergarten has been discussed by many, with some claiming the standards are too demanding (e.g., Clements et al, 2017, 2019) and others that they are too easy (Clements et al, 2017). Litkowski et al (2020) report preschoolers’ performance on three counting items in the kindergarten CCSSM: one verbal counting task aligned with K.CC.A.1 (Count to 100 by ones and by tens; K.CC = kindergarten–counting and cardinality) and two cardinality tasks aligned with parts of K.CC.B.5: Count to find “how many” and “give n. ” They found that 18.9% of 5.5-year-olds and about 9% of 5-year-olds could count to 100 by ones (counting by tens was not assessed), that 86.5% of 5.5-year-olds and somewhat over 65% of 5-year-olds counted and then correctly answered the “how many” question for 16 objects, and that 53.3% of 5.5-year-olds and about 33% of 5-year-olds could give 16 objects (the percentages for 5-year-olds are from the graphs in the article). On this basis, they claim that the cardinality standards in K.CC.B.5 are too easy and are not appropriate for kindergarten.…”