"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RL 3.9 Compare and contrast the themes, settings, and plots of stories written by the same author about the same or similar characters (e.g., in books from a series)

This is a third grade standard. I think third graders can learn how to analyze plot, but why theme? That's more of a fifth grade concept. And why put theme and plot together in one standard with the comparison. It's just over the top.

Theme is a fifth-grade concept? Why? I see no reason why theme is a concept too difficult for third-graders.

Would you be happier if the standards-writers had written three separate substandards, one each for theme, setting, and plot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:3.OA.2 Interpret whole-number quotients of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 56 ÷ 8 as the number of objects in each share when 56 objects are partitioned equally into 8 shares, or as a number of shares when 56 objects are partitioned into equal shares of 8 objects each. For example, describe a context in which a number of shares or a number of groups can be expressed as 56 ÷ 8.

This is so badly written. It's laughable.

What's badly-written about it? If you were the editor, what would you do to make it better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC just took a practice test. DC said it was "hard" because there is an essay portion of the test. I thought it was all multiple choice?

LOL. Hence the validity problem. Tests that are supposed to be evaluating reading and math are actually testing typing, composition, spelling, grammar, and mechanics.

The tests are actually supposed to evaluate English/Language Arts, not just reading. Writing (by hand or typing), composition, spelling, grammar, and mechanics are important parts of English/Language Arts. What's more, the previous tests included these components as well.

Previous tests tested reading or writing. The rubrics were completely different for reading than for writing.

How much do you know about the testing rubrics for the practice test that the PP's child took?

It's not relevant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3.OA.2 Interpret whole-number quotients of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 56 ÷ 8 as the number of objects in each share when 56 objects are partitioned equally into 8 shares, or as a number of shares when 56 objects are partitioned into equal shares of 8 objects each. For example, describe a context in which a number of shares or a number of groups can be expressed as 56 ÷ 8.

This is so badly written. It's laughable.

What's badly-written about it? If you were the editor, what would you do to make it better?

It's badly written because no one can agree what it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3.OA.2 Interpret whole-number quotients of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 56 ÷ 8 as the number of objects in each share when 56 objects are partitioned equally into 8 shares, or as a number of shares when 56 objects are partitioned into equal shares of 8 objects each. For example, describe a context in which a number of shares or a number of groups can be expressed as 56 ÷ 8.

This is so badly written. It's laughable.

What's badly-written about it? If you were the editor, what would you do to make it better?

We actually had fairly decent DC standards that didn't need to be replaced with this tortured nonsense.

[Anonymous]

.OA.2 Interpret whole-number quotients of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 56 ÷ 8 as the number of objects in each share when 56 objects are partitioned equally into 8 shares, or as a number of shares when 56 objects are partitioned into equal shares of 8 objects each. For example, describe a context in which a number of shares or a number of groups can be expressed as 56 ÷ 8.

This is so badly written. It's laughable.


What's badly-written about it? If you were the editor, what would you do to make it better?

Draw an illustration to show 56 divided by 8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

.OA.2 Interpret whole-number quotients of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 56 ÷ 8 as the number of objects in each share when 56 objects are partitioned equally into 8 shares, or as a number of shares when 56 objects are partitioned into equal shares of 8 objects each. For example, describe a context in which a number of shares or a number of groups can be expressed as 56 ÷ 8.

This is so badly written. It's laughable.

What's badly-written about it? If you were the editor, what would you do to make it better?

Draw an illustration to show 56 divided by 8.

"Draw an illustration to show 56 divided by 8" is a standard, but rather a limited one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3.OA.2 Interpret whole-number quotients of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 56 ÷ 8 as the number of objects in each share when 56 objects are partitioned equally into 8 shares, or as a number of shares when 56 objects are partitioned into equal shares of 8 objects each. For example, describe a context in which a number of shares or a number of groups can be expressed as 56 ÷ 8.

This is so badly written. It's laughable.

What's badly-written about it? If you were the editor, what would you do to make it better?

It's badly written because no one can agree what it means.

How do you know that no one can agree what it means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3.OA.2 Interpret whole-number quotients of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 56 ÷ 8 as the number of objects in each share when 56 objects are partitioned equally into 8 shares, or as a number of shares when 56 objects are partitioned into equal shares of 8 objects each. For example, describe a context in which a number of shares or a number of groups can be expressed as 56 ÷ 8.

This is so badly written. It's laughable.

What's badly-written about it? If you were the editor, what would you do to make it better?

It's badly written because no one can agree what it means.

How do you know that no one can agree what it means?

For one thing, there's not a lot agreement when we plan lessons in meetings. Also, different testing materials test the standards in varied ways. Textbooks also have various interpretations of what the standards mean.

[Anonymous]

And when I asked the consultants who developed these standards what they meant at a public forum, they were very huffy and defensive.

[Anonymous]

And when I read these standards out loud to parents, they look at me as if I was on drugs!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RL 3.9 Compare and contrast the themes, settings, and plots of stories written by the same author about the same or similar characters (e.g., in books from a series)

This is a third grade standard. I think third graders can learn how to analyze plot, but why theme? That's more of a fifth grade concept. And why put theme and plot together in one standard with the comparison. It's just over the top.

Theme is a fifth-grade concept? Why? I see no reason why theme is a concept too difficult for third-graders.

Would you be happier if the standards-writers had written three separate substandards, one each for theme, setting, and plot?

Have you ever taught third grade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3.OA.2 Interpret whole-number quotients of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 56 ÷ 8 as the number of objects in each share when 56 objects are partitioned equally into 8 shares, or as a number of shares when 56 objects are partitioned into equal shares of 8 objects each. For example, describe a context in which a number of shares or a number of groups can be expressed as 56 ÷ 8.

This is so badly written. It's laughable.

What's badly-written about it? If you were the editor, what would you do to make it better?

It's badly written because no one can agree what it means.

How do you know that no one can agree what it means?

For one thing, there's not a lot agreement when we plan lessons in meetings. Also, different testing materials test the standards in varied ways. Textbooks also have various interpretations of what the standards mean.

But different testing materials are going to test the standards in varied ways. That's because there are varied ways to test the standards.

It seems clear to me that the standard expects students to be able to explain that if you divide 56 objects into 8 groups, each group will include 7 objects, and that if you divide 56 objects into groups of 8 objects each, there will be 7 groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RL 3.9 Compare and contrast the themes, settings, and plots of stories written by the same author about the same or similar characters (e.g., in books from a series)

This is a third grade standard. I think third graders can learn how to analyze plot, but why theme? That's more of a fifth grade concept. And why put theme and plot together in one standard with the comparison. It's just over the top.

Theme is a fifth-grade concept? Why? I see no reason why theme is a concept too difficult for third-graders.

Would you be happier if the standards-writers had written three separate substandards, one each for theme, setting, and plot?

Have you ever taught third grade?

Evidently you have taught third grade, so please explain to me why theme is a concept too difficult for third-graders.

I'm in Maryland, and my children were expected to discuss theme starting no later than second grade, under both the previous state standards and the current Common Core standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And when I read these standards out loud to parents, they look at me as if I was on drugs!

Yes, that's because, if they were educated in the US, their math education was probably not very good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0