"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RI.3.10 By the end of the year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, at the high end of the grades 2-3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

This standard is pretty silly. It assumes that every student comes to a class at the same level. Real teachers who work in real schools know that this is very rare. It's a pointless standard.

No, it doesn't. All it says is that you have to be able to do this by the end of the year to meet the standard. If you can't do it, then you don't meet the standard. I find it very difficult to argue with a standard that basically says that by the end of third grade, third-graders should be able to read informational texts written at the third-grade level.

So if a student comes to a teacher reading 2 or 3 years below grade level, I am supposed to meet that standard by March or April? I have had one or two students, language learners, who were able to jump several reading levels in one year, but it's very rare. It's reasonable to expect growth, but it's not reasonable to think all students will read at the same level by the end (or middle) of the year.

Therefore, it's a meaningless standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm not going to argue that Americans aren't terribly undereducated, but that's no excuse for such tortured, mangled language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RI.3.10 By the end of the year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, at the high end of the grades 2-3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

This standard is pretty silly. It assumes that every student comes to a class at the same level. Real teachers who work in real schools know that this is very rare. It's a pointless standard.

No, it doesn't. All it says is that you have to be able to do this by the end of the year to meet the standard. If you can't do it, then you don't meet the standard. I find it very difficult to argue with a standard that basically says that by the end of third grade, third-graders should be able to read informational texts written at the third-grade level.

So if a student comes to a teacher reading 2 or 3 years below grade level, I am supposed to meet that standard by March or April? I have had one or two students, language learners, who were able to jump several reading levels in one year, but it's very rare. It's reasonable to expect growth, but it's not reasonable to think all students will read at the same level by the end (or middle) of the year.

Therefore, it's a meaningless standard.

No, you aren't. And nobody should hold you responsible if the student doesn't meet the standard. That doesn't make the standard meaningless, though. It just means that your performance evaluation shouldn't be based on the student meeting the standard.

[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.

Here's a bag with 56 M&Ms in it. Show how you can divvy it up into equal shares for 8 kids. How many does each kid get? 7.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

YOU are what is laughable, since you apparently didn't understand that.

[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.

Here's a bag with 56 M&Ms in it. Show how you can divvy it up into equal shares for 8 kids. How many does each kid get? 7.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

YOU are what is laughable, since you apparently didn't understand that.

Thank you for that incredibly intelligent insight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RI.3.10 By the end of the year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, at the high end of the grades 2-3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

This standard is pretty silly. It assumes that every student comes to a class at the same level. Real teachers who work in real schools know that this is very rare. It's a pointless standard.

No, it doesn't. All it says is that you have to be able to do this by the end of the year to meet the standard. If you can't do it, then you don't meet the standard. I find it very difficult to argue with a standard that basically says that by the end of third grade, third-graders should be able to read informational texts written at the third-grade level.

So if a student comes to a teacher reading 2 or 3 years below grade level, I am supposed to meet that standard by March or April? I have had one or two students, language learners, who were able to jump several reading levels in one year, but it's very rare. It's reasonable to expect growth, but it's not reasonable to think all students will read at the same level by the end (or middle) of the year.

Therefore, it's a meaningless standard.

No, you aren't. And nobody should hold you responsible if the student doesn't meet the standard. That doesn't make the standard meaningless, though. It just means that your performance evaluation shouldn't be based on the student meeting the standard.

So what is the rationale for this standard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RI.3.10 By the end of the year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, at the high end of the grades 2-3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

This standard is pretty silly. It assumes that every student comes to a class at the same level. Real teachers who work in real schools know that this is very rare. It's a pointless standard.

No, it doesn't. All it says is that you have to be able to do this by the end of the year to meet the standard. If you can't do it, then you don't meet the standard. I find it very difficult to argue with a standard that basically says that by the end of third grade, third-graders should be able to read informational texts written at the third-grade level.

So if a student comes to a teacher reading 2 or 3 years below grade level, I am supposed to meet that standard by March or April? I have had one or two students, language learners, who were able to jump several reading levels in one year, but it's very rare. It's reasonable to expect growth, but it's not reasonable to think all students will read at the same level by the end (or middle) of the year.

Therefore, it's a meaningless standard.

No, you aren't. And nobody should hold you responsible if the student doesn't meet the standard. That doesn't make the standard meaningless, though. It just means that your performance evaluation shouldn't be based on the student meeting the standard.

So what is the rationale for this standard?

What is the rationale for a standard that basically says that students in third grade should be able to read at the third-grade level?

[Anonymous]

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?

Actually, the best thing to come of the PARCC is that our schools are FINALLY teaching keyboarding. Yea!!! I could care less about the results of the tests themselves, (and I can't fathom how they are going to grade these essays - reminds me of the essay part of the Cali bar), but getting these kids some basic computer use skills is a huge plus.

[Anonymous]

Actually, the best thing to come of the PARCC is that our schools are FINALLY teaching keyboarding. Yea!!! I could care less about the results of the tests themselves, (and I can't fathom how they are going to grade these essays - reminds me of the essay part of the Cali bar), but getting these kids some basic computer use skills is a huge plus.

My kids' public school started this more than fifteen years ago. DS cannot write cursive--but boy, can he type!

[Anonymous]

So if a student comes to a teacher reading 2 or 3 years below grade level, I am supposed to meet that standard by March or April? I have had one or two students, language learners, who were able to jump several reading levels in one year, but it's very rare. It's reasonable to expect growth, but it's not reasonable to think all students will read at the same level by the end (or middle) of the year.

Therefore, it's a meaningless standard.


No, you aren't. And nobody should hold you responsible if the student doesn't meet the standard. That doesn't make the standard meaningless, though. It just means that your performance evaluation shouldn't be based on the student meeting the standard.

Ding, ding ding! We have winner.

[Anonymous]

No, you aren't. And nobody should hold you responsible if the student doesn't meet the standard. That doesn't make the standard meaningless, though. It just means that your performance evaluation shouldn't be based on the student meeting the standard.

What makes the standard meaningful?

[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.

Here's a bag with 56 M&Ms in it. Show how you can divvy it up into equal shares for 8 kids. How many does each kid get? 7.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

YOU are what is laughable, since you apparently didn't understand that.

Thank you for that incredibly intelligent insight.

It doesn't take "incredible intelligence" - it takes an ounce of common sense - which is sorely lacking among those who claim the standards are so incomprehensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, you aren't. And nobody should hold you responsible if the student doesn't meet the standard. That doesn't make the standard meaningless, though. It just means that your performance evaluation shouldn't be based on the student meeting the standard.

What makes the standard meaningful?

Why would you think that a standard that says that third-graders should be able to read informational text written at a third-grade level is meaningless?

[Anonymous]

Why would you think that a standard that says that third-graders should be able to read informational text written at a third-grade level is meaningless?

If a child is in third grade, why do you need a standard that says that? Pretty obvious, isn't it? A standard isn't going to make him succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why would you think that a standard that says that third-graders should be able to read informational text written at a third-grade level is meaningless?

If a child is in third grade, why do you need a standard that says that? Pretty obvious, isn't it? A standard isn't going to make him succeed.

It certainly doesn't seem to me like something that would be controversial. But evidently it is, since the PP singled it out.