Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As for writing the "opinion" pieces, I think it's great that young kids are asked to convey what they think about something. Most of the time, what they write makes no sense and come out as gibberish (my DC was in K last year), but I think it's good practice for them to practice their "thinking" skills.

Not a worthwhile activity for a K child. Time would be much better spent developing "thinking" or "opinion" skills verbally. Save the writing for later.

Disagree. Nothing wrong with having kids "write" in K. They can write down exactly the way they verbally say it. Like I said, the writing is gibberish, barely legible, letters turned around, etc... But it's writing practice, none the less, which is important, too.

NCLB started this fad of having kids write before they are really able, and it's tanked their writing skills. Back in the day, we learned to spell and all about proper grammar -- THEN we learned to write.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As for writing the "opinion" pieces, I think it's great that young kids are asked to convey what they think about something. Most of the time, what they write makes no sense and come out as gibberish (my DC was in K last year), but I think it's good practice for them to practice their "thinking" skills.

Not a worthwhile activity for a K child. Time would be much better spent developing "thinking" or "opinion" skills verbally. Save the writing for later.

Disagree. Nothing wrong with having kids "write" in K. They can write down exactly the way they verbally say it. Like I said, the writing is gibberish, barely legible, letters turned around, etc... But it's writing practice, none the less, which is important, too.

NCLB started this fad of having kids write before they are really able, and it's tanked their writing skills. Back in the day, we learned to spell and all about proper grammar -- THEN we learned to write.

I'm guessing that you've never heard of Whole Language. This "fad" you refer to started a decade or two before NCLB.

[Anonymous]

I'm guessing that you've never heard of Whole Language. This "fad" you refer to started a decade or two before NCLB.

My son's teacher did not understand how to implement that program and it was a mess. No structure at all! Long before NCLB.

[Anonymous]

I'm guessing that you've never heard of Whole Language. This "fad" you refer to started a decade or two before NCLB.

And, in the '70's there was "Language Experience". No need for books, just let the kids make their own stories.....................

[Anonymous]

ps. I actually liked Language Experience--but I used it to supplement. With that program, the teacher wrote what the child said. Unlike Whole Language where they would write gibberish and it was fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As for writing the "opinion" pieces, I think it's great that young kids are asked to convey what they think about something. Most of the time, what they write makes no sense and come out as gibberish (my DC was in K last year), but I think it's good practice for them to practice their "thinking" skills.

Not a worthwhile activity for a K child. Time would be much better spent developing "thinking" or "opinion" skills verbally. Save the writing for later.

Disagree. Nothing wrong with having kids "write" in K. They can write down exactly the way they verbally say it. Like I said, the writing is gibberish, barely legible, letters turned around, etc... But it's writing practice, none the less, which is important, too.

NCLB started this fad of having kids write before they are really able, and it's tanked their writing skills. Back in the day, we learned to spell and all about proper grammar -- THEN we learned to write.

This statement is starting to bug me. The education in this country has been going down hill *for decades*. I don't want my kids to have the same curriculum or necessarily the same way of learning that I did 40 yrs ago. That curriculum was meant for the 20th century. Many people who graduated from Ivies 10+ yrs ago probably couldn't get in now with the credentials they had. Times are different. There are certain things my kids really don't need to learn that they did 50 yrs ago.

FWIW - my 1st grader has weekly spelling tests; my 4th grader just had a unit on grammar. They still teach these things, but they don't need to be taught in K.

CC stresses critical thinking, which in the grand scheme of things is probably a more important skill than spelling and grammar.

[Anonymous]

CC stresses critical thinking,

That's what they would like for you to think. Here is a clue: when you have kids doing things for which they are not developmentally ready, it stifles critical thinking. Just sayin.......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This statement is starting to bug me. The education in this country has been going down hill *for decades*. I don't want my kids to have the same curriculum or necessarily the same way of learning that I did 40 yrs ago. That curriculum was meant for the 20th century. Many people who graduated from Ivies 10+ yrs ago probably couldn't get in now with the credentials they had. Times are different. There are certain things my kids really don't need to learn that they did 50 yrs ago.

FWIW - my 1st grader has weekly spelling tests; my 4th grader just had a unit on grammar. They still teach these things, but they don't need to be taught in K.

CC stresses critical thinking, which in the grand scheme of things is probably a more important skill than spelling and grammar.

Actually education is arguably better than it was in 1990.

http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/executive-summary

But I agree with your general point. It's 2014, not 1950, 1970, or even 1990.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

CC stresses critical thinking,

That's what they would like for you to think. Here is a clue: when you have kids doing things for which they are not developmentally ready, it stifles critical thinking. Just sayin.......

Didn't we already have the "developmentally appropriate" argument about 40 pages back?

Here's a reprise: please provide an example of a Common Core standard that requires kids to do things for which they are not developmentally ready.

How about this first-grade English/Language Arts standard:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.1.a
Recognize the distinguishing features of a sentence (e.g., first word, capitalization, ending punctuation).

Is that developmentally inappropriate for a first-grader?

[Anonymous]

NOTE: Accommodations were not permitted in NAEP mathematics assessments prior to 1996, and in NAEP reading assessments prior to 1998.

wonder if this has any effect on the rise in test scores cited above??????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NOTE: Accommodations were not permitted in NAEP mathematics assessments prior to 1996, and in NAEP reading assessments prior to 1998.

wonder if this has any effect on the rise in test scores cited above??????

It might have had an effect, but it doesn't explain the whole thing, because test scores continued to rise after that.

[Anonymous]

Wonder if it has anything to do that they reuse most problems from year to year. Not saying that anyone would cheat, but.........

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/naep-a-flawed-benchmark-producing-the-same-old-story/2011/11/03/gIQAbnonmM_blog.html

NAEP might not be the benchmark you think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

CC stresses critical thinking,

That's what they would like for you to think. Here is a clue: when you have kids doing things for which they are not developmentally ready, it stifles critical thinking. Just sayin.......

In MCPS, how are so many Ks getting Ps and ESs if they are not developmentally ready for the curriculum that MCPS uses? In MCPS, the goal for the outgoing Ks is a level 4, but many schools in MCPS have an unstated level 6, and many, if not most, of the kids are well beyond this level by the time they finish K.

So, if the 2.0 curriculum (which is based on CC standards) is so developmentally inappropriate for Ks, how do so many kids read at such a high level and manage to get P/ESs on their report cards? There are plenty, I'm sure, that get I/Ns, too, but if the standards were so inappropriate for Ks, then how is it that so many of them are able to meet those standards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wonder if it has anything to do that they reuse most problems from year to year. Not saying that anyone would cheat, but.........

If you say so.

But you'd still have to explain how this supposed cheating would work, given that the schools and students are randomly selected every year, and that neither the students nor the schools would benefit from it.