Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's not the feds, it's a state driven initiative.

That may have been true initially. With Race to the Top requirements, it is not driven by the states any longer.

Race to the Top provides grant money to states to distribute to school districts. States were not required to apply for these grants. If they felt they were doing fine as is, they were free to ignore the grants!

There are no requirements per se, for these grants, however, there was a contest for the funds, and states got more points based on certain criteria. Adoption of Common Standards was a very small part of the overall score.

State applications for funding were scored on selection criteria worth a total of 500 points. In order of weight, the criteria were:[1]

Great Teachers and Leaders (138 total points)
Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (25 points)
Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
Providing effective support to teachers and principals (20 points)
Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs (14 points)
State Success Factors (125 total points)
Articulating State's education reform agenda and LEAs' participation in it (65 points)
Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain proposed plans (30 points)
Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps (30 points)
Standards and Assessments (70 total points)
Developing and adopting common standards (40 points)
Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments (20 points)
Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments (10 points)
General Selection Criteria (55 total points)
Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools (40 points)
Making education funding a priority (10 points)
Demonstrating other significant reform conditions (5 points)
Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 total points)
Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points)
Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs (10 points)
Data Systems to Support Instruction (47 total points)
Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system (24 points)
Using data to improve instruction (18 points)
Accessing and using State data (5 points)
In addition to the 485 possible points from the criteria above, the prioritization of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education is worth another fifteen points for a possible total of 500.[1]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yup, that's the reason you don't like Common Core.

Follow the money. Also, Obamacare. /snark

You can snark all you want. It is a fact that once the feds get hold of something, it is almost impossible to change it. And, it does not necessarily mean it will be done well.

What specific Common Core State Standard do you wish to see changed?

Don't talk about testing, or implementation of curriculum, or crappy workbook pages.

What Standard do you wish to change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not the feds, it's a state driven initiative.

That may have been true initially. With Race to the Top requirements, it is not driven by the states any longer.

Race to the Top provides grant money to states to distribute to school districts. States were not required to apply for these grants. If they felt they were doing fine as is, they were free to ignore the grants!

There are no requirements per se, for these grants, however, there was a contest for the funds, and states got more points based on certain criteria. Adoption of Common Standards was a very small part of the overall score.

State applications for funding were scored on selection criteria worth a total of 500 points. In order of weight, the criteria were:[1]

Great Teachers and Leaders (138 total points)

Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (25 points)
Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
Providing effective support to teachers and principals (20 points)
Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs (14 points)

State Success Factors (125 total points)

Articulating State's education reform agenda and LEAs' participation in it (65 points)
Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain proposed plans (30 points)
Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps (30 points)

Standards and Assessments (70 total points)

Developing and adopting common standards (40 points)
Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments (20 points)
Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments (10 points)

General Selection Criteria (55 total points)

Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools (40 points)
Making education funding a priority (10 points)
Demonstrating other significant reform conditions (5 points)

Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 total points)

Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points)
Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs (10 points)

Data Systems to Support Instruction (47 total points)

Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system (24 points)
Using data to improve instruction (18 points)
Accessing and using State data (5 points)

In addition to the 485 possible points from the criteria above, the prioritization of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education is worth another fifteen points for a possible total of 500.[1]

So in terms of winning the Race to the Top grant funding, adopting Common Core State Standards was worth 40 points, but so was encouraging charter schools, and turning around low performing schools. Funny how no one criticizes the push to do those things....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a worksheet says both EngageNY AND Common Core on the bottom, are we to assume that the worksheet has nothing to do with Common Core?

No, we're to assume that it is EngageNY's attempt to address the CCSS. We're not to assume that just because EngageNY attempted to address the standard in a certain way it was the correct way or the only way to do so.

So since states are completely screwing up the implementation of common core, what should happen to fix it? I would imagine everything can be blamed on the state and nothing on the standards.

Some states, and some local education authorities are screwing up some aspects of the implementation of Common Core. What should happen to fix it? They should make changes in how they are implementing Common Core. They should look to other states and LEAs that aren't having these issues.

What makes you think that if NY can't choose error free books for Common Core that they'd be able to choose error free books if they used a different set of standards. It seems that the issue is that NY doesn't do a good job of choosing books, and that this is the issue we need to address.

[Anonymous]

What specific Common Core State Standard do you wish to see changed?

Don't talk about testing, or implementation of curriculum, or crappy workbook pages.

What Standard do you wish to change?

It doesn't matter which standards I object to. It is the testing, implementation, and big money to publishing companies that are my major concerns.

[Anonymous]

What specific Common Core State Standard do you wish to see changed?

Don't talk about testing, or implementation of curriculum, or crappy workbook pages.

What Standard do you wish to change?

It's not about the standards. It is about the total issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What specific Common Core State Standard do you wish to see changed?

Don't talk about testing, or implementation of curriculum, or crappy workbook pages.

What Standard do you wish to change?

It's not about the standards. It is about the total issue.

The Common Core State Standards are a list of standards, with a few appendices which list things like titles to give a sense of reading levels. That's it. That's all they are. If you object to one or more of the standards, then name the standard you object to. If you object to the idea of children in California learning the same thing as children in DC, then explain why.

Otherwise, if you're objecting to the choices that states or local education authorities have made in how they choose to design their curriculum or assess student progress, then name the states and the choices and say you object to those. But understand that those things aren't Common Core State Standards.

If you object to aspects of NCLB or of RTTT then say that. But understand that neither of those things are Common Core State Standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now, if you are upset that local control is allowing bad books to be selected as the curriculum, you sound like you have no faith in local control over schools. If so, there's a big problem, because local control is also what you are arguing FOR. How can you argue both for and against local control?

And, you think I have faith that Big Brother will choose the right curriculum for my child? Wow. The locals shut it down. Pay attention.

The locals shut it down because the locals set it up. How much faith do you have in Medium Brother to choose the right curriculum for your child?

What's a medium brother?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You should not be teaching if you feel this is a good assignment in any way, shape or form. You would not DARE to write an assignment asking if slavery was a hoax.
[Report Post]

Did anyone else notice that the acting superintendent of that county had a Muslim name?

Yes. That is the real story. As I said, Common Core allows for this kind of interpretation. By design

So do you want that local control or not? You can't have it both ways hon.

Well, apparently local control over curriculum is fine, except if that control is by a guy with a Muslim name.

What fail to understand is that local control stopped this in its tracks. If this was approved federally, there would be nothing you could do, and trying would take years. On a state level, that time limit drops, but not by much.

What fail to understand is that local control STARTED this problem, too. Which is how it is supposed to work. What fail to understand is local control IS over curriculum.

Local school control over curriculum. Local school chooses books, topics, etc.

Common Core State Standards are simply for the standards (Write argumentative essay, good grammar and punctuation, support with references to text, etc.)

Now, if you are upset that local control is allowing bad books to be selected as the curriculum, you sound like you have no faith in local control over schools. If so, there's a big problem, because local control is also what you are arguing FOR. How can you argue both for and against local control?

As long as the states claim it's common core, there is a big issue. Where it lies? Who knows

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now, if you are upset that local control is allowing bad books to be selected as the curriculum, you sound like you have no faith in local control over schools. If so, there's a big problem, because local control is also what you are arguing FOR. How can you argue both for and against local control?

And, you think I have faith that Big Brother will choose the right curriculum for my child? Wow. The locals shut it down. Pay attention.

The locals shut it down because the locals set it up. How much faith do you have in Medium Brother to choose the right curriculum for your child?

What's a medium brother?

If Big Brother is the federal government, I'm guessing the PP meant that Medium Brother is state or local government. The point is that the same people seem to be arguing contradictory things. For example:

CCSS is evil because it is federal control of curriculum. AND That local authority should never have been allowed to choose books for students to read, or topics for students to write about.

CCSS is evil because it is designed to hold bright high achieving (my) kids back so they learn at the pace of Title 1 kids. AND CCSS is evil because it is expecting Title 1 kids to do things that only bright high achieving kids are capable of doing.

CCSS is evil because it comes with testing that is required for almost every child and focuses narrowly on grade level standards AND We should go back to the good old days of NCLB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You should not be teaching if you feel this is a good assignment in any way, shape or form. You would not DARE to write an assignment asking if slavery was a hoax.
[Report Post]

Did anyone else notice that the acting superintendent of that county had a Muslim name?

Yes. That is the real story. As I said, Common Core allows for this kind of interpretation. By design

So do you want that local control or not? You can't have it both ways hon.

Well, apparently local control over curriculum is fine, except if that control is by a guy with a Muslim name.

What fail to understand is that local control stopped this in its tracks. If this was approved federally, there would be nothing you could do, and trying would take years. On a state level, that time limit drops, but not by much.

What fail to understand is that local control STARTED this problem, too. Which is how it is supposed to work. What fail to understand is local control IS over curriculum.

Local school control over curriculum. Local school chooses books, topics, etc.

Common Core State Standards are simply for the standards (Write argumentative essay, good grammar and punctuation, support with references to text, etc.)

Now, if you are upset that local control is allowing bad books to be selected as the curriculum, you sound like you have no faith in local control over schools. If so, there's a big problem, because local control is also what you are arguing FOR. How can you argue both for and against local control?

As long as the states claim it's common core, there is a big issue. Where it lies? Who knows

Are we still talking about the Jodi Picoult book? If so, can someone show me where a state claimed that it was Common Core? One school, perhaps only a specific teacher, in California titled a recommended reading list with the words "Advanced Common Core Reading List" or something (I'm not bothering to look it up). It's a huge stretch from there to the plural states claim this book is a "Common Core" book. Especially when the actual book lists associated with the Common Core are widely available, and do not mention this book or any other book by Jodi Picoult.

[Anonymous]

The Common Core State Standards are a list of standards, with a few appendices which list things like titles to give a sense of reading levels. That's it. That's all they are. If you object to one or more of the standards, then name the standard you object to. If you object to the idea of children in California learning the same thing as children in DC, then explain why.

Otherwise, if you're objecting to the choices that states or local education authorities have made in how they choose to design their curriculum or assess student progress, then name the states and the choices and say you object to those. But understand that those things aren't Common Core State Standards.

If you object to aspects of NCLB or of RTTT then say that. But understand that neither of those things are Common Core State Standards.

Do YOU understand that a standard is nothing without implementation?

[Anonymous]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/05/07/Federal-Govt-threatens-to-cut-funds-of-first-state-to-drop-common-core-standards/5841399494364/

It begins.......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Common Core State Standards are a list of standards, with a few appendices which list things like titles to give a sense of reading levels. That's it. That's all they are. If you object to one or more of the standards, then name the standard you object to. If you object to the idea of children in California learning the same thing as children in DC, then explain why.

Otherwise, if you're objecting to the choices that states or local education authorities have made in how they choose to design their curriculum or assess student progress, then name the states and the choices and say you object to those. But understand that those things aren't Common Core State Standards.

If you object to aspects of NCLB or of RTTT then say that. But understand that neither of those things are Common Core State Standards.

Do YOU understand that a standard is nothing without implementation?

Do YOU understand that setting goals and planning how to meet them are two different steps in a process, and that you can question one without the other?

I'll give you a simplified example.

As a Kindergarten teacher, one of the things that I have always taught students to do is to associate letters with their most common sounds. I've been teaching for enough years that there have been many iterations of this standard, which Common Core expresses as follows:

The actual Common Core State Standards wrote:

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.3.A
Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter-sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant.

At the beginning of my career , I taught at a school that used a program with key words to attempt to teach this goal. However, with this program we weren't achieving the results we hoped for. Even towards the end of the year students were still mixing up letter names and letter sounds, or forgetting letter sounds, and they weren't carrying this problem over to their reading.

So, we investigated. The first question needed to be:

Is this a standards problem (meaning that we're expecting something that's either too hard and unrealistic, or unnecessary) OR is this a curriculum problem (meaning that goal is reasonable, but the curriculum isn't helping us reach that goal)?

We investigated and decided that it was the latter, that kids this age can absolutely learn letter sounds, but that our curriculum wasn't good. We decided that it didn't contain enough direct instruction in phonemic awareness, and that the key word idea was too abstract. We added in daily games and activities that targeted phonemic awareness, and changed our presentation of the information, so that kids learned hand motions to go along with the sounds. And we got the results that we wanted.

This was an implementation problem, not a standards problem.

On the other hand, I once toured a preschool where the director told me that her 2 year old students were all able to recognize the shapes of the Great Lakes when drawn on flashcards. She must have had great implementation, because that's certainly not an easy task, but her standards sucked. Identifying Great Lakes on flashcards is simultaneously hard and useless.

[Anonymous]

At the beginning of my career , I taught at a school that used a program with key words to attempt to teach this goal. However, with this program we weren't achieving the results we hoped for. Even towards the end of the year students were still mixing up letter names and letter sounds, or forgetting letter sounds, and they weren't carrying this problem over to their reading.

So, we investigated. The first question needed to be:

Is this a standards problem (meaning that we're expecting something that's either too hard and unrealistic, or unnecessary) OR is this a curriculum problem (meaning that goal is reasonable, but the curriculum isn't helping us reach that goal)?

We investigated and decided that it was the latter, that kids this age can absolutely learn letter sounds, but that our curriculum wasn't good. We decided that it didn't contain enough direct instruction in phonemic awareness, and that the key word idea was too abstract. We added in daily games and activities that targeted phonemic awareness, and changed our presentation of the information, so that kids learned hand motions to go along with the sounds. And we got the results that we wanted.

This was an implementation problem, not a standards problem.

On the other hand, I once toured a preschool where the director told me that her 2 year old students were all able to recognize the shapes of the Great Lakes when drawn on flashcards. She must have had great implementation, because that's certainly not an easy task, but her standards sucked. Identifying Great Lakes on flashcards is simultaneously hard and useless.

That is so sad that you had to waste a year on a program that was not working. I had the flexibility to teach my K kids in the most effective approach possible.