Why are people so upset about Common Core?

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

Perfect! So the standards are fine, and the fact that they are nation wide (and therefore rather difficult to change) is no problem, because they are basically OK.

What you object to is the implementation (the choice of curriculum) which is handled at a local level and is therefore easy to change. School district doesn't like Pearson Math texts? Buy McGraw Hill instead -- or design your own!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.......

That's fine, Indiana doesn't need grant money from the federal government. They have local control of schools, and local funding, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.......

That's fine, Indiana doesn't need grant money from the federal government. They have local control of schools, and local funding, right?

It seems as though, if they want to keep the grant money, all they need to do is to demonstrate that their new standards meet the goal of getting kids ready for college. If they don't think this is true then they probably shouldn't have chosen them. If they do think this is true, then they should be able to justify their decision to the feds, and keep the money.

It seems reasonable to me that if Indiana requested money for CC implementation, and is now not implementing CC, the feds would ask for them to explain their plans for the money before they decide whether or not Indiana can keep it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do YOU understand that a standard is nothing without implementation?

I think you should find a synonym for "implementation", because I don't think you understand what it means. Can you ask this question in a different way, so we can understand what you are asking?

Are you saying "A standard is nothing, without a way to teach to it?"

Because they are 2 very very different things.

The standard is the end goal.

The way you teach the kids to get to that end goal, that's the implementation. As a PP noted, there are numerous ways to teach kids to get to that end goal. SOme stink, some are great, some work for some kids, some work for others. Those decisions need to be made by individual teachers, schools and school districts (and even states).

[Anonymous]

Louisiana students reaction to the PARCC (Common Core) field test

http://www.knoe.com/story/25430879/louisiana-students-prefer-taking-parcc-test-on-computer

And so it begins.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Louisiana students reaction to the PARCC (Common Core) field test

http://www.knoe.com/story/25430879/louisiana-students-prefer-taking-parcc-test-on-computer

And so it begins.....

If things are this bad in Louisiana, can you imagine how hard it will be for kids in Massachusetts?

Of those students taking the computer-based test during the first phase, nearly 70 percent said the test was easier or about the same as their current school work. And, when asked if there were questions about things they have not learned this school year nearly 85 percent said there were none or few questions. Students were also asked about the functionality of the computer-based test and how easy or difficult it was to type their answers. Eighty-seven percent said they had no problems entering their answers; nearly the same percentage said they did not have any difficulty moving back and forth between the passages on the test and that information was easily obtained.

[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.

Sounds like you were not the teacher. Are you a specialist or an administrator?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like you were not the teacher. Are you a specialist or an administrator?

The answer is complicated.

I actually switched jobs between the two years. So, the year that the old program was implemented, I was the teacher. I then applied for and got the job as curriculum specialist, so I oversaw the analysis and implementation of the changes the following year. Curriculum specialist was a part time role, so I job shared the classroom job the following year, so I got to teach as well as being the curriculum person.

I've long since moved on to other roles, and have gone back in the classroom and left again.

[Anonymous]

The answer is complicated.

I actually switched jobs between the two years. So, the year that the old program was implemented, I was the teacher. I then applied for and got the job as curriculum specialist, so I oversaw the analysis and implementation of the changes the following year. Curriculum specialist was a part time role, so I job shared the classroom job the following year, so I got to teach as well as being the curriculum person.

I've long since moved on to other roles, and have gone back in the classroom and left again.

Well, I suspect your new role has something to do with Common Core or the Dept. of Education.

[Anonymous]

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.

I just don't understand why it took investigation to figure that out. My teacher training emphasized the importance of music and games with very young children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The answer is complicated.

I actually switched jobs between the two years. So, the year that the old program was implemented, I was the teacher. I then applied for and got the job as curriculum specialist, so I oversaw the analysis and implementation of the changes the following year. Curriculum specialist was a part time role, so I job shared the classroom job the following year, so I got to teach as well as being the curriculum person.

I've long since moved on to other roles, and have gone back in the classroom and left again.

Well, I suspect your new role has something to do with Common Core or the Dept. of Education.

Well, my new role is in a school in a state that implements Common Core Standards and deals with the Department of Education. So, I guess you are correct.

If you're guessing that I work for either of those entities then you are incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I just don't understand why it took investigation to figure that out. My teacher training emphasized the importance of music and games with very young children.

It's just an example of the difference between standards, and curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Louisiana students reaction to the PARCC (Common Core) field test

http://www.knoe.com/story/25430879/louisiana-students-prefer-taking-parcc-test-on-computer

And so it begins.....

Headline: Louisiana students field-test PARCC; nothing bad happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.......

What begins, exactly?

It looks to me like the federal government granted Indiana a waiver based on Indiana saying they'd do something, but then Indiana decided not to do it, so the federal government wants Indiana to show that Indiana still qualifies for the waiver. Please explain why this is the first step into the abyss.

[Anonymous]

[quoteAnonymous wrote:
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.



I just don't understand why it took investigation to figure that out. My teacher training emphasized the importance of music and games with very young children.

It's just an example of the difference between standards, and curriculum.


Not sure I understand your point. Sounds to me like you weren't allowed to use your own common sense and creativity to do what works without "investigating".