s/o Are these standards to hard for Kindergarten students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The comprehension standards on the first page of this thread might as well be summarized as "understand a story and be able to talk about it." That's not beyond the scope of kindergarten.

And, you don't think your kindergartener would do this without Common Core? K teachers have always done this.

I don't understand. Is the argument that the standards are too hard and demanding, or that they are unnecessary because they were being done already (in which case obviously they are not too hard or demanding)?

They are shitty all the way through because they were rushed and not tested. The "standards" are too abstract in younger ages where children are concrete thinkers. They are poorly and vaguely written. They immediately demand reading levels way above what kids are reading now.


And Common Core has totally radical and ineffective way of teaching math -- it will leave our kids years behind in math skills by the time they graduate from high school.

http://wheresthemath.com/curriculum-reviews/explicit-instruction-or-reform/

Explicit Instruction versus Reform

“Despite decades of advocacy, there is no body of evidence based on randomised, controlled experiments demonstrating the superiority of inquiry-based over explicit instruction. There is a huge body of evidence from around the globe demonstrating the advantages of explicitly showing learners how to solve problems as opposed to having them discover how to solve the same problems."

The methods used to teach math are curriculum, not standards.

http://hoosiersagainstcommoncore.com/james-milgram-testimony-to-the-indiana-senate-committee/

Math Professor James Milgrim (only math educator on the CCSS math committee, he refused to approve the standards), on the flaws of Common Core math standards (testifiying here on the difference between Indiana Standards and Common Core Standards):

" Both standards were authored with the help of the professional mathematics community as distinguished from the mathematical education community. But — as someone who was at the middle of overseeing the writing process – my main duty on the CCSSO Validation Committee — it became clear that the professional math community input to CCSSI was often ignored, which seemed not to be the case with the Indiana Standards. A particularly egregious example of this occurred in the sixth and seventh grade standards and commentary on ratios, rates, proportion and percents, where there are a number of serious errors and questionable examples. But the same issues are also present in the development of the basic algorithms for whole number arithmetic – the most important topic in grades 1 -5.
It was argued by some people on the Validation Committee that we should ignore such errors and misunderstandings as they will be cleared up in later versions, but I didn’t buy into this argument, and currently there is no movement at all towards any revisions.
3. How do they compare with international standards?
As I indicated above, they are more than two years behind international expectations by eighth grade. The top countries are starting algebra in seventh grade and geometry in eighth or ninth. By the end of ninth grade the students will have learned all of the material in a standard geometry course, all the material in a standard algebra I course, and some of the most important material in a standard algebra II course. This allows a huge percentage of them to finish calculus before graduating high school. (In a number of the high achieving countries, calculus is actually a high school graduation requirement, but where it is not, typically, half or more of the high school graduates will have had calculus. Also, it is worth noting that in these countries the high school graduation rate is typically 90% or higher for their entire populations.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"This is a 3rd grader at 10 o’clock on a Wednesday night literally crying over her homework. This is a child hungry for knowledge – a child who loves to learn. This is a child with a broken spirit. I didn’t have to take several pictures to capture one that happened to include a tear, because the tears were pouring down her face. This is a very smart kid in the midst of feeling like a failure."

http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/common-core-harmful-to-children/

Are you being paid to find and post these blogs? Do you get extra for every word you bold?

No one is refuting that these examples are problematic - only that you and many others are misdiagnosing the problem.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

The Chicago Teachers Union wants to abandon Common Core, as does New York, and now Oregon.

It's the beginning of the flood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Math Professor James Milgrim (only math educator on the CCSS math committee, he refused to approve the standards), on the flaws of Common Core math standards (testifiying here on the difference between Indiana Standards and Common Core Standards):

" Both standards were authored with the help of the professional mathematics community as distinguished from the mathematical education community. But — as someone who was at the middle of overseeing the writing process – my main duty on the CCSSO Validation Committee — it became clear that the professional math community input to CCSSI was often ignored, which seemed not to be the case with the Indiana Standards. A particularly egregious example of this occurred in the sixth and seventh grade standards and commentary on ratios, rates, proportion and percents, [b]where there are a number of serious errors and questionable examples.[/b] But the same issues are also present in the development of the basic algorithms for whole number arithmetic – the most important topic in grades 1 -5.

Prolific blog reposter -- that is the first concrete comment you have found and reposted (in bold) There is an actual standard being criticized. And there is even a hint of what is of concern.

Could you please do some more digging and post what the actual concern is, about the 6th and 7th grade standards in rates rations proportions and percents?

[Anonymous]

http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/ednext_20123_Forum.pdf


Great paper that takes apart the Common Core math standards.

" The main authors of
the Common Core
mathematics
standards had
minimal prior
experience with
writing standards,
and it shows.
How, otherwise,
can one explain
their selecting
an experimental
approach to
geometry that has
not been successfully
tried anywhere in
the world?"
—ZW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/ednext_20123_Forum.pdf


Great paper that takes apart the Common Core math standards.

" The main authors of
the Common Core
mathematics
standards had
minimal prior
experience with
writing standards,
and it shows.
How, otherwise,
can one explain
their selecting
an experimental
approach to
geometry that has
not been successfully
tried anywhere in
the world?"
—ZW

He also said this, if you want to cherry pick quotes:

Ze’ev Wurman: Common Core standards may in fact be clearer and more demanding than many, though not all, of the state standards they replaced. The Fordham Institute reviewed them last year and found them so.

Good and thoughtful article, though.

[Anonymous]

I like this quote, I think it is fair: (note -- talking about math only)

There is much to criticize about them, and there are several sets of standards, including those in California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, and Washington, that are clearly better. Yet Common Core is vastly supe- rior—not just a little bit better, but vastly supe- rior—to the standards in more than 30 states.

[Anonymous]

With the introduction of calculators, many states have downplayed the importance of arithmetic, apparently not realizing its true educational value. Instead, they spend time on statistics and probability, both of which Com-mon Core has tossed out of early elementary school. Another thing that states love is geometric slides, turns, and flips, sometimes presented every year in grades K?11, perhaps under the mistaken belief that they are really doing mathematics.

Fewer than 15 states are explicit about the need for students to know the single-digit number facts (think multiplication tables) to the point of instant recall. States love to have kids figure out many ways to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, but often leave off the capstone standard of fluency with the standard algorithms (traditional step-by-step procedures for the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of whole numbers). For example, only seven states expect students to know explicitly the standard algorithm for whole number multiplication. Fractions areven harder to find done well. Standards for fractions are generally so vague that nearly everything is left to the reader. Often states expect students to develop their own strategies or a variety of strategies for dealing with frac tions. For example, only 15 states mention common denominators. Common Core does a pretty good job with arithmetic, even a very good job with fractions.

[Anonymous]

Wow, the crux of that math article is that the Common Core State Standards in Math are too easy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Chicago Teachers Union wants to abandon Common Core, as does New York, and now Oregon.

It's the beginning of the flood.

The Chicago Teachers Union doesn't like the Common Core standards because

-teachers should be in charge of teaching [an obvious position for a teachers' union to take]
-the standards are developmentally inappropriate [we've been talking about that]
-the standards were developed by test and curriculum publishers and the Gates Foundation [aren't the standards themselves what's relevant? not who developed them]
-implementation of the curricula aligned to the Common Core standards has been bad [again, that doesn't make the standards bad]
-Common Core standards are bad for poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs [how? why?]
-parents and teachers aren't allowed to see the PARCC and Smarter Balance tests [again, an implementation issue, not a problem with the standards]
-testing takes away from teaching time [true with or without the Common Core standards]
-teachers and schools will be unfairly judged on test results [again, true with or without the Common Core standards]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/05/09/chicago-teachers-union-passes-resolution-opposing-common-core/

In short, this is a mess. What, specifically, are the problems? If you oppose the standards, then oppose the standards -- but please be specific about which standards are bad, and what is bad about them. If you oppose the implementation, then oppose the implementation. If you oppose the testing, then oppose the testing. If you oppose the teacher evaluation systems, then oppose the teacher evaluation systems. "Common Core" has become shorthand for "everything I hate about education in the US".

(And if the teachers' union thinks that teacher evaluation systems based in part on student test scores will go away if they succeed in getting rid of the Common Core standards -- well, won't they be surprised.)

[Anonymous]

the standards were developed by test and curriculum publishers and the Gates Foundation [aren't the standards themselves what's relevant? not who developed them

It indicates why they are a problem. They were not written by people who have to use them and know the unintended consequences.

[Anonymous]

Common Core standards are bad for poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs [how? why?]

Because these students need to be brought up to grade level before you teach them grade level standards. For example, are you going to start in German III when you have not taken German I or II?

[Anonymous]

In short, this is a mess. What, specifically, are the problems? If you oppose the standards, then oppose the standards -- but please be specific about which standards are bad, and what is bad about them. If you oppose the implementation, then oppose the implementation. If you oppose the testing, then oppose the testing. If you oppose the teacher evaluation systems, then oppose the teacher evaluation systems. "Common Core" has become shorthand for "everything I hate about education in the US".

If there is so much trouble with implementing the standards and testing them, then perhaps there is a problem with the standards themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core standards are bad for poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs [how? why?]

Because these students need to be brought up to grade level before you teach them grade level standards. For example, are you going to start in German III when you have not taken German I or II?

In that case, any standards at all are bad for poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs. We should not have any standards. Is that your position?

[Anonymous]

In that case, any standards at all are bad for poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs. We should not have any standards. Is that your position?

No. However, we must start at the level the child is on. Would you expect a child who cannot walk to run a marathon within a week?