Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

Will they have uniforms? Will they have badges? Will they arrive at the school via helicopter? Will the helicopter be black? I need to know!

No. They will sit in school system headquarters and send out forms for teachers to fill out. More paperwork-less teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If students in chemistry have to give up chemistry lab in favor of reading scientific writing about chemistry, somebody is doing it wrong.

Believe me, the Common Core "ratio police" will be out checking! This is an example of an unintended consequence.

No, I don't think so. BUt there will be end of year tests Language Arts such as the PARCC, and those tests will include not just fiction and poetry, but non fiction as well. And students who are proficient in reading non fiction will have more background knowledge and will be able to better read, understand, and show comprehension than those who have primarily been reading fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Will they have uniforms? Will they have badges? Will they arrive at the school via helicopter? Will the helicopter be black? I need to know!

No. They will sit in school system headquarters and send out forms for teachers to fill out. More paperwork-less teaching.

If it gets bad chemistry teachers to stop lecturing straight from the textbook (which is what happened in my high school chemistry class), and start assigning actual scientific writing about chemistry for students to read, then "less teaching" is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

People and organizations do that all the time. You sign with an architect to create plans for an addition before you've seen the following plan. The military signs with an weapons manufacturer to develop a new weapon before the weapon is finished. In both of those cases, you still have the option of saying "no thank you" if the final product (the plans, not the addition or the weapon) is not to your liking. This was the same thing. Texas was asked whether they wanted to be part of the coalition that was creating the standards. They said no, which is fair enough, but yes would also have been a reasonable thing to say.

It is hardly the same thing. And, if he had signed, his signature would have been touted as a sign that he supported Common Core--before he had seen it.

People who read what he signed would have seen it as an agreement that the state of Texas was interested in helping develop Common Core State Standards.

[Anonymous]

If it gets bad chemistry teachers to stop lecturing straight from the textbook (which is what happened in my high school chemistry class), and start assigning actual scientific writing about chemistry for students to read, then "less teaching" is a good thing

No, it will enable lazy chemistry teachers to do less lecturing and less labwork. They will use it as an excuse to assign more reading. Is that what you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This 60/40 thing is just an arbitrary requirement that is unnecessary. It will just lead to more paperwork for teachers to justify their efforts.

It will lead to more high school content teachers being required (by their school districts, not by the Common Core police) to assign reading in their classrooms, as a matter of best practices and as a way of helping their students (a) meet the standards and (b) get ready for college.

As a poster already stated, good schools do this as a matter of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People and organizations do that all the time. You sign with an architect to create plans for an addition before you've seen the following plan. The military signs with an weapons manufacturer to develop a new weapon before the weapon is finished. In both of those cases, you still have the option of saying "no thank you" if the final product (the plans, not the addition or the weapon) is not to your liking. This was the same thing. Texas was asked whether they wanted to be part of the coalition that was creating the standards. They said no, which is fair enough, but yes would also have been a reasonable thing to say.

It is hardly the same thing. And, if he had signed, his signature would have been touted as a sign that he supported Common Core--before he had seen it.

People who read what he signed would have seen it as an agreement that the state of Texas was interested in helping develop Common Core State Standards.

Which would have turned out to be a disaster, five (five?) years later, when the Common Core State Standards suddenly out of nowhere became immensely controversial on grounds that the communist Muslim president supported them. How foresightful of the guy in Texas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If it gets bad chemistry teachers to stop lecturing straight from the textbook (which is what happened in my high school chemistry class), and start assigning actual scientific writing about chemistry for students to read, then "less teaching" is a good thing

No, it will enable lazy chemistry teachers to do less lecturing and less labwork. They will use it as an excuse to assign more reading. Is that what you want?

I have to admit, I never took Chemistry in high school. Are you telling me that before kids do chemistry labs, there is no reading involved? They don't have to read textbooks? Charts? Papers? Results of previous labs? Don't you have to use reading, in order to read lab instructions?

[Anonymous]

Could you please tell me exactly where to look on the Department of Education website for the requirements for Race to the Top grant funding?

Actually, ideally, you would tell me exactly where to look, and you would summarize the requirements. "Totally tied to" is not really very informative.

Go to "grants". It will give you an opportunity to practice your non-fiction, quasi scientific reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If it gets bad chemistry teachers to stop lecturing straight from the textbook (which is what happened in my high school chemistry class), and start assigning actual scientific writing about chemistry for students to read, then "less teaching" is a good thing

No, it will enable lazy chemistry teachers to do less lecturing and less labwork. They will use it as an excuse to assign more reading. Is that what you want?

There should be less lecturing. So, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Could you please tell me exactly where to look on the Department of Education website for the requirements for Race to the Top grant funding?

Actually, ideally, you would tell me exactly where to look, and you would summarize the requirements. "Totally tied to" is not really very informative.

Go to "grants". It will give you an opportunity to practice your non-fiction, quasi scientific reading.

A specific link to the Race to the Top grant requirements, please? I'm sure you've been to that website many times, given your familiarity with the grant requirements.

[Anonymous]

Use the search box at the top of the website. There is a lot of detail. Bottom line, teacher evaluation must be tied to student performance and common core standards must be adopted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Use the search box at the top of the website. There is a lot of detail. Bottom line, teacher evaluation must be tied to student performance and common core standards must be adopted.

You can't give me the link? Why not?

[Anonymous]

I have to admit, I never took Chemistry in high school. Are you telling me that before kids do chemistry labs, there is no reading involved? They don't have to read textbooks? Charts? Papers? Results of previous labs? Don't you have to use reading, in order to read lab instructions?

Of course they do. My point is that there should not be an arbitrary number set. For example, it is very likely that kids will do more reading in biology than in chemistry. At least, that is my recollection.

[Anonymous]

You can't give me the link? Why not?

There is NOT one link. There are many.