Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Most likely she's pulling it out of her a$$

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

PP again. A cursory internet search brought up a number of High School Chemistry textbooks. Here's a page form one that is available online:

http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/chemeq/Eq-01.html#SEC1

Certainly looks like ample opportunity for reading to be used. I see topic headings, paragraphs, bolded vocabulary, subheadings, main ideas, and details. Ample need for the skill of reading to be applied, in the field of chemistry, perhaps before said labwork takes place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Most likely she's pulling it out of her a$$

Yeah, there's a poster on here who seems to feel a good argumentative style is to say "go look, you'll see it". I have no patience for that. When I go look, it turns out there's nothing there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is NOT one link. There are many.

OK, so provide some of them, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

ir

Luckily, this does not apply to each individual class. This applies to the entirety of what the student reads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Most likely she's pulling it out of her a$$

Yeah, there's a poster on here who seems to feel a good argumentative style is to say "go look, you'll see it". I have no patience for that. When I go look, it turns out there's nothing there.

PP again -- it, it's been mischaracterized. In this case, yes, Race to the Top grants scored states on many different aspects; and tying teacher evaluation to some types of performance is ONE of many different aspects that could help score points to a Race to the Top Grant, AS IS adoption of either Common Core standards OR standards that could be shown to prepare students for college readiness.

[Anonymous]

Since you cannot figure out how to navigate the website, here is a simple link for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/obamas-race-to-the-top-wi_b_666598.html

[Anonymous]

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

If you want detail, there are many links to help you.

[Anonymous]

Certainly looks like ample opportunity for reading to be used. I see topic headings, paragraphs, bolded vocabulary, subheadings, main ideas, and details. Ample need for the skill of reading to be applied, in the field of chemistry, perhaps before said labwork takes place.

Yes. And, kids are currently using it. There is no need to specify how much reading will be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Certainly looks like ample opportunity for reading to be used. I see topic headings, paragraphs, bolded vocabulary, subheadings, main ideas, and details. Ample need for the skill of reading to be applied, in the field of chemistry, perhaps before said labwork takes place.

Yes. And, kids are currently using it. There is no need to specify how much reading will be done.

See, when you are adopting common standards, you DO need to specify it.

That's what standards are.

Let me give you an example. Imagine every piece of electronic equipment that is being made has a different shaped plug; and each needs its own electrical outlet. A group gets together to make specifications as to what will be a uniform plug. (This analogy may be weak because I don't actually know that much about electricity and plugs!)

You specify that the plugs will be made of a certain type of metal, that will work best for the standardized outlet. Even though 80% of the plugs are already made of this type of metal -- some 20% are using a metal that is inferior and will lead to problems with the type of outlet you are standardizing. Yes best practices already call for the type of metal already in use.. but because you are creating standard specifications, you do need to spell it out for those who haven't switched to that type of metal.

So yes, maybe many schools DO require students to read in Science class... but I can tell you that also, there are plenty of schools that don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

If you want detail, there are many links to help you.

No.

Link to the actual, original source. Highlight the information that makes your point.

THAT is how you make and support an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since you cannot figure out how to navigate the website, here is a simple link for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/obamas-race-to-the-top-wi_b_666598.html

No.

Do not link to what somebody else says. Link to the original source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

If you want detail, there are many links to help you.

Here sweetie -- since you don't seem capable of finding the information to support you assertions, I will help you out, just this once.

The document you are looking for, as proof of your argument, is here

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

Now, go through it, figure out which page has the specifications you are asserting are being REQUIRED for Race to the Top finding.

Locate the page, locate the word REQUIRED (hint, that will be very hard to find, because it isn't there, but whatever) and copy it.

Okay?

Good luck!

[Anonymous]

That's the summary. I read it already. It didn't include all the details.

[Anonymous]

NP here.

For the math part of CC, I found this link that I thought was helpful in explaining the "new math" in CC. This is exactly what my DC in 2nd and 3rd grade has been doing. I actually use some of it myself when I do math in my head. And before I even knew about the CC math, I taught my DC to do double digit math using one of the methods described here.

http://www.topmastersineducation.com/common-core/