Does anyone know who began the push for Common Core Standards?

[Anonymous]

CC standards were created before 2.0, which is obvious. In Mo Co, 2.0 is/was a partnership with Pearson. What was developed is being used by Pearson, and as you know -Pearson, which is a huge beast, is in bed with Common Core.

PARCC is now being rolled out. It will be piloted in the spring of 2014 with certain classes at specific schools. Since the goal is for each student to log on to access the tests, there will be many, MANY logistical issues, as we simply do not have enough labs to accommodate all that testing during a short window.

ridiculous to roll out assessments AFTER the fact, as assessments should be used to drive instruction

Aside from this ridiculous mess, CC standards are very rigorous. Sadly, not everyone understands them. They are meant to be used in a comprehensive approach, which means all content areas are responsible for teaching reading and critical thinking. But b/c they are so rigorous, not all teachers are prepared to handle their complexity.

So you'll see low standards and dips in performance until teachers are all caught up.

Anonymous wrote:I respectfully disagree.

1) Curriculum 2.0 is simple using CCSS as a cover.
2) CCSS has not dictate a grading scheme of ES, P, N, and I. The grading scheme is a great set back to motivate kids to pursue better level of study.
3) CCSS does not dictate a removal of textbooks. Removing textbooks deprives parents the visibility of the systematic progress of the teaching process.
4) CCSS has not rolled out a test standard before the rollout of Curriculum 2.0.

I can write more based on facts that I've known.

Anonymous wrote:CCSS are just standards (what a child is expected to be able to do at each grade level). Maryland already had standards, but these are more rigorous. Curriculum 2.0 is aligned to CCSS, but my sense is that parents' complaints mostly have to do with local decisions and poor implementation of the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CCSS is a myth. It often cites studies of education systems in Finnland, Hongkong, etc. The size of population is much smaller. Moreover, their population is much more homogeneous in comparison with the population of US, a big melting pot.

45 states have adopted the common core may not necessarily lead to that CCSS is great.

Your definition of "myth" must be different from mine.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the short explanation. Based on your knowledge, I think that you may be one of the MCPS officer who worked on the matter. I am glad for your response.

Now, come back to the points. My statement is
4) CCSS has not rolled out a test standard before the rollout of Curriculum 2.0.

Even though I typed it quickly with impreciseness, my statement captured the main fact.

Neither UCARE nor MSA is the right test or assessment recognized nationally for CCSS. More specifically, new tests developed for CCSS by either PARCC or SBAC was not ready before the rollout of Curriculum 2.0. This is a fact.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/03/13/24parcc.h32.html?tkn=LLRFqfZJEcYIEO4KAH5ecL0mxVVQaoSVN4u0&cmp=ENL-CM-NEWS1
http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCC%20Assessment%20Administration%20Guidance_FINAL_0.pdf

In this way, regardless how rigorous CCSS is and tests for CCSS will be, curriculum 2.0 is a premature product.

Anonymous wrote:CC standards were created before 2.0, which is obvious. In Mo Co, 2.0 is/was a partnership with Pearson. What was developed is being used by Pearson, and as you know -Pearson, which is a huge beast, is in bed with Common Core.

PARCC is now being rolled out. It will be piloted in the spring of 2014 with certain classes at specific schools. Since the goal is for each student to log on to access the tests, there will be many, MANY logistical issues, as we simply do not have enough labs to accommodate all that testing during a short window.

ridiculous to roll out assessments AFTER the fact, as assessments should be used to drive instruction

Aside from this ridiculous mess, CC standards are very rigorous. Sadly, not everyone understands them. They are meant to be used in a comprehensive approach, which means all content areas are responsible for teaching reading and critical thinking. But b/c they are so rigorous, not all teachers are prepared to handle their complexity.

So you'll see low standards and dips in performance until teachers are all caught up.

Anonymous wrote:I respectfully disagree.

1) Curriculum 2.0 is simple using CCSS as a cover.
2) CCSS has not dictate a grading scheme of ES, P, N, and I. The grading scheme is a great set back to motivate kids to pursue better level of study.
3) CCSS does not dictate a removal of textbooks. Removing textbooks deprives parents the visibility of the systematic progress of the teaching process.
4) CCSS has not rolled out a test standard before the rollout of Curriculum 2.0.

I can write more based on facts that I've known.

Anonymous wrote:CCSS are just standards (what a child is expected to be able to do at each grade level). Maryland already had standards, but these are more rigorous. Curriculum 2.0 is aligned to CCSS, but my sense is that parents' complaints mostly have to do with local decisions and poor implementation of the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Using facts instead of aggression in conversations is noble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CCSS is a myth. It often cites studies of education systems in Finnland, Hongkong, etc. The size of population is much smaller. Moreover, their population is much more homogeneous in comparison with the population of US, a big melting pot.

45 states have adopted the common core may not necessarily lead to that CCSS is great.

Your definition of "myth" must be different from mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for the short explanation. Based on your knowledge, I think that you may be one of the MCPS officer who worked on the matter. I am glad for your response.

Now, come back to the points. My statement is
4) CCSS has not rolled out a test standard before the rollout of Curriculum 2.0.

Even though I typed it quickly with impreciseness, my statement captured the main fact.

Neither UCARE nor MSA is the right test or assessment recognized nationally for CCSS. More specifically, new tests developed for CCSS by either PARCC or SBAC was not ready before the rollout of Curriculum 2.0. This is a fact.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/03/13/24parcc.h32.html?tkn=LLRFqfZJEcYIEO4KAH5ecL0mxVVQaoSVN4u0&cmp=ENL-CM-NEWS1
http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCC%20Assessment%20Administration%20Guidance_FINAL_0.pdf

In this way, regardless how rigorous CCSS is and tests for CCSS will be, curriculum 2.0 is a premature product.

Anonymous wrote:

You're saying that schools should not switch to the Common Core until there are assessment tests for the Common Core. But you can't test the assessment tests for the Common Core without schools that have switched to the Common Core. How would you solve this problem?

[Anonymous]

I limited myself from philosophical/moral debates of
- Should MCPS students of a subset of MCPS be the test subjects of curriculum experiments?
- Should MCPS roll out a curriculum without proper preparation from schools and teachers?
- Should parents send their ES kids to MCPS?

These are up to the decisions from parents and MCPS officers. It is not very constructive to debate these any way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for the short explanation. Based on your knowledge, I think that you may be one of the MCPS officer who worked on the matter. I am glad for your response.

Now, come back to the points. My statement is
4) CCSS has not rolled out a test standard before the rollout of Curriculum 2.0.

Even though I typed it quickly with impreciseness, my statement captured the main fact.

Neither UCARE nor MSA is the right test or assessment recognized nationally for CCSS. More specifically, new tests developed for CCSS by either PARCC or SBAC was not ready before the rollout of Curriculum 2.0. This is a fact.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/03/13/24parcc.h32.html?tkn=LLRFqfZJEcYIEO4KAH5ecL0mxVVQaoSVN4u0&cmp=ENL-CM-NEWS1
http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCC%20Assessment%20Administration%20Guidance_FINAL_0.pdf

In this way, regardless how rigorous CCSS is and tests for CCSS will be, curriculum 2.0 is a premature product.

Anonymous wrote:

You're saying that schools should not switch to the Common Core until there are assessment tests for the Common Core. But you can't test the assessment tests for the Common Core without schools that have switched to the Common Core. How would you solve this problem?

[Anonymous]

Of course the CC has to be created before creating the assessments.

I was unclear in my explanation.

Create the CC - but then create the PARCC and roll them out at the same time but not in a punitive manner. Allow educators to become familiar with the prototype while learning about the CC. There isn't enough time to work with the CC in order to redesign lessons that fit w/in the school-wide literacy/critical thinking framework. As it stands now, Curriculum 2.0 was rolled out, and teachers are still having issues with the guides. At the secondary level, content guides are being redesigned around CC standards.

This is all fine, but when you're field testing in 2014 w/o training teachers IN the assessments first, it's ass backward.

We are - oftentimes like dogs - trained to jump when assessments roll around. So while some of us are comfortable with the gray that comes with critical thinking and content with a push on school-wide literacy, these tests are indeed challenging. And when the majority of students aren't at that level - or even comfortable with the new structure - it makes our lives much more difficult in terms of preparing our students. But if we were given pre-assessments and formative assessments along the way to 1) practice backmapping and 2) increasing comfort level for students, life would be a tad bit easier.

There are many, many standards, and you simply cannot test them all. So imagine being a teacher with a guide created by MCPS. While you might trust the curriculum writers, there's no guarantee that the standards they chose are always mirrored in the PARCC. It becomes a guessing game - and no one benefits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for the short explanation. Based on your knowledge, I think that you may be one of the MCPS officer who worked on the matter. I am glad for your response.

Now, come back to the points. My statement is
4) CCSS has not rolled out a test standard before the rollout of Curriculum 2.0.

Even though I typed it quickly with impreciseness, my statement captured the main fact.

Neither UCARE nor MSA is the right test or assessment recognized nationally for CCSS. More specifically, new tests developed for CCSS by either PARCC or SBAC was not ready before the rollout of Curriculum 2.0. This is a fact.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/03/13/24parcc.h32.html?tkn=LLRFqfZJEcYIEO4KAH5ecL0mxVVQaoSVN4u0&cmp=ENL-CM-NEWS1
http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCC%20Assessment%20Administration%20Guidance_FINAL_0.pdf

In this way, regardless how rigorous CCSS is and tests for CCSS will be, curriculum 2.0 is a premature product.

Anonymous wrote:

You're saying that schools should not switch to the Common Core until there are assessment tests for the Common Core. But you can't test the assessment tests for the Common Core without schools that have switched to the Common Core. How would you solve this problem?

[Anonymous]

MCPS and Dr. Starr are too arrogant to admit they have made terrible decisions. Math class separation is common sense and the elimination of it in elementary school has been a disaster for our kids. Take a look at the 3rd grade MAth MSA scores, it only took 2.0 two shorts years to put Montgomery County below the state average. That is because the to 25% have to learn Math at the pace of the bottom 25%. No one cares about those top kids and blog and principal want to call this s problem of a bunch of Potomac and Olney parents who think their kids are smarter than they are. No, it is common sense!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS and Dr. Starr are too arrogant to admit they have made terrible decisions. Math class separation is common sense and the elimination of it in elementary school has been a disaster for our kids. Take a look at the 3rd grade MAth MSA scores, it only took 2.0 two shorts years to put Montgomery County below the state average. That is because the to 25% have to learn Math at the pace of the bottom 25%. No one cares about those top kids and blog and principal want to call this s problem of a bunch of Potomac and Olney parents who think their kids are smarter than they are. No, it is common sense!!!!

Did u read this thread?
MSA's is not a test for Common Core.
Previous curriculum taught to that test .

[Anonymous]

1-Obama made the common core standards and federal tests, as previously each state had different goals and even tests sometime.
2- each state can decide to implement or not, if implementing get some freebie fed dollars in the early years(oooooo!)
3- if accepting, each state plans its implementation (curriculum, training, test date starts, communication with citizens, etc. (this is where MoCo hired Pearsons)
4- enjoy the $hit&how. Fed dollars continue if your AVERAGE test scores beat the threshold and increase from previous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS and Dr. Starr are too arrogant to admit they have made terrible decisions. Math class separation is common sense and the elimination of it in elementary school has been a disaster for our kids. Take a look at the 3rd grade MAth MSA scores, it only took 2.0 two shorts years to put Montgomery County below the state average. That is because the to 25% have to learn Math at the pace of the bottom 25%. No one cares about those top kids and blog and principal want to call this s problem of a bunch of Potomac and Olney parents who think their kids are smarter than they are. No, it is common sense!!!!

Sadly correct. Maryland is taking the "teach to the bottom" approach to increase avg test scores and thus maintain fed funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1-Obama made the common core standards and federal tests, as previously each state had different goals and even tests sometime.
2- each state can decide to implement or not, if implementing get some freebie fed dollars in the early years(oooooo!)
3- if accepting, each state plans its implementation (curriculum, training, test date starts, communication with citizens, etc. (this is where MoCo hired Pearsons)
4- enjoy the $hit&how. Fed dollars continue if your AVERAGE test scores beat the threshold and increase from previous.

Oh Darn! What a shame, because No Child Left Behind was such a freaking genius program .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS and Dr. Starr are too arrogant to admit they have made terrible decisions. Math class separation is common sense and the elimination of it in elementary school has been a disaster for our kids. Take a look at the 3rd grade MAth MSA scores, it only took 2.0 two shorts years to put Montgomery County below the state average. That is because the to 25% have to learn Math at the pace of the bottom 25%. No one cares about those top kids and blog and principal want to call this s problem of a bunch of Potomac and Olney parents who think their kids are smarter than they are. No, it is common sense!!!!

Sadly correct. Maryland is taking the "teach to the bottom" approach to increase avg test scores and thus maintain fed funding.

You made this up out of whole cloth. You people are amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1-Obama made the common core standards and federal tests, as previously each state had different goals and even tests sometime.
2- each state can decide to implement or not, if implementing get some freebie fed dollars in the early years(oooooo!)
3- if accepting, each state plans its implementation (curriculum, training, test date starts, communication with citizens, etc. (this is where MoCo hired Pearsons)
4- enjoy the $hit&how. Fed dollars continue if your AVERAGE test scores beat the threshold and increase from previous.

1. No, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School made the Common Core standards.
2. Yes, each state can decide to implement or not. (46 states plus DC have agreed to implement. Virginia, Texas, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Alaska have not.) School districts can apply for grants through the federal Race to the Top program for educational initiatives, including implementation of the Common Core. The total 2013 Race to the Top funding, for the whole country, is $520 million. The MCPS annual budget is $2.2 billion.
3. Yes, each state plans its own implementation.
4. I don't know what the PP is talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-Obama made the common core standards and federal tests, as previously each state had different goals and even tests sometime.
2- each state can decide to implement or not, if implementing get some freebie fed dollars in the early years(oooooo!)
3- if accepting, each state plans its implementation (curriculum, training, test date starts, communication with citizens, etc. (this is where MoCo hired Pearsons)
4- enjoy the $hit&how. Fed dollars continue if your AVERAGE test scores beat the threshold and increase from previous.

Oh Darn! What a shame, because No Child Left Behind was such a freaking genius program .

The Common Core is a state initiative. No Child Left Behind is a federal law. They are actually completely, entirely different things.