Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

Recognizing sight words - to, and, cat - is NOT the same thing as reading from a text.

Actually, reading from a text is easier and has more value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when is Nevada considered a high performing state in education? Sorry but I don't give too much weight to the opinion of a superintendent from Nevada. A state who earned a D in giving its students a chance at success.

Wasn't part of the problem and one of the reason for Common Core that certain states had very low standards? That many countries are passing us by? Yes - we need to raise the educational standards of our country. Are we to not raise our standards because some states have low educational expectations for our students? Should we just admit that students in some states just can't hack what similarly aged students in other states can? Should we further broaden the divide in this country between educational haves and have nots?

Those kindergarten standards are not unreasonable. We just need to start expecting more from our students.

Since when do people in DC get to decide what kids in Nevada should learn?

Good news! People in DC are not deciding what kids in Nevada should learn! The decision to adopt or not adopt the Common Core standards is entirely up to the state of Nevada!

Dumb again! How sweet.

They took it for the cash, and for the NCLB waiver.

35 out of 45 states are backtracking from the CCSS. Most haven't had success, but once they start losing at the polls, the politicians will run from Common Core like the plague.

You are right, PP, and it's even bigger than that. Remember, the Feds nowadays take a lot of the states money through taxation and other fees, which cripples the states re: public education and other public needs within the state. So when the money is tied to things like adopting CC, a lot of the states have no choice but to accept it, if they want to fund their schools at all. This is, of course, by design. How better for the feds to circumvent the Constitution, which was designed to limit federal power for these very reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are right, PP, and it's even bigger than that. Remember, the Feds nowadays take a lot of the states money through taxation and other fees, which cripples the states re: public education and other public needs within the state. So when the money is tied to things like adopting CC, a lot of the states have no choice but to accept it, if they want to fund their schools at all. This is, of course, by design. How better for the feds to circumvent the Constitution, which was designed to limit federal power for these very reasons.

Welcome back, Everything The Federal Government Has Done Since Marbury v. Madison Is Unconstitutional poster!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

None of the listed standards require the K kids to read the text. They're all taught in the context of read alouds.

Go back to the standards. There are K standards that require the kids to read sight words and sound out words.

A few sight words, yes.

Sounding out word (decoding) -- no, not required by Common Core State Standards in K.

[Anonymous]

from standards:
Phonics and Word Recognition:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3
Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3.a
Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter-sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3.b
Associate the long and short sounds with the common spellings (graphemes) for the five major vowels.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3.c
Read common high-frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3.d
Distinguish between similarly spelled words by identifying the sounds of the letters that differ.

To poster above. I guess our definition of decoding is not the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:from standards:

Phonics and Word Recognition:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3
Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3.a
Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter-sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3.b
Associate the long and short sounds with the common spellings (graphemes) for the five major vowels.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3.c
Read common high-frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3.d
Distinguish between similarly spelled words by identifying the sounds of the letters that differ.

To poster above. I guess our definition of decoding is not the same.

Yes, it must be.

The overall strand is Literacy R(easing) F(foundations) K9indergarten) 3: "Know and Apply Grade Level Phonics and World Analysis Skills in Decoding Words"

That is a strand found at grades K, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

What follows that heading are the SPECIFIC grade level phonics expected by the end of each grade.

By the end of grade K, students should:


a) Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter-sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant.

(i.e. they need to know their consonant letter sounds, in isolation)

b) Associate the long and short sounds with the common spellings (graphemes) for the five major vowels.

(i.e. they need to know their vowel letter sounds - single vowel only, in isolation)

c) Read common high-frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does).

(this isn't a decoding standard)

d) Distinguish between similarly spelled words by identifying the sounds of the letters that differ.

(i.e. be able to look at the word fat and cat and be able to say or show that the first letter changes, this is /c/ and this is /f/

Note, and this is VERY important, that the there is NOT a requirement that children be able to decode words at the end of Kindergarten.
That standard comes at the end of 1st grade.
Here it is:

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.1.3.B
Decode regularly spelled one-syllable words.

(i.e. sound out fat cat sat, hop on pop, jump, splash, etc.)

There are of course other decoding standards at first grade that I have not listed. But the K standards merely require all the building blocks to begin decoding instruction in first grade.

[Anonymous]

Again, in case my formatting in the earlier post is confusing:

The Common Core State Standards to NOT have a standard saying that children should be decoding regularly spelled, one syllable words by the end of Kindergarten.

That decoding standard first appears at the end of first grade.

First graders should be sounding out fat cat sat and hop on pop (and more besides) by the end of 1st grade.

Kindergarteners should have all their consonant and short vowel sounds (in isolation) and should have a few sight words, and should be able to "read" very low level "Emergent" books (books with one word on each page that matches the picture, and that teachers may read a few times before hand.) They should have the idea that the print matches speech, and that you read from left to right -- the foundations of reading, not actually reading.

[Anonymous]

a) Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter-sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant.

(i.e. they need to know their consonant letter sounds, in isolation)

b) Associate the long and short sounds with the common spellings (graphemes) for the five major vowels.

(i.e. they need to know their vowel letter sounds - single vowel only, in isolation)

I don't think those are good standards. It's always better to apply it to beginning sounds, etc. in words. I don't like sounds in isolation as a standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

a) Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter-sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant.

(i.e. they need to know their consonant letter sounds, in isolation)

b) Associate the long and short sounds with the common spellings (graphemes) for the five major vowels.

(i.e. they need to know their vowel letter sounds - single vowel only, in isolation)

I don't think those are good standards. It's always better to apply it to beginning sounds, etc. in words. I don't like sounds in isolation as a standard.

Explicitly teaching letter sounds is best practice for reading instruction; however they do not need to be taught in isolation.

However, the student should be able to look at a single letter, say she is given the letter "h" -- in isolation, not at the start of the word horse or house or hay or hi! and should be able to say /h/ for that letter. That's what I mean by "in isolation".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are right, PP, and it's even bigger than that. Remember, the Feds nowadays take a lot of the states money through taxation and other fees, which cripples the states re: public education and other public needs within the state. So when the money is tied to things like adopting CC, a lot of the states have no choice but to accept it, if they want to fund their schools at all. This is, of course, by design. How better for the feds to circumvent the Constitution, which was designed to limit federal power for these very reasons.

Welcome back, Everything The Federal Government Has Done Since Marbury v. Madison Is Unconstitutional poster!

Am I correct, or not? That's what you should concern yourself with

[Anonymous]

From former Assistant Principal Kathleen Jasper about 'following the money':

“Pearson has a very large lobby, so they lobby our legislators to pass laws that make it so that more tests have to be generated,” Jasper explained. “The more tests that are generated, the more money they’re going to make.”

Jasper said Pearson — which also gets involved in political campaigns — makes between $15 and $30 per student, per test administered. In her district alone, there are 80,000 students required to take the standardized tests, and roughly forty percent fail the first time, and have to take them again.

It reached the point before she quit, Jasper said, that students were spending between a third and half their time at school just taking tests.

“The amount of instructional time was lost. There were no activities being done. Students were missing out on arts and electives that were really important to their development,” she said. “And the logistics behind the tests and the standards — we couldn’t keep up. Our infrastructure cannot keep up with the amount of testing that is happening.”

Jasper said students used to have to take one comprehensive test in order to graduate high school, but now lawmakers have ordered individualized subject tests.

“Where there was one, now there’s six,” she said, reiterating that a huge percentage do not pass the first time.

[Anonymous]

So it's the fault of the Common Core standards that state legislators let themselves get lobbied by Pearson?

And in which school system were students spending between a third and half their time taking standardized tests? 180 school days a year, and tests take up 60-90 days?

[Anonymous]

So it's the fault of the Common Core standards that state legislators let themselves get lobbied by Pearson?

It might be. You know there are lobbyists at the state level, don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So it's the fault of the Common Core standards that state legislators let themselves get lobbied by Pearson?

It might be. You know there are lobbyists at the state level, don't you?

Yes, I'm quite aware that there are lobbyists at the state level. In fact, there were lobbyists at the state level, who lobbied state legislators, about education, before the Common Core standards! True fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are right, PP, and it's even bigger than that. Remember, the Feds nowadays take a lot of the states money through taxation and other fees, which cripples the states re: public education and other public needs within the state. So when the money is tied to things like adopting CC, a lot of the states have no choice but to accept it, if they want to fund their schools at all. This is, of course, by design. How better for the feds to circumvent the Constitution, which was designed to limit federal power for these very reasons.

Welcome back, Everything The Federal Government Has Done Since Marbury v. Madison Is Unconstitutional poster!

Am I correct, or not? That's what you should concern yourself with

NP

You are not correct.

1) The national government doesn't take money from the states. They don't tax the states. They tax individual citizens who owe a duty of support to the federal government. You and every other American is a citizen of your state and a citizen of the USA. American sovereignty is split between the state governments and the national government. You have a duty to support both your state government and your national government with your taxes. If you don't like that, organize a Constitutional convention and we'll vote on devolution.

2) The states don't have to accept national standards and national money. They can raise their own income tax. They can raise their own property taxes. They can raise sales tax. They can hold a lottery. They can refuse to fund elementary education at all. They can hand out vouchers and tell the parents to figure out.

3) The practice of the national government offering incentives for states complying with a national policy has been held Constitutional over and over and over again by the Courts. Insisting that it's not Constitutional when it is a matter of settled law makes you look like an idiot. Legal analysis isn't like your weekly Bible study. You don't get to put your own spin on it by studying a small piece of the text and coming up with a meaning that makes sense to you because of your other beliefs and your political leanings. The Constitution has to be read in context with thousands of pages of case law and you have to follow the case law. There is no Fundamentalist legal analysis that is acceptable. It doesn't work that way.