"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

LOL! Yes, I'd LOVE to hear the anti-CCers try and give us all a sound explanation of why all 50 states need to be teaching fractions differently.

You really think that is all Common Core is about? Teaching fractions? It can also be the way fractions are taught. And, when. People can disagree over those issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

LOL! Yes, I'd LOVE to hear the anti-CCers try and give us all a sound explanation of why all 50 states need to be teaching fractions differently.

You really think that is all Common Core is about? Teaching fractions? It can also be the way fractions are taught. And, when. People can disagree over those issues.

By state? Why would people disagree over those issues by state? Are there states where it's appropriate to expect an on-grade-level third-grader to be able to understand a fraction as a number on the number line and be able to represent fractions on a number line diagram, and states where it isn't? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOL! Yes, I'd LOVE to hear the anti-CCers try and give us all a sound explanation of why all 50 states need to be teaching fractions differently.

You really think that is all Common Core is about? Teaching fractions? It can also be the way fractions are taught. And, when. People can disagree over those issues.

By state? Why would people disagree over those issues by state? Are there states where it's appropriate to expect an on-grade-level third-grader to be able to understand a fraction as a number on the number line and be able to represent fractions on a number line diagram, and states where it isn't? Why?

Because of the insistence, including at very young ages, to write a paragraph about every damn problem them solve.

Common Core is conscripted thinking. God forbid you should have an original thought -- Common Core punishes that.

[Anonymous]

By state? Why would people disagree over those issues by state? Are there states where it's appropriate to expect an on-grade-level third-grader to be able to understand a fraction as a number on the number line and be able to represent fractions on a number line diagram, and states where it isn't? Why?

Absolutely! However, a better example would be the Kindergarten standards. I strongly disagree with those standards and so do many, many others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because of the insistence, including at very young ages, to write a paragraph about every damn problem them solve.

Common Core is conscripted thinking. God forbid you should have an original thought -- Common Core punishes that.

Could you please cite one or two specific Common Core standards that call for the writing of a paragraph about every damn problem?

And actually, while you're looking at the Common Core standards, could you also please cite one or two specific Common Core standards that punish original thought? Unless, by "original thought", you mean something like thinking that 1+1=3. That would be an original thought, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

By state? Why would people disagree over those issues by state? Are there states where it's appropriate to expect an on-grade-level third-grader to be able to understand a fraction as a number on the number line and be able to represent fractions on a number line diagram, and states where it isn't? Why?

Absolutely! However, a better example would be the Kindergarten standards. I strongly disagree with those standards and so do many, many others.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that there states where it's appropriate to expect an on-grade-level third-grader to be able to understand a fraction as a number on the number line and be able to represent fractions on a number line diagram, and states where it isn't? If so, which states? And why?

Also, there are a lot of kindergarten standards. Are there any specific kindergarten standards you strongly disagree with? For example, do you strongly disagree with this kindergarten standard:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1.a
Follow words from left to right, top to bottom, and page by page.

Or this one?

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1.c
Understand that words are separated by spaces in print.

Or do you just strongly disagree with the kindergarten standards in general, and never mind what the actual specific kindergarten standards are?

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that there states where it's appropriate to expect an on-grade-level third-grader to be able to understand a fraction as a number on the number line and be able to represent fractions on a number line diagram, and states where it isn't? If so, which states? And why?

Also, there are a lot of kindergarten standards. Are there any specific kindergarten standards you strongly disagree with? For example, do you strongly disagree with this kindergarten standard:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1.a
Follow words from left to right, top to bottom, and page by page.

Or this one?

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1.c
Understand that words are separated by spaces in print.

Or do you just strongly disagree with the kindergarten standards in general, and never mind what the actual specific kindergarten standards are?

There are many K standards with which I disagree. You surely don't agree with all of them. No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are many K standards with which I disagree. You surely don't agree with all of them. No?

Could you post some of them, please?

[Anonymous]

Could you post some of them, please?

Several have already been posted. But you already know that. Yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Could you post some of them, please?

Several have already been posted. But you already know that. Yes?

Could you -- you, specifically -- please post some of the standards that you, specifically, disagree with? If you've already posted some before, then could you please report them here?

[Anonymous]

Why me specifically?

Here's one that should not be a standard. Every K student should not be expected to read fluently by the end of the year.

Fluency:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.4
Read emergent-reader texts with purpose and understanding

[Anonymous]

Here's another that I think is a silly and ridiculous standard. If the kid cannot do this, he should have been referred the first month for testing.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.6
Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why me specifically?

Here's one that should not be a standard. Every K student should not be expected to read fluently by the end of the year.

Fluency:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.4
Read emergent-reader texts with purpose and understanding

Why you specifically? Because you're the one saying that you disagree with the kindergarten standards. And, in fact, thank you for posting a standard! However, I disagree that this standard says that kindergartens are expected to read fluently.

(Here is an example of an emergent-reader text (Have You Seen My Cat): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yJxaXtPqhc )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's another that I think is a silly and ridiculous standard. If the kid cannot do this, he should have been referred the first month for testing.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.6
Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts.

I don't understand what the problem is. Is it that you think that this should be a preschool standard, not a kindergarten standard?

[Anonymous]

Why you specifically? Because you're the one saying that you disagree with the kindergarten standards. And, in fact, thank you for posting a standard! However, I disagree that this standard says that kindergartens are expected to read fluently.

I'm not the only one, you know, who disagrees. And, what do you call reading with purpose and understanding?