Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

I read it. It's fine. Do you think anybody putting a curriculum together would have any issues understanding what it means?

It's a nutty standard. How about something like: Demonstrate understanding of place value in a 3 digit number?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a teacher and I have to tell you that the CCSS really aren't any better than what we had before in DC and actually, they're worse. Here are some examples:

RI5.2 Determine two or more main ideas of a text and explain how they are supported by key details; summarize the text.
Problem: Too many skills packed into one standard

RL5.2 Determine a theme of a story, drama, or poem from details in the text, including how characters in a story or drama respond to challenges or how the speaker in a poem reflects upon a topic; summarize the text.
Problem: again, packing too many skills into one standard.

RL5.5 Explain how a series of chapters, scenes, or stanzas fits together to provide the overall structure of a particular story, drama, or poem.
Problem: What the heck does this mean, and why would we want students to do it?

5.NBT.1 Recognize that in a multi-digit number, a digit in one place represents 10 times as much as it represents in the place to its right and 1/10 of what it represents in the place to its left.
This is so wordy. And what's the point?

Great examples. These are just what I would call "busy work standards". But, to evaluate them, they must be tested, and therein lies the rub.

These honestly don't seem bad. Do you really not understand the point of the last one?

+1 RL5.5 is an analysis of plot and structure and if you don't understand the last one you don't understand place value (don't just tell me it's the hundreds place, but explain the value in relation to the other place values).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I read it. It's fine. Do you think anybody putting a curriculum together would have any issues understanding what it means?

It's a nutty standard. How about something like: Demonstrate understanding of place value in a 3 digit number?

Is this a valid concern: That leaves the door wide open for a teacher who doesn't understand place value to simply teach: "these are the ones, these are the 10s, and these are the 100s. There, you understand place value. Next." This is what worries me about the teachers who say they don't understand what the standard means as written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a teacher and I have to tell you that the CCSS really aren't any better than what we had before in DC and actually, they're worse. Here are some examples:

RI5.2 Determine two or more main ideas of a text and explain how they are supported by key details; summarize the text.
Problem: Too many skills packed into one standard

RL5.2 Determine a theme of a story, drama, or poem from details in the text, including how characters in a story or drama respond to challenges or how the speaker in a poem reflects upon a topic; summarize the text.
Problem: again, packing too many skills into one standard.

RL5.5 Explain how a series of chapters, scenes, or stanzas fits together to provide the overall structure of a particular story, drama, or poem.
Problem: What the heck does this mean, and why would we want students to do it?

5.NBT.1 Recognize that in a multi-digit number, a digit in one place represents 10 times as much as it represents in the place to its right and 1/10 of what it represents in the place to its left.
This is so wordy. And what's the point?

Actually no, plot is dealt with in a previous standard, and that wouldn't be true for a poem which might not have a plot at all.

Great examples. These are just what I would call "busy work standards". But, to evaluate them, they must be tested, and therein lies the rub.

These honestly don't seem bad. Do you really not understand the point of the last one?

+1 RL5.5 is an analysis of plot and structure and if you don't understand the last one you don't understand place value (don't just tell me it's the hundreds place, but explain the value in relation to the other place values).

[Anonymous]

Is this a valid concern: That leaves the door wide open for a teacher who doesn't understand place value to simply teach: "these are the ones, these are the 10s, and these are the 100s. There, you understand place value. Next." This is what worries me about the teachers who say they don't understand what the standard means as written.

If we have teachers who do not understand place value, then we have problems far beyond Common Core.

[Anonymous]

No one is saying that teachers don't understand place value. We are saying that the CCSS are so badly written that teachers in the same grade, and teachers, coaches, and administrators in the same school cannot agree on what the standards actually mean and, more importantly, on how they should be assessed. In addition to the fact that there are no rationales for the changes, there is no assessment guidance to go along with CCSS.

[Anonymous]

In addition, the new textbooks that have been published to implement CCSS vary widely in their interpretation of the same standards.

[Anonymous]

No one is saying that teachers don't understand place value. We are saying that the CCSS are so badly written that teachers in the same grade, and teachers, coaches, and administrators in the same school cannot agree on what the standards actually mean and, more importantly, on how they should be assessed. In addition to the fact that there are no rationales for the changes, there is no assessment guidance to go along with CCSS.

Totally agree. Other standards are poorly written, as well. Reminds me of "back in the day" when we had to write "behavioral objectives". They were ridiculous, too.

[Anonymous]

Behavioral objective:

__% of students will answer question with ___%accuracy.

[Anonymous]

I just read through elementary standards in both subjects in preparation for next year. I found myself rewriting them in my own (fewer, simpler) words. Literally rewriting them as I went to make them easier for quick reference. Some of them overlap each other in math. Really confusing!

[Anonymous]

I just read through elementary standards in both subjects in preparation for next year. I found myself rewriting them in my own (fewer, simpler) words. Literally rewriting them as I went to make them easier for quick reference. Some of them overlap each other in math. Really confusing!

Yes. They read like a rough draft written in an hour around a conference table.

[Anonymous]

I just read through elementary standards in both subjects in preparation for next year. I found myself rewriting them in my own (fewer, simpler) words. Literally rewriting them as I went to make them easier for quick reference. Some of them overlap each other in math. Really confusing!

This is exactly what you should be doing. Standards are always written in a way that allows for many teaching approaches. The goal is to achieve competency. A good teacher will differentiate the specific approach to competency depending on her specific students. Rewriting them allows you to articulate your approach. That's a feature of a good standard, not a drawback.

As for the PP who seems to think there are too many skills in a standard, I hope you aren't a teacher, but if you are, go back to your curriculum planning class. A single standard is addressed in a series of lessons and mastery is demonstrated in a culminating lesson/project. You don't have to have a single lesson that addresses all aspects of a standard at the same time.

(Although, frankly, if you can't design a single lesson that meets RI5.2-- determine two or more main ideas in a text, explain them with key details, and summarize a text...well, I would argue that you're not a very good teacher or you obviously have planning issues.)

[Anonymous]

This is exactly what you should be doing. Standards are always written in a way that allows for many teaching approaches. The goal is to achieve competency. A good teacher will differentiate the specific approach to competency depending on her specific students. Rewriting them allows you to articulate your approach. That's a feature of a good standard, not a drawback.

As for the PP who seems to think there are too many skills in a standard, I hope you aren't a teacher, but if you are, go back to your curriculum planning class. A single standard is addressed in a series of lessons and mastery is demonstrated in a culminating lesson/project. You don't have to have a single lesson that addresses all aspects of a standard at the same time.

(Although, frankly, if you can't design a single lesson that meets RI5.2-- determine two or more main ideas in a text, explain them with key details, and summarize a text...well, I would argue that you're not a very good teacher or you obviously have planning issues.)

I think you are the one who does not get it. Standards should be clear. Period.

[Anonymous]

This is exactly what you should be doing. Standards are always written in a way that allows for many teaching approaches. The goal is to achieve competency. A good teacher will differentiate the specific approach to competency depending on her specific students. Rewriting them allows you to articulate your approach. That's a feature of a good standard, not a drawback.

As for the PP who seems to think there are too many skills in a standard, I hope you aren't a teacher, but if you are, go back to your curriculum planning class. A single standard is addressed in a series of lessons and mastery is demonstrated in a culminating lesson/project. You don't have to have a single lesson that addresses all aspects of a standard at the same time.

(Although, frankly, if you can't design a single lesson that meets RI5.2-- determine two or more main ideas in a text, explain them with key details, and summarize a text...well, I would argue that you're not a very good teacher or you obviously have planning issues.)

Not the prior poster to whom you are responding, but I think it is pretty clear that you are not a classroom teacher.

[Anonymous]

This is exactly what you should be doing. Standards are always written in a way that allows for many teaching approaches. The goal is to achieve competency. A good teacher will differentiate the specific approach to competency depending on her specific students. Rewriting them allows you to articulate your approach. That's a feature of a good standard, not a drawback.

As for the PP who seems to think there are too many skills in a standard, I hope you aren't a teacher, but if you are, go back to your curriculum planning class. A single standard is addressed in a series of lessons and mastery is demonstrated in a culminating lesson/project. You don't have to have a single lesson that addresses all aspects of a standard at the same time.

(Although, frankly, if you can't design a single lesson that meets RI5.2-- determine two or more main ideas in a text, explain them with key details, and summarize a text...well, I would argue that you're not a very good teacher or you obviously have planning issues.)


Not the prior poster to whom you are responding, but I think it is pretty clear that you are not a classroom teacher.

Wrong. But I'm curious about why you would doubt that. Because I actually understand the standards? Because I understand how goals and standards are designed? Because I understand they are very clear and simply require us to articulate what we are already doing to demonstrate competency? Because I am more thoughtful in my teaching than you are?

Really. Pray tell.