Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OK, so now we're back to the idea that there shouldn't be any standards.

Standards should be set locally. In my mind, the standards should be flexible according to where the child is when he starts the year.

PP, I don't think you understand what "standards" mean. "Flexible" and "standards" are opposite. I assume you have basic rules in your house to which everyone must follow - like no hitting, for example. That is a baseline standard that everyone must meet. Same logic applies to kids in school. There is a baseline standard that *everyone* must meet.

For example, the baseline standard could be that *all* kids must read at minimum at a 10th grade level by the time they graduate.

Again, you can argue whether the CC standards are appropriate for each grade, but yes, we need some standards in school otherwise you could have kids that can't read or write because there is no baseline standard to which a child must meet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, grade level standards apply to all students in that grade. Even though kids are different, the standards is the same for all. If students aren't able to reach it, that is not making a value judgment about them; that is stating that they have not yet reached the standards for that grade.

And, teachers are not given a pass if the child is not ready for that grade. Just wait, you will not be able to get teachers in poor schools as a result of this.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/osceola-co-teachers-resigning-en-masse-over-common/njPXY/

Yes, teachers are starting to quit in droves. They are put in a no-win situation.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/md-teachers-union-wants-kindergarten-tests-halted-citing-concerns/2014/12/16/94b573b6-84a8-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html

Yes, those MD teachers ALL love the Common Core.

[Anonymous]

Carol Burris, a principal, takes apart the Common Core:

http://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2014/09/24/common_core_education_principal_carol_burris_1105.html

'I didn't do my due diligence': New York high school principal and book author Carol Burris discusses why her views reversed on the Common Core State Standards.

A lot of people have strong feelings about the new Common Core State Standards that schools in more than 40 states have adopted. But Carol Burris may be unique. She’s had strong feelings for the standards and against them. And that’s just in the past two years.

"we had a superficial view of the standards. The high school math standards, for example, had not come out yet. A lot of our knowledge of the standards at the time was what we read about the standards, and it all just seemed to make some sense."


"What I object to in the Common Core standards is the push toward certain pedagogical practices. I think that standards, both state and national, should be pedagogically neutral, and that decisions as to how a teacher teaches should be left to the individual district."

"Starting with the standards for kindergarten math, [Common Core] says that kids should be able to count by 1s and 10s from 1 to 100. It seems innocuous enough, but the problem with it is that most 5-year-olds are capable because of that mixture of biology and learning that happens with little kids to count to 20. Some can count more, some can probably count to 100 in French, but then there are also going to be kids that just cannot do it at that point in time."

[Anonymous]

From the Maryland story:

Weller said the union conducted a survey after hearing complaints about the tests, which were administered between September and November. It received responses from nearly 500 teachers.

The survey found that 91 percent of responding kindergarten teachers do not believe that the assessments will help improve instruction and that 54 percent of them said it took more than 1 hour and 25 minutes to administer the tests to each student.

“Kindergarten teachers statewide were frustrated,” Weller said.

She was scheduled to present the unions’ findings to members of the Maryland State Board of Education during their meeting Tuesday.

The survey also found that 78 percent of the teachers reported technology problems while administering the tests and 51 percent said there were “no or minimal accommodations” made for students in special education and students who are English-language learners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/md-teachers-union-wants-kindergarten-tests-halted-citing-concerns/2014/12/16/94b573b6-84a8-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html

Yes, those MD teachers ALL love the Common Core.

I gave that test this year. A one-on-one test for kindergarten that takes 1.5 hours PER CHILD?? Waste of time. It took K teachers out of the classroom far too long, and didn't give valuable information to teachers to compensate for the amount of time it took.

It needs to be shortened to under 15 minutes per child. There's nothing wrong with the standards it is assessing, but the test needs to be streamlined.

It was, however, VERY developmentally appropriate for children! Just far too time consuming.

[Anonymous]

Since we are now just posting random comments about Common Core that we read on the web to vaguely back up our point(s), here's one I found:

http://edexcellence.net/articles/common-core-confusion-it’s-a-math-math-world

Common Core confusion: It’s a math, math world
Kathleen Porter-Magee

May 30, 2014

Here’s a puzzler: Why are the Common Core math standards accused of fostering “fuzzy math” when their drafters and admirers insist that they emphasize basic math, reward precision, and demand fluency? Why are CC-aligned curricula causing confusion and frustration among parents, teachers, and students? Is this another instance of “maximum feasible misunderstanding,” as textbook publishers and educators misinterpret the standards in ways that undermine their intent (but perhaps match the interpreters’ predilections)? Or are the Common Core standards themselves to blame?

My take is that the standards are in line with effective programs, such as Singapore Math, but textbook publishers and other curriculum providers are creating confusion with overly complex explanations, ill-written problems, and lessons that confuse pedagogy with content.

Many of the “fuzzy math” complaints seem to focus on materials that ask students to engage in multiple approaches when tackling arithmetic problems. But to understand whether the confusion stems from the standards or the curriculum, let’s start by recalling what the CCSS actually require.

1. The Common Core explicitly demand student mastery of the standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division for both whole numbers and decimals.

Any honest reading of the standards must recognize that in grades 4, 5, and 6, the Common Core demand that students master standard algorithms. In grade 4, students should “fluently add and subtract multidigit whole numbers using the standard algorithm.” By grade 5, they are expected to multiply whole numbers using the standard algorithm. And by grade 6, they are expected to divide whole numbers and to add, subtract, multiply, and divide decimals, again using standard algorithms.

The standards themselves are unambiguous that students will master the best and most efficient ways to do arithmetic, and any curriculum that does not give top billing to standard algorithms in the pertinent grades is not aligned with the Common Core.

2. The Common Core also allow more than the standard algorithms.

Because math users and teachers want more than procedural fluency from students (because they want young people actually to understand the math problems they answer so that they are ready for more advanced math), the Common Core leave plenty of room for teachers to go beyond the standard algorithm to ensure that students understand how numbers work. The standards ask that students understand what it means to add to and subtract from; the difference between parts and a whole; and to be able to demonstrate these understandings in more than one way.

(snip)

Three takeaways:

First, schools who’ve had long success with tried and true approaches, including Singapore Math, might consider sticking with them before pouring lots of money into shiny new—but possibly ill-written—curricula.

Second, publishers should emulate the clarity and precision of Singapore Math rather than reinventing the wheel and coming up with one that doesn’t roll straight. If they fail in that quest, nobody should buy what they’re selling.

Third, Common Core supporters need to understand that even as opponents eagerly pounce on any mistake that anybody makes in the name of the Common Core, that doesn’t mean that we deny or ignore such failures. Failure is an important part of innovation and a necessary step in the quest for excellence. Indeed, that we should be more exacting critics than the opponents, taking pains not to explain away implementation challenges, mistakes and missteps. Let’s resolve to be vigilant, candid, and demanding in our assessment and communication of such challenges.

[Anonymous]

What always gets me is flipping from the MD Public Schools forum, where the Common Core math standards are way too easy, to the Schools and General Education forum, where those exact same standards are way too hard.

[Anonymous]

What always gets me is flipping from the MD Public Schools forum, where the Common Core math standards are way too easy, to the Schools and General Education forum, where those exact same standards are way too hard.

Then, just maybe there is a problem with the standards......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What always gets me is flipping from the MD Public Schools forum, where the Common Core math standards are way too easy, to the Schools and General Education forum, where those exact same standards are way too hard.

Some people find the math standards too rigorous. For those that think it's too easy, I think for the most part, it's not the standards themselves that they find easy, but the way it's being implemented - translating into spending weeks on one simple method that should only take 15min.. This is the argument I've read on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What always gets me is flipping from the MD Public Schools forum, where the Common Core math standards are way too easy, to the Schools and General Education forum, where those exact same standards are way too hard.

Then, just maybe there is a problem with the standards......

You'll never have standards where everyone agrees. If I say the K standard for math should be "student should be able to add 1 + 1", someone else will say that's way too easy; it should be "student should be able to add 10+10". Just an example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What always gets me is flipping from the MD Public Schools forum, where the Common Core math standards are way too easy, to the Schools and General Education forum, where those exact same standards are way too hard.

Then, just maybe there is a problem with the standards......

You'll never have standards where everyone agrees. If I say the K standard for math should be "student should be able to add 1 + 1", someone else will say that's way too easy; it should be "student should be able to add 10+10". Just an example.

I think you can get broad agreement on standards locally. That's much tougher in a huge country like the U.S.

And experts don't remotely agree on Common Core standards. The content experts who consulted on the standards refused to sign off on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What always gets me is flipping from the MD Public Schools forum, where the Common Core math standards are way too easy, to the Schools and General Education forum, where those exact same standards are way too hard.

Then, just maybe there is a problem with the standards......

You'll never have standards where everyone agrees. If I say the K standard for math should be "student should be able to add 1 + 1", someone else will say that's way too easy; it should be "student should be able to add 10+10". Just an example.

I think you can get broad agreement on standards locally. That's much tougher in a huge country like the U.S.

And experts don't remotely agree on Common Core standards. The content experts who consulted on the standards refused to sign off on them.

Plenty of other big countries are able to have common standards. In the US, states have local autonomy of education. That's why some states opted to not implement CC. It was optionally. Yes, I know they tied federal funding to adopting it, but it's not impossible to have national standards. In the US, we just want to always do it our own way. We don't like gov't telling us what to do. That's the American way. Still doesn't mean national common standards is not a good idea. We live in one country.

As I stated in an earlier post, prior to CC, we lived in a different state that had different standards. When we moved here, DCs had to catch up on some things. Makes moving harder for kids in school. It also levels the playing field a bit more for kids applying to colleges around the country.

[Anonymous]

Plenty of other big countries are able to have common standards

Sure they do. They also have tracking--where kids take tests at a very young age which determines whether they will be in a trade or a profession. Whether they go to trade school or university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Plenty of other big countries are able to have common standards

Sure they do. They also have tracking--where kids take tests at a very young age which determines whether they will be in a trade or a profession. Whether they go to trade school or university.

Yes, and there are plenty of European countries that have national standards where they don't track or determine your profession at an early age. Canada, for example, has national standards. And their kids seem to out score our kids on the PISA test.