PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them

[Anonymous]

What experience? You haven't been in a classroom teaching Common Core.

I don't need to. I've read the standards. They are inappropriate for Kindergarten.

Once more, who were the Early Childhood teachers on the committees?

[Anonymous]

There have been the occasional "thalidomide" type posts, but even without that, it's remarkable that the anti-CCers seem to follow the same script and same talking points which keep showing up verbatim in anti-CC articles by Valerie Strauss and others - and when any of those talking points are challenged, when anyone asks for actual data or studies to support them, the anti-CCers can't ever seem to respond accordingly, and just expect everyone to take it on faith.

You mean like when you keep posting the information from the Common Core website?

The difference is that Valerie Strauss has guest writers who have done research. If you read the articles, you would know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What experience? You haven't been in a classroom teaching Common Core.

I don't need to. I've read the standards. They are inappropriate for Kindergarten.

Once more, who were the Early Childhood teachers on the committees?

Nonsense. What's in the standards already existed for years in SOLs for most of the country. Where is your data showing it's damaging?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There have been the occasional "thalidomide" type posts, but even without that, it's remarkable that the anti-CCers seem to follow the same script and same talking points which keep showing up verbatim in anti-CC articles by Valerie Strauss and others - and when any of those talking points are challenged, when anyone asks for actual data or studies to support them, the anti-CCers can't ever seem to respond accordingly, and just expect everyone to take it on faith.

You mean like when you keep posting the information from the Common Core website?

The difference is that Valerie Strauss has guest writers who have done research. If you read the articles, you would know that.

Valerie Strauss is merely working off of the same sheet of talking points that you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Whether one wants to admit it's politically motivated or not, it's evident that the anti-CCers aren't out there calling out all of the disinformation that definitely is politically motivated that's coming from within their own ranks regardless of "what aisle." That ends up hurting anti-CC credibility.

Here's one. It pretty much says that it is political. I didn't know it's my job to find the "disinformation" out there that is against Common Core. I have only posted valid complaints. There are other posts that are worse than this, I'm sure, but it takes time to go back and look. Maybe tomorrow.

I don't think it does. All it says is that there is politically-motivated disinformation coming from some opponents of the Common Core standards -- which is factually correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What experience? You haven't been in a classroom teaching Common Core.

I don't need to. I've read the standards. They are inappropriate for Kindergarten.

Once more, who were the Early Childhood teachers on the committees?

Which standards? This one?

TCCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1.d Recognize and name all upper- and lowercase letters of the alphabet.

Or this one?

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.K.5 Recognize common types of texts (e.g., storybooks, poems).

Or this one?

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.K.5 Add drawings or other visual displays to descriptions as desired to provide additional detail.

Or this one?

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.A.1 Count to 100 by ones and by tens.

Or this one?

CCSS.Math.Content.K.MD.A.2 Directly compare two objects with a measurable attribute in common, to see which object has "more of"/"less of" the attribute, and describe the difference. For example, directly compare the heights of two children and describe one child as taller/shorter.

Or this one?

CCSS.Math.Content.K.OA.A.5 Fluently add and subtract within 5.

[Anonymous]

Research shows that pushing academics down so early has short term improvements --but long term damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Research shows that pushing academics down so early has short term improvements --but long term damage.

When I was in ed school, my professors advised us to say "Research shows [blah blah blah]" when parents questioned something, as a way of stopping the questioning.

What research shows this, specifically? Could you provide some links, please? Ideally the research will also define what "so early" means.

[Anonymous]

http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=837Thi

There is lots of research that supports not pushing direct instruction. Here's a different approach.

[Anonymous]

When I was in ed school, my professors advised us to say "Research shows [blah blah blah]" when parents questioned something, as a way of stopping the questioning.

This is BS or you went to a sorry school. You had professors who taught you to treat your parents as imbeciles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When I was in ed school, my professors advised us to say "Research shows [blah blah blah]" when parents questioned something, as a way of stopping the questioning.

This is BS or you went to a sorry school. You had professors who taught you to treat your parents as imbeciles?

Links to research that shows that "pushing academics down so early has short term improvements --but long term damage", please?

[Anonymous]

300+ pages of asking for evidence of "damage" and thus far ZILCH. Seems to me 300 more pages of asking won't produce anything either.

[Anonymous]

http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006408.html

There is lots of research that supports waiting to teach kids to read. ( Some kids read before that through exposure.) This is a recent study. This is the second research that I have posted today.

Pushing kids to read early -when they are not ready- means they are missing other things they need to learn.

[Anonymous]

http://disinfo.com/2013/05/is-early-age-reading-developmentally-appropriate/

a summary of a classic study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006408.html

There is lots of research that supports waiting to teach kids to read. ( Some kids read before that through exposure.) This is a recent study. This is the second research that I have posted today.

Pushing kids to read early -when they are not ready- means they are missing other things they need to learn.

A University of Otago researcher has uncovered for the first time quantitative evidence that teaching children to read from age five is not likely to make that child any more successful at reading than a child who learns reading later, from age seven.

Nothing about damage in that study.