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

[Anonymous]

Because there is a document identifying her as an early childhood specialist. Why do you think she doesn't count?

Because I have not seen any evidence other than that. Google her name. She was a Science specialist. Believe it or not, there is a difference.

And, by the way, who do you think were Early Childhood specialists on the ELA committees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The Punchline: K-2 standards (at least) are inappropriate. Neither research or experience support then. They need to be eliminated.


I scanned through the K-2 standards and I was hard pressed to find one my DC didn't breeze through and she was in a program that was so far removed from "rote memorization", etc. that its not even funny. I am not convinced that there is anything wrong with the standards themselves.


Yes, in the Maryland Public Schools forum, the received wisdom is that the K-2 standards are developmentally inappropriate -- because they belong in preschool, not in K-2. I always have to check whether I'm on the The Standards Are Way Too Easy forum or the The Standards Are Way Too Hard forum.

Which is why national standards are not going to work. You've got upper middle class people who post on DCUM and whose children got to MCPS who think the standards are ridiculous because they are too easy. They are a waste of time for their kids. Then you've got the teachers of the kids who are lower class (the parents don't come on these forums so the teachers are trying to speak for these people). Those teachers who have children on FRMs, etc. know that the standards are too hard for those kids. And you come on here as an upper middle class technocrat saying that you don't understand why the FRMs can't use those standards. You need to go and spend a year teaching the kinds of kids who don't come to school with all the advantages that the upper middle class kids come with. Do you not understand why the achievement gap exists???? Hint: it is not about teachers and standards.

Pull your head out of the sand. Think.

[Anonymous]

Which is why national standards are not going to work. You've got upper middle class people who post on DCUM and whose children got to MCPS who think the standards are ridiculous because they are too easy. They are a waste of time for their kids. Then you've got the teachers of the kids who are lower class (the parents don't come on these forums so the teachers are trying to speak for these people). Those teachers who have children on FRMs, etc. know that the standards are too hard for those kids. And you come on here as an upper middle class technocrat saying that you don't understand why the FRMs can't use those standards. You need to go and spend a year teaching the kinds of kids who don't come to school with all the advantages that the upper middle class kids come with. Do you not understand why the achievement gap exists???? Hint: it is not about teachers and standards.

Pull your head out of the sand. Think.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Which is why national standards are not going to work. You've got upper middle class people who post on DCUM and whose children got to MCPS who think the standards are ridiculous because they are too easy. They are a waste of time for their kids. Then you've got the teachers of the kids who are lower class (the parents don't come on these forums so the teachers are trying to speak for these people). Those teachers who have children on FRMs, etc. know that the standards are too hard for those kids. And you come on here as an upper middle class technocrat saying that you don't understand why the FRMs can't use those standards. You need to go and spend a year teaching the kinds of kids who don't come to school with all the advantages that the upper middle class kids come with. Do you not understand why the achievement gap exists???? Hint: it is not about teachers and standards.

Pull your head out of the sand. Think.

Child development is child development, no? If the standards are too demanding for poor kids but too easy for affluent kids, then the standards are not DEVELOPMENTALLY inappropriate. Unless child development for poor kids is different from development for affluent kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because there is a document identifying her as an early childhood specialist. Why do you think she doesn't count?

Because I have not seen any evidence other than that. Google her name. She was a Science specialist. Believe it or not, there is a difference.

And, by the way, who do you think were Early Childhood specialists on the ELA committees?

You're saying that you don't believe it because you can't find any corroborating evidence. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Anonymous]

There are more kids in poverty in America.

This is why we are having problems.

[Anonymous]

You're saying that you don't believe it because you can't find any corroborating evidence. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I can tell by reading the standards. That is the evidence that there were no Early Childhood teachers.

[Anonymous]

Child development is child development, no? If the standards are too demanding for poor kids but too easy for affluent kids, then the standards are not DEVELOPMENTALLY inappropriate. Unless child development for poor kids is different from development for affluent kids?

Exactly. And, just because some affluent kids are able to perform them, does not mean they are appropriate. They, too, would benefit by waiting. You do know that lots of countries do not teach kids to read until they are at least 6?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're saying that you don't believe it because you can't find any corroborating evidence. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I can tell by reading the standards. That is the evidence that there were no Early Childhood teachers.

That is circular reasoning. The standards are developmentally inappropriate; I know this because there were no Early Childhood teachers on the development committees. (Why do you always capitalize Early Childhood, by the way? Are there also Math teachers and Science teachers?)

Speaking of Math, is this standard developmentally inappropriate, and if so why?

CCSS.Math.Content.K.OA.A.1 Represent addition and subtraction with objects, fingers, mental images, drawings1, sounds (e.g., claps), acting out situations, verbal explanations, expressions, or equations

How about this one?

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.K.1.a Follow agreed-upon rules for discussions (e.g., listening to others and taking turns speaking about the topics and texts under discussion).

[Anonymous]

Child development is child development, no? If the standards are too demanding for poor kids but too easy for affluent kids, then the standards are not DEVELOPMENTALLY inappropriate. Unless child development for poor kids is different from development for affluent kids?[/quote]

It is. Very different. Incredibly different. We have kids who are growing up in totally different circumstances. Go into one of those homes and experience life there. You won't see anything that is like what is going on in your home. I guarantee it. Some of what you will see is downright horrible.

[Anonymous]

We are talking about public school.

I have been in some of those homes. I have been in homes with no food in the refrigerator, homes with no beds, homes where things are going on that children should not see. They have not had "developmentally appropriate" lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Child development is child development, no? If the standards are too demanding for poor kids but too easy for affluent kids, then the standards are not DEVELOPMENTALLY inappropriate. Unless child development for poor kids is different from development for affluent kids?

Exactly. And, just because some affluent kids are able to perform them, does not mean they are appropriate. They, too, would benefit by waiting. You do know that lots of countries do not teach kids to read until they are at least 6?

I really hope that you are a different poster from the poster who said that the standards were inappropriate because of the achievement gap.

As for benefiting from waiting: if you know if any research that shows that school-aged children who are taught to read later do better than school-aged children who are taught to read earlier, could you please post a link?

Could you also please provide a link to data on when various countries' school systems begin to teach reading?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Child development is child development, no? If the standards are too demanding for poor kids but too easy for affluent kids, then the standards are not DEVELOPMENTALLY inappropriate. Unless child development for poor kids is different from development for affluent kids?[/quote]

It is. Very different. Incredibly different. We have kids who are growing up in totally different circumstances. Go into one of those homes and experience life there. You won't see anything that is like what is going on in your home. I guarantee it. Some of what you will see is downright horrible.

Nobody is denying that there are some children who are growing up in horrible circumstances. However, it's a very big step from there to the idea that affluent kids develop differently from poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Could you also please provide a link to data on when various countries' school systems begin to teach reading?

google it.

[Anonymous]

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-starting-age-the-evidence

A quote from the article:

"Studies have compared groups of children in New Zealand who started formal literacy lessons at ages 5 and 7. Their results show that the early introduction of formal learning approaches to literacy does not improve children’s reading development, and may be damaging. By the age of 11 there was no difference in reading ability level between the two groups, but the children who started at 5 developed less positive attitudes to reading, and showed poorer text comprehension than those children who had started later. In a separate study of reading achievement in 15 year olds across 55 countries, researchers showed that there was no significant association between reading achievement and school entry age. - See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-starting-age-the-evidence#sthash.hVYdNNAa.dpuf

England has moved their starting age earlier--but the article mentions that in most of Europe it starts later.