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

[Anonymous]

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).

This is a very interesting standard. It is basically behavioral and not academic. Apparently the Common Core is not all academic. Kids from chaotic homes where people operate by yelling at each other think of that as the "norm". They are very uncomfortable with following agreed-upon rules as that is not how life works in their home. Those kids may take much, much longer (if ever) to achieve this standard. Kids from harmonious, orderly homes already have achieved this. I have kids in high school who have not achieved this standard. I'm not kidding you. And how do you test this standard? And, what if a student achieves this on the "test", but then backtracks on it (as often happens)? If this is never "tested", what does it mean? Is a child not allowed to progress to the next grade level or graduate from high school if he/she has not met this standard? We have kids in high school who refuse to do this. We also suspend kids for behavioral misconduct. Is CC going to address that kind of concern? What is CC---academic or behavioral standards?

[Anonymous]

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.

No it's not.

[Anonymous]

^ Research is starting to show us the "achievement gap" very well may have physical roots.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/new-brain-science-shows-poor-kids-have-smaller-brains-than-affluent-kids/2015/04/15/3b679858-e2bc-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

[Anonymous]

This is from the above article. This is very, very interesting information that helps us understand the "achievement gap" and why it persists.

Neuroscientists who studied the brain scans of nearly
1,100 children and young adults nationwide from ages 3 to 20 found that the surface area of the cerebral cortex was linked to family income. They discovered that the brains of children in families that earned less than $25,000 a year had surface areas 6 percent smaller than those whose families earned $150,000 or more. The poor children also scored lower on average on a battery of cognitive tests.

The region of the brain in question handles language, memory, spatial skills and reasoning, all important to success in school and beyond.


The study, published last month in Nature Neuroscience, is the largest of its kind to date. It was led by Kimberly Noble, who teaches at both Columbia University’s Teachers College and the university’s medical school. Elizabeth Sowell, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, was the senior author.

“We’ve known for so long that poverty and lack of access to resources to enrich the developmental environment are related to poor school performance, poor test scores and fewer educational opportunities,” Sowell said. “But now we can really tie it to a physical thing in the brain. We realized that this is a big deal.”

The study is part of a new and growing body of research on children’s brain structures that has been made possible by technological advances in magnetic resonance imaging.

“It’s only been in the past
20 years that we could have done this with living, developing children,” said Sowell, who published a pioneering 1999 study that found the brain is still developing past adolescence, contrary to earlier beliefs that brain growth was complete by the teen years.

The research comes at a time when a majority of U.S. public school students come from low-income families and the academic achievement gap between poor and more-affluent children is growing. Policymakers are increasingly concerned about ways to reduce the gap, which is apparent as early as kindergarten.

In another study that has been accepted for publication in Psychological Science, a team led by neuroscientist John Gabrieli of MIT found differences in the brain’s cortical thickness between low-income and higher-income teenagers. The study linked that difference for the first time to standardized test scores: Fifty-seven percent of the poor children scored proficient in math and reading tests given annually in Massachusetts, compared with 91 percent of the higher-income students.

“The thing that really stands out is how powerful the economic influences are on something as fundamental as brain structure,” Gabrieli said. “It’s just very striking.”

[Anonymous]

This part of the article really struck a chord with me, as a teacher:

Noble and Sowell have two theories about why poor children have smaller brains. One is that poor families lack access to material goods that aid healthy development, such as good nutrition and higher-quality health care. The other is that poor families tend to live more chaotic lives, and that stress could inhibit healthy brain development.[/quote]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

google it.

So you assert that lots of countries school systems' begin teaching reading at 6 or later, but it's my responsibility to look up data to verify whether or not your assertion is factually correct? Usually it's the responsibility of the person who made the assertion to back up the assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

This is a very interesting standard. It is basically behavioral and not academic. Apparently the Common Core is not all academic. Kids from chaotic homes where people operate by yelling at each other think of that as the "norm". They are very uncomfortable with following agreed-upon rules as that is not how life works in their home. Those kids may take much, much longer (if ever) to achieve this standard. Kids from harmonious, orderly homes already have achieved this. I have kids in high school who have not achieved this standard. I'm not kidding you. And how do you test this standard? And, what if a student achieves this on the "test", but then backtracks on it (as often happens)? If this is never "tested", what does it mean? Is a child not allowed to progress to the next grade level or graduate from high school if he/she has not met this standard? We have kids in high school who refuse to do this. We also suspend kids for behavioral misconduct. Is CC going to address that kind of concern? What is CC---academic or behavioral standards?

187 words, none of which answer the question. Here is the question: Is this standard developmentally inappropriate, and if so why?

[Anonymous]

I read that article when it was published. It is interesting. I think, however, that it is not the poverty itself, but the behavior of those living in poverty. Perhaps, it is hopelessness. The drug issue also cannot be ignored.
I believe that all people love their kids, some just don't understand how to treat them.

I wish that community centers and churches would start having daily story times for those communities. Let the mom/sitter bring the kids and read to them. These kids are not getting that. Maybe a little parenting tip can be thrown in along with the story time. Modeling of how to talk to the kids. I don't pretend that this is going to solve the problem, but it could help just a little.

[Anonymous]

So you assert that lots of countries school systems' begin teaching reading at 6 or later, but it's my responsibility to look up data to verify whether or not your assertion is factually correct? Usually it's the responsibility of the person who made the assertion to back up the assertion.

I knew you'd say that. I already posted it! There are a lot more. You can find those yourself.

Now, you assert that there were Early Childhood teachers on the committee. Prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So you assert that lots of countries school systems' begin teaching reading at 6 or later, but it's my responsibility to look up data to verify whether or not your assertion is factually correct? Usually it's the responsibility of the person who made the assertion to back up the assertion.

I knew you'd say that. I already posted it! There are a lot more. You can find those yourself.

Now, you assert that there were Early Childhood teachers on the committee. Prove it.

When and where did you post information about the ages that countries' school systems begin teaching reading? I don't remember seeing that.

Also, no, I didn't assert that there were K-2 teachers -- sorry, Early Childhood teachers -- on the committee. You are responding to multiple posters.

[Anonymous]

And, there is, no doubt, a genetic component to brain development. If you really want some great reading, see this:

http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/10/2313.full.pdf+html

As hypothesized, we found that genetic factors contributed
greatly to variation in surface area for almost all cortical
parcellations, with heritabilities as high as 0.70 estimated from
models with genetic and unique environmental variance
components. Thus, genetic variation is an important determinant
of individual differences in cortical surface area

We will, no doubt, understand more in the coming years and these tests will be seen as the very crude instruments that they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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).


This is a very interesting standard. It is basically behavioral and not academic. Apparently the Common Core is not all academic. Kids from chaotic homes where people operate by yelling at each other think of that as the "norm". They are very uncomfortable with following agreed-upon rules as that is not how life works in their home. Those kids may take much, much longer (if ever) to achieve this standard. Kids from harmonious, orderly homes already have achieved this. I have kids in high school who have not achieved this standard. I'm not kidding you. And how do you test this standard? And, what if a student achieves this on the "test", but then backtracks on it (as often happens)? If this is never "tested", what does it mean? Is a child not allowed to progress to the next grade level or graduate from high school if he/she has not met this standard? We have kids in high school who refuse to do this. We also suspend kids for behavioral misconduct. Is CC going to address that kind of concern? What is CC---academic or behavioral standards?


187 words, none of which answer the question. Here is the question: Is this standard developmentally inappropriate, and if so why?


I'm not the early childhood poster. I'm a high school teacher. I think this standard is just weird. Aren't the standards supposed to be measurable? How do you test this? And aren't they supposed to be academic? This standard kind of underlines why you might not be able to get to the other standards that are academic.

[Anonymous]

I read that article when it was published. It is interesting. I think, however, that it is not the poverty itself, but the behavior of those living in poverty. Perhaps, it is hopelessness. The drug issue also cannot be ignored.
I believe that all people love their kids, some just don't understand how to treat them.

I wish that community centers and churches would start having daily story times for those communities. Let the mom/sitter bring the kids and read to them. These kids are not getting that. Maybe a little parenting tip can be thrown in along with the story time. Modeling of how to talk to the kids. I don't pretend that this is going to solve the problem, but it could help just a little.

May your wishes be granted.

I think these kinds of people aren't looking for their community story times unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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).

I'm not the early childhood poster. I'm a high school teacher. I think this standard is just weird. Aren't the standards supposed to be measurable? How do you test this? And aren't they supposed to be academic? This standard kind of underlines why you might not be able to get to the other standards that are academic.

Measurable and testable are not synonyms. How do you measure it? You assess whether or not the child can do what the standard says.

Also, the standards are supposed to be educational standards. I hope you agree that learning to listen and take turns is part of a kindergarten education.

[Anonymous]

Also, the standards are supposed to be educational standards. I hope you agree that learning to listen and take turns is part of a kindergarten education.

Different poster. I thought that was in the literacy standards.

Sure am glad they wrote it down though. Those poor dumb K teachers wouldn't ever have figured out that they need to help the kids learn to take turns talking.