"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

We have had high-stakes testing based on standards since 2002.

Yes, but we've had time to teach with those standards. Standardized testing is okay if it's not overdone or it is done with the right purpose. Now, with CC, and because of the waivers, you've got new tests based on new standards and where new curriculum has to be written and the tests are connected to teacher evaluation. This is not the "oh, everything's the same as before so why are you complaining" scene that you are painting.

If it is, then why change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We have had high-stakes testing based on standards since 2002.

Yes, but we've had time to teach with those standards. Standardized testing is okay if it's not overdone or it is done with the right purpose. Now, with CC, and because of the waivers, you've got new tests based on new standards and where new curriculum has to be written and the tests are connected to teacher evaluation. This is not the "oh, everything's the same as before so why are you complaining" scene that you are painting.

If it is, then why change?

The alternative to new tests that are aligned to the new curricula and new standards is old tests that are not aligned to the new curricula and new standards. In fact, that's what we had in Maryland through last year, with the MSAs. I don't think it's a preferable alternative.

[Anonymous]

As a general rule, if you understand something, you can explain it. If you can't explain it, you don't understand it.


There are many things in life we don't understand, but we do use them. The car I drive, the computer I am typing on are just two examples of things I don't fully understand, but that I can make use of (and I am grateful for those things). We teach kids reading and they certainly do not understand why "ph" is pronounced as the "f" sound (we don't teach them etymology and ask them to explain it), but they are able to use reading as a tool to learn things in life. As a previous poster said, we are not all going to be Newton. Some of us need tools to do jobs and we gain those tools. Asking a kindergartener to learn to read is appropriate; asking him to explain the etymology of words is inappropriate. But, you never know. We may need a lot of linguists in the future.


The Common Core standards do not require kindergarteners to be able to explain the etymology of words. Here is an example of what they do require, for first-graders:

I know. That's why I posted this---because I'm trying to get you to understand that learning does not always mean you understand something fully (for many reasons). You did not understand what I was saying. I think you often try to deflect by putting up some standards.

[Anonymous]

The alternative to new tests that are aligned to the new curricula and new standards is old tests that are not aligned to the new curricula and new standards. In fact, that's what we had in Maryland through last year, with the MSAs. I don't think it's a preferable alternative.

This is why the moratorium is needed.

[Anonymous]

Doing away with so much standardized testing is fine, and I think most people agree. But, that is a different issue than OP's original post, and what many are posting about, that math under CC standards is bad or too basic or too easy. The way I see math being taught under 2.0 (or CC standards) has a lot of merit. Is it too slow for some, sure? Is it too hard for others that have a hard time "explaining" things, maybe, although in the early grades the child can "explain" by drawing pictures and not just use words.

So, what does that mean? That we should go back to the old way of teaching math? People who are math oriented will do well in math regardless of how it is taught, because that is just how their brains work. But for those that have a harder time with math, teaching them just rote doesn't cut it. They need to learn numeracy, and rinse/repeat a few times to get it. In MCPS, there is a path for kids to take more advanced math. The "regular" path right now is for kids to take Algebra by 8th. That's still pretty advanced.

[Anonymous]

CC standards are not going to change anything. Lots of money spent for nothing--or worse than nothing.

+100 Agree totally.

[Anonymous]

2.0 (or CC standards

You mean they've already renamed it??? LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I know. That's why I posted this---because I'm trying to get you to understand that learning does not always mean you understand something fully (for many reasons). You did not understand what I was saying. I think you often try to deflect by putting up some standards.

We are talking about math education. We are not talking about driver's education, or computer science education. Do you think it's a good idea, in math education, for students to be able to explain how and why the standard algorithm works, or do you think it's enough if they just know how to use the standard algorithm?

[Anonymous]

2.0 (or CC standards

You mean they've already renamed it??? LOL.

"Curriculum 2.0" is what MCPS calls the new curriculum that is aligned to the Common Core math and English/language arts standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

2.0 (or CC standards

You mean they've already renamed it??? LOL.

Sorry? MCPS has always called their CC standards based curriculum "Curriculum 2.0". That's where the 2.0 comes from. I'm specifically talking about MCPS since that's where I am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I know. That's why I posted this---because I'm trying to get you to understand that learning does not always mean you understand something fully (for many reasons). You did not understand what I was saying. I think you often try to deflect by putting up some standards.

We are talking about math education. We are not talking about driver's education, or computer science education. Do you think it's a good idea, in math education, for students to be able to explain how and why the standard algorithm works, or do you think it's enough if they just know how to use the standard algorithm?

^^^we are also not talking about auto shop education, where "I don't know how the car works, but I can drive just fine" would presumably be insufficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I know. That's why I posted this---because I'm trying to get you to understand that learning does not always mean you understand something fully (for many reasons). You did not understand what I was saying. I think you often try to deflect by putting up some standards.

We are talking about math education. We are not talking about driver's education, or computer science education. Do you think it's a good idea, in math education, for students to be able to explain how and why the standard algorithm works, or do you think it's enough if they just know how to use the standard algorithm?

Not PP, but I think some people don't care whether the kids really understand the math and have a strong sense of numeracy, just as long as they can do "harder" math. You can do harder math by learning rote but not really understand it.

[Anonymous]

Not PP, but I think some people don't care whether the kids really understand the math and have a strong sense of numeracy, just as long as they can do "harder" math. You can do harder math by learning rote but not really understand it.

I think one of the biggest culprits in this happening has been the calculator. Even worse, the districts made it required to have a TI graphing calculator.

Does CC allow the use of these calculators?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not PP, but I think some people don't care whether the kids really understand the math and have a strong sense of numeracy, just as long as they can do "harder" math. You can do harder math by learning rote but not really understand it.

I think one of the biggest culprits in this happening has been the calculator. Even worse, the districts made it required to have a TI graphing calculator.

Does CC allow the use of these calculators?

yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The alternative to new tests that are aligned to the new curricula and new standards is old tests that are not aligned to the new curricula and new standards. In fact, that's what we had in Maryland through last year, with the MSAs. I don't think it's a preferable alternative.

This is why the moratorium is needed.

A moratorium? This hasn't been rushed, IMHO. States started working on Common Core in 2007 (NOTE:THIS IS LONG BEFORE OBAMA AND ARNE DUNCAN WERE EVEN IN OFFICE) and the first draft standards were in state administrators' and teachers hands for review in 2009, schools have already had almost 6 years to read and review the standards, and to know what was coming down the pike. How much longer do you want? 20 years?