Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Yes, in previous curriculums, critical writing skills were taught, but not until much later.

You really believe that, don't you? Just what do you consider a critical writing skill that was not taught before?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If people learned to write essays before the Common Core standards, then it shouldn't be a problem that the Common Core standards call for people to learn to write essays. After all, there's nothing new about it!

Then why do we need CC? What's the point?

Why are you objecting to the Common Core standards, if there's nothing new?

[Anonymous]

Why are you objecting to the Common Core standards, if there's nothing new?

Because they are wordy and confusing. Some are repetitive and there is too much testing being attached to them. Publishing companies are the winners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, in previous curriculums, critical writing skills were taught, but not until much later.

You really believe that, don't you? Just what do you consider a critical writing skill that was not taught before?

When my older child was in third grade in MCPS, this is the kind of writing she does:

Prompt: What is the setting in the story you just read?

Answer: The setting in the story is [<---"turn the question around!"] Andy's house in the summer at night. I know this because in the second paragraph, Andy says that he is at home.[<---reason #1, supported by a detail from the story] I also know this because in the third paragraph, Andy's friend says that it is dark but it is still hot.[<---reason #2, supported by a detail from the story] That is why I know that the setting is night time in summer time at Andy's house.[<---final summary sentence]

Now that my older child is in third grade in MCPS, this is the kind of writing my child does:

Prompt: Describe a time when you were afraid.

Answer: [a full page, with multiple paragraphs, on a time when my child was afraid, including a rough draft, peer review from two students, comments from a teacher, and a revised final draft -- typed.]

That is why I know that the teaching of writing is much better at my children's school at MCPS under Curriculum 2.0, which is the MCPS curriculum aligned to the Common Core standards, than it was before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why are you objecting to the Common Core standards, if there's nothing new?

Because they are wordy and confusing. Some are repetitive and there is too much testing being attached to them. Publishing companies are the winners.

You want to get rid of the Common Core standards because you don't like the way they're worded, No Child Left Behind requires testing, and publishing companies will make money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, in previous curriculums, critical writing skills were taught, but not until much later.

You really believe that, don't you? Just what do you consider a critical writing skill that was not taught before?

Well, according to some people, some of the HS kids (who are not under 2.0 yet) don't seem to know how to write very well.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/434640.page

[Anonymous]

When my older child was in third grade in MCPS, this is the kind of writing she does:

Prompt: What is the setting in the story you just read?

Answer: The setting in the story is [<---"turn the question around!"] Andy's house in the summer at night. I know this because in the second paragraph, Andy says that he is at home.[<---reason #1, supported by a detail from the story] I also know this because in the third paragraph, Andy's friend says that it is dark but it is still hot.[<---reason #2, supported by a detail from the story] That is why I know that the setting is night time in summer time at Andy's house.[<---final summary sentence]

Now that my older child is in third grade in MCPS, this is the kind of writing my child does:

Prompt: Describe a time when you were afraid.

Answer: [a full page, with multiple paragraphs, on a time when my child was afraid, including a rough draft, peer review from two students, comments from a teacher, and a revised final draft -- typed.]

That is why I know that the teaching of writing is much better at my children's school at MCPS under Curriculum 2.0, which is the MCPS curriculum aligned to the Common Core standards, than it was before.

Oh, come on. As a first grade teacher, I would have kids write how a character felt, etc. I would read an open ended story and ask them to write the ending, etc.etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I see classroom teachers in my school, and in the school my children attend, "adapting" to the new writing tests by actually teaching writing to a prompt in paragraph and essay form. This isn't teaching to the test, this is teaching writing. Properly.

How did anyone ever learn to write essays without Common Core? It is a miracle!

In the state of MD, before Common Core state standards were adopted, writing essays was not a standard set for elementary school students.

Individual teachers may have decided that they wanted to teach their students to write essays, but that decision was an individual one. The state did not have this standard expectation of all students by 5th or 6th grade.

Thus most students were not expected or required to learn to write a simple essay!

Now that the standard has been adopted, all teachers are teaching students to meet the standard, which means that they are teaching students to write basic essays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, in previous curriculums, critical writing skills were taught, but not until much later.

You really believe that, don't you? Just what do you consider a critical writing skill that was not taught before?

When my older child was in third grade in MCPS, this is the kind of writing she does:

Prompt: What is the setting in the story you just read?

Answer: The setting in the story is [<---"turn the question around!"] Andy's house in the summer at night. I know this because in the second paragraph, Andy says that he is at home.[<---reason #1, supported by a detail from the story] I also know this because in the third paragraph, Andy's friend says that it is dark but it is still hot.[<---reason #2, supported by a detail from the story] That is why I know that the setting is night time in summer time at Andy's house.[<---final summary sentence]

Now that my older child is in third grade in MCPS, this is the kind of writing my child does:

Prompt: Describe a time when you were afraid.

Answer: [a full page, with multiple paragraphs, on a time when my child was afraid, including a rough draft, peer review from two students, comments from a teacher, and a revised final draft -- typed.]

That is why I know that the teaching of writing is much better at my children's school at MCPS under Curriculum 2.0, which is the MCPS curriculum aligned to the Common Core standards, than it was before.

Exactly! That was the type of writing my children in PG county schools were doing -- BCRs. Now they are writing actual essays. I am quite impressed with the writing expectations now, especially at the older grade levels. I attribute the change to Common Core expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The question is whether it is valid to say that the Common Core standards are not developmentally appropriate, given that Singapore Math expected students at the same age to be able to do the same things, and nobody has yet (to my knowledge) said that they were not able to?

They are NOT developmentally appropriate. And, please remember, the average child does not have a parent posting on DCUM.
signed, K teacher

HOW are the Common Core standards not developmentally appropriate?

And as far as I can tell, nobody -- not nobody posting on DCUM, just plain all around nobody -- said that Singapore math was developmentally inappropriate. If you know that somebody somewhere has said that Singapore math is developmentally appropriate, could you please provide a reference to that?

There are some valid arguments people are making against the math standards for, say, kindergarten.

For example, the standard that by the end of Kindergarten, students should be able to count, by rote, to 100. Some people say that by the end of kindergarten, a lower number is more reasonable -- I have seen the suggestion os "45" instead of 100. This would mean that the student was able to go above 20 (which would be a very low standard) for a few more decades, but not all the way to 100.

I think criticisms like this are reasonable ones. It may well be that counting all the way to 100 is just not developmentally appropriate for kids in the US, speaking English. I have read that children learning math in Chinese languages like Mandarin have an advantage, because their counting system makes it very easy to count to 100.

In their language, the coiunting system goes :

one, two three four five six seven eight nine one ten

one ten 1 (11)
one ten 2 (12
one ten 3 (13)
one ten 4 (14)
one ten 5
one ten six
one ten 7
one ten 8
one ten 9
two ten
two ten 1 (21)

etc

three ten (30)
four ten (40)

etc

So counting to 100 is a very easy skill for kindergarteners, where as in English it is much harder.

[Anonymous]

PP of above post again.

While I think it is reasonable to argue whether an individual standard such as "Count orally by rote to 100" is appropriate for the end of K or the end of grade 1, I don't think it is reasonable to argue that the standard it "vague", "wordy" or confusing.

Any teacher who cannot understand the kindergarten or grade 1 math standards shouldn't be in teaching. Any adult who can't understand the math standards (without a little bit of effort, perhaps, to learn the vocabulary used to describe certain strategies that they might not be familiar with) has some kind of problem. The math standards aren't vague at all.

[Anonymous]

CCSS.Math.Content.K.G.A.2
Correctly name shapes regardless of their orientations or overall size.

There is a glaring problem with this "standard." Am I the only one on DCUM who sees it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP of above post again.

While I think it is reasonable to argue whether an individual standard such as "Count orally by rote to 100" is appropriate for the end of K or the end of grade 1, I don't think it is reasonable to argue that the standard it "vague", "wordy" or confusing.

Any teacher who cannot understand the kindergarten or grade 1 math standards shouldn't be in teaching. Any adult who can't understand the math standards (without a little bit of effort, perhaps, to learn the vocabulary used to describe certain strategies that they might not be familiar with) has some kind of problem. The math standards aren't vague at all.

The teachers I've talked to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP of above post again.

While I think it is reasonable to argue whether an individual standard such as "Count orally by rote to 100" is appropriate for the end of K or the end of grade 1, I don't think it is reasonable to argue that the standard it "vague", "wordy" or confusing.

Any teacher who cannot understand the kindergarten or grade 1 math standards shouldn't be in teaching. Any adult who can't understand the math standards (without a little bit of effort, perhaps, to learn the vocabulary used to describe certain strategies that they might not be familiar with) has some kind of problem. The math standards aren't vague at all.

The teachers I've talked to disagree.

I am not a teacher-basher, and I think that anybody who teaches kindergarten, no matter how badly, is doing something I can't do.

Nonetheless, I agree with the PP that if a kindergarten or first-grader teacher has trouble understanding the math standards after receiving basic training from the school district in math vocabulary and strategies, then that indicates a problem with the teacher, not with the math standards. And it suggests why the Common Core math standards are necessary, namely that in general, math education in the US is not very good: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP of above post again.

While I think it is reasonable to argue whether an individual standard such as "Count orally by rote to 100" is appropriate for the end of K or the end of grade 1, I don't think it is reasonable to argue that the standard it "vague", "wordy" or confusing.

Any teacher who cannot understand the kindergarten or grade 1 math standards shouldn't be in teaching. Any adult who can't understand the math standards (without a little bit of effort, perhaps, to learn the vocabulary used to describe certain strategies that they might not be familiar with) has some kind of problem. The math standards aren't vague at all.

The teachers I've talked to disagree.

I am not a teacher-basher, and I think that anybody who teaches kindergarten, no matter how badly, is doing something I can't do.

Nonetheless, I agree with the PP that if a kindergarten or first-grader teacher has trouble understanding the math standards after receiving basic training from the school district in math vocabulary and strategies, then that indicates a problem with the teacher, not with the math standards. And it suggests why the Common Core math standards are necessary, namely that in general, math education in the US is not very good: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

Common Core is only going to make that worse. It's not going to improve kids' math understanding. All we see all over the country now are confused students who hate school.