Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Write numbers from 0 to 20. Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects).

Another error. More sloppy work.

"numbers" should be numerals ? OK, I agree with you.

[Anonymous]

More sloppy work.

Show how "expert" the writers of the standards are...........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Write numbers from 0 to 20. Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects).

Another error. More sloppy work.

You are nitpicking here. An adult can easily understand what is expected for this standard.

The argument against CC on these posts are about the age appropriateness of the standards for each grades, and/or, how vague the standards are. The standard above is not vague, nor, is this standard not age appropriate for a Ker.

[Anonymous]

You are nitpicking here. An adult can easily understand what is expected for this standard.

And, the developers couldn't even go to the trouble of proofreading these "standards." Sorry, if they couldn't proofread them, what other steps did they skip?

[Anonymous]

Have the tests that have been developed for these standards been validated? Have they been checked for reliability? Doubtful.

[Anonymous]

Compare two numbers between 1 and 10 presented as written numerals.

Another. Is this really developed by experts?

[Anonymous]

With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.

This is a standard?

[Anonymous]

LOL! Today's kids probably need a phone to do that......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have the tests that have been developed for these standards been validated? Have they been checked for reliability? Doubtful.

http://www.parcconline.org/did-you-know-what-construct-validity?utm_source=PARCC+Updates+12%2F18%2F14&utm_campaign=11%2F13%2F2014+Update&utm_medium=email

Did You Know: What is Construct Validity?

What is construct validity? Why is it important in a high quality assessment?

We asked Jeff Nellhaus, PARCC's Chief of Assessment and former deputy commissioner of education in Massachusetts to answer:

Construct validity is the degree to which a test measures what it claims to measure. For example, to determine if someone can drive a car, a test should include driving, which is the best way for a person to demonstrate their ability. Driving is the main construct, but driving is made up of many smaller constructs such as turning a corner, maneuvering in heavy traffic, and obeying the rules of the road. A driving test that only requires driving on a straight road without any traffic or traffic signals would have low construct validity. A better test would require entering and exiting a major highway during rush hour and parallel parking, because it is made up of multiple skills needed to drive.

Similarly, a test designed to determine whether students can read, write, and solve mathematical problems must ask students to do those things and to do them in a way that allows students to show they have acquired the breadth of knowledge and skills in those areas appropriate to their grade level.

The PARCC assessments are designed to measure the academic standards in the English language arts/literacy and mathematics Common Core State Standards. The standards are the constructs that identify what students should be taught and learn at each grade level so that by the time they graduate from high school they have the reading, writing and mathematical knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college and/or jobs with career potential.

The PARCC states adopted principles of evidence-centered design to ensure the PARCC tests have construct validity. Evidence-centered design principles required the PARCC states to identify the standards to be measured. Then it required the development of evidence statements, which describe the types of performance students must demonstrate to show they have met the standards. The test questions and tasks were developed to produce the evidences called for by the evidence statements. The PARCC states then involved hundreds of state content experts and local educators in many reviews of every PARCC test question prior to field testing in spring 2014 to confirm the likelihood that they would elicit answers that produce the expected evidence. Finally, reviewers checked again after field testing, to see if the test questions and tasks adequately generated the desired performances.

To ensure that individual test questions and tasks “add up” to measure the full range of the Common Core standards, PARCC states developed detailed test blueprints. The blueprints specify the number and types of questions measuring different constructs that should be included on the tests to ensure the full range of the standards are covered and the test produces reliable results.

Establishing the validity of any test continues yearly, even after a test has been in place for decades. PARCC is conducting research based on the field test it conducted last spring to produce additional evidence of the validity of its assessments. PARCC has also agreed to participate in a study on construct validity in the winter/spring of 2015 being conducted by the Fordham Institute and the Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO).


December 17, 2014

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.

This is a standard?

Yes, this is a standard.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.K.1
With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.

Do you think that the kindergarten standards needs to specify what "key details in a text" are? Will kindergarten teachers be confused unless the standards do so? My child was supposed to talk about "key details" in kindergarten before the Common Core standards, and somehow her kindergarten teacher was able to figure out what they were.

I'm guessing that the people who want to throw out the Common Core standards based on one standard using "numbers" when they think it should be "numerals" (or was it the other way around?) actually object to the Common Core standards for other reasons. When your goal is to criticize, you can always find things to criticize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Write numbers from 0 to 20. Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects).

Another error. More sloppy work.

"numbers" should be numerals ? OK, I agree with you.

I'm not sure I agree. This standard is asking kids to look at (subitize) or count a set of objects, come up with a number, and then represent that number with a numeral. Both words belong in the standard to make it clear that this is a standard that addresses both the production of the numeral (i.e. the handwriting) and the connection between the number and the numeral.

[Anonymous]

With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.

Two vague terms:
"text" and "key details."

Amateurish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Compare two numbers between 1 and 10 presented as written numerals.

Another. Is this really developed by experts?

What is wrong with this? It's for kindergarten. Kids are supposed to be able to compare two sets of objects (say 6 buttons and 8 shells) and just by looking or drawing matches, be able to saw that there are more shells than buttons.

In addition, if you present them with the numerals 6 and 8, they should be able to say that the 8 represents more than the 6 does, although as this standard is written, they do not need to be able to use exact terminology "8 is greater than 6" in kindergarten, and aren't expected to be able to write 8>6 yet.

The complete set of standards for counting and cardinality in grade K makes this clear:

Know number names and the count sequence.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.CC.A.1
Count to 100 by ones and by tens.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.CC.A.2
Count forward beginning from a given number within the known sequence (instead of having to begin at 1).

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.CC.A.3
Write numbers from 0 to 20. Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects).
Count to tell the number of objects.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.CC.B.4
Understand the relationship between numbers and quantities; connect counting to cardinality.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.CC.B.4.A
When counting objects, say the number names in the standard order, pairing each object with one and only one number name and each number name with one and only one object.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.CC.B.4.B
Understand that the last number name said tells the number of objects counted. The number of objects is the same regardless of their arrangement or the order in which they were counted.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.CC.B.4.C
Understand that each successive number name refers to a quantity that is one larger.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.CC.B.5
Count to answer "how many?" questions about as many as 20 things arranged in a line, a rectangular array, or a circle, or as many as 10 things in a scattered configuration; given a number from 1-20, count out that many objects.
Compare numbers.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.CC.C.6
Identify whether the number of objects in one group is greater than, less than, or equal to the number of objects in another group, e.g., by using matching and counting strategies.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.CC.C.7
Compare two numbers between 1 and 10 presented as written numerals.

Here's some help for understanding this last objective if you know a teacher having trouble with it:

http://www.readtennessee.org/math/teachers/k-3_common_core_math_standards/kindergarten/counting_cardinality/kccc7.aspx

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure I agree. This standard is asking kids to look at (subitize) or count a set of objects, come up with a number, and then represent that number with a numeral. Both words belong in the standard to make it clear that this is a standard that addresses both the production of the numeral (i.e. the handwriting) and the connection between the number and the numeral.

Sorry. You don't write "numbers"..........look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.

Two vague terms:
"text" and "key details."

Amateurish.

Prompting is also vague, as is support.


Ask is pretty vague too!