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

[Anonymous]

Could you provide a few examples of actions you consider unethical?

Developing standards and then making money from the execution or testing of those standards.

[Anonymous]

Developing standards and then making money from the execution or testing of those standards.

comparable to working for the government and putting out an RFP--and then going with a contractor and bidding on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Developing standards and then making money from the execution or testing of those standards.

comparable to working for the government and putting out an RFP--and then going with a contractor and bidding on it.

No, it's not, because standards are in no way comparable to an RFP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually that's exactly what the Common Core math standards do.

LOL!

Do you have any substantive comments, or are you just laughing?

Perhaps you should take a look at the actual standards? Here they are:

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/

[Anonymous]

Perhaps you should take a look at the actual standards? Here they are:

A PP explained the problem well. Common Core standards are part of the problem. Having to "explain" everything gets tiresome and is not always effective. Suggest you spend some time in an elementary classroom. It's about kids--not standards. You obviously don't get that. Go look at the list of people who were on the teams. Hardly anyone from a classroom: Instructional coaches; state directors; consultants; professors; authors; executive directors; policy consultants; advisors; administrators; principals; curriculum coordinators; research scientists; assessment managers; supervisors; facilitators; deans; etc. A very small number of teachers compared to the rest. And, you claim these were developed by teachers? Not sure if there are any early childhood teachers, and certainly almost no elementary teachers.
The committees are listed on the Common Core website. I've begun researching the backgrounds of some of them and it is worse than I thought. These people are not the best qualified. My question is, who selected them?

Who has to work with these standards and develop teaching materials to go with them? Teachers. Who has to test these kids? Teachers. Who is NOT making money off of these standards? Teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Perhaps you should take a look at the actual standards? Here they are:

A PP explained the problem well. Common Core standards are part of the problem. Having to "explain" everything gets tiresome and is not always effective. Suggest you spend some time in an elementary classroom. It's about kids--not standards. You obviously don't get that. Go look at the list of people who were on the teams. Hardly anyone from a classroom: Instructional coaches; state directors; consultants; professors; authors; executive directors; policy consultants; advisors; administrators; principals; curriculum coordinators; research scientists; assessment managers; supervisors; facilitators; deans; etc. A very small number of teachers compared to the rest. And, you claim these were developed by teachers? Not sure if there are any early childhood teachers, and certainly almost no elementary teachers.
The committees are listed on the Common Core website. I've begun researching the backgrounds of some of them and it is worse than I thought. These people are not the best qualified. My question is, who selected them?

Who has to work with these standards and develop teaching materials to go with them? Teachers. Who has to test these kids? Teachers. Who is NOT making money off of these standards? Teachers.

But the Common Core standards do not require everybody to "explain" everything.

[Anonymous]

But the Common Core standards do not require everybody to "explain" everything.

No. They don't have to explain "everything"--just many things. Go read them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But the Common Core standards do not require everybody to "explain" everything.

No. They don't have to explain "everything"--just many things. Go read them.

I've read them. Here are all of the first-grade math standards, as an example. Which of these standards require students to "explain"? My count is two: CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.C.5 and CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.C.6.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.A.1
Use addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.1

CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.A.2
Solve word problems that call for addition of three whole numbers whose sum is less than or equal to 20, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.

Understand and apply properties of operations and the relationship between addition and subtraction.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.B.3
Apply properties of operations as strategies to add and subtract.2 Examples: If 8 + 3 = 11 is known, then 3 + 8 = 11 is also known. (Commutative property of addition.) To add 2 + 6 + 4, the second two numbers can be added to make a ten, so 2 + 6 + 4 = 2 + 10 = 12. (Associative property of addition.)

CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.B.4
Understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem. For example, subtract 10 - 8 by finding the number that makes 10 when added to 8.

Add and subtract within 20.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.C.5
Relate counting to addition and subtraction (e.g., by counting on 2 to add 2).

CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.C.6
Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

Work with addition and subtraction equations.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.D.7
Understand the meaning of the equal sign, and determine if equations involving addition and subtraction are true or false. For example, which of the following equations are true and which are false? 6 = 6, 7 = 8 - 1, 5 + 2 = 2 + 5, 4 + 1 = 5 + 2.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.OA.D.8
Determine the unknown whole number in an addition or subtraction equation relating three whole numbers. For example, determine the unknown number that makes the equation true in each of the equations 8 + ? = 11, 5 = _ - 3, 6 + 6 = _.


Extend the counting sequence.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.A.1
Count to 120, starting at any number less than 120. In this range, read and write numerals and represent a number of objects with a written numeral.

Understand place value.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.B.2
Understand that the two digits of a two-digit number represent amounts of tens and ones. Understand the following as special cases:

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.B.2.a
10 can be thought of as a bundle of ten ones — called a "ten."

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.B.2.b
The numbers from 11 to 19 are composed of a ten and one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine ones.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.B.2.c
The numbers 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 refer to one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine tens (and 0 ones).

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.B.3
Compare two two-digit numbers based on meanings of the tens and ones digits, recording the results of comparisons with the symbols >, =, and <.

Use place value understanding and properties of operations to add and subtract.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.C.4
Add within 100, including adding a two-digit number and a one-digit number, and adding a two-digit number and a multiple of 10, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used. Understand that in adding two-digit numbers, one adds tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose a ten.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.C.5
Given a two-digit number, mentally find 10 more or 10 less than the number, without having to count; explain the reasoning used.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.C.6
Subtract multiples of 10 in the range 10-90 from multiples of 10 in the range 10-90 (positive or zero differences), using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used.

Measure lengths indirectly and by iterating length units.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.A.1
Order three objects by length; compare the lengths of two objects indirectly by using a third object.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.A.2
Express the length of an object as a whole number of length units, by laying multiple copies of a shorter object (the length unit) end to end; understand that the length measurement of an object is the number of same-size length units that span it with no gaps or overlaps. Limit to contexts where the object being measured is spanned by a whole number of length units with no gaps or overlaps.

Tell and write time.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.B.3
Tell and write time in hours and half-hours using analog and digital clocks.

Represent and interpret data.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.C.4
Organize, represent, and interpret data with up to three categories; ask and answer questions about the total number of data points, how many in each category, and how many more or less are in one category than in another.

Reason with shapes and their attributes.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.G.A.1
Distinguish between defining attributes (e.g., triangles are closed and three-sided) versus non-defining attributes (e.g., color, orientation, overall size); build and draw shapes to possess defining attributes.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.G.A.2
Compose two-dimensional shapes (rectangles, squares, trapezoids, triangles, half-circles, and quarter-circles) or three-dimensional shapes (cubes, right rectangular prisms, right circular cones, and right circular cylinders) to create a composite shape, and compose new shapes from the composite shape.1

CCSS.Math.Content.1.G.A.3
Partition circles and rectangles into two and four equal shares, describe the shares using the words halves, fourths, and quarters, and use the phrases half of, fourth of, and quarter of. Describe the whole as two of, or four of the shares. Understand for these examples that decomposing into more equal shares creates smaller shares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Perhaps you should take a look at the actual standards? Here they are:

A PP explained the problem well. Common Core standards are part of the problem. Having to "explain" everything gets tiresome and is not always effective. Suggest you spend some time in an elementary classroom. It's about kids--not standards. You obviously don't get that. Go look at the list of people who were on the teams. Hardly anyone from a classroom: Instructional coaches; state directors; consultants; professors; authors; executive directors; policy consultants; advisors; administrators; principals; curriculum coordinators; research scientists; assessment managers; supervisors; facilitators; deans; etc. A very small number of teachers compared to the rest. And, you claim these were developed by teachers? Not sure if there are any early childhood teachers, and certainly almost no elementary teachers.
The committees are listed on the Common Core website. I've begun researching the backgrounds of some of them and it is worse than I thought. These people are not the best qualified. My question is, who selected them?

Who has to work with these standards and develop teaching materials to go with them? Teachers. Who has to test these kids? Teachers. Who is NOT making money off of these standards? Teachers.

But the Common Core standards do not require everybody to "explain" everything.

Do you actually have kids in a school using Common Core? I'm doubtful that you do if you haven't heard about the immense amount of explaining kids are being asked to do. I have talked to teachers and administrators at school and at a HS open house and EVERYBODY says there is a HUGE emphasis on explaining everything. It is usually described in terms of a warning. Like "such a so math class is nothing like the such and so math you grew up with--everything requires an explanation of the concept, there is a lot of writing involved, it's much harder, the skills kids are being asked to learn are different..." Schools are nervous about it. They are afraid of it. They don't own it. They don't agree with it. And yet they have to use it. This becomes a huge problem of taking responsibility, because any concern that is raised is met with, "yeah, I know, we didn't write the standards." No accountability. Disengaged resentful teachers. Inauthentic teaching. Alienated students.

Now I think the ability to explain the concept is important for TEACHERS, and ultimately it's probably a good thing to ask of older students getting ready for college (but even then....), but asking kids to do this before they have routines down pat and spent time exploring over the early years is absurd. There are perspective-taking skills involved in teaching, which is essentially what is being tested in asking kids to explain what they did, that don't develop until later. It's good to exercise these skills but not to the nitty-gritty level before high school and not with the frequency asked.

Another objection I have is that the PARCC is an incredibly inefficient way of sampling a student's true mathematics ability. Because so many questions require verbal explanation they are taking time away from offering more math problems so there is a wider sample from each student to average across.

Another problem is that when kids are asked to justify their answers when they don't necessarily have the maturity to understand what they did, or if they are not sure their solution is correct, they are essentially being asked to guess and write bullshit and hope for the best.

Don't get me wrong. It's not ALL bad, and there are some good things. But it's too much developmentally inappropriate college-ready stuff at young ages. I saw the same types of English questions on middle school PARCC practice test as on a practice PSAT--question after question about using evidence to support your answer. Maybe it's all 10 yrs of practice for the SAT. Maybe that will solidify the relevance of the SAT relative to the ACT....? Perhaps this was David Coleman's mission??



Many problems with this.

[Anonymous]

Not the PP but I would reiterate the PP's point that Common Core *DOES NOT* require teachers to spend any inordinate or unusual amount of time on explaining things - but that said I would suggest that explaining is indeed vital, particularly when students are having difficulty with certain concepts or are asking a lot of questions. I've also witnessed teachers who WOULDN'T explain things when explanations were clearly needed by students - and that is extremely problematic.

I do in fact have my own DC in a school which is teaching Common Core, and NO they do not stop and explain every last iota of everything, in fact I wish they did spend a little more time on some of the math proofs and other things here and there.

And I would argue that it *IS* important to periodically have students explain their answers, to assess how well they know the critical concepts and facts, and to see how well they are doing with their thought process, critical thinking skills and approach to problem solving.

I think it's far more problematic to just gloss over all those things and not do them than it is to do them.

[Anonymous]

Do the Common Core math standards require an immense amount of explaining? No.

Are there schools that interpret the Common Core math standards as requiring an immense amount of explaining? Evidently so.

Do all schools interpret the Common Core math standards as requiring an immense amount of explaining? No. My child's school does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the Common Core math standards require an immense amount of explaining? No.

Are there schools that interpret the Common Core math standards as requiring an immense amount of explaining? Evidently so.

Do all schools interpret the Common Core math standards as requiring an immense amount of explaining? No. My child's school does not.

They don't now. That all might change when they get their lousy test scores in the fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the Common Core math standards require an immense amount of explaining? No.

Are there schools that interpret the Common Core math standards as requiring an immense amount of explaining? Evidently so.

Do all schools interpret the Common Core math standards as requiring an immense amount of explaining? No. My child's school does not.

They don't now. That all might change when they get their lousy test scores in the fall.

Ah, the DCUM crystal ball again. Well, I'll worry about that if it actually happens.

[Anonymous]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2015/03/24-common-core-loveless

Latest Brookings Institute Commentary: It ain't pretty Common Core lovers:

A final word. When the 2014 BCR was released, many CCSS supporters commented that it is too early to tell the effects of Common Core. The point that states may need more time operating under CCSS to realize its full effects certainly has merit. But that does not discount everything states have done so far—including professional development, purchasing new textbooks and other instructional materials, designing new assessments, buying and installing computer systems, and conducting hearings and public outreach—as part of implementing the standards. Some states are in their fifth year of implementation. It could be that states need more time, but innovations can also produce their biggest “pop” earlier in implementation rather than later. Kentucky was one of the earliest states to adopt and implement CCSS. That state’s NAEP fourth grade reading score declined in both 2009-2011 and 2011-2013. The optimism of CCSS supporters is understandable, but a one and a half point NAEP gain might be as good as it gets for CCSS.

[Anonymous]

What's not pretty? That the Common Core standards have not produced an increase in standardized test scores? I'm not surprised. Standards alone don't do much; they need to be accompanied by effective curricula and effective teacher training, both of which cost money. In addition, the biggest determinant of standardized test scores is socioeconomic status.

Also, is your point that standardized test scores haven't gone up, therefore we should get rid of the Common Core standards? If so, that doesn't follow.