Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

I have read all of those other threads, to my sorrow, and the answer to the question of what specific aspect of the Common Core standards is a huge disaster is apparently EVERYTHING, down to the words "the" and "and" in "CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.2 Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing." -- and if two opponents of the Common Core standard have two different answers that are mutually contradictory and cannot both be true, that is just further proof of the badness of the Common Core standards.

Great! You finally understand.

[Anonymous]

I'll start at the beginning:

It is not useful or practical--or workable--for all schools to have the same standards. The idea was ambitious, but not well thought out. People meant well--but the deciders were not experts.

[Anonymous]

Next: the people brought in to write the standards were professors and specialists who had spent little time in classrooms.

[Anonymous]

The standards were written with almost no input from classroom teachers. You know, the people who have to use the standards.

[Anonymous]

The materials were quickly designed by publishing companies who cranked out lots of incorrect worksheets, tests, etc.

[Anonymous]

The standards include "critical thinking" requirements that do not necessarily allow for thinking outside the box. Ironic, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have read all of those other threads, to my sorrow, and the answer to the question of what specific aspect of the Common Core standards is a huge disaster is apparently EVERYTHING, down to the words "the" and "and" in "CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.2 Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing." -- and if two opponents of the Common Core standard have two different answers that are mutually contradictory and cannot both be true, that is just further proof of the badness of the Common Core standards.

Great! You finally understand.

Yes, I finally understand that although I have tried, and tried, and tried, to find reasons people oppose the Common Core standards that I consider valid, I am unable to find any. None. Not one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The standards include "critical thinking" requirements that do not necessarily allow for thinking outside the box. Ironic, isn't it?

Before I agree with you that it's "ironic", I would like to see an example of such a standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At this point it has become clear that the greatest opposition to Common Core standards comes from parents of learning disabled children. I'd say let ANY parent opt their child out of meeting the standards, as long as that child qualifies as learning disabled. That would allow the rest of our kids to be taught under common core standards and prepared for college, and parents of children with LDs who WANT their children helped to these standards can also have that happen. But parents who feel it is inappropriate can design their own standards for their kids, or use whatever standards the state used in past years if they feel that was better.

No, the greatest opposition to the Common Core standards comes from people whose political position is, "If Obama supports it, I'm against it."

I'm the OP. I voted for Obama twice, but Common Core is a bipartisan disaster.

And I never voted for Obama and agree with you. It is a huge bipartisan disaster - its embarrassing honestly.

What specific aspect of the Common Core standards do you consider a huge disaster?

NP. I think people are so damned confused. Every article I have read about that complains about CC talks about the issues the parents have with the HW assignments. It's the the curriculum and lesson plans that your schools are using that is probably the problem, not the standards themselves.

Here are some of the complaints I have heard about the actual CC standards, not the curriculum:
1. "it's too wordy", which is such a pathetic complaint. It's not like the kids need to understand the standards.
2. "it's too much to expect young kids to think critically" - in other words, let's not expect too much thinking from our kids. The CC standards for K-2 for critical thinking is designed for kids in that age group. My 6 yr old DC can meet the standards designed for a 1st grader. Some of it is hard for DC, so we are working on it. But I think it's great that DC is learning to think critically earlier on than later.

I suggested watering down the CC standards for LD kids, but even that had no consensus. I understand it's because every child and their needs are different. But having no common standards for the majority of kids in this country is what we had before, and it wasn't working. There was too much disparity between states. Having common standards levels the playing field for most kids. Further, having standards that promote critical thinking skills at an earlier age will help our kids develop those skills throughout their school years, and they will be better prepared for a 21st job market.

[Anonymous]

"it's too much to expect young kids to think critically" - in other words, let's not expect too much thinking from our kids. The CC standards for K-2 for critical thinking is designed for kids in that age group. My 6 yr old DC can meet the standards designed for a 1st grader. Some of it is hard for DC, so we are working on it. But I think it's great that DC is learning to think critically earlier on than later.

I have seen no complaints about expecting young kids to think critically. I have seen complaints about expecting young kids to understand some math functions for which they are not ready. There is a big difference there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"it's too much to expect young kids to think critically" - in other words, let's not expect too much thinking from our kids. The CC standards for K-2 for critical thinking is designed for kids in that age group. My 6 yr old DC can meet the standards designed for a 1st grader. Some of it is hard for DC, so we are working on it. But I think it's great that DC is learning to think critically earlier on than later.

I have seen no complaints about expecting young kids to think critically. I have seen complaints about expecting young kids to understand some math functions for which they are not ready. There is a big difference there.

It's also about thinking concretely as opposed to abstractly. Common Core push the demands for abstract thought down to ages where it's developmentally inappropriate. Young kids are concrete thinkers.

[Anonymous]

It's also about thinking concretely as opposed to abstractly. Common Core push the demands for abstract thought down to ages where it's developmentally inappropriate. Young kids are concrete thinkers.

Well stated. That's one of the problems with the math standards at the primary levels. Probably carries over to math in the older years, as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"it's too much to expect young kids to think critically" - in other words, let's not expect too much thinking from our kids. The CC standards for K-2 for critical thinking is designed for kids in that age group. My 6 yr old DC can meet the standards designed for a 1st grader. Some of it is hard for DC, so we are working on it. But I think it's great that DC is learning to think critically earlier on than later.

I have seen no complaints about expecting young kids to think critically. I have seen complaints about expecting young kids to understand some math functions for which they are not ready. There is a big difference there.

It's also about thinking concretely as opposed to abstractly. Common Core push the demands for abstract thought down to ages where it's developmentally inappropriate. Young kids are concrete thinkers.

What about the standards for K-2 require abstract thinking? If I think about all the HW my 1st grade has had, they require concrete but critical thinking. Example, for math: John has 10 apples; Sue has 8 apples. How many apples are there in total? For writing: Is this a good title for the book...use examples and details from the book. Using details from the book is concrete, not abstract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you the PP? I'm not asking the question in general. I'm asking the PP, specifically, what specific aspect of the Common Core standards the PP considers a huge disaster. We are all anonymous here. If you are the PP, and you have answered the question before, on another thread, there is no way for me to know this.

Told you where you can find the answers. Pages and pages of answers.

So, just to be clear -- you're the PP, and you're purposely not answering the question?

I have read all of those other threads, to my sorrow, and the answer to the question of what specific aspect of the Common Core standards is a huge disaster is apparently EVERYTHING, down to the words "the" and "and" in "CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.2 Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing." -- and if two opponents of the Common Core standard have two different answers that are mutually contradictory and cannot both be true, that is just further proof of the badness of the Common Core standards.

Can't be understood, contradictory, and opponents are coming up with different answers? Let's dissect that one.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.K.2.A
Capitalize the first word in a sentence and the pronoun I

If opponents of Common Core are coming up with i instead of I and non-capitalized letters starting a sentence, then what the fuck?

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.K.2.B
Recognize and name end punctuation.

If opponents of Common Core are coming up with different answers, maybe ending sentences with ^, & or % instead of periods, question marks or exclamation points, then what the fuck?

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.K.2.C
Write a letter or letters for most consonant and short-vowel sounds (phonemes).

If opponents of Common Core can't understand basic phonemes, like 'a' in 'cat' then what the fuck?

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.K.2.D
Spell simple words phonetically, drawing on knowledge of sound-letter relationships.

See above, 'cat' - none of this is newfangled weirdness, it's basic phonics, by which millions of Americans learned to read and write properly, ever heard of "Dick and Jane", or McGuffey Readers, which since the 1830s, made folks like Longfellow and Oliver Wendell Holmes the eloquent writers that they became?

What the fuck, people? NONE of this is "new" or "unvetted" and none of it is incomprehensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"it's too much to expect young kids to think critically" - in other words, let's not expect too much thinking from our kids. The CC standards for K-2 for critical thinking is designed for kids in that age group. My 6 yr old DC can meet the standards designed for a 1st grader. Some of it is hard for DC, so we are working on it. But I think it's great that DC is learning to think critically earlier on than later.

I have seen no complaints about expecting young kids to think critically. I have seen complaints about expecting young kids to understand some math functions for which they are not ready. There is a big difference there.

It's also about thinking concretely as opposed to abstractly. Common Core push the demands for abstract thought down to ages where it's developmentally inappropriate. Young kids are concrete thinkers.

Yeah, it's real "abstract thinking voodoo" to have 2nd graders able to add and subtract two one-digit numbers, and it's not at all "concrete" to have them lay out objects or draw a picture depicting a scenario of things that they need to add or subtract. (CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.2.OA.B.1-2)

</sarcasm>

You people keep convincing me that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.