Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not a standards problem, that's a problem with how schools and teachers have chosen to implement the standard. The standard did not tell them or force them to teach content without prerequisite skills.

This has been repeated constantly on CC threads. The standards do not exist in a vacuum.

Again, the standards DO NOT dictate or specify the implementation flaws that were noted above, like skipping prerequisites. If prerequisites are being skipped, it's because schools are skipping them, not because of the standard. If you want to suggest anything to the contrary, you'll have to provide a specific citation from the actual standard to support it. http://www.corestandards.org/

The standards don't say anything about the problem of kids walking into a class and not having had the prerequisites because the standards were totally different the year before and money desperate schools grabbed the race to the top cash first and thought they'd firgure out the details later. The standards are cold and bloodless and totally impractical, especial for kids in middle and high school who have this big load of shit dumped on them.

What would warm bloody standards look like?

I feel like one of the arguments against Common Core is that change is bad, and therefore the standards should stay the same forever. Does that mean they can never be improved? What if they suck? What if research shows that kids who are taught using them aren't ready for college or career. Is that OK?

Yes, there are some school districts who waited until the last minute to make changes. There are other districts who started the planning process as soon as the standards were published 4.5 years ago. Plenty of districts rolled out the standards in a thoughtful way, with transitions happening for kids over time, or at certain grade levels. MCPS, for example, is still in the process of rolling them out in math, having started with a couple key years, and then adding a grade a year until the whole K - 12 was covered.

+100

The folks who are struggling with the standards only have themselves to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not a standards problem, that's a problem with how schools and teachers have chosen to implement the standard. The standard did not tell them or force them to teach content without prerequisite skills.

This has been repeated constantly on CC threads. The standards do not exist in a vacuum.

Again, the standards DO NOT dictate or specify the implementation flaws that were noted above, like skipping prerequisites. If prerequisites are being skipped, it's because schools are skipping them, not because of the standard. If you want to suggest anything to the contrary, you'll have to provide a specific citation from the actual standard to support it. http://www.corestandards.org/

What you fail to realize is the standards are just one part of the scheme. It's all about testing and conformity and punishing teachers and school districts. The creators of the Common Core aren't interested in the standards unless they can use them to whip schools and districts into their narrow type of thinking.


They've blatantly said this, in fact, and yet CC supporters insist on this unicorn and rainbow vision of the standards. They are counting on the teachers' fear of the standardized tests to have them all teach in the same fashion. They are alarmed that so many states are dropping out of the PARCC and the Smarter Balanced. And once the test results come out, more states will follow.

That's utter and complete bullshit. It's not a "narrow" way of thinking, nor is it a "way of teaching" - it's a minimum standard. If teachers have something nifty, creative and wonderful that they'd like to add into the mix, they are still PERFECTLY FREE TO DO SO.

Also, PARCC and Smarter Balanced are just two things being developed to align to Common Core. Common Core did not dictate or mandate either of them, again all Common Core does is define a minimum standard, and they left it up to state consortia like Smarter Balanced to figure out how they wanted to deal with it. PARCC is supposed to assess students, not teachers. Where it's being used to assess teachers, that's strictly a local decision, not a Common Core requirement.

Ultimately, getting rid of Common Core is a huge step backward. If you have a problem with Common Core, it should be addressed at the specific elements and standards, to fix them, not just wholesale, vague and generalized trashing and randomly jumbling and commingling what are SEPARATE issues. If you have a problem with crappy materials, that's a problem with your textbook vendor, it's a SEPARATE issue. If you have a problem with PARCC or Smarter Balanced, those are SEPARATE issues. If you have a problem with teacher assessments, that is a SEPARATE issue.

So you ignore the part where the creators of the Common Core insist that they thought the TESTING would drive the curriculum for the standards? So much for your "close reading" skills.

You can try to separate your precious standards and put them on a pedestal, but they are mired in the shitfest of politics and all the strings they come attached with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not a standards problem, that's a problem with how schools and teachers have chosen to implement the standard. The standard did not tell them or force them to teach content without prerequisite skills.

This has been repeated constantly on CC threads. The standards do not exist in a vacuum.

Again, the standards DO NOT dictate or specify the implementation flaws that were noted above, like skipping prerequisites. If prerequisites are being skipped, it's because schools are skipping them, not because of the standard. If you want to suggest anything to the contrary, you'll have to provide a specific citation from the actual standard to support it. http://www.corestandards.org/

What you fail to realize is the standards are just one part of the scheme. It's all about testing and conformity and punishing teachers and school districts. The creators of the Common Core aren't interested in the standards unless they can use them to whip schools and districts into their narrow type of thinking.


They've blatantly said this, in fact, and yet CC supporters insist on this unicorn and rainbow vision of the standards. They are counting on the teachers' fear of the standardized tests to have them all teach in the same fashion. They are alarmed that so many states are dropping out of the PARCC and the Smarter Balanced. And once the test results come out, more states will follow.

That's utter and complete bullshit. It's not a "narrow" way of thinking, nor is it a "way of teaching" - it's a minimum standard. If teachers have something nifty, creative and wonderful that they'd like to add into the mix, they are still PERFECTLY FREE TO DO SO.

Also, PARCC and Smarter Balanced are just two things being developed to align to Common Core. Common Core did not dictate or mandate either of them, again all Common Core does is define a minimum standard, and they left it up to state consortia like Smarter Balanced to figure out how they wanted to deal with it. PARCC is supposed to assess students, not teachers. Where it's being used to assess teachers, that's strictly a local decision, not a Common Core requirement.

Ultimately, getting rid of Common Core is a huge step backward. If you have a problem with Common Core, it should be addressed at the specific elements and standards, to fix them, not just wholesale, vague and generalized trashing and randomly jumbling and commingling what are SEPARATE issues. If you have a problem with crappy materials, that's a problem with your textbook vendor, it's a SEPARATE issue. If you have a problem with PARCC or Smarter Balanced, those are SEPARATE issues. If you have a problem with teacher assessments, that is a SEPARATE issue.

So you ignore the part where the creators of the Common Core insist that they thought the TESTING would drive the curriculum for the standards? So much for your "close reading" skills.

You can try to separate your precious standards and put them on a pedestal, but they are mired in the shitfest of politics and all the strings they come attached with.

You obviously aren't tracking any of this coherently, rationally or logically. Follow along slowly.

1. Common Core sets the standard. It is broken out by subject, by grade, by element. If there's a problem somewhere, with an element, it can be fixed. But first you have to say exactly which element and exactly what's wrong with it. That's where the critics keep coming up empty.

2. Obviously, if you want to know if students are meeting the standard, you need testing. Common Core doesn't design the tests, they don't write the questions, they don't grade them - Common Core is just the yardstick to which the tests need to be designed. If the testing sucks, that's not necessarily an indication that the standard is the problem. There are lots of poorly designed tests out there, there are lots of well defined tests out there. You could design a test that sucks around a perfect standard, you could also design a good test around a lousy standard. If the test is a problem, fix the test.

3. If the test is well-designed and well-implemented, and students in one district do well, but students in another district do poorly, that also doesn't necessarily indicate a problem with the standard - you might want to look at curriculum each is using. Maybe one has a better math textbook, and maybe one has a rotten math textbook. Again, Common Core does not write textbooks, private sector vendors do. If the textbook sucks, get a different one. And maybe there are other areas with room for tweaking, for example different supports and teaching practices in place in one versus another which can be adopted by other districts.

Make sense now? All SEPARATE things which, if they are really a problem, can be identified on a very granular level and fixed. But this tired old, over-general and over-politicized "it all sucks" that people like you keep throwing around does not cut it. Not one bit. You're going to have to do better and first of all identify which exact piece of the puzzle you have an issue with, whether it's curriculum, tests, or the actual standard itself, and second, identify the SPECIFIC issue with that piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not a standards problem, that's a problem with how schools and teachers have chosen to implement the standard. The standard did not tell them or force them to teach content without prerequisite skills.

This has been repeated constantly on CC threads. The standards do not exist in a vacuum.

Again, the standards DO NOT dictate or specify the implementation flaws that were noted above, like skipping prerequisites. If prerequisites are being skipped, it's because schools are skipping them, not because of the standard. If you want to suggest anything to the contrary, you'll have to provide a specific citation from the actual standard to support it. http://www.corestandards.org/

What you fail to realize is the standards are just one part of the scheme. It's all about testing and conformity and punishing teachers and school districts. The creators of the Common Core aren't interested in the standards unless they can use them to whip schools and districts into their narrow type of thinking.


They've blatantly said this, in fact, and yet CC supporters insist on this unicorn and rainbow vision of the standards. They are counting on the teachers' fear of the standardized tests to have them all teach in the same fashion. They are alarmed that so many states are dropping out of the PARCC and the Smarter Balanced. And once the test results come out, more states will follow.

That's utter and complete bullshit. It's not a "narrow" way of thinking, nor is it a "way of teaching" - it's a minimum standard. If teachers have something nifty, creative and wonderful that they'd like to add into the mix, they are still PERFECTLY FREE TO DO SO.

Also, PARCC and Smarter Balanced are just two things being developed to align to Common Core. Common Core did not dictate or mandate either of them, again all Common Core does is define a minimum standard, and they left it up to state consortia like Smarter Balanced to figure out how they wanted to deal with it. PARCC is supposed to assess students, not teachers. Where it's being used to assess teachers, that's strictly a local decision, not a Common Core requirement.

Ultimately, getting rid of Common Core is a huge step backward. If you have a problem with Common Core, it should be addressed at the specific elements and standards, to fix them, not just wholesale, vague and generalized trashing and randomly jumbling and commingling what are SEPARATE issues. If you have a problem with crappy materials, that's a problem with your textbook vendor, it's a SEPARATE issue. If you have a problem with PARCC or Smarter Balanced, those are SEPARATE issues. If you have a problem with teacher assessments, that is a SEPARATE issue.

So you ignore the part where the creators of the Common Core insist that they thought the TESTING would drive the curriculum for the standards? So much for your "close reading" skills.

You can try to separate your precious standards and put them on a pedestal, but they are mired in the shitfest of politics and all the strings they come attached with.

You obviously aren't tracking any of this coherently, rationally or logically. Follow along slowly.

1. Common Core sets the standard. It is broken out by subject, by grade, by element. If there's a problem somewhere, with an element, it can be fixed. But first you have to say exactly which element and exactly what's wrong with it. That's where the critics keep coming up empty.

2. Obviously, if you want to know if students are meeting the standard, you need testing. Common Core doesn't design the tests, they don't write the questions, they don't grade them - Common Core is just the yardstick to which the tests need to be designed. If the testing sucks, that's not necessarily an indication that the standard is the problem. There are lots of poorly designed tests out there, there are lots of well defined tests out there. You could design a test that sucks around a perfect standard, you could also design a good test around a lousy standard. If the test is a problem, fix the test.

3. If the test is well-designed and well-implemented, and students in one district do well, but students in another district do poorly, that also doesn't necessarily indicate a problem with the standard - you might want to look at curriculum each is using. Maybe one has a better math textbook, and maybe one has a rotten math textbook. Again, Common Core does not write textbooks, private sector vendors do. If the textbook sucks, get a different one. And maybe there are other areas with room for tweaking, for example different supports and teaching practices in place in one versus another which can be adopted by other districts.

Make sense now? All SEPARATE things which, if they are really a problem, can be identified on a very granular level and fixed. But this tired old, over-general and over-politicized "it all sucks" that people like you keep throwing around does not cut it. Not one bit. You're going to have to do better and first of all identify which exact piece of the puzzle you have an issue with, whether it's curriculum, tests, or the actual standard itself, and second, identify the SPECIFIC issue with that piece.

Common Core standards: Not tested nor vetted anywhere for clarity, effectiveness and results. Obama and Duncan were told by experts like Diane Ravitch, whom they approached for her support and opinion, that they needed to TEST the standards in a school district or several before they rolled them out to a nation. They were in a hurry and refused; we are seeing the results of their haste now. A generation of kids who are guinea pigs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core standards: Not tested nor vetted anywhere for clarity, effectiveness and results. Obama and Duncan were told by experts like Diane Ravitch, whom they approached for her support and opinion, that they needed to TEST the standards in a school district or several before they rolled them out to a nation. They were in a hurry and refused; we are seeing the results of their haste now. A generation of kids who are guinea pigs.

Yes, the anti-Common Core people keep saying they weren't "tested" or "vetted". What, specifically, would you have been to "test" and "vet" the standards?

Also, how does that affect the standards themselves? Are there standards that you think are bad because they weren't "tested" and "vetted"? Which standards? For example, here's a third-grade math standard, which I just grabbed randomly:

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1
Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.

Do you think that this is a bad standard, which "testing" and "vetting" would have improved somehow? If so, how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core standards: Not tested nor vetted anywhere for clarity, effectiveness and results. Obama and Duncan were told by experts like Diane Ravitch, whom they approached for her support and opinion, that they needed to TEST the standards in a school district or several before they rolled them out to a nation. They were in a hurry and refused; we are seeing the results of their haste now. A generation of kids who are guinea pigs.

Yes, the anti-Common Core people keep saying they weren't "tested" or "vetted". What, specifically, would you have been to "test" and "vet" the standards?

Also, how does that affect the standards themselves? Are there standards that you think are bad because they weren't "tested" and "vetted"? Which standards? For example, here's a third-grade math standard, which I just grabbed randomly:

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1
Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.

Do you think that this is a bad standard, which "testing" and "vetting" would have improved somehow? If so, how?

Of course. You would also test to see if it's a proper third grade standard, and if it works in conjunction with the rest of the standards.

They should have introduced the standards as pilot programs around the country, and tracked the children's growth and understanding of the standards as well as the teachers' understanding of the concepts. Teachers also should know what's on the tests that will be used so they can property build the bridges between where kids are to where they need to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core standards: Not tested nor vetted anywhere for clarity, effectiveness and results. Obama and Duncan were told by experts like Diane Ravitch, whom they approached for her support and opinion, that they needed to TEST the standards in a school district or several before they rolled them out to a nation. They were in a hurry and refused; we are seeing the results of their haste now. A generation of kids who are guinea pigs.

Yes, the anti-Common Core people keep saying they weren't "tested" or "vetted". What, specifically, would you have been to "test" and "vet" the standards?

Also, how does that affect the standards themselves? Are there standards that you think are bad because they weren't "tested" and "vetted"? Which standards? For example, here's a third-grade math standard, which I just grabbed randomly:

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1
Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.

Do you think that this is a bad standard, which "testing" and "vetting" would have improved somehow? If so, how?

Of course. You would also test to see if it's a proper third grade standard, and if it works in conjunction with the rest of the standards.

They should have introduced the standards as pilot programs around the country, and tracked the children's growth and understanding of the standards as well as the teachers' understanding of the concepts. Teachers also should know what's on the tests that will be used so they can property build the bridges between where kids are to where they need to be.

How would you "test" and "vet" that it is a "proper" third grade standard? How would you test that it works "in conjunction with the rest of the standards"? Also, you didn't answer -- do you think that this is a bad standard? Do you think that third-graders should not be able to use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100?

Also, the standards, by definition, cannot be pilot programs. The standards are standards. What you want to "test" and "vet" is curriculum.

[Anonymous]

How would you "test" and "vet" that it is a "proper" third grade standard? How would you test that it works "in conjunction with the rest of the standards"? Also, you didn't answer -- do you think that this is a bad standard? Do you think that third-graders should not be able to use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100?

Also, the standards, by definition, cannot be pilot programs. The standards are standards. What you want to "test" and "vet" is curriculum.

DP here. No, standards "cannot be pilot programs". However, they can certainly be vetted in pilot programs. Any educator should know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How would you "test" and "vet" that it is a "proper" third grade standard? How would you test that it works "in conjunction with the rest of the standards"? Also, you didn't answer -- do you think that this is a bad standard? Do you think that third-graders should not be able to use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100?

Also, the standards, by definition, cannot be pilot programs. The standards are standards. What you want to "test" and "vet" is curriculum.

DP here. No, standards "cannot be pilot programs". However, they can certainly be vetted in pilot programs. Any educator should know this.

Please explain specifically how you "vet" a standard in a pilot program.

Also explain how the various previous standards in the various states were "vetted".

[Anonymous]

As for the complaint that the standards never having been tried, tested or vetted, that is a flawed argument. Obama and Duncan were not the ones who developed Common Core - Common Core was developed independent of Federal Government by a multi-state consortium of educators. The Common Core standards were compiled from a number of existing state standards that in many places have been in place, implemented, tested, and vetted as successful for years. The few places that are struggling with Common Core are in many cases new to implementing any kind of robust standards, have made poor choices on curriculum, have stumbled on their own implementation and rollout, whereas many other areas are doing just fine with rolling out Common Core.

[Anonymous]

As for the complaint that the standards never having been tried, tested or vetted, that is a flawed argument. Obama and Duncan were not the ones who developed Common Core - Common Core was developed independent of Federal Government by a multi-state consortium of educators. The Common Core standards were compiled from a number of existing state standards that in many places have been in place, implemented, tested, and vetted as successful for years. The few places that are struggling with Common Core are in many cases new to implementing any kind of robust standards, have made poor choices on curriculum, have stumbled on their own implementation and rollout, whereas many other areas are doing just fine with rolling out Common Core.

No. They were developed by committee and pretty much in isolation. Few classroom teachers had input.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As for the complaint that the standards never having been tried, tested or vetted, that is a flawed argument. Obama and Duncan were not the ones who developed Common Core - Common Core was developed independent of Federal Government by a multi-state consortium of educators. The Common Core standards were compiled from a number of existing state standards that in many places have been in place, implemented, tested, and vetted as successful for years. The few places that are struggling with Common Core are in many cases new to implementing any kind of robust standards, have made poor choices on curriculum, have stumbled on their own implementation and rollout, whereas many other areas are doing just fine with rolling out Common Core.

No. They were developed by committee and pretty much in isolation. Few classroom teachers had input.

Let's say that it's true that few classroom teachers had input. If so, this is purely a process issue, unless the process that you consider bad produced bad standards. Do you think that the process produced bad standards? Could you cite some standards that you think are bad and that would have been better if many classroom teachers had had input?

[Anonymous]

Let's say that it's true that few classroom teachers had input. If so, this is purely a process issue, unless the process that you consider bad produced bad standards. Do you think that the process produced bad standards? Could you cite some standards that you think are bad and that would have been better if many classroom teachers had had input?

Why don't you tell us what good things Common Core is accomplishing? People have already responded to your question repeatedly. You just don't like the responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Let's say that it's true that few classroom teachers had input. If so, this is purely a process issue, unless the process that you consider bad produced bad standards. Do you think that the process produced bad standards? Could you cite some standards that you think are bad and that would have been better if many classroom teachers had had input?

Why don't you tell us what good things Common Core is accomplishing? People have already responded to your question repeatedly. You just don't like the responses.

Where have people responded to these questions? It's always: the standards are bad, the standards are bad. Which standards, and how are they bad? All of them, and they just are, plus also tests, Bill Gates, the federal government, IDEA, and this homework assignment that went viral on the Internet. I'm still waiting to hear about some specific standards that are bad as a result of classroom teachers having little input.

Meanwhile, what good are the Common Core standards accomplishing? Well, they are common -- that's good. And they are standards -- that's also good. Plus they are good standards. Are they going to, all by themselves, solve every problem in US education? Nope. But no reasonable person would expect them to.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, what good are the Common Core standards accomplishing? Well, they are common -- that's good. And they are standards -- that's also good. Plus they are good standards. Are they going to, all by themselves, solve every problem in US education? Nope. But no reasonable person would expect them to.

Enough said. They do nothing to improve our education system. They are "common"? Wow. That was my grandmother's slur for people who acted inappropriately.