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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, please. I don't at all have it wrong. You aren't doing any "soil testing" - by rejecting standards and testing you are just completely winging it all the way

No. The local builder is working hands on. He knows how fast he can build that house. He also knows if the foundation can support the frame.

The fact is, your local builder doesn't know if he can actually get the roof on the building - because he does not have a blueprint to work from and due to a lack of end-to-end project planning it's quite likely his time and materials will run out before he even gets the building fully framed.

Anybody can swing a hammer and nail 2x4s together, but it takes an architect to make a proper house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No. The local builder is working hands on. He knows how fast he can build that house. He also knows if the foundation can support the frame.

This is it. Common Core eliminates all custom built housing. It's all tract all the way. Requiring that all houses be the same--even if the soil conditions are different. Even if some people don't want the McMansion but want a well built smaller home with trees.

UNTRUE. Common Core is a MINIMUM standard. You can put whatever additions and enhancements on to it that you like.

[Anonymous]

UNTRUE. Common Core is a MINIMUM standard. You can put whatever additions and enhancements on to it that you like.

Same basic blueprint that does not consider the soil. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anybody can swing a hammer and nail 2x4s together, but it takes an architect to make a proper house.

Without the builder, the architect's house is only on paper. However, lots of builders can build a house without an architect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

UNTRUE. Common Core is a MINIMUM standard. You can put whatever additions and enhancements on to it that you like.

Same basic blueprint that does not consider the soil. Period.

And this is also a wrong assumption. Plenty of false claims made about "developmental inappropriateness" without any real evidence to support it. You claim the soil won't support it yet in 100+ pages of discussion threads you STILL can't seem to produce anything adequately specific or detailed relating to testing soil and determining what it can or cannot support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anybody can swing a hammer and nail 2x4s together, but it takes an architect to make a proper house.

Without the builder, the architect's house is only on paper. However, lots of builders can build a house without an architect.

There are tens of thousands of handymen out there who claim to know it all and can build a house, but who in fact couldn't even build a chicken coop.

[Anonymous]

And this is also a wrong assumption. Plenty of false claims made about "developmental inappropriateness" without any real evidence to support it. You claim the soil won't support it yet in 100+ pages of discussion threads you STILL can't seem to produce anything adequately specific or detailed relating to testing soil and determining what it can or cannot support.

Here you go:

A child who starts Kindergarten and cannot tell that an M is different from a T is not likely to be ready to learn long and short vowels. Many children start K without being able to identify letters of the alphabet. Will some learn long and short vowels? Yes. Will most? Not likely and it would not be developmentally appropriate for that child. There are many other things that are more important for that child to learn first. That is basic information. You can argue it if you like, but most--if not all- K teachers would agree. Unfortunately, the committees who developed Common Core did not have anyone with recent early childhood experience--if any at all. They certainly did not have any experience with kids who come from struggling environments. There are many skills involved in learning to read: visual discrimination; auditory discrimination; etc. These need to be developed before all of the Common Core requirements kick in. Most important, however, is rich vocabulary development and other readiness skills. Pushing kids to read too soon means that so many other things are being left out. So many things that will help the kids understand what they read later--when they do learn to read.
When the Common Core Committees decided to start at the top, they left all of this out. A PP said that these skills are foundational. No, they are not. You have to start at the bottom and build. These standards were written with a lofty goal--but they miss the mark. Sadly, the poorest children will suffer the most. That is where my heart is.
One of the posters on this site keeps throwing out political arguments--as if that is what the people who dislike the standards are basing the arguments on. She is dead wrong. The teaches on this site who adamantly oppose Common Core are concerned about the kids they teach. They understand the serious consequences of this program. And, yes, they understand that NCLB is a huge part of it. However, Common Core is a piggyback program to NCLB. It is not separate and cannot be separated from it because so much of it is riding on the tests that are supported and developed by the same people that support Common core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And this is also a wrong assumption. Plenty of false claims made about "developmental inappropriateness" without any real evidence to support it. You claim the soil won't support it yet in 100+ pages of discussion threads you STILL can't seem to produce anything adequately specific or detailed relating to testing soil and determining what it can or cannot support.

Here you go:

A child who starts Kindergarten and cannot tell that an M is different from a T is not likely to be ready to learn long and short vowels. Many children start K without being able to identify letters of the alphabet. Will some learn long and short vowels? Yes. Will most? Not likely and it would not be developmentally appropriate for that child. There are many other things that are more important for that child to learn first. That is basic information. You can argue it if you like, but most--if not all- K teachers would agree. Unfortunately, the committees who developed Common Core did not have anyone with recent early childhood experience--if any at all. They certainly did not have any experience with kids who come from struggling environments. There are many skills involved in learning to read: visual discrimination; auditory discrimination; etc. These need to be developed before all of the Common Core requirements kick in. Most important, however, is rich vocabulary development and other readiness skills. Pushing kids to read too soon means that so many other things are being left out. So many things that will help the kids understand what they read later--when they do learn to read.
When the Common Core Committees decided to start at the top, they left all of this out. A PP said that these skills are foundational. No, they are not. You have to start at the bottom and build. These standards were written with a lofty goal--but they miss the mark. Sadly, the poorest children will suffer the most. That is where my heart is.
One of the posters on this site keeps throwing out political arguments--as if that is what the people who dislike the standards are basing the arguments on. She is dead wrong. The teaches on this site who adamantly oppose Common Core are concerned about the kids they teach. They understand the serious consequences of this program. And, yes, they understand that NCLB is a huge part of it. However, Common Core is a piggyback program to NCLB. It is not separate and cannot be separated from it because so much of it is riding on the tests that are supported and developed by the same people that support Common core.

You're never going to get the roof on that house.

[Anonymous]

You're never going to get the roof on that house.

No. Not if the Common Core people keep insisting on building on a bad foundation. However, their houses are collapsing as we speak. And, they have fewer buyers than ever. For the kids, I hope the market collapses and that we can go back to building our own houses.

[Anonymous]

^ Sure, let's just perpetuate that soft racism of low expectations under the guise of that bleeding heart "Sadly, the poorest children will suffer the most. That is where my heart is" schtick.

As long as you are watering down your goals and expectations like that, you end up setting them up for failure anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Sure, let's just perpetuate that soft racism of low expectations under the guise of that bleeding heart "Sadly, the poorest children will suffer the most. That is where my heart is" schtick.

As long as you are watering down your goals and expectations like that, you end up setting them up for failure anyhow.

Ah...... the race card. That always works.

[Anonymous]

As long as you are watering down your goals and expectations like that, you end up setting them up for failure anyhow.

You really do not understand how harmful it is to skip the foundational skills? Seriously? You do understand that there are kids who have almost never seen a book unless they go to Head Start?

[Anonymous]

^ You don't understand at all. You set them up for failure by teaching where they aren't. You don't have a prayer of getting to the roof if you don't start where they are. You have never taught---that much is obvious. It is worth the time to build the strong foundation. The structure is most important---if you don't have that, you are doomed. You confuse building from where a child is with "watering down".

If you want to do something positive, I would say that you should work towards getting preschool for all of these children. At least two years worth of preschool. You can't "cram" the learning with kids this age.

[Anonymous]

As long as you are watering down your goals and expectations like that, you end up setting them up for failure anyhow.

Ah, so much better to set them up for failure by demanding the kids do something for which they are not ready. Like expecting them to hit a home run the first time they swing a bat. Sure, it could happen. Wouldn't it be better to teach them to swing first. Don't they need to know where to run and how to run the bases before they go to bat?

[Anonymous]

I really think they missed out by not having early child educators on the CC committee. Those grades are really the most important ones.