"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://m.ky3.com/missouri-judge-rules-pact-with-common-core-testing-illegal/21050392_31458122

More unraveling?

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri judge says the state's membership to a testing company aligned with the national Common Core education standards is illegal and that it shouldn't pay fees to be part of the group.

Cole County Circuit judge Daniel Green ruled Tuesday that the state's partnership with the Common Core testing company is an "illegal interstate compact not authorized by the U.S. Congress."

The attorney general's office represents the state and is reviewing the ruling.

Missouri's education department budgeted about $4.3 million for member dues this fiscal year.

The Common Core education standards and tests aligned with them have been a magnet for critics, including the three plaintiffs in the court case ruled on Tuesday.

I am not a lawyer. Do county circuit court judges typically rule on Congressional authorization of interstate compacts?

[Anonymous]

I am not a lawyer. Do county circuit court judges typically rule on Congressional authorization of interstate compacts?

He is not ruling on the authorization, he is ruling on a state purchase. The federal law is the law and the judge rules according to laws-any law which has authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My child was in Montessori and all in one pre-k year learned numbers 1-10, teens, hundreds, thousands, counting and skip counting with chains, and what's called the "bank game" and "exchange game" where kids take those base 10 blocks and exchange hundreds for 10's and so forth to add and subtract numbers. This is actually a very common occurrence for a pre-k child in Montessori. It would make sense that kindergarten could teach these things to kids one year older but they often don't have the materials to do so well. The Montessori materials for learning place value look like this http://www.montessorioutlet.com/cgi-bin/item/51050...ri-Outlet-Golden-Bead-Material

Given the fact that you are writing on DCUM, I would imagine that your child started pre-K with a fairly decent vocabulary along with other skills that many, many kids do not have before K.

It is invalid to argue that the kindergarten standards are developmentally inappropriate when there are many kindergarteners (and indeed pre-kindergarteners) who are able to meet the standards.

I'm certain that there are many kindergarteners who are not able to meet the standards, but that is not an issue of child development.

Actually, it is. To be developmentally appropriate MOST KIDS should be able to relatively easily meet the standards. There are a few people who are developmentally capable of being geniuses -- but most people aren't and that isn't considered the standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My child was in Montessori and all in one pre-k year learned numbers 1-10, teens, hundreds, thousands, counting and skip counting with chains, and what's called the "bank game" and "exchange game" where kids take those base 10 blocks and exchange hundreds for 10's and so forth to add and subtract numbers. This is actually a very common occurrence for a pre-k child in Montessori. It would make sense that kindergarten could teach these things to kids one year older but they often don't have the materials to do so well. The Montessori materials for learning place value look like this http://www.montessorioutlet.com/cgi-bin/item/51050...ri-Outlet-Golden-Bead-Material

Given the fact that you are writing on DCUM, I would imagine that your child started pre-K with a fairly decent vocabulary along with other skills that many, many kids do not have before K.

It is invalid to argue that the kindergarten standards are developmentally inappropriate when there are many kindergarteners (and indeed pre-kindergarteners) who are able to meet the standards.

I'm certain that there are many kindergarteners who are not able to meet the standards, but that is not an issue of child development.

Actually, it is. To be developmentally appropriate MOST KIDS should be able to relatively easily meet the standards. There are a few people who are developmentally capable of being geniuses -- but most people aren't and that isn't considered the standard.

That's an interesting definition of "developmentally appropriate". In any case, people seem to be arguing specifically that poor kids from low-education backgrounds will not be able to meet the standards. If middle-class kids can do it and poor kids can't, it's not a child development issue.

[Anonymous]

Actually, it is. To be developmentally appropriate MOST KIDS should be able to relatively easily meet the standards. There are a few people who are developmentally capable of being geniuses -- but most people aren't and that isn't considered the standard.

Good point, and many of the K standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, it is. To be developmentally appropriate MOST KIDS should be able to relatively easily meet the standards. There are a few people who are developmentally capable of being geniuses -- but most people aren't and that isn't considered the standard.

Good point, and many of the K standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child.

Could you please give some examples of the "many" kindergarten standards that are not developmentally appropriate for the average child? Also, how do you know that they are not developmentally appropriate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, it is. To be developmentally appropriate MOST KIDS should be able to relatively easily meet the standards. There are a few people who are developmentally capable of being geniuses -- but most people aren't and that isn't considered the standard.

Good point, and many of the K standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child.

Could you please give some examples of the "many" kindergarten standards that are not developmentally appropriate for the average child? Also, how do you know that they are not developmentally appropriate?

Where is your data and what are your specific criteria to support your assertion that "many" kindergarten standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child?

[Anonymous]

Where is your data and what are your specific criteria to support your assertion that "many" kindergarten standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child?

Experience. Where is your data to support your assertion that they are appropriate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Where is your data and what are your specific criteria to support your assertion that "many" kindergarten standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child?

Experience. Where is your data to support your assertion that they are appropriate?

No, it doesn't work that way. You said that they are inappropriate. Which standards are inappropriate, and how do you know that they are inappropriate?

[Anonymous]

No, it doesn't work that way. You said that they are inappropriate. Which standards are inappropriate, and how do you know that they are inappropriate?

There is one posted above. I've posted several on other threads.

[Anonymous]

How it generally works is that theory has to be put into practice in order to verify the theory. Otherwise what you have is just theoretical. You cannot know if it works for the majority of children until it is tried (the experimental phase).

If practice (experience) shows that theory is lacking, theory needs to change to explain the results of practice.

Has there been enough time for this process to unfold? Is it premature to make any big decisions based on the "tests"?

The fact that there is so much argument suggests that there has not been enough time to vet the process thoroughly. Argument is good if it hones the standards and the whole process.

[Anonymous]

Where is your data and what are your specific criteria to support your assertion that "many" kindergarten standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child?


Experience. Where is your data to support your assertion that they are appropriate?

This is a very important question because the data can only come through the practice (experiential) phase. Has this happened?

[Anonymous]

How it generally works is that theory has to be put into practice in order to verify the theory. Otherwise what you have is just theoretical. You cannot know if it works for the majority of children until it is tried (the experimental phase).

If practice (experience) shows that theory is lacking, theory needs to change to explain the results of practice.

Has there been enough time for this process to unfold? Is it premature to make any big decisions based on the "tests"?

The fact that there is so much argument suggests that there has not been enough time to vet the process thoroughly. Argument is good if it hones the standards and the whole process.

Exactly. There was no development process. Committees were chosen tow write the standards. Committees that did not even include people from early childhood expertise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. There was no development process. Committees were chosen tow write the standards. Committees that did not even include people from early childhood expertise.

Oh, look, we're back to the sausage-making, instead of the actual sausage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, it doesn't work that way. You said that they are inappropriate. Which standards are inappropriate, and how do you know that they are inappropriate?

There is one posted above. I've posted several on other threads.

Which one? This one?

CCSS.Math.Content.K.NBT.A.1
Compose and decompose numbers from 11 to 19 into ten ones and some further ones, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record each composition or decomposition by a drawing or equation (such as 18 = 10 + 8); understand that these numbers are composed of ten ones and one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine ones.

The reactions to this one were:

1. My kid did this in pre-school
2. MCPS used to do this in kindergarten before the Common Core standards
3. Children who start kindergarten behind will not be able to do this

So no, I'm not persuaded. How about another one? How about this one, for example?

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.A.1
Count to 100 by ones and by tens.