"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[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.

The problem is that you need some data. You cannot just say what "reactions" were to your posted standards here on DCUM. Those comments do not constitute a properly researched investigation of the standard and its impact on a wide variety of students. It is really up to the people who are gung ho about these standards to persuade the skeptics. They need real world experience and data to show the naysayers. Otherwise they will just keep saying, the standards are good and you have to show us they aren't. That's not how true progress is made. There has to be more than just "I think they're good". They are the ones who put the standards out there so they are the ones who must show others that they did the right thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that you need some data. You cannot just say what "reactions" were to your posted standards here on DCUM. Those comments do not constitute a properly researched investigation of the standard and its impact on a wide variety of students. It is really up to the people who are gung ho about these standards to persuade the skeptics. They need real world experience and data to show the naysayers. Otherwise they will just keep saying, the standards are good and you have to show us they aren't. That's not how true progress is made. There has to be more than just "I think they're good". They are the ones who put the standards out there so they are the ones who must show others that they did the right thing.

Of course I can say that. (For one thing, I actually did say that.) The discussion here is the discussion here. And in the discussion here, it is really up to the people who keep saying "it's developmentally inappropriate!" to provide some evidence of the developmental inappropriateness.

What is your response to people who say that their child could do this in pre-K?

What is your response to people who say that this was already part of the curriculum in MCPS before Maryland adopted the Common Core standards?

What is your response to people who say that the inability of poor children from uneducated families to meet this standard is not evidence of developmental inappropriateness?

And do you think that this standard is developmentally inappropriate?

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that you need some data. You cannot just say what "reactions" were to your posted standards here on DCUM. Those comments do not constitute a properly researched investigation of the standard and its impact on a wide variety of students. It is really up to the people who are gung ho about these standards to persuade the skeptics. They need real world experience and data to show the naysayers. Otherwise they will just keep saying, the standards are good and you have to show us they aren't. That's not how true progress is made. There has to be more than just "I think they're good". They are the ones who put the standards out there so they are the ones who must show others that they did the right thing.

Of course I can say that. (For one thing, I actually did say that.) The discussion here is the discussion here. And in the discussion here, it is really up to the people who keep saying "it's developmentally inappropriate!" to provide some evidence of the developmental inappropriateness.

What is your response to people who say that their child could do this in pre-K?

What is your response to people who say that this was already part of the curriculum in MCPS before Maryland adopted the Common Core standards?

What is your response to people who say that the inability of poor children from uneducated families to meet this standard is not evidence of developmental inappropriateness?

And do you think that this standard is developmentally inappropriate?

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

My child could do this. However, I don't think it's a good K standard. It's a good 1st grade standards.


K standards would be best keeping the numbers under 20.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, that is incorrect and you have no factual basis for saying this. Committees DID NOT write the standards from scratch. They mostly compiled them from EXISTING state standards that in many cases have already been in place for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, that is incorrect and you have no factual basis for saying this. Committees DID NOT write the standards from scratch. They mostly compiled them from EXISTING state standards that in many cases have already been in place for years.

Prove it. Without quoting from the CCSS website.

[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?

That isn't evidence. That isn't data. Stop deflecting, you're the one making accusations here, so you are the one who has the entire burden of proof.

Where is your data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And do you think that this standard is developmentally inappropriate?

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

My child could do this. However, I don't think it's a good K standard. It's a good 1st grade standards.

K standards would be best keeping the numbers under 20.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Teachers *WERE* involved in developing Common Core. Politifact researched it, contacted numerous people, and ruled the claim that no teachers were involved as FALSE.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/oct/21/public-comments-common-core-hearing/teachers-were-not-involved-developing-common-core-/

Strike that talking point from your repertoire. It fiction and is no longer welcome here.

[Anonymous]

Some more reading for the rabid anti-CCer... Solidly debunks many more of her talking points relating to the quality and relevancy of Common Core... http://www.ocd.pitt.edu/Files/PDF/spr282_final.pdf

[Anonymous]

This lays out the case for Common Core:

http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0812BENCHMARKING.PDF

[Anonymous]

There is plenty of evidence and data to back up Common Core as one can find by drilling into the documents just posted.

If the anti-Common Core poster wants to make any more statements, they will have to be backed up with hard evidence and data. Opinions will not suffice. Statements without data will not be accepted.

[Anonymous]

The unbiased (cough cough) first author of your article:

David Conley is Professor in the College of Education and
Director of the Center for Educational Policy Research
at the University of Oregon. He also serves as CEO of
EPIC, the Educational Policy Improvement Center, and
President of EdImagine Strategy Group. He conducts
research on high school-college alignment and transition,
high school and college course content analysis,
and large-scale diagnosis and assessment of college
readiness. His findings have been published in numerous
technical reports, conference papers, book chapters, and
journals, such as Education Week, Educational Administration
Quarterly, Educational Policy, the Journal of
College Admission, Principal Leadership, and Educational
Leadership. His latest book is entitled Getting Ready
for College, Careers, and the Common Core. Dr. Conley
serves on numerous technical and advisory panels. He
co-chaired the Common Core State Standards Validation
Committee and is a member of the Smarter Balanced
Technical Advisory Committee.

[Anonymous]

If the anti-Common Core poster wants to make any more statements, they will have to be backed up with hard evidence and data. Opinions will not suffice. Statements without data will not be accepted.

Who are you? The police for DCUM???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The unbiased (cough cough) first author of your article:

David Conley is Professor in the College of Education and
Director of the Center for Educational Policy Research
at the University of Oregon. He also serves as CEO of
EPIC, the Educational Policy Improvement Center, and
President of EdImagine Strategy Group. He conducts
research on high school-college alignment and transition,
high school and college course content analysis,
and large-scale diagnosis and assessment of college
readiness. His findings have been published in numerous
technical reports, conference papers, book chapters, and
journals, such as Education Week, Educational Administration
Quarterly, Educational Policy, the Journal of
College Admission, Principal Leadership, and Educational
Leadership. His latest book is entitled Getting Ready
for College, Careers, and the Common Core. Dr. Conley
serves on numerous technical and advisory panels. He
co-chaired the Common Core State Standards Validation
Committee and is a member of the Smarter Balanced
Technical Advisory Committee.

If a Common Core supporter is a biased source, then a Common Core opponent is also a biased source. Please provide an unbiased source for your assertion that the Common Core standards did not [whatever your assertion was].

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If the anti-Common Core poster wants to make any more statements, they will have to be backed up with hard evidence and data. Opinions will not suffice. Statements without data will not be accepted.

Who are you? The police for DCUM???

Just someone who's fed up with unsubstantiated bullshit.