"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/02/parcc_jersey_city_teachers_parents_technology.html

PARCC prep 'sucking the life out of children,' Jersey City parents, teachers say

JERSEY CITY — Lisa Rodrick, an educator for 21 years who teaches reading to grades 3, 4 and 5, wears a button to work every day.

So do the other 80 teachers at Alexander D. Sullivan School Number 30 Elementary School, she said.

"Children should be chasing bubbles, not filling them in," Rodrick's button reads.

It's a silent protest against standardized testing, a kind of protest Rodrick believes is happening in other buildings, too.

"Before we decided to switch our weekly tests, I had an 85 percent passing rate. I now have an 85 percent failing rate [in my third grade class]," she said. "It's taken the joy out of reading, just for reading, to learn a lesson out of the story... Common Core and PARCC are sucking the life out of the children. It's asking them to do skills that they're not cognitively ready for."

What NCLB tests did New Jersey have before switching to the PARCC tests? Did those previous tests not require the students to read a passage and then answer questions about it? Did Lisa Rodrick not have to prep her students for those tests? This all seems quite odd to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right - the article is bogus - nobody has even taken the test that she is complaining about yet.

And, there's that flaky "developmentally inappropriate" talking point yet again - with NOTHING to back the assertion up.

And if any teacher is doing "drill and kill" then they are doing it wrong. There's nothing in Common Core that requires "drill and kill" - it's just a minimum set of standards, with very broad latitude in HOW it is taught, and it also does not restrict teachers from doing all the other creative stuff they want to do.

several of the state developed tests have been based on Common Core. DC CAS in DCPS has been testing Common Core Standards for several years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Common Core isn't the problem. Most of the private schools have the same exact standards in place, and they are not substantially different from the standards we had prior to adoption of Common Core. It is the implementation that is the problem - the curriculum, the tests, the approach.

Yes, Common Core is the problem. These standards are awful, poorly written, open to interpretation, and developmentally inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Common Core isn't the problem. Most of the private schools have the same exact standards in place, and they are not substantially different from the standards we had prior to adoption of Common Core. It is the implementation that is the problem - the curriculum, the tests, the approach.

Yes, Common Core is the problem. These standards are awful, poorly written, open to interpretation, and developmentally inappropriate.

We've been through this (and through it, and through it, and through it). Please provide two examples of awful, poorly written, open-to-interpretation, developmentally-inappropriate standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC just took a practice test. DC said it was "hard" because there is an essay portion of the test. I thought it was all multiple choice?

LOL. Hence the validity problem. Tests that are supposed to be evaluating reading and math are actually testing typing, composition, spelling, grammar, and mechanics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC just took a practice test. DC said it was "hard" because there is an essay portion of the test. I thought it was all multiple choice?

LOL. Hence the validity problem. Tests that are supposed to be evaluating reading and math are actually testing typing, composition, spelling, grammar, and mechanics.

The tests are actually supposed to evaluate English/Language Arts, not just reading. Writing (by hand or typing), composition, spelling, grammar, and mechanics are important parts of English/Language Arts. What's more, the previous tests included these components as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Have you looked at the Common Core standards? If not, consider doing so. I would be interested to know which things your child's teacher thinks the children are not ready for and are not in their best interests.

The whole trend with high stakes testing is driving people to private schools. The best teachers are the ones who will leave (because they can find employment elsewhere).

Private schools pay less than publics. I don't see this happening.

True, which is why I'm hanging in there until I retire early, and then I'll teach in a private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC just took a practice test. DC said it was "hard" because there is an essay portion of the test. I thought it was all multiple choice?

LOL. Hence the validity problem. Tests that are supposed to be evaluating reading and math are actually testing typing, composition, spelling, grammar, and mechanics.

The tests are actually supposed to evaluate English/Language Arts, not just reading. Writing (by hand or typing), composition, spelling, grammar, and mechanics are important parts of English/Language Arts. What's more, the previous tests included these components as well.

Previous tests tested reading or writing. The rubrics were completely different for reading than for writing.

[Anonymous]

What do you make of this?

RI.3.3 Describe the relationship between a series of historical events, scientific ideas or concepts, or steps in technical procedures in a text, using language that pertains to time, sequence, and cause/effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC just took a practice test. DC said it was "hard" because there is an essay portion of the test. I thought it was all multiple choice?

LOL. Hence the validity problem. Tests that are supposed to be evaluating reading and math are actually testing typing, composition, spelling, grammar, and mechanics.

The tests are actually supposed to evaluate English/Language Arts, not just reading. Writing (by hand or typing), composition, spelling, grammar, and mechanics are important parts of English/Language Arts. What's more, the previous tests included these components as well.

Previous tests tested reading or writing. The rubrics were completely different for reading than for writing.

How much do you know about the testing rubrics for the practice test that the PP's child took?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of this?

RI.3.3 Describe the relationship between a series of historical events, scientific ideas or concepts, or steps in technical procedures in a text, using language that pertains to time, sequence, and cause/effect.

Makes sense to me. First A happened, then B happened, and B caused C to happen. What's the problem?

[Anonymous]

RI.3.10 By the end of the year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, at the high end of the grades 2-3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

This standard is pretty silly. It assumes that every student comes to a class at the same level. Real teachers who work in real schools know that this is very rare. It's a pointless standard.

[Anonymous]

RL 3.9 Compare and contrast the themes, settings, and plots of stories written by the same author about the same or similar characters (e.g., in books from a series)

This is a third grade standard. I think third graders can learn how to analyze plot, but why theme? That's more of a fifth grade concept. And why put theme and plot together in one standard with the comparison. It's just over the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RI.3.10 By the end of the year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, at the high end of the grades 2-3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

This standard is pretty silly. It assumes that every student comes to a class at the same level. Real teachers who work in real schools know that this is very rare. It's a pointless standard.

No, it doesn't. All it says is that you have to be able to do this by the end of the year to meet the standard. If you can't do it, then you don't meet the standard. I find it very difficult to argue with a standard that basically says that by the end of third grade, third-graders should be able to read informational texts written at the third-grade level.

[Anonymous]

3.OA.2 Interpret whole-number quotients of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 56 ÷ 8 as the number of objects in each share when 56 objects are partitioned equally into 8 shares, or as a number of shares when 56 objects are partitioned into equal shares of 8 objects each. For example, describe a context in which a number of shares or a number of groups can be expressed as 56 ÷ 8.

This is so badly written. It's laughable.