READ that page, it lists the numerous steps that were taken, the many organizations that were involved, the many many points of engagement, involvement and input..

And consider the source that told you there was no input and that it was all secret - far right wing propagandists like Heartland Institute, who are working with the exact same people who for years put out propaganda that tobacco smoking was perfectly safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core had a huge amount of input from classroom teachers. http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/

LOL! Consider the source.

Common Core had a huge amount of input from classroom teachers. http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/

Anonymous wrote:I'm a kindergarten teacher.
I agree with OP. I feel like the love of school is sucked out of the classroom now with so much focus on just reading and writing. Yes, I know that a good teacher can incorporate fun into the lessons, but there are just too few experienced "good" teachers these days. The pressure to churn out lesson plans that are scripted and highlight strict adherence to common core leaves a lot of teachers burnt out. I've seen teachers at my school sit a class of kindergartners at their tables to "read" at the beginning of the year for 45-60 mins straight. They can't read yet. They're just staring at the pages and being penalized when their attention drifts to something else. The opportunity to foster a love of learning is being taken away by such expectations.
-just my two cents

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Common Core standards were not written with input from classroom teachers--you know, those people who must teach the kids. The ones who work with them every day and understand the process.

Absolute nonsense. For one thing, Common Core was developed based on existing state standards, which were initially developed by teachers in several different states, and then, as these existing, vetted standards were compiled and developed into Common Core, they had additional input, review and vetting from many different teaching and academic organizations, and had input and review by thousands of teaching professionals. Spare us the bogus Heartland Institute talking points. Not everything you read on a right wing blog or hear on FOX News is true.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a kindergarten teacher.
I agree with OP. I feel like the love of school is sucked out of the classroom now with so much focus on just reading and writing. Yes, I know that a good teacher can incorporate fun into the lessons, but there are just too few experienced "good" teachers these days. The pressure to churn out lesson plans that are scripted and highlight strict adherence to common core leaves a lot of teachers burnt out. I've seen teachers at my school sit a class of kindergartners at their tables to "read" at the beginning of the year for 45-60 mins straight. They can't read yet. They're just staring at the pages and being penalized when their attention drifts to something else. The opportunity to foster a love of learning is being taken away by such expectations.
-just my two cents

Anonymous wrote:

No, I am aware that the anti-CC group *thinks* they are improving things (though, I'm not sure how, because they haven't actually proposed any improvement other than "repeal" just as the GOP doesn't have any bonafide proposal for making healthcare more affordable other than "repeal ObamaCare" which absolutely would not do that), but what the anti-CC folks are blissfully unaware of are things like, just how bad things were before CC, and how despite whatever intended misguided altruism they may have, the anti-CC folks in fact make the situation worse, not better. Just spelling out the reality, which is contrary to their perceptions.

Wow! People complain and you attack them personally. Please explain why Common Core is going to fix things.

Anonymous wrote:Common Core standards were not written with input from classroom teachers--you know, those people who must teach the kids. The ones who work with them every day and understand the process.

No, I am aware that the anti-CC group *thinks* they are improving things (though, I'm not sure how, because they haven't actually proposed any improvement other than "repeal" just as the GOP doesn't have any bonafide proposal for making healthcare more affordable other than "repeal ObamaCare" which absolutely would not do that), but what the anti-CC folks are blissfully unaware of are things like, just how bad things were before CC, and how despite whatever intended misguided altruism they may have, the anti-CC folks in fact make the situation worse, not better. Just spelling out the reality, which is contrary to their perceptions.

A MUCH more efficient way to teach letter sounds is to introduce them FIRST as their most common sounds. After that, it is a simple matter to teach the correct letter names. Much easier than the way we have traditionally done things.

Anonymous wrote:

Yet, what the anti-CC folks are advocating for is to eliminate even the "slow and pointless" of simple picture books and emergent readers for Kindergartners (and again, tens of millions of us grew up just fine reading them in K) in favor of nothing but the spoken word. From dumb to dumber is the direction that they want to pursue.

Obviously, you have trouble with your own reading skills if that is your interpretation of the anti CC group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I do think a few of the K standards are either too ambitious, or not necessary. The standard that says students will know a letter NAME for every capital AND lowercase letter. I think that is unnecessary. Students should be expected to learn a SOUND for every letter but not to produce the name. That is a more efficient way to teach beginning reading. When kids see the word "hop" they need to be ale to say /h/ .../o/.../p/ (the sounds of the letters). Whether they know that the letter "h" is an /aitch/ is irrelevant.

Disagree. Name of the letter should come before the sound. I would expect K kids to know the names of all the letters and some sounds--not vice versa.

Well, you and a whole lot of people think we should teach letter names before letter sounds.

But the smart, most efficient way to teach kids to read is to introduce each letter by its most common sound. That's the Montessori method BTW.

The reason this is more efficient is that SO MANY of the letter names in English do not bear a resemblance to the most common sound.

The letters b, d, j, k, p, t, v and z are pretty easy to move from letter name to sound. "bee", "dee", "tee" etc -- once the child can segment sounds, they can segment the initial sound /t/ from the ending sound /ee/ and go from letter name tee to common sound /t/.

The letters f, l, m, n, s, and x are not too hard either but kids need to learn that you take the letter name "ef" and segment it to /e/ /f/ and it's the second phoneme not the first that is the most common sound.

The letters c and g are a bit more troublesome in that the first phoneme in their letter name IS a possible sound for that letter, but not the most common one. So kids need to learn "c" represents the sound k or s etc.

The names for h, w and y are completely useless and trip kids up. It helps you not at all to know that the letter 'h' is an "aitch" and the letter "w" is a "Doubleyou". It would be much better to rename them "hay" and "wuh "!

Don't even get me started on the short vowels.

A MUCH more efficient way to teach letter sounds is to introduce them FIRST as their most common sounds. After that, it is a simple matter to teach the correct letter names. Much easier than the way we have traditionally done things.