Anonymous wrote:

Why is it a poor standard for K?

Vague
Unclear
What questions? Is it measureable?

Anonymous wrote:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1.b
Use frequently occurring nouns and verbs.

LOL! Does this mean "talk"? Should have looked more carefully at these before. These are worse than I thought.

Why is it a poor standard for K?

Anonymous wrote:

In the case of Thalidomide, they had ACTUAL DATA, ACTUAL RESEARCH and ACTUAL ANALYSES with sound, conclusive information showing that thalidomide was bad.

In the case of Common Core, the anti-CC folks have NO actual data, NO actual research, NO evaluation criteria, and therefore NO actual analyses to support any sound conclusive information actually showing that Common Core is bad or "developmentally inappropriate."

Where is the data, research and evaluation criteria to SUPPORT Common Core? Why is so much money going into Common Core?

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1.b
Use frequently occurring nouns and verbs.

Anonymous wrote:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.K.4
Ask and answer questions about unknown words in a text.

Here's a poor K standard.

Anonymous wrote:

You need to either produce something solid to back up these accusations or STOP.

So, you beg for someone to post an inappropriate standard. PP did and you say one standard isn't enough! There are many poor standards.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.K.4
Ask and answer questions about unknown words in a text.

You need to either produce something solid to back up these accusations or STOP.

In the case of Thalidomide, they had ACTUAL DATA, ACTUAL RESEARCH and ACTUAL ANALYSES with sound, conclusive information showing that thalidomide was bad.

In the case of Common Core, the anti-CC folks have NO actual data, NO actual research, NO evaluation criteria, and therefore NO actual analyses to support any sound conclusive information actually showing that Common Core is bad or "developmentally inappropriate."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have already talked about various standards on other threads (in detail).

No, they haven't. They really haven't. As I recall, the opponents of the Common Core standards have provided ONE standard to support the assertion of developmental inappropriateness, namely 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.

with no explanation about how and why it's DEVELOPMENTALLY inappropriate.

For the sake of argument, let's say that this standard actually is developmentally inappropriate. Does it make sense to throw out the entire Common Core standards because one kindergarten math standard is developmentally inappropriate? In fact, let's go further (again for the sake of argument) and say that every kindergarten standard is developmentally inappropriate. Does it make sense to throw out the entire Common Core standards because the standards for kindergarten are developmentally inappropriate?

Yes. They are rotten from top to bottom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

^There are a lot of things you don't get.

Then please explain how thalidomide is analogous to the Common Core standards. For example:

Dr. Kelsey, in her job at the Food and Drug Administration, withheld FDA approval of thalidomide because she was worried about some data that showed dangerous side effects in patients who took the drug repeatedly. While she was still withholding FDA approval, there began to be reports in Europe of severe birth defects in babies whose mothers had taken thalidomide. Dr. Taussig, a pediatric cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University heard these reports, traveled to Europe to investigate, and then testified before the Senate about the dangers of thalidomide. The FDA never approved thalidomide.

Analogously,....<--this is the part you should fill in, please

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/changingthefaceofmedicine/physicians/biography_182.html

Anonymous wrote:

^There are a lot of things you don't get.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your history of thalidomide and the FDA is factually incorrect. The FDA never licensed or approved thalidomide, and fewer than 100 babies affected by thalidomide were born in the US.

http://guides.main.library.emory.edu/c.php?g=50422&p=325039

But they didn't stop the experimental use of it through pharmaceutical companies. Many babies died before their first birthdays.

I do not understand how thalidomide is analogous to the Common Core standards.