Anonymous wrote:

If students in chemistry have to give up chemistry lab in favor of reading scientific writing about chemistry, somebody is doing it wrong.

Believe me, the Common Core "ratio police" will be out checking! This is an example of an unintended consequence.

If students in chemistry have to give up chemistry lab in favor of reading scientific writing about chemistry, somebody is doing it wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Purpose. This document commits states to a state-led process that will draw on evidence and lead to development and adoption of a common core of state standards (common core) in English language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. These standards will be aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and be internationally benchmarked. The intent is that these standards will be aligned to state assessment and classroom practice. The second phase of this initiative will be the development of common assessments aligned to the core standards developed through this process.

some additional bolding

Anonymous wrote:

Good news! The Common Core does not require an English teacher to do this! The 60% non-fiction/40% fiction breakdown is for ALL of the reading the student does, in every class, combined. Students could do 100% fiction in their English classes and still meet this.

However, if a "standard" is set, someone--the teachers--will have to measure it. Pity the poor chem students who have to give up lab to ensure they get in their right percentage.

Purpose. This document commits states to a state-led process that will draw on evidence and lead to development and adoption of a common core of state standards (common core) in English language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. These standards will be aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and be internationally benchmarked. The intent is that these standards will be aligned to state assessment and classroom practice. The second phase of this initiative will be the development of common assessments aligned to the core standards developed through this process.

Good news! The Common Core does not require an English teacher to do this! The 60% non-fiction/40% fiction breakdown is for ALL of the reading the student does, in every class, combined. Students could do 100% fiction in their English classes and still meet this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So when Scott said "I was told they hadn’t been written, but they still wanted my signature on the letter." -- he completely misinterpreted the point of this Memorandum of Understanding. Completely. Because when people hear what he said, they interpret it this way: "I was told I had to sign off agreeing Texas would adopt all these standards, but they wouldn't let me actually read the standards, in fact they hadn't been written."


Actually, it's worse than that. He misrepresented what he has been asked to sign.

One wonders why he misrepresented it. Was he ignorant? or deliberately misleading the public?

He was showing common sense. I'm going to sign on in support of the development of something that I may not like? Really?

Anonymous wrote:It is a stupid standard. Why should an English teacher cut back on fiction that the kids enjoy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The federal government is already using CC as a means to control education in the states. It is called "Race to the Top".

How is the federal government controlling education in the states through "Race to the Top"? How much of "Race to the Top" are the Common Core standards?

I suggest you go to the DofED website and read Race to the Top. Getting federal money is totally tied to common core. It will only get worse.

People and organizations do that all the time. You sign with an architect to create plans for an addition before you've seen the following plan. The military signs with an weapons manufacturer to develop a new weapon before the weapon is finished. In both of those cases, you still have the option of saying "no thank you" if the final product (the plans, not the addition or the weapon) is not to your liking. This was the same thing. Texas was asked whether they wanted to be part of the coalition that was creating the standards. They said no, which is fair enough, but yes would also have been a reasonable thing to say.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The federal government is already using CC as a means to control education in the states. It is called "Race to the Top".

How is the federal government controlling education in the states through "Race to the Top"? How much of "Race to the Top" are the Common Core standards?

I suggest you go to the DofED website and read Race to the Top. Getting federal money is totally tied to common core. It will only get worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Do you understand why that percentage of non fiction reading was specified? Because unfortunately in many schools (especially those with kids of low socio-economic status) students are NOT usually assigned non fiction reading (esp. in science and social studies).

I understand that when children are not reading -or are interested in reading--that the most important thing to do is get them to READ! You do that by finding things for them to read that they LIKE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So when Scott said "I was told they hadn’t been written, but they still wanted my signature on the letter." -- he completely misinterpreted the point of this Memorandum of Understanding. Completely. Because when people hear what he said, they interpret it this way: "I was told I had to sign off agreeing Texas would adopt all these standards, but they wouldn't let me actually read the standards, in fact they hadn't been written."


Actually, it's worse than that. He misrepresented what he has been asked to sign.

One wonders why he misrepresented it. Was he ignorant? or deliberately misleading the public?

He was showing common sense. I'm going to sign on in support of the development of something that I may not like? Really?