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

It is vague and imprecise and does not meet the criteria set up by the Common Core group. Go read it.

It seems to me that you are making something simple into something very complicated.

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

is one of three standards related to craft and structure for reading literature. It is not a standard that sits there all by itself, being responsible for everything. There are also standards for foundational skills, for speaking and listening, for language, and so on.

And how will it be tested? Presumably by the teacher assessing whether or not the child is able to do this. How else? There is nothing in the Common Core standards that says that proficiency in the standards must be assessed via a written test.

What part of "standard" do you not understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Is "What does that word mean?" developmentally beyond the ability of a kindergartener?

Well, do you have to prompt him to ask or is he supposed to ask on his own? Does he know what the word "word" means? Does he know word boundaries yet? If he has to pick it out of a text, which the standard says, does he have to point to it and/or be able to read it? If he can ask based on the word being read to him, is he supposed to ask specifically about the word (word boundary again) or can he just say, "I don't understand" about a whole phrase that includes the word (I would guess not because the standard is asking about a word)?

And how will this be tested if the child does not read yet? The standard says that this is based on a text. What exactly is the standard looking for here? It's unclear to me.

It seems to me that you are making something simple into something very complicated.

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

is one of three standards related to craft and structure for reading literature. It is not a standard that sits there all by itself, being responsible for everything. There are also standards for foundational skills, for speaking and listening, for language, and so on.

And how will it be tested? Presumably by the teacher assessing whether or not the child is able to do this. How else? There is nothing in the Common Core standards that says that proficiency in the standards must be assessed via a written test.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/18/everything-you-need-to-know-about-common-core-ravitch/

Long article, but lays it all out. I found the money part particularly interesting. Gates even paid the teachers' unions. Feds paid Pearson to develop tests. All with no field testing. Sad.

In the case of CC, the CC makers have distributed experimental "samples" to the schools. We are now conducting the "experiment". Let's see what happens. The results are coming in.

No, the "samples" have already been "approved" by the regulators. With no vetting or piloting. What a mess.

And in the case of thalidomide, there were 100 cases in the US because the manufacturers were allowed to distribute experimental "samples" to doctors.

In the case of CC, the CC makers have distributed experimental "samples" to the schools. We are now conducting the "experiment". Let's see what happens. The results are coming in.

One other thing about standards. In a professional setting they are usually formulated by the professionals themselves for their profession.

In the case of the toilets, it would be rare to have a committee of toilet manufacturers come up with the standards. It would be more of a plumbing association along with sewer experts who would be involved with standards. There could be some building people involved. But, exceptions may be made on the toilet standards based on the pipes in an older city or the capacity of the sewage plant or etc., etc. Even standards that do not deal with human beings (who are very, very complex) have to have some flexibility in order to encompass varying possible real world scenarios.

Standards are somewhat subjective. They are not like facts where you can say, "this is the truth".

It's not "dodging the truth" when there is no real truth out there. There's just more relevant and irrelevant or less relevant. And there can be no "truth" when you are applying the standards to human beings who can be very different from one another.

If we had standards for something besides humans, say standards for bathroom toilets, well then you could measure each toilet against the standard and say whether it passed the standard or not. But you could not say that the standard was "the truth". Maybe the standard is that you can flush two pounds of crap with 2 gallons of water without clogging. Whether this is possible or not is kind of important to knowing whether it's a workable standard. It's not a "truth" thing. And you can get people who debate the standard for all kinds of reasons. Maybe the toilet functions differently in Denver than it does in New Orleans because of altitude or water pressure or who knows what. But this all must be discussed. The people in Denver would not be dodging any kind of "truth" if they disagreed over the standard. Maybe their standard just needs to be different to be relevant for them.

Okay, I know you don't like these analogies and I'm sure you're going to look up how toilets work now.

And you are right about your sentence. I'm sorry I was hard on you about your and you're.

Anonymous wrote:

Look, for the 492nd time, your repeating this same old crap over and over again without anything on your part to substantiate a single claim of yours IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT TRUE.

Standards are not about truths. They are about relevance.

Also it's you're. You also have a run-on sentence (not sure which standard that is---probably 8th grade or so).

A.) It wasn't "you are" - it was that annoying habit of repeating things over and over of YOURS (possessive).
B.) Sorry you have problems with big sentences. Not my problem, and doesn't make it a "run on sentence."
C.) If you want to say it's about relevance rather than truth, then you are going to have to make the case for an argument there - what is your basis for saying standards are lacking in relevance and where is your data to support it?

And

D.) As for relevance vs. truth, sorry, that's not an either/or - and, where it comes to TRUTH you seem to want to keep dodging the truth by not providing any evidence, criteria, sound basis for any of your repeated anti-CC claims.

map of CC testing:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-the-national-k-12-testing-landscape.html

Look, for the 492nd time, your repeating this same old crap over and over again without anything on your part to substantiate a single claim of yours IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT TRUE.

Standards are not about truths. They are about relevance.

Also it's you're. You also have a run-on sentence (not sure which standard that is---probably 8th grade or so).

Is "What does that word mean?" developmentally beyond the ability of a kindergartener?

Well, do you have to prompt him to ask or is he supposed to ask on his own? Does he know what the word "word" means? Does he know word boundaries yet? If he has to pick it out of a text, which the standard says, does he have to point to it and/or be able to read it? If he can ask based on the word being read to him, is he supposed to ask specifically about the word (word boundary again) or can he just say, "I don't understand" about a whole phrase that includes the word (I would guess not because the standard is asking about a word)?

And how will this be tested if the child does not read yet? The standard says that this is based on a text. What exactly is the standard looking for here? It's unclear to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Again, for the 491st time, you have not presented any data, criteria, or evidence for saying this.

You come from the side that says they have data, documentation, etc. Except, they won't show it to us.

So you keep claiming yet I'm quite sure you have not bothered to even pick up the fucking phone to call CSSO or NGA despite having been given their contact info repeatedly.

Look, for the 492nd time, your repeating this same old crap over and over again without anything on your part to substantiate a single claim of yours IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT TRUE.

Again, for the 491st time, you have not presented any data, criteria, or evidence for saying this.

You come from the side that says they have data, documentation, etc. Except, they won't show it to us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of these so called standards are insulting and some are developmentally inappropriate. These "standards" are a huge waste of time and money.

The standards are developmentally inappropriate, except for the ones that are insulting!

What a rallying cry.

That, and "they are inappropriate and insulting, because I said so, and I don't need any evidence for saying so."

Just keep repeating unsubstantiated bullshit over and over again. And over again. And over again. And over again.