Anonymous wrote:
This is a PERFECT example of the kind of pedantic myopia and utter and complete lack of understanding of the big picture of educational objectives and how they all fit together as building blocks that the anti-CC folks seem to be suffering from.



Actually this is the kind of thinking that standardized testing promotes. Sadly. I am glad to see that you are against this type of thinking. Start working toward making the standards less rigid and more flexible (which it sounds like you are in favor of). The biggest help would be to get rid of the totally inflexible testing regime (NCLB). The high stakes nature of the tests (and the tests themselves) have crippled the teacher's ability to be flexible and creative. Are you in favor of the NCLB testing mandates?



I strongly disagree. It doesn't "promote" that kind of thinking. As I said, if you actually take the time to read the SEQUENCE in CC, you will see that it DOES NOT promote that kind of thinking. Rather than just "this box is about attaching widget x" when you read them as a whole, it builds up an entire educational program from foundational building blocks in a way that makes sense. If some only choose to look at "this box is about widget x" and choose to implement it by putting in a minimal effort and checking the box [b]then that's their own problem, not the problem of CC - and those people would be a problem in the school system regardless of whether CC or NCLB existed.
[/b]
As I see it, there is plenty of flexibility in CC. It doesn't tell you how to teach, it doesn't tell you what materials to use, it doesn't tell you what not to teach, it doesn't prohibit you from being creative.

It is the problem of the standardized testing. And as long as you have it and you use it to compare people, schools, states, whatever, you have the problem.

I strongly disagree. It doesn't "promote" that kind of thinking. As I said, if you actually take the time to read the SEQUENCE in CC, you will see that it DOES NOT promote that kind of thinking. Rather than just "this box is about attaching widget x" when you read them as a whole, it builds up an entire educational program from foundational building blocks in a way that makes sense. If some only choose to look at "this box is about widget x" and choose to implement it by putting in a minimal effort and checking the box then that's their own problem, not the problem of CC - and those people would be a problem in the school system regardless of whether CC or NCLB existed.

Wishful thinking. Suggest you spend some time reading them. They are not sequenced. They appear to be thrown together by people who did not know what they were doing.

I strongly disagree. It doesn't "promote" that kind of thinking. As I said, if you actually take the time to read the SEQUENCE in CC, you will see that it DOES NOT promote that kind of thinking. Rather than just "this box is about attaching widget x" when you read them as a whole, it builds up an entire educational program from foundational building blocks in a way that makes sense. If some only choose to look at "this box is about widget x" and choose to implement it by putting in a minimal effort and checking the box then that's their own problem, not the problem of CC - and those people would be a problem in the school system regardless of whether CC or NCLB existed.

As I see it, there is plenty of flexibility in CC. It doesn't tell you how to teach, it doesn't tell you what materials to use, it doesn't tell you what not to teach, it doesn't prohibit you from being creative.

Again, it's just a minimum standard, not a proscriptive "not-to-exceed" standard.

Sequence? are you serious. They are all over the place.

Anonymous wrote:

This is a PERFECT example of the kind of pedantic myopia and utter and complete lack of understanding of the big picture of educational objectives and how they all fit together as building blocks that the anti-CC folks seem to be suffering from.

Actually this is the kind of thinking that standardized testing promotes. Sadly. I am glad to see that you are against this type of thinking. Start working toward making the standards less rigid and more flexible (which it sounds like you are in favor of). The biggest help would be to get rid of the totally inflexible testing regime (NCLB). The high stakes nature of the tests (and the tests themselves) have crippled the teacher's ability to be flexible and creative. Are you in favor of the NCLB testing mandates?

I strongly disagree. It doesn't "promote" that kind of thinking. As I said, if you actually take the time to read the SEQUENCE in CC, you will see that it DOES NOT promote that kind of thinking. Rather than just "this box is about attaching widget x" when you read them as a whole, it builds up an entire educational program from foundational building blocks in a way that makes sense. If some only choose to look at "this box is about widget x" and choose to implement it by putting in a minimal effort and checking the box then that's their own problem, not the problem of CC - and those people would be a problem in the school system regardless of whether CC or NCLB existed.

As I see it, there is plenty of flexibility in CC. It doesn't tell you how to teach, it doesn't tell you what materials to use, it doesn't tell you what not to teach, it doesn't prohibit you from being creative.

Again, it's just a minimum standard, not a proscriptive "not-to-exceed" standard.

Anonymous wrote:

Good God. I sure hope you are not actually an educator, because you certainly can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

The thing about kindergarteners is that they often see the trees. That is what can make them seem so charming and cute(what they see that we have long since assimilated into a "big picture" category in our adult minds). We have to think about how they think in order to make the standards work for them.

And, that's precisely what the standards do. If you actually read them in sequence, they make a ton of sense, they lay out the big picture and show the forest, not just the trees.

Anonymous wrote:

Good God. I sure hope you are not actually an educator, because you certainly can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Whether it's specifically identifying an unknown word in a sentence that they read themselves, or one that the teacher speaks to them is not relevant, specifically pointing at a word is not the relevant thing here, and is not the outcome that CC is striving for. The point is to get kids thinking about sentence structure and context as a building block toward understanding language, giving them the toolset to be able to deconstruct language and understand its nuances, and any thinking person would know that the "unknown word" objective can be met in a number of ways without getting hung up on idiocies like "well do they have to point at the word 'shafloozle', should they underline it, or is it OK to say 'I don't know what 'shnafloozle' means.'" This is a PERFECT example of the kind of pedantic myopia and utter and complete lack of understanding of the big picture of educational objectives and how they all fit together as building blocks that the anti-CC folks seem to be suffering from.

No. It is a perfect example of spin. K teachers have always pointed out words and talked about words. That's what they do. But, to have a standard like this that is poorly written, vague, etc. is just bogus.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Make up your goddamned mind. Now you are saying teachers already do this and that it has always made sense to work with word context in K. Before you implied you had no idea what it was talking about, that it was "vague" and that you found it inconceivable to do try and follow.

Did you really not understand it, and now that you do, you are saving face? Or, is it that you take the rest of us for idiots? Or, are you just trolling? It's bullshit either way.

This is a PERFECT example of the kind of pedantic myopia and utter and complete lack of understanding of the big picture of educational objectives and how they all fit together as building blocks that the anti-CC folks seem to be suffering from.

Actually this is the kind of thinking that standardized testing promotes. Sadly. I am glad to see that you are against this type of thinking. Start working toward making the standards less rigid and more flexible (which it sounds like you are in favor of). The biggest help would be to get rid of the totally inflexible testing regime (NCLB). The high stakes nature of the tests (and the tests themselves) have crippled the teacher's ability to be flexible and creative. Are you in favor of the NCLB testing mandates?

Good God. I sure hope you are not actually an educator, because you certainly can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

The thing about kindergarteners is that they often see the trees. That is what can make them seem so charming and cute(what they see that we have long since assimilated into a "big picture" category in our adult minds). We have to think about how they think in order to make the standards work for them.

Good God. I sure hope you are not actually an educator, because you certainly can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Whether it's specifically identifying an unknown word in a sentence that they read themselves, or one that the teacher speaks to them is not relevant, specifically pointing at a word is not the relevant thing here, and is not the outcome that CC is striving for. The point is to get kids thinking about sentence structure and context as a building block toward understanding language, giving them the toolset to be able to deconstruct language and understand its nuances, and any thinking person would know that the "unknown word" objective can be met in a number of ways without getting hung up on idiocies like "well do they have to point at the word 'shafloozle', should they underline it, or is it OK to say 'I don't know what 'shnafloozle' means.'" This is a PERFECT example of the kind of pedantic myopia and utter and complete lack of understanding of the big picture of educational objectives and how they all fit together as building blocks that the anti-CC folks seem to be suffering from.

But, this is the way we are forced to think in order to get the kids to "pass" the tests. There are standardized tests in which the teacher has to talk to the student and mark responses on a sheet of paper that has very specific assessment guidelines. The prompts and responses have to be exactly done a certain way (many times word for word) or they don't "count". I wish I were making this up, but I'm not. This is what standardization is. The tests cannot be deemed reliable unless they are delivered in exactly the same way to every student. And, because of this, the teachers want to make sure they deliver the standards in the way that the test will (so that the student has had directed practice). You and I agree that common sense should reign, but you would be surprised at how teachers are trained in ultra specific details regarding testing. One false move and the teacher is toast (or so they tell us). It has led to this super cautionary approach. Thus, the standards need to be specifically stated if they are to be tested (which we assume these will be since we have NCLB).

On a test, it would have to be clear to the student whether pointing would be allowed and whether the teacher could "transcribe" the student's answer. This may be an accommodation that would only be allowed for a student with an IEP. There are many accommodations that teachers have to keep track of as well.

Good God. I sure hope you are not actually an educator, because you certainly can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Whether it's specifically identifying an unknown word in a sentence that they read themselves, or one that the teacher speaks to them is not relevant, specifically pointing at a word is not the relevant thing here, and is not the outcome that CC is striving for. The point is to get kids thinking about sentence structure and context as a building block toward understanding language, giving them the toolset to be able to deconstruct language and understand its nuances, and any thinking person would know that the "unknown word" objective can be met in a number of ways without getting hung up on idiocies like "well do they have to point at the word 'shafloozle', should they underline it, or is it OK to say 'I don't know what 'shnafloozle' means.'" This is a PERFECT example of the kind of pedantic myopia and utter and complete lack of understanding of the big picture of educational objectives and how they all fit together as building blocks that the anti-CC folks seem to be suffering from.

No. It is a perfect example of spin. K teachers have always pointed out words and talked about words. That's what they do. But, to have a standard like this that is poorly written, vague, etc. is just bogus.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This.

Good God. I sure hope you are not actually an educator, because you certainly can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Whether it's specifically identifying an unknown word in a sentence that they read themselves, or one that the teacher speaks to them is not relevant, specifically pointing at a word is not the relevant thing here, and is not the outcome that CC is striving for. The point is to get kids thinking about sentence structure and context as a building block toward understanding language, giving them the toolset to be able to deconstruct language and understand its nuances, and any thinking person would know that the "unknown word" objective can be met in a number of ways without getting hung up on idiocies like "well do they have to point at the word 'shafloozle', should they underline it, or is it OK to say 'I don't know what 'shnafloozle' means.'" This is a PERFECT example of the kind of pedantic myopia and utter and complete lack of understanding of the big picture of educational objectives and how they all fit together as building blocks that the anti-CC folks seem to be suffering from.

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.

This.

Anonymous wrote:

WTF!

The PP who evidently thinks it's developmentally inappropriate for K students to be able to work with basic concepts of a sentence to understand context, like if a word is talking about a thing, saying what a thing is like, or saying what a thing is doing - and that these concepts are too vague and confusing for degreed education professionals, let alone the general public, is either a.) trolling us or b.) is a complete moron - there is no c.)

Must have really touched a nerve with you! Stay classy.

Low tolerance threshold for moronic "it's developmentally inappropriate" and "it's vague" statements.

WTF!

The PP who evidently thinks it's developmentally inappropriate for K students to be able to work with basic concepts of a sentence to understand context, like if a word is talking about a thing, saying what a thing is like, or saying what a thing is doing - and that these concepts are too vague and confusing for degreed education professionals, let alone the general public, is either a.) trolling us or b.) is a complete moron - there is no c.)

Must have really touched a nerve with you! Stay classy.

WTF!

The PP who evidently thinks it's developmentally inappropriate for K students to be able to work with basic concepts of a sentence to understand context, like if a word is talking about a thing, saying what a thing is like, or saying what a thing is doing - and that these concepts are too vague and confusing for degreed education professionals, let alone the general public, is either a.) trolling us or b.) is a complete moron - there is no c.)