Anonymous wrote:

So if the standard says that children should be able to multiply 3 digit numbers by the end of fourth grade, that means that in the classroom, what is going on is multiplying 3 digit numbers -- even if the children don't yet know how to count, or add.

I agree that COULD happen, but that isn't what the standards require. Good teaching means that you figure out where the children are, and shore up lagging skills before you can teach the next skills.

But the standards say that all children at the grade level should be multiplying 3 digit numbers. That is unrealistic for a child you cannot add.

You are completely correct about that. If you have a child who is working below grade level, then the grade level standards will be too hard for him or her, until he or she is brought up to speed on the standards covering lower level skills.

Yes, you are correct. Grade level standards ARE too hard for kids who are below grade level.

However, the point of a standard is to tell what a child SHOULD be able to do by the end of the year. So if a child isn't at the standard, it is important that teachers and parents know that this child isn't at the grade level standard.

If you had "standards" that were variable (some kids so this and some do that) then pretty much everyone would be at grade level, which would be meaningless to teachers, parents and students. It would essentially be an "effort" standard.

By the end of fourth grade students will.... know more math than they did at the start of the year.

That's not a standard. It's just a description of improvement.

Anonymous wrote:

So if the standard says that children should be able to multiply 3 digit numbers by the end of fourth grade, that means that in the classroom, what is going on is multiplying 3 digit numbers -- even if the children don't yet know how to count, or add.

I agree that COULD happen, but that isn't what the standards require. Good teaching means that you figure out where the children are, and shore up lagging skills before you can teach the next skills.

But the standards say that all children at the grade level should be multiplying 3 digit numbers. That is unrealistic for a child you cannot add.

No, the standards do not say that.

OK, here is a real Common Core math standard for 4th grade.

CCSS.Math.Content.4.NBT.B.4 Fluently add and subtract multi-digit whole numbers using the standard algorithm.

If a child is able to do this by the end of 4th grade, then the child has met that standard. If the child is not able to do this by the end of 4th grade, then the child has not met that standard. That's it.

Nowhere in the Common Core standards does it say that teachers must teach fourth grade math, and only fourth grade math, to all students, regardless of how much or how little the students are able to do.

So if the standard says that children should be able to multiply 3 digit numbers by the end of fourth grade, that means that in the classroom, what is going on is multiplying 3 digit numbers -- even if the children don't yet know how to count, or add.

I agree that COULD happen, but that isn't what the standards require. Good teaching means that you figure out where the children are, and shore up lagging skills before you can teach the next skills.

But the standards say that all children at the grade level should be multiplying 3 digit numbers. That is unrealistic for a child you cannot add.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, so we should only have standards that poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs can achieve (with or without extra assistance)?

If there were PE standards (which there aren't!), would the standard "Student should be able to jump rope for 2 minutes" be bad because people in wheelchairs can't achieve it?

No. Just that you must be realistic. Standards are different from goals. You must start where the child is. I taught many students. I did not teach them all the same--although my goals were the same for all of them.

Then I don't understand. Yes, you have to start where the child is. What does that have to do with standards?

I think the poster you are referring to thinks "Standards" = "things you do in the classroom" (i.e. what most people would call curriculum)

So if the standard says that children should be able to multiply 3 digit numbers by the end of fourth grade, that means that in the classroom, what is going on is multiplying 3 digit numbers -- even if the children don't yet know how to count, or add.

I agree that COULD happen, but that isn't what the standards require. Good teaching means that you figure out where the children are, and shore up lagging skills before you can teach the next skills.

Anonymous wrote:

In short, this is a mess. What, specifically, are the problems? If you oppose the standards, then oppose the standards -- but please be specific about which standards are bad, and what is bad about them. If you oppose the implementation, then oppose the implementation. If you oppose the testing, then oppose the testing. If you oppose the teacher evaluation systems, then oppose the teacher evaluation systems. "Common Core" has become shorthand for "everything I hate about education in the US".

If there is so much trouble with implementing the standards and testing them, then perhaps there is a problem with the standards themselves.

Yes! Apparently, from reading that wonderful math article someone posted last night, the problem with the math standards is that they are TOO EASY!
The standards need to be harder, in math.

Anonymous wrote:

OK, so we should only have standards that poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs can achieve (with or without extra assistance)?

If there were PE standards (which there aren't!), would the standard "Student should be able to jump rope for 2 minutes" be bad because people in wheelchairs can't achieve it?

No. Just that you must be realistic. Standards are different from goals. You must start where the child is. I taught many students. I did not teach them all the same--although my goals were the same for all of them.

If you goal for all students was the same, then that WAS the standard. I think of a "goal" as an intermediate stage on the way to achiving mastery of the standard. The standards are set by state or school district; the goals are set by teachers or individual schools.

Oversimplification but: if the standard for end of 4th grade is that children are able to read fluently on grade level (however that is determined)

then the goals teachers select for kids entering the school year are different depending on where they are starting!

Kids already reading on or above 4th grade level -- goal is to get them further, deeper understanding, reading at even higher grade levels etc.
Kids reading at a third grade level -- goal is to make at least a year's progress in reading so they will be at 4th grade level (the standard) by end of year.
Kids reading at 2nd grade level -- goal is to make at least 1.5 year's progress this year
kids reading at K level -- goal is to make at least 2 years' progress with intensive help and remediation. Won't meet standard this year but should in two years.

Etc. Same standard for all, but different goals to reflect current levels of performance and realistic progress.

Anonymous wrote:

OK, so we should only have standards that poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs can achieve (with or without extra assistance)?

If there were PE standards (which there aren't!), would the standard "Student should be able to jump rope for 2 minutes" be bad because people in wheelchairs can't achieve it?

No. Just that you must be realistic. Standards are different from goals. You must start where the child is. I taught many students. I did not teach them all the same--although my goals were the same for all of them.

Then I don't understand. Yes, you have to start where the child is. What does that have to do with standards?

OK, so we should only have standards that poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs can achieve (with or without extra assistance)?

If there were PE standards (which there aren't!), would the standard "Student should be able to jump rope for 2 minutes" be bad because people in wheelchairs can't achieve it?

No. Just that you must be realistic. Standards are different from goals. You must start where the child is. I taught many students. I did not teach them all the same--although my goals were the same for all of them.

To get back to the original question: no, these standards are not too hard.

Don't you first need to establish the fact that the child cannot walk? Or should you assume that, without any info about the child or even seeing him?

The teacher will discover that pretty fast.

Do you really think the teachers come into the classroom totally clueless? If you do, then new standards won't change that.

Don't you first need to establish the fact that the child cannot walk? Or should you assume that, without any info about the child or even seeing him?

The teacher will discover that pretty fast.

Anonymous wrote:

In that case, any standards at all are bad for poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs. We should not have any standards. Is that your position?

No. However, we must start at the level the child is on. Would you expect a child who cannot walk to run a marathon within a week?

OK, so we should only have standards that poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs can achieve (with or without extra assistance)?

If there were PE standards (which there aren't!), would the standard "Student should be able to jump rope for 2 minutes" be bad because people in wheelchairs can't achieve it?

Anonymous wrote:

In that case, any standards at all are bad for poor students, ESOL students, and students with special needs. We should not have any standards. Is that your position?

No. However, we must start at the level the child is on. Would you expect a child who cannot walk to run a marathon within a week?

Don't you first need to establish the fact that the child cannot walk? Or should you assume that, without any info about the child or even seeing him?

Anonymous wrote:

the standards were developed by test and curriculum publishers and the Gates Foundation [aren't the standards themselves what's relevant? not who developed them

It indicates why they are a problem. They were not written by people who have to use them and know the unintended consequences.

Before you explain why the standards are bad, you have to explain how the standards are bad.

Anonymous wrote:

In short, this is a mess. What, specifically, are the problems? If you oppose the standards, then oppose the standards -- but please be specific about which standards are bad, and what is bad about them. If you oppose the implementation, then oppose the implementation. If you oppose the testing, then oppose the testing. If you oppose the teacher evaluation systems, then oppose the teacher evaluation systems. "Common Core" has become shorthand for "everything I hate about education in the US".

If there is so much trouble with implementing the standards and testing them, then perhaps there is a problem with the standards themselves.

Or perhaps there isn't.

Really, this discussion would be better in Yoda speech:

If so much trouble with implementing the standards and testing them, there is, then problem with the standards themselves there perhaps is.

Or perhaps, not, there is. Yes, hmmm.