Teachers have always tested and observed. With these new ways of doing things, they must test the way someone else has decided they should test. They must test kids that have clearly mastered topics, too. Waste of time when the teacher could be teaching.

Anonymous wrote:And more still: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/11/30/chinese-american-mom-says-common-core-is-just-like-education-in-communist-china/


Lily Tang Williams, a mother of three, testified before the Colorado State Board of Education that Common Core was similar to the education she received growing up in Mao’s Communist China.

“Common Core, in my eyes, is the same as the Communist core I once saw in China,” Williams said. “I grew up under Mao’s regime and we had the Communist-dominated education — nationalized testing, nationalized curriculum, and nationalized indoctrination.”

In a post at FreedomWorks, Williams wrote about her experience with the Chinese education system:

Our teachers had to comply with all the curriculum and testing requirements, or lose their jobs forever. Parents had no choice at all when it came to what we learned in school. The government used the Household Registration and Personnel File system to keep track of its citizens from birth to death.

“I came to this country for freedom and I cannot believe this is happening all over again in this country,” she said in the meeting. “I don’t know what happened to America, the Shining City on the Hill for freedom.”

She said Americans should not compare their children (or their kids’ test scores) to those being educated under the Chinese system.

“I am telling you, Chinese children are not trained to be independent thinkers,” said Williams. “They are trained to be massive skilled workers for corporations. And they have no idea what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989 where government ordered soldiers to shoot its own 1,000 students.”

Everything I have read on your post about it being like the Chinese standards has to do with testing and teaching to the tests. It doesn't show any example of how CC standards = not creative thinking, Chinese way of teaching. This has nothing to do with what standards are in CC, but everything to do with how we assess whether the kids are meeting those standards. Those are two different issues. People are upset that there are national standards, but many countries, including Western countries, have national standards.

For example, Canada:
"All public schools in Canada are provincially accredited, follow a standard curriculum, employ only government certified teachers and are publicly funded. While the education system in each province contains many similarities, each has its own Study Canada curriculum and guidelines to reflect the culture and history of its region."

http://www.caps-i.ca/education-in-canada/

Every state that has implemented CC here follow the same standards, but choose to implement it differently with different a curriculum. In MD, we follow CC standards, but as part of the curriculum, my kids have learned about local MD geography, etc. Same as Canada. I'm sure there are more examples of Western countries that have national education standards.

There is nothing wrong with having national standards. The issue that the Chinese person is addressing is about the focus on testing. Here in the US, the parents are constantly complaining about how some of our kids are doing poorly, not learning. We want accountability. So, the schools come up with a way to assess accountability, which is testing. Now, parents are complaining that we are testing to assess if the kids are actually learning. How do you assess whether a child is actually learning without testing that child?

Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.

You do know that what one teacher may accept as "demonstrate understanding" may be quite different from what another teacher accepts.

So much for your "standards".

And more still: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/11/30/chinese-american-mom-says-common-core-is-just-like-education-in-communist-china/


Lily Tang Williams, a mother of three, testified before the Colorado State Board of Education that Common Core was similar to the education she received growing up in Mao’s Communist China.

“Common Core, in my eyes, is the same as the Communist core I once saw in China,” Williams said. “I grew up under Mao’s regime and we had the Communist-dominated education — nationalized testing, nationalized curriculum, and nationalized indoctrination.”

In a post at FreedomWorks, Williams wrote about her experience with the Chinese education system:

Our teachers had to comply with all the curriculum and testing requirements, or lose their jobs forever. Parents had no choice at all when it came to what we learned in school. The government used the Household Registration and Personnel File system to keep track of its citizens from birth to death.

“I came to this country for freedom and I cannot believe this is happening all over again in this country,” she said in the meeting. “I don’t know what happened to America, the Shining City on the Hill for freedom.”

She said Americans should not compare their children (or their kids’ test scores) to those being educated under the Chinese system.

“I am telling you, Chinese children are not trained to be independent thinkers,” said Williams. “They are trained to be massive skilled workers for corporations. And they have no idea what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989 where government ordered soldiers to shoot its own 1,000 students.”

And mroe:

http://dianeravitch.net/2014/01/02/anthony-cody-a-remarkable-statement-by-a-chinese-american-student-on-common-core-testing-pearson-and-standardization/

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/12/tennessee_student_is_standardi.html

"If you look towards the mathematics section of the PARCC website, we see that it “calls for written arguments/justifications, critique of reasoning, or precision in mathematical statements”. As a student who has scored 5s on AP Calculus, AP Statistics, and is preparing to take Calculus 3 at a local college next semester, I can honestly tell you that I cannot answer and justify your First grade Pearson math test question “What is a related Subtraction sentence?” "

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes! Common Core is a thought straitjacket. It requires all children to learn the same things in the same ways and express them in exactly the same ways.

It's interesting -- and sad and frightening -- to hear those from China say it's very similar to the Chinese system. No creative thought, but hey, they're good test takers!

"Those from China" who? Who has said this, and where have they said it?

I'm also not sure how CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1 Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100. or CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.3.1 Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.

are "thought straitjackets", unless you maybe you think that doing math in base 10 is mindless conformity, or that schools should not expect an understanding of written language, but ok.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/17/opinion/zhao-common-core-testing/

Common Core, don't copy China's test-prep culture
By Yong Zhao
updated 11:53 AM EST, Wed December 10, 2014

solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- The goal of Common Core is laudable: Give all students a common experience in English and math. But the path to that end has been fraught with problems. For one thing, more parents and educators are upset over all the tests students now have to take. Teachers are concerned about the negative impact of teaching to the test.

Supporters of Common Core insist the standards and tests are necessary for holding schools accountable and ensuring a better future for America. But they may want to take a page from China, which has experienced the good, bad and ugly of a testing culture.

For over a thousand years, Chinese emperors used the imperial exam system keju to select government officials. When the great empire was shattered by Western powers in the 19th century, keju was blamed for China's failure to cultivate the creative and diverse talents needed for modernization. It was officially ended in 1905. But the keju spirit lives on today in the body of the college entrance exam, or gaokao.


Why Finland's schools are top-notch

The Chinese system has also produced many extremely hardworking, highly motivated and excellent professionals. It's true that the very best ones are sought after by Fortune 500 companies. But they are a tiny fraction. One study shows that fewer than 10% of Chinese graduates would be qualified to work in a foreign company in occupations such as engineering, finance and accounting.

The truth is that the testing culture of China has taken a big toll. Corruption such as bribery, cheating and other forms of fraud intended to boost test results has been rampant in the past as well as today. Stress, anxiety, poor physical health and a lack of social and practical life skills are well-known characteristics of Chinese students.

The biggest price China has paid is the loss of creative talents. Its education system stifles creativity, suppresses individuality and induces conformity by forcing all children to compete for better test outcomes in a narrow set of subjects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

because it forces the kid to really think and not just memorize and regurgitate answers

Because it has forced kids to go around in circles to get to answers that they already understand. Busy work and a waste of time.

They know that 2+2 = 4, but having them explain why the answer is 4, or that there are other ways to make 4 is not busy work, but rather making the kid think. Being able to explain your answer is not busy work. It's a necessary skill.

Yes, I know, for SN kids, this is a challenge. Doesn't mean the rest of the kids shouldn't be required to do this.

I have a math phd. I just get math and see its patterns long before I can explain it. The "explain your work" can kill creativity. My DD is very verbal and this method helps her since she can step herself through things. My son, on the other hand, who can "see" patterns can't always explain them but is almost always right. As he is figuring this stuff out, it is absolutely not ok to penalize him for not being able to describe his processes.

Yes! Common Core is a thought straitjacket. It requires all children to learn the same things in the same ways and express them in exactly the same ways.

It's interesting -- and sad and frightening -- to hear those from China say it's very similar to the Chinese system. No creative thought, but hey, they're good test takers!

I think CC is opposite of "no creative thought". Previous teaching methods were all rote - that is no creative thought.

CC requires *a lot * of thought, and some would say, too much for simple problems. And this may surely be the case, but CC standards are far from "no creative thought".

And how was the previous curriculum so creative? Didn't all the kids have to meet the same standards back then, too? Pass the same tests? In the previous curriculum, when they all learned 2+2 = 4, didn't they all express it the same way? Actually, in CC standards, you can express 2+2 in different ways... in my DC's class, DC can show 2+2 with numbers, pictures, graphs. That is more creative than just writing 2+2=4.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes! Common Core is a thought straitjacket. It requires all children to learn the same things in the same ways and express them in exactly the same ways.

It's interesting -- and sad and frightening -- to hear those from China say it's very similar to the Chinese system. No creative thought, but hey, they're good test takers!

"Those from China" who? Who has said this, and where have they said it?

I'm also not sure how CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1 Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100. or CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.3.1 Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.

are "thought straitjackets", unless you maybe you think that doing math in base 10 is mindless conformity, or that schools should not expect an understanding of written language, but ok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

because it forces the kid to really think and not just memorize and regurgitate answers

Because it has forced kids to go around in circles to get to answers that they already understand. Busy work and a waste of time.

They know that 2+2 = 4, but having them explain why the answer is 4, or that there are other ways to make 4 is not busy work, but rather making the kid think. Being able to explain your answer is not busy work. It's a necessary skill.

Yes, I know, for SN kids, this is a challenge. Doesn't mean the rest of the kids shouldn't be required to do this.

I have a math phd. I just get math and see its patterns long before I can explain it. The "explain your work" can kill creativity. My DD is very verbal and this method helps her since she can step herself through things. My son, on the other hand, who can "see" patterns can't always explain them but is almost always right. As he is figuring this stuff out, it is absolutely not ok to penalize him for not being able to describe his processes.

Yes! Common Core is a thought straitjacket. It requires all children to learn the same things in the same ways and express them in exactly the same ways.

It's interesting -- and sad and frightening -- to hear those from China say it's very similar to the Chinese system. No creative thought, but hey, they're good test takers!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

because it forces the kid to really think and not just memorize and regurgitate answers

Because it has forced kids to go around in circles to get to answers that they already understand. Busy work and a waste of time.

They know that 2+2 = 4, but having them explain why the answer is 4, or that there are other ways to make 4 is not busy work, but rather making the kid think. Being able to explain your answer is not busy work. It's a necessary skill.

Yes, I know, for SN kids, this is a challenge. Doesn't mean the rest of the kids shouldn't be required to do this.

I have a math phd. I just get math and see its patterns long before I can explain it. The "explain your work" can kill creativity. My DD is very verbal and this method helps her since she can step herself through things. My son, on the other hand, who can "see" patterns can't always explain them but is almost always right. As he is figuring this stuff out, it is absolutely not ok to penalize him for not being able to describe his processes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The issue is not the standards.

If the standards are so good, why are teachers having so much trouble teaching to them and testing them? Why are standards written by so-called "experts" in their ivory towers such a good thing?

I'm a teacher and I'm not having trouble teaching Common Core standards. They are better than the ones I used to have to use (MD State "voluntary" curriculum) as I have posted earlier. Which, by the way, were also written by so called "experts" in ivory towers.

For average kids, they are fine. I am assuming you are not a special needs teacher and someone else deals with any child who cannot minimally achieve.

I'm an ESOL teacher. About 25% of my students also have IEPs.

Esol is different than special needs. Those kids have completely different concerns.

Yes, and ESOL PLUS special needs (25% of the children with IEPs that I have) have different concerns as well.

But I am rereading your comment and I see that you you mention "any child who cannot MINIMALLY achieve". You are correct, I deal with students who, though they are learning to speak English and have various learning disabilities, are expected to be able to achieve more than minimally.

There are different groups of learning disabled students. Some 1-2% of the general population, or about 9-20% of the learning disabled population, is considered unable to achieve in your word, even minimally. They are never, basically, going to be working on grade level due to their disabilities. If this is the special education population the OP is referring to, I will agree that Common Core has not been appropriate for them and will never be appropriate for them.

When I (and others) argue that Common Core standards are appropriate even for the special needs students, we should be clear that we mean the rest of the group -- those students who have learning disabilities but are expected to be able to achieve.

Many SN schools use common core standards. We were just at Ivymount Model Asperger's program and the Auburn school and were told that they both think this is appropriate for kids on the spectrum who fit into their program.

"understanding" and "explaining" are not the same thing. Apparently, CC writers do no "understand" that. Please have them "explain" it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The issue is not the standards.

If the standards are so good, why are teachers having so much trouble teaching to them and testing them? Why are standards written by so-called "experts" in their ivory towers such a good thing?

I'm a teacher and I'm not having trouble teaching Common Core standards. They are better than the ones I used to have to use (MD State "voluntary" curriculum) as I have posted earlier. Which, by the way, were also written by so called "experts" in ivory towers.

For average kids, they are fine. I am assuming you are not a special needs teacher and someone else deals with any child who cannot minimally achieve.

I'm an ESOL teacher. About 25% of my students also have IEPs.

Esol is different than special needs. Those kids have completely different concerns.

Yes, and ESOL PLUS special needs (25% of the children with IEPs that I have) have different concerns as well.

But I am rereading your comment and I see that you you mention "any child who cannot MINIMALLY achieve". You are correct, I deal with students who, though they are learning to speak English and have various learning disabilities, are expected to be able to achieve more than minimally.

There are different groups of learning disabled students. Some 1-2% of the general population, or about 9-20% of the learning disabled population, is considered unable to achieve in your word, even minimally. They are never, basically, going to be working on grade level due to their disabilities. If this is the special education population the OP is referring to, I will agree that Common Core has not been appropriate for them and will never be appropriate for them.

When I (and others) argue that Common Core standards are appropriate even for the special needs students, we should be clear that we mean the rest of the group -- those students who have learning disabilities but are expected to be able to achieve.

I am the OP. My child was progressing under the old system. He is no longer progressing. That is because Common Core is totally geared toward his weakness, which is language. Explain, explain, explain. So many children can't do this -- well more than your 1 or 2 percent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The issue is not the standards.

If the standards are so good, why are teachers having so much trouble teaching to them and testing them? Why are standards written by so-called "experts" in their ivory towers such a good thing?

I'm a teacher and I'm not having trouble teaching Common Core standards. They are better than the ones I used to have to use (MD State "voluntary" curriculum) as I have posted earlier. Which, by the way, were also written by so called "experts" in ivory towers.

For average kids, they are fine. I am assuming you are not a special needs teacher and someone else deals with any child who cannot minimally achieve.

I'm an ESOL teacher. About 25% of my students also have IEPs.

Esol is different than special needs. Those kids have completely different concerns.

Yes, and ESOL PLUS special needs (25% of the children with IEPs that I have) have different concerns as well.

But I am rereading your comment and I see that you you mention "any child who cannot MINIMALLY achieve". You are correct, I deal with students who, though they are learning to speak English and have various learning disabilities, are expected to be able to achieve more than minimally.

There are different groups of learning disabled students. Some 1-2% of the general population, or about 9-20% of the learning disabled population, is considered unable to achieve in your word, even minimally. They are never, basically, going to be working on grade level due to their disabilities. If this is the special education population the OP is referring to, I will agree that Common Core has not been appropriate for them and will never be appropriate for them.

When I (and others) argue that Common Core standards are appropriate even for the special needs students, we should be clear that we mean the rest of the group -- those students who have learning disabilities but are expected to be able to achieve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The issue is not the standards.

If the standards are so good, why are teachers having so much trouble teaching to them and testing them? Why are standards written by so-called "experts" in their ivory towers such a good thing?

I'm a teacher and I'm not having trouble teaching Common Core standards. They are better than the ones I used to have to use (MD State "voluntary" curriculum) as I have posted earlier. Which, by the way, were also written by so called "experts" in ivory towers.

For average kids, they are fine. I am assuming you are not a special needs teacher and someone else deals with any child who cannot minimally achieve.

I'm an ESOL teacher. About 25% of my students also have IEPs.

Esol is different than special needs. Those kids have completely different concerns.