Why you specifically? Because you're the one saying that you disagree with the kindergarten standards. And, in fact, thank you for posting a standard! However, I disagree that this standard says that kindergartens are expected to read fluently.
Anonymous wrote:Here's another that I think is a silly and ridiculous standard. If the kid cannot do this, he should have been referred the first month for testing.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.6
Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts.
Anonymous wrote:Why me specifically?
Here's one that should not be a standard. Every K student should not be expected to read fluently by the end of the year.
Fluency:
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.4
Read emergent-reader texts with purpose and understanding
Anonymous wrote:
Could you post some of them, please?
Several have already been posted. But you already know that. Yes?
Could you post some of them, please?
Anonymous wrote:
There are many K standards with which I disagree. You surely don't agree with all of them. No?
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that there states where it's appropriate to expect an on-grade-level third-grader to be able to understand a fraction as a number on the number line and be able to represent fractions on a number line diagram, and states where it isn't? If so, which states? And why?
Also, there are a lot of kindergarten standards. Are there any specific kindergarten standards you strongly disagree with? For example, do you strongly disagree with this kindergarten standard:
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1.a
Follow words from left to right, top to bottom, and page by page.
Or this one?
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1.c
Understand that words are separated by spaces in print.
Or do you just strongly disagree with the kindergarten standards in general, and never mind what the actual specific kindergarten standards are?
Anonymous wrote:
By state? Why would people disagree over those issues by state? Are there states where it's appropriate to expect an on-grade-level third-grader to be able to understand a fraction as a number on the number line and be able to represent fractions on a number line diagram, and states where it isn't? Why?
Absolutely! However, a better example would be the Kindergarten standards. I strongly disagree with those standards and so do many, many others.
Anonymous wrote:
Because of the insistence, including at very young ages, to write a paragraph about every damn problem them solve.
Common Core is conscripted thinking. God forbid you should have an original thought -- Common Core punishes that.
By state? Why would people disagree over those issues by state? Are there states where it's appropriate to expect an on-grade-level third-grader to be able to understand a fraction as a number on the number line and be able to represent fractions on a number line diagram, and states where it isn't? Why?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
LOL! Yes, I'd LOVE to hear the anti-CCers try and give us all a sound explanation of why all 50 states need to be teaching fractions differently.
You really think that is all Common Core is about? Teaching fractions? It can also be the way fractions are taught. And, when. People can disagree over those issues.
By state? Why would people disagree over those issues by state? Are there states where it's appropriate to expect an on-grade-level third-grader to be able to understand a fraction as a number on the number line and be able to represent fractions on a number line diagram, and states where it isn't? Why?
Anonymous wrote:
LOL! Yes, I'd LOVE to hear the anti-CCers try and give us all a sound explanation of why all 50 states need to be teaching fractions differently.
You really think that is all Common Core is about? Teaching fractions? It can also be the way fractions are taught. And, when. People can disagree over those issues.
LOL! Yes, I'd LOVE to hear the anti-CCers try and give us all a sound explanation of why all 50 states need to be teaching fractions differently.