Anonymous wrote:LMAO! The PP keeps flipping between being an expert copy editor, then an expert on early childhood development, then an expert english teacher, then an expert math teacher, then an expert on standards, then an expert on professional organizations and so on... And then goes on to make some vague yet opinionated post about "it's bad, it's poorly written, it's developmentally inappropriate..." I just roll my eyes with every post.

Again, you are responding to many, many different posters, all with different specialities. I'm the copy editor as well as a parent who hates what the standards are doing to her kid.

LMAO! The PP keeps flipping between being an expert copy editor, then an expert on early childhood development, then an expert english teacher, then an expert math teacher, then an expert on standards, then an expert on professional organizations and so on... And then goes on to make some vague yet opinionated post about "it's bad, it's poorly written, it's developmentally inappropriate..." I just roll my eyes with every post.

^^^drat, obviously I need a copy editor

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts.

Use words and phrases acquired through ......................responding to texts.

This makes no sense.

Use words and phrases acquired through

1. conversations
2. reading and being read to
3. responding to texts

Now that the newspapers have all fired all of the copy editors, is that what the copy editors are doing with their spare time? Fighting the Common Core standards with a red pencil in hand?

As a copy editor, I find the "Standards" appallingly written. They are confusing, imprecise and wordy. Many are not truly measurable. They are written in godawful academic speak. If they wanted standards that would actually advance the nation's children academically, they SHOULD have had a newspaper copy editor go through them first.

Well, I am a big fan of copy editors, I wish that the newspapers would hire you all back, and I am all in favor of good writing. But I find it hard to ibelieve that all of this fuss and uproar about the Common Core standards (developmentally inappropriate! follow the money! federal takeover! thalidomide! etc. etc.) is due to people's objections about writing style.

But I find it hard to imagine that there is all of this fuss about the Common Core standards because they ar

Anonymous wrote:

Beginning reading. Should be 1st grade.

Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

(Here is an example of an emergent-reader text (Have You Seen My Cat): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yJxaXtPqhc )

NP here. Watched the video. This is READING. So it should be a 1st grade standard.

Have you seen my cat?
This is not my cat.
Where is my cat?

That is the entirety of the text in Have You Seen My Cat.

Beginning reading. Should be 1st grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts.

Use words and phrases acquired through ......................responding to texts.

This makes no sense.

Use words and phrases acquired through

1. conversations
2. reading and being read to
3. responding to texts

Now that the newspapers have all fired all of the copy editors, is that what the copy editors are doing with their spare time? Fighting the Common Core standards with a red pencil in hand?

As a copy editor, I find the "Standards" appallingly written. They are confusing, imprecise and wordy. Many are not truly measurable. They are written in godawful academic speak. If they wanted standards that would actually advance the nation's children academically, they SHOULD have had a newspaper copy editor go through them first.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not the only one, you know, who disagrees. And, what do you call reading with purpose and understanding?

If a teacher were unable to assess whether a student is reading with purpose and understanding, that would be a big problem right there. Specifically, a problem with the teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

(Here is an example of an emergent-reader text (Have You Seen My Cat): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yJxaXtPqhc )

NP here. Watched the video. This is READING. So it should be a 1st grade standard.

Have you seen my cat?
This is not my cat.
Where is my cat?

That is the entirety of the text in Have You Seen My Cat.

Anonymous wrote:

Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts.

Use words and phrases acquired through ......................responding to texts.

This makes no sense.

Use words and phrases acquired through

1. conversations
2. reading and being read to
3. responding to texts

Now that the newspapers have all fired all of the copy editors, is that what the copy editors are doing with their spare time? Fighting the Common Core standards with a red pencil in hand?

And, some make no sense at all!

What a waste of time. These standards are worse than I thought. Silly. It's like everyone wrote their own standard and then came to the meeting and they put them all together. Some are too hard. Some are too easy. And, a few may be just right.

Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts.

Use words and phrases acquired through ......................responding to texts.

This makes no sense.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.6
Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts.


I don't understand what the problem is. Is it that you think that this should be a preschool standard, not a kindergarten standard?

It does not rise to the level of a standard. In fact, a portion of it makes no sense.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

(Here is an example of an emergent-reader text (Have You Seen My Cat): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yJxaXtPqhc )

NP here. Watched the video. This is READING. So it should be a 1st grade standard.