Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. Most of my colleagues don't like the way it was implemented so quickly. They are writing the curriculum very quickly and not giving it to us until the last minute. We don't have time to prepare and we end up making a lot of the materials on our own. So we are working overtime times 100 and we are burnt out. I think it is a bit too ambitious myself but I teach in a Title 1 school.

I agree, but it's like that with most curriculum- you're told what to teach, but not given the materials/resources to teach it. IMO, this is one of the biggest problems in education. But at least with Common Core, I feel like since it is so widespread, in a few years you will start seeing a plethora of textbooks and materials developed that support it.

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. Most of my colleagues don't like the way it was implemented so quickly. They are writing the curriculum very quickly and not giving it to us until the last minute. We don't have time to prepare and we end up making a lot of the materials on our own. So we are working overtime times 100 and we are burnt out. I think it is a bit too ambitious myself but I teach in a Title 1 school.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, they do the math quizzes...but they aren't teaching the math facts in school. And they use crazy strategies to explain the concept, and the strategies are confusing many kids. Just because your kid knows his times tables doesn't mean that his classmates do. It's a real issue the schools are grappling with.

We learned our times tables in second grade. Drilled into us at school (not at kumon or with a tutor).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Anonymous wrote:
A New York principal committed suicide in front of a train from Common Core. Story just released.

http://linkis.com/nypost.com/2015/07/2/co5lw

You summary is really misleading.

I believe that CC standards are just awful. However, this story is not about CC. It is about cheating.

Anonymous wrote:



Anonymous wrote:
A New York principal committed suicide in front of a train from Common Core. Story just released.

http://linkis.com/nypost.com/2015/07/2/co5lw

You summary is really misleading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A New York principal committed suicide in front of a train from Common Core. Story just released.

http://linkis.com/nypost.com/2015/07/2/co5lw

You summary is really misleading.

Anonymous wrote:A New York principal committed suicide in front of a train from Common Core. Story just released.

http://linkis.com/nypost.com/2015/07/2/co5lw

Just as I thought, you don't teach.

I just read through elementary standards in both subjects in preparation for next year. I found myself rewriting them in my own (fewer, simpler) words. Literally rewriting them as I went to make them easier for quick reference. Some of them overlap each other in math. Really confusing!


This is exactly what you should be doing. Standards are always written in a way that allows for many teaching approaches. The goal is to achieve competency. A good teacher will differentiate the specific approach to competency depending on her specific students. Rewriting them allows you to articulate your approach. That's a feature of a good standard, not a drawback.

As for the PP who seems to think there are too many skills in a standard, I hope you aren't a teacher, but if you are, go back to your curriculum planning class. A single standard is addressed in a series of lessons and mastery is demonstrated in a culminating lesson/project. You don't have to have a single lesson that addresses all aspects of a standard at the same time.

(Although, frankly, if you can't design a single lesson that meets RI5.2-- determine two or more main ideas in a text, explain them with key details, and summarize a text...well, I would argue that you're not a very good teacher or you obviously have planning issues.)


The issue is that the skills that being combined are not well aligned

I just read through elementary standards in both subjects in preparation for next year. I found myself rewriting them in my own (fewer, simpler) words. Literally rewriting them as I went to make them easier for quick reference. Some of them overlap each other in math. Really confusing!



This is exactly what you should be doing. Standards are always written in a way that allows for many teaching approaches. The goal is to achieve competency. A good teacher will differentiate the specific approach to competency depending on her specific students. Rewriting them allows you to articulate your approach. That's a feature of a good standard, not a drawback.

As for the PP who seems to think there are too many skills in a standard, I hope you aren't a teacher, but if you are, go back to your curriculum planning class. A single standard is addressed in a series of lessons and mastery is demonstrated in a culminating lesson/project. You don't have to have a single lesson that addresses all aspects of a standard at the same time.

(Although, frankly, if you can't design a single lesson that meets RI5.2-- determine two or more main ideas in a text, explain them with key details, and summarize a text...well, I would argue that you're not a very good teacher or you obviously have planning issues.)

Wrong. But I'm curious about why you would doubt that. Because I actually understand the standards? Because I understand how goals and standards are designed? Because I understand they are very clear and simply require us to articulate what we are already doing to demonstrate competency? Because I am more thoughtful in my teaching than you are?

Really. Pray tell.

Anonymous wrote:

I just read through elementary standards in both subjects in preparation for next year. I found myself rewriting them in my own (fewer, simpler) words. Literally rewriting them as I went to make them easier for quick reference. Some of them overlap each other in math. Really confusing!

This is exactly what you should be doing. Standards are always written in a way that allows for many teaching approaches. The goal is to achieve competency. A good teacher will differentiate the specific approach to competency depending on her specific students. Rewriting them allows you to articulate your approach. That's a feature of a good standard, not a drawback.

As for the PP who seems to think there are too many skills in a standard, I hope you aren't a teacher, but if you are, go back to your curriculum planning class. A single standard is addressed in a series of lessons and mastery is demonstrated in a culminating lesson/project. You don't have to have a single lesson that addresses all aspects of a standard at the same time.

(Although, frankly, if you can't design a single lesson that meets RI5.2-- determine two or more main ideas in a text, explain them with key details, and summarize a text...well, I would argue that you're not a very good teacher or you obviously have planning issues.)