And what would you have spent it on instead?

Easy. Teachers in classrooms.

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. I wish we could just put in the high standards and then move on to more meaningful efforts, like decreasing child poverty. But obviously we can't.

No, for some reason you think this is going to make things better. You are SO wrong--and look at all the wasted money that could have helped in other ways.

How do you know what I think? In fact, what I think is that better standards won't hurt and might help.

How much wasted money, by the way? And what would you have spent it on instead?

Funny how as soon as the anti-CC folks start losing one argument they shift over to something else like "waaah, poverty and wasted money" as though it were something that would be solved by getting rid of CC.

Bless your heart honey. You keep thinking you're winning.

Funny how as soon as the anti-CC folks start losing one argument they shift over to something else like "waaah, poverty and wasted money" as though it were something that would be solved by getting rid of CC.

Sure. I wish we could just put in the high standards and then move on to more meaningful efforts, like decreasing child poverty. But obviously we can't.

No, for some reason you think this is going to make things better. You are SO wrong--and look at all the wasted money that could have helped in other ways.

Anonymous wrote:You know, there is no evidence that high standards improve education. Does anyone else find it disturbing that so much time and effort has been spent on this?

Sure. I wish we could just put in the high standards and then move on to more meaningful efforts, like decreasing child poverty. But obviously we can't.

Anonymous wrote:

More Common Core failure: The jacking up of reading levels. This chart details how what was the eighth grade reading level in 2002 is now a fifth grade reading level:

https://lacetothetop.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/document7-page-001.jpg

This is exactly what I've found having older books whose reading level says they are third grade, but they are easier than the current second grade books.

The Common Core standards don't define reading levels.

Anonymous wrote:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1.f
Produce and expand complete sentences in shared language activities.

Wow. Hadn't noticed this one before. LOL!

Why does this make you laugh out loud? Perhaps it is developmentally inappropriate to expect kindergarteners to produce and expand complete sentences in shared language activities?

More Common Core failure: The jacking up of reading levels. This chart details how what was the eighth grade reading level in 2002 is now a fifth grade reading level:


https://lacetothetop.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/document7-page-001.jpg

This is exactly what I've found having older books whose reading level says they are third grade, but they are easier than the current second grade books.

Anonymous wrote:

You: You should admit that there are bad standards!
Me: OK, could you post some please?
You: No!

LOL! You seem to think there is only one of us. And, your answer is always the same.

You = plural you. There is no difference in English between you, singular, and you, plural -- unless you (singular) would prefer y'all? It does help to make things clearer.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1.f
Produce and expand complete sentences in shared language activities.

Wow. Hadn't noticed this one before. LOL!

You: You should admit that there are bad standards!
Me: OK, could you post some please?
You: No!

LOL! You seem to think there is only one of us. And, your answer is always the same.

You know, there is no evidence that high standards improve education. Does anyone else find it disturbing that so much time and effort has been spent on this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As you say, there are many possibilities, only one of which is that the test developer doesn't understand the standard because the standard is poorly written. The "bad test question = Common Core standards are bad!!!" people are disregarding all of the other possibilities.

And, repeatedly, you refuse to accept that there are standards that are poorly written. What color is your Kool-Aid?

Could you provide some examples of standards that are poorly written, please?

No, because his has been done over and over again. We said they are bad, you say they are not. No point to that.

Maybe this can get through your pea-sized brain: There are 90 kindergarten reading standards to MASTER in 180 days of school. So much for the fewer, deeper garbage. It's a race for students and teachers from the morning the defenseless 5 year olds walk into school. And those are just the reading standards. They also have to do math that many of them are not ready to do, and MASTER it.

You: You should admit that there are bad standards!
Me: OK, could you post some please?
You: No!

And I really don't think that "90 kindergarten reading standards to MASTER!" is a good measure of the appropriateness of the kindergarten standards, let alone of the Common Core standards as a whole. (If the kindergarten standards are bad, does that mean that all of the other standards for grades 1-12 are also bad? I don think so.) A lot of the kindergarten standards are related. For example, all of these separate substandards are really just detail supporting the main standard:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1
Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when writing or speaking.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1.a
Print many upper- and lowercase letters.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1.b
Use frequently occurring nouns and verbs.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1.c
Form regular plural nouns orally by adding /s/ or /es/ (e.g., dog, dogs; wish, wishes).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1.d
Understand and use question words (interrogatives) (e.g., who, what, where, when, why, how).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1.e
Use the most frequently occurring prepositions (e.g., to, from, in, out, on, off, for, of, by, with).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1.f
Produce and expand complete sentences in shared language activities.

And some of the kindergarten standards are for things that every child has already mastered before entering kindergarten -- or so I've read right here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As you say, there are many possibilities, only one of which is that the test developer doesn't understand the standard because the standard is poorly written. The "bad test question = Common Core standards are bad!!!" people are disregarding all of the other possibilities.

And, repeatedly, you refuse to accept that there are standards that are poorly written. What color is your Kool-Aid?

Could you provide some examples of standards that are poorly written, please?

No, because his has been done over and over again. We said they are bad, you say they are not. No point to that.

Maybe this can get through your pea-sized brain: There are 90 kindergarten reading standards to MASTER in 180 days of school. So much for the fewer, deeper garbage. It's a race for students and teachers from the morning the defenseless 5 year olds walk into school. And those are just the reading standards. They also have to do math that many of them are not ready to do, and MASTER it.