Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


That's basically the definition of a standard. If different kids had different standards, the standards wouldn't be standards.

Also, states had standards before the Common Core standards.


You think that is a good argument for Common Core? Here's a hint: it's not.



It is a good argument against the idea that there were no standards in education until the Common Core State Standards came along, though.

The teacher quoted above has said things changed with Common Core. Maybe, it is the developmental inappropriateness of the new standards. After all, the premise is that the new standards will improve education. The data says it won't.

The teacher above is just one isolated anecdote. It doesn't particularly provide anything useful in terms of objective data or critera, although one might consider it a subjective data point. But, what's the rest of the story? One needs to look at why, specifically, her readers were struggling? It's not as though Common Core suddenly accelerated reading expectations by several grade levels, in fact Common Core reading standards are pretty much in line with what has already been in place in most states for years prior to Common Core. I tend to suspect that quite likely the case was that many of her readers were struggling because they had inappropriate, substandard reading education in the grades prior to entering her middle school. And, as has been pointed out several times already, there's nothing in Common Core that precludes schools from offering supplementary reading supports to help bring those students up to speed. If schools aren't providing adequate or appropriate supports, that's a failing of the school administration, not a failing of Common Core.

Anonymous wrote:

I thought it had at least one major methodological flaw, and in any case its results were not that new standards won't improve education, but rather that the quality of state standards has no measurable effect on state test scores.

I think if you cannot understand the implications of data, that posting here is hopeless.

Please post something that supports that new standards will change things--for the better.

I understand the data, thanks. I'm wondering whether you do? The study explicitly says,

"Are changes in the quality of [state] standards related to changes in [state] achievement [as measured by NAEP test results for reading and math]? Again, the answer is that they are not (correlation coefficient of 0.08)."

see p. 10 of the study, here: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/newsletters/0216_brown_education_loveless.pdf

That doesn't say that new standards won't improve education. It says that the quality of state standards has no measurable effect on state test scores.

Or maybe you're talking about a different study? If so, could you please post a link to the study?

Also, again -- the discussion is not about whether the Common Core standards are bad. It is therefore your obligation (if you believe that the Common Core standards are bad) to support this assertion with logical arguments and with evidence. If somebody starts a thread about how the Common Core standards will change things for the better, then you can ask that person to support their assertion with logical arguments and with evidence.

I thought it had at least one major methodological flaw, and in any case its results were not that new standards won't improve education, but rather that the quality of state standards has no measurable effect on state test scores.

I think if you cannot understand the implications of data, that posting here is hopeless.

Please post something that supports that new standards will change things--for the better.

Anonymous wrote:

The teacher quoted above has said things changed with Common Core. Maybe, it is the developmental inappropriateness of the new standards. After all, the premise is that the new standards will improve education. The data says it won't.

The teacher quoted above didn't say how things had changed with the Common Core standards. So I didn't find it a particularly helpful or illuminating comment.

Also, the teacher quoted above taught middle school. So far, the few examples people have provided of "developmentally inappropriate" standards have been kindergarten standards. Now the middle school standards are developmentally inappropriate too? Says who? And which standards?

And finally, which data are you referring to that show that standards won't improve education? If you're referring to the Brookings Institution study -- I thought it had at least one major methodological flaw, and in any case its results were not that new standards won't improve education, but rather that the quality of state standards has no measurable effect on state test scores.

Anonymous wrote:


That's basically the definition of a standard. If different kids had different standards, the standards wouldn't be standards.

Also, states had standards before the Common Core standards.


You think that is a good argument for Common Core? Here's a hint: it's not.



It is a good argument against the idea that there were no standards in education until the Common Core State Standards came along, though.

The teacher quoted above has said things changed with Common Core. Maybe, it is the developmental inappropriateness of the new standards. After all, the premise is that the new standards will improve education. The data says it won't.

Anonymous wrote:

That's basically the definition of a standard. If different kids had different standards, the standards wouldn't be standards.

Also, states had standards before the Common Core standards.

You think that is a good argument for Common Core? Here's a hint: it's not.

It is a good argument against the idea that there were no standards in education until the Common Core State Standards came along, though.

That's basically the definition of a standard. If different kids had different standards, the standards wouldn't be standards.

Also, states had standards before the Common Core standards.

You think that is a good argument for Common Core? Here's a hint: it's not.

Anonymous wrote:

The argument by CC supporters is that all kids need to have the same standards. Fail.

That's basically the definition of a standard. If different kids had different standards, the standards wouldn't be standards.

Also, states had standards before the Common Core standards.

I worked in a middle school for 7 years and loved it until 4 years ago when CC came in. The teachers changed the students changed. And not for the better. It was horrible. I finally had to resign at Christmastime because I couldn't take it anymore. I was a Reading Interventionist, which I see now is a part of CC, and worked with the kids that weren't at reading level. They melted down because the work was too hard and because the tests were really hard. Broke my heart. couldn't be a part of the destruction anymore.

This!

The argument by CC supporters is that all kids need to have the same standards. Fail.

Anonymous wrote:

I worked in a middle school for 7 years and loved it until 4 years ago when CC came in. The teachers changed the students changed. And not for the better. It was horrible. I finally had to resign at Christmastime because I couldn't take it anymore. I was a Reading Interventionist, which I see now is a part of CC, and worked with the kids that weren't at reading level. They melted down because the work was too hard and because the tests were really hard. Broke my heart. couldn't be a part of the destruction anymore.

How did the teachers change? How did the students change? Which part of the Common Core standards call for reading interventionists? Is reading intervention a bad thing? What tests related to the Common Core standards did your students take between the beginning of school and Christmastime, four years ago?