So what solution do you propose? "Get rid of the Common Core" is not a solution. At best it would get us back to the problems of 2009. If you don't want the Common Core standards, what do you want instead?

What do you mean by the problems of 2009?

Standards are not going to solve the problem.

Different K teacher (long retired).
To the question about managing a K class. I’ll admit that 30 kids with one aide is not easy or ideal. However, there are lots of things a teacher can do. It’s been a while since I taught. Here are a few ways you learn:
1. You observe how the kids behave and react when they are in the large group (storytime, sharing, etc.) You would be surprised how much teachers learn in this atmosphere. I would keep notes.
2. There are many diagnostic tests available that are not machine graded “bubble tests” . Teachers even create their own. Believe it or not, these are tools that teachers have used for years and years—long before Common Core or NCLB.
3. You interact with kids on an individual basis every day in some way. And you watch, watch, watch. You also listen, listen, listen.
4. You may have the aide read a story or supervise centers while you work with kids one on one or in small groups.
5. You can learn a lot about the child’s social skills by paying attention at recess.
6. I used to keep notes on each child—especially when I would see something that concerned me. This is in addition to samples of work and tests, etc.
7. A teacher can learn a lot about a child by having them draw and tell a story.
8. The one thing good about being a K teacher is that it doesn’t take long to “grade” work. But, you do learn a lot from looking at what the child does-or does not-produce.

Forget Common Core.
Stop NCLB testing.
Let teachers teach according to what the child needs to learn. Start where the kid is.



Hahaha! How are you going to know where the kid is, if you don't TEST them?

Teachers "tested" long before NCLB or Common core. They even used standardized tests from time to time. They used diagnostic tests--and the tests for CC are not that.

Anonymous wrote:

What do you want to have happen in 2015?


Forget Common Core.
Stop NCLB testing.
Let teachers teach according to what the child needs to learn. Start where the kid is.



Hahaha! How are you going to know where the kid is, if you don't TEST them?

Moronic.

Teacher here. If you think that one test---any one test---is going to tell you where to start with a child, you are deluding yourself. The only real way to know "where a kid is"---if you can completely "know"--- is to give the child tasks and observe how the child attacks those tasks and what the outcomes are. This takes time and a skilled/experienced teacher. The "knowing" is about so much more than a test result. Every child approaches a work situation differently and that is key to understanding how to teach the child. No test can give you that kind of information---especially not a multiple choice test. If you want to have an appropriate education for each child, start with teachers who spend time getting to know how each child learns. This is what teachers really want to do and it produces a rewarding learning environment for both the teacher and the student.

Genuine question to you, the Teacher - how do you teach to each child when there are 30+ kids in the class? In both my DC's K classes, one pre CC, the teacher couldn't spend much individual time with each child, especially not enough time to get to know how each child approaches a problem. I would think that seeing how a child approaches a particular problem is not indicative of how that child learns overall. It could be just that problem. And also, it would take several minutes of interaction to understand how that child learns. In a lot K classes, there are just too many kids to do this effectively.

What do you want to have happen in 2015?


Forget Common Core.
Stop NCLB testing.
Let teachers teach according to what the child needs to learn. Start where the kid is.



Hahaha! How are you going to know where the kid is, if you don't TEST them?

Moronic.

Teacher here. If you think that one test---any one test---is going to tell you where to start with a child, you are deluding yourself. The only real way to know "where a kid is"---if you can completely "know"--- is to give the child tasks and observe how the child attacks those tasks and what the outcomes are. This takes time and a skilled/experienced teacher. The "knowing" is about so much more than a test result. Every child approaches a work situation differently and that is key to understanding how to teach the child. No test can give you that kind of information---especially not a multiple choice test. If you want to have an appropriate education for each child, start with teachers who spend time getting to know how each child learns. This is what teachers really want to do and it produces a rewarding learning environment for both the teacher and the student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If the intent of the standards were aspirational goals for students, they make some sense. As to whether they are developmentally appropriate, surely it ought to be possible to do a controlled study. The actual standards development process doesn't seem to have done one, though.

The intent of the standards to be the learning goals for what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. Is that what you mean by "aspirational goal"?

I agree that it is theoretically possible to do a controlled study. What aim would you be trying to accomplish with this controlled study? If it turned out that the standards (K-2? K-6? K-12?) were developmentally appropriate, then what? If it turned out that some or all of the standards were not developmentally appropriate, then what? Which non-Common-Core standards in education have undergone testing via a controlled study to determine whether they are developmentally appropriate?

Again one of the the many problems with the standards is THEY ARE NOT CHANGEABLE. They are copyrighted, and states "approved" them before they were ever written, with zero idea what would be in them. SO if they SUCK and are inappropriate, tough shit. We're stuck. Our kids our stuck. Our teachers and schools are stuck.

These standards will be studied --- unfortunately, at the cost of this generation of children, who have had their education hijacked by trying to meet a hodgepodge of standards by a bunch of nerds who understand books but not children.

And to "aspirational level" -- these standards were written for the top 30 percent of children. The rest will fail, year after year after year, until we finally have millions of non-graduates who are unemployable.

OF COURSE they are changeable. Most standards are revisited and updated on a regular basis. Never heard of ISO or other standards bodies? Copyrighting has nothing to do with whether they can go back and change them again, it just has to do with whether someone else can claim them as their own. As for your nonsense about "not knowing" what was in them or the approval process, I AGAIN direct you back to reality: http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/

Again, if you don't like the standards, come up with a better solution. "Repeal" is not a better solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Again one of the the many problems with the standards is THEY ARE NOT CHANGEABLE. They are copyrighted, and states "approved" them before they were ever written, with zero idea what would be in them. SO if they SUCK and are inappropriate, tough shit. We're stuck. Our kids our stuck. Our teachers and schools are stuck.

These standards will be studied --- unfortunately, at the cost of this generation of children, who have had their education hijacked by trying to meet a hodgepodge of standards by a bunch of nerds who understand books but not children.

And to "aspirational level" -- these standards were written for the top 30 percent of children. The rest will fail, year after year after year, until we finally have millions of non-graduates who are unemployable.

So what solution do you propose? "Get rid of the Common Core" is not a solution. At best it would get us back to the problems of 2009. If you don't want the Common Core standards, what do you want instead?

And I really don't understand the argument about copyright. It's impossible for the owner of the copyrighted materials to change the materials? The NGA Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers couldn't change the Common Core standards if they wanted to? I am not a lawyer, but I'm dubious.

More on the copyright business:

http://indianapublicmedia.org/stateimpact/2013/08/19/core-question-does-copyright-mean-states-cant-change-the-common-core/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The intent of the standards to be the learning goals for what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. Is that what you mean by "aspirational goal"?

I agree that it is theoretically possible to do a controlled study. What aim would you be trying to accomplish with this controlled study? If it turned out that the standards (K-2? K-6? K-12?) were developmentally appropriate, then what? If it turned out that some or all of the standards were not developmentally appropriate, then what? Which non-Common-Core standards in education have undergone testing via a controlled study to determine whether they are developmentally appropriate?

Perhaps none, but there is the slim chance of showing that maybe our kids are capable of learning to and beyond these standards. This issue seems to be degenerating to one of "repeal", "repeal and replace", with no clear alternate plans. I agree that the way forward might be to work with them and empower teachers. As to the nefarious purposes of the testing companies, it was game over when the NGA decided to develop the CC in the first place. If a centralized, federal testing body is anathema, then there was no choice but to involve Peterson and the ilk.

Oh, I understand.

Yes, I agree that it does seem to be degenerating to "repeal and replace" with the same plans for a replacement that people have proposed (namely, none) for another recent major social initiative (ahem).

But I don't think that the biggest, loudest, most politically influential source of opposition to the Common Core standards would be swayed at all by evidence, even if there were a study whose results were positive. These particular opponents would oppose the Common Core standards no matter what, on grounds that the current administration supports them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If the intent of the standards were aspirational goals for students, they make some sense. As to whether they are developmentally appropriate, surely it ought to be possible to do a controlled study. The actual standards development process doesn't seem to have done one, though.

The intent of the standards to be the learning goals for what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. Is that what you mean by "aspirational goal"?

I agree that it is theoretically possible to do a controlled study. What aim would you be trying to accomplish with this controlled study? If it turned out that the standards (K-2? K-6? K-12?) were developmentally appropriate, then what? If it turned out that some or all of the standards were not developmentally appropriate, then what? Which non-Common-Core standards in education have undergone testing via a controlled study to determine whether they are developmentally appropriate?

Again one of the the many problems with the standards is THEY ARE NOT CHANGEABLE. They are copyrighted, and states "approved" them before they were ever written, with zero idea what would be in them. SO if they SUCK and are inappropriate, tough shit. We're stuck. Our kids our stuck. Our teachers and schools are stuck.

These standards will be studied --- unfortunately, at the cost of this generation of children, who have had their education hijacked by trying to meet a hodgepodge of standards by a bunch of nerds who understand books but not children.

And to "aspirational level" -- these standards were written for the top 30 percent of children. The rest will fail, year after year after year, until we finally have millions of non-graduates who are unemployable.

Anonymous wrote:
The intent of the standards to be the learning goals for what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. Is that what you mean by "aspirational goal"?

I agree that it is theoretically possible to do a controlled study. What aim would you be trying to accomplish with this controlled study? If it turned out that the standards (K-2? K-6? K-12?) were developmentally appropriate, then what? If it turned out that some or all of the standards were not developmentally appropriate, then what? Which non-Common-Core standards in education have undergone testing via a controlled study to determine whether they are developmentally appropriate?

Perhaps none, but there is the slim chance of showing that maybe our kids are capable of learning to and beyond these standards. This issue seems to be degenerating to one of "repeal", "repeal and replace", with no clear alternate plans. I agree that the way forward might be to work with them and empower teachers. As to the nefarious purposes of the testing companies, it was game over when the NGA decided to develop the CC in the first place. If a centralized, federal testing body is anathema, then there was no choice but to involve Peterson and the ilk.

Anonymous wrote:
The intent of the standards to be the learning goals for what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. Is that what you mean by "aspirational goal"?

I agree that it is theoretically possible to do a controlled study. What aim would you be trying to accomplish with this controlled study? If it turned out that the standards (K-2? K-6? K-12?) were developmentally appropriate, then what? If it turned out that some or all of the standards were not developmentally appropriate, then what? Which non-Common-Core standards in education have undergone testing via a controlled study to determine whether they are developmentally appropriate?

Perhaps none, but there is the slim chance of showing that maybe our kids are capable of learning to and beyond these standards. This issue seems to be degenerating to one of "repeal", "repeal and replace", with no clear alternate plans. I agree that the way forward might be to work with them and empower teachers. As to the nefarious purposes of the testing companies, it was game over when the NGA decided to develop the CC in the first place. If a centralized, federal testing body is anathema, then there was no choice but to involve Peterson and the ilk.

Anonymous wrote:

If the intent of the standards were aspirational goals for students, they make some sense. As to whether they are developmentally appropriate, surely it ought to be possible to do a controlled study. The actual standards development process doesn't seem to have done one, though.

The intent of the standards to be the learning goals for what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. Is that what you mean by "aspirational goal"?

I agree that it is theoretically possible to do a controlled study. What aim would you be trying to accomplish with this controlled study? If it turned out that the standards (K-2? K-6? K-12?) were developmentally appropriate, then what? If it turned out that some or all of the standards were not developmentally appropriate, then what? Which non-Common-Core standards in education have undergone testing via a controlled study to determine whether they are developmentally appropriate?

Whether the standards are developmentally appropriate depends on the expertise of the people drafting them in the first place. The committee chartered by the National Governors Association to develop the actual CC doesn't seem to have many people directly involved in K-3 classroom teaching
http://bit.ly/1lXSflE
See the names for yourselves:
http://bit.ly/1m47D5Y

If the intent of the standards were aspirational goals for students, they make some sense. As to whether they are developmentally appropriate, surely it ought to be possible to do a controlled study. The actual standards development process doesn't seem to have done one, though.

Whether the standards are developmentally appropriate depends on the expertise of the people drafting them in the first place. The committee chartered by the National Governors Association to develop the actual CC doesn't seem to have many people directly involved in K-3 classroom teaching
http://bit.ly/1lXSflE
See the names for yourselves:
http://bit.ly/1m47D5Y

If the intent of the standards were aspirational goals for students, they make some sense. As to whether they are developmentally appropriate, surely it ought to be possible to do a controlled study. The actual standards development process doesn't seem to have done one, though.

Anonymous wrote:

What do you want to have happen in 2015?

Forget Common Core.
Stop NCLB testing.
Let teachers teach according to what the child needs to learn. Start where the kid is.

Hahaha! How are you going to know where the kid is, if you don't TEST them?

Moronic.