Using your own kid as a standard for the standards is hardly scientific. Teachers who have many students would be much better judges. They see the range.

1. Many kids have hardly seen a book before they start school. Go pick up a book in a language you do not know and learn to read it. Better yet, pick up one with a different alphabet--Arabic or Russian. Start by learning the sounds of each letter. I hope you already have a speaking vocabulary, because you also need to understand what you read.
2. Also, all kids are not able to follow simple directions. Some kids cannot do that. I taught K--do you know that some kids have to learn to do this and THEN that? That was part of teaching K. You would start with one action and then add, until a child could follow two or three simple directions without help.
3. Please remember when you get to math that some kids do not start K knowing how to count to ten. Teaching one to one correspondence with counting comes first. Yes, counting to 100 is not appropriate for some kids.

This is just a start. The standards are not appropriate. Sure, some kids can achieve them. However, I have seen many bright kids who would benefit from waiting another year to read. There are so many things that they could learn that will help them learn faster in the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Why doesn't she count as an early childhood specialist, by the way?

Why do you think she does?

Why weren't there any Early Childhood teachers on the committee?

There were far more professors who had never taught K-12 than any current classroom teachers.

I haven't found any Early Childhood teachers. That is a problem.

Because there is a document identifying her as an early childhood specialist. Why do you think she doesn't count?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Punchline: K-2 standards (at least) are inappropriate. Neither research or experience support then. They need to be eliminated.

I scanned through the K-2 standards and I was hard pressed to find one my DC didn't breeze through and she was in a program that was so far removed from "rote memorization", etc. that its not even funny. I am not convinced that there is anything wrong with the standards themselves.

Yes, in the Maryland Public Schools forum, the received wisdom is that the K-2 standards are developmentally inappropriate -- because they belong in preschool, not in K-2. I always have to check whether I'm on the The Standards Are Way Too Easy forum or the The Standards Are Way Too Hard forum.

I scanned through the K-2 standards and I was hard pressed to find one my DC didn't breeze through and she was in a program that was so far removed from "rote memorization", etc. that its not even funny. I am not convinced that there is anything wrong with the standards themselves.

Using your own kid as a standard for the standards is hardly scientific. Teachers who have many students would be much better judges. They see the range.

I scanned through the K-2 standards and I was hard pressed to find one my DC didn't breeze through and she was in a program that was so far removed from "rote memorization", etc. that its not even funny. I am not convinced that there is anything wrong with the standards themselves.

So, we've been told by a poster on here that these are the "minimum standards." I assume -since you are telling us that if your DC did fine with these standards and therefore they are fine for all kids- that your DC is below average in development. Somehow, I don't think you mean that.

Anonymous wrote:The Punchline: K-2 standards (at least) are inappropriate. Neither research or experience support then. They need to be eliminated.

I scanned through the K-2 standards and I was hard pressed to find one my DC didn't breeze through and she was in a program that was so far removed from "rote memorization", etc. that its not even funny. I am not convinced that there is anything wrong with the standards themselves.

whoops! Wrong thread. sorry! ^^^

Most of the women I know who got pregnant either missed up their birth control pills, were taking antibiotics, or didn't use something just "one time."

It's really kind of appalling how little women know about how their own bodies work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Putting a curriculum specialist on a workgroup related to standards development -- how absurd!

No, wait...

But you posted her as an Early childhood teacher.

So, we return to not one Early Childhood teacher on the committee. Not even an Early Childhood specialist.

Why?

No, I didn't. Somebody else did. You are responding to multiple posters.

Why doesn't she count as an early childhood specialist, by the way?

Also, why are you so focused on the process, instead of on the results?

The results suck.

Kids hating school, not learning anything, falling further behind as they are mentally whipped with words like "grit" all while Pearson cashes big checks.

I see scandal and Senate hearings and lots of heads rolling in the not too distant future.

The Punchline: K-2 standards (at least) are inappropriate. Neither research or experience support then. They need to be eliminated.

Your theory seems to be that not only does one need to be an ECE expert, they need to be a current ECE teacher. Otherwise, the entire standard is invalid. Seems fairly arbitrary to me, but this is obviously your pièce de résistance. I'll take one for the team and concede that point if you promise to move on to something else or finally deliver the punchline.

So, you now admit there were no Early Childhood teachers on the committee.

And, so far, I see no Early Childhood specialists on the committee.

So, you are comparing real live children to automobiles.
There is a difference, and that is the problem with these Early Childhood standards: automobiles come off an assembly line. Children do not.

Anonymous wrote:

Why doesn't she count as an early childhood specialist, by the way?

Why do you think she does?

Why weren't there any Early Childhood teachers on the committee?

There were far more professors who had never taught K-12 than any current classroom teachers.

I haven't found any Early Childhood teachers. That is a problem.

My mechanic is really good at fixing cars, however, he didn't design the thing. They are two different jobs.

Your theory seems to be that not only does one need to be an ECE expert, they need to be a current ECE teacher. Otherwise, the entire standard is invalid. Seems fairly arbitrary to me, but this is obviously your pièce de résistance. I'll take one for the team and concede that point if you promise to move on to something else or finally deliver the punchline.

Why doesn't she count as an early childhood specialist, by the way?

Why do you think she does?

Why weren't there any Early Childhood teachers on the committee?

There were far more professors who had never taught K-12 than any current classroom teachers.

I haven't found any Early Childhood teachers. That is a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Putting a curriculum specialist on a workgroup related to standards development -- how absurd!

No, wait...

But you posted her as an Early childhood teacher.

So, we return to not one Early Childhood teacher on the committee. Not even an Early Childhood specialist.

Why?

No, I didn't. Somebody else did. You are responding to multiple posters.

Why doesn't she count as an early childhood specialist, by the way?

Also, why are you so focused on the process, instead of on the results?

Putting a curriculum specialist on a workgroup related to standards development -- how absurd!

No, wait...

But you posted her as an Early childhood teacher.

So, we return to not one Early Childhood teacher on the committee. Not even an Early Childhood specialist.

Why?