http://www.gesellinstitute.org/about-us/gesell-theory/

Here is the short version.

Bottom line: CC standards for K expect that all children are ready to comply with them. Many are not even close to being ready for those standards. Some of the standards may be okay and others not. Some children may be able to comply with ALL of them, and most will not.

If you have ever taught Kindergarten or first grade, you believe this because you have seen it in action. It is not just a theory when you have observed it.

However, if you see education as a matter of accretion rather than development, then the Common Core standards are great for you. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

http://wunc.org/post/common-core-it-developmentally-inappropriate

To the prior poster who mocks the idea of "developmentally inappropriate", here is a pretty good article. It even presents someone who disagrees. Please note, however, that the one who disagrees is a Math education professor. The Early Childhood experts are the ones concerned. And, the Math professor is not addressing the K standards specifically.

If you really want to understand what "developmentally appropriate" really means, you need to read up. Start with Gesell.

I honestly don't understand why it discredits the standards to have a standard that says that kindergarteners should be able to listen and take turns when discussing a text. Should kindergarteners not be able to do this? Or maybe it's not important?

I get it. But there are some missing like: wash your hands after going pee pee, don't pick your nose, cover your mouth when you sneeze, don't touch others when you are lined up, etc., etc. Lots of stuff that is important and is missing from the standards (and that teachers might not know).

Anonymous wrote:reading emergent texts
counting to 100

just two examples of developmentally inappropriate for K

The standards you are referring to are:

CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.A.1 Count to 100 by ones and by tens.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.4 Read emergent-reader texts with purpose and understanding.

Why is it developmentally inappropriate to expect a child to be able to count to 100 by the age of 6 or 5 going on 6?

Also, perhaps you don't understand what "emergent-reader texts" are? Here is an example of an emergent-reader text:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yJxaXtPqhc

The entire reading consists of "Have you seen my cat?" (repeated lots of times, with pictures) alternated with "This is not my cat!" (repeated lots of times, with pictures), plus one "Where is my cat?". Why is it developmentally inappropriate to expect a child to be able to read this by the age of 6 or 5 going on 6?

Also, could you please provide some more examples? Otherwise one might conclude that those are the only 2 "developmentally inappropriate" standards.

Anonymous wrote:

I gather that this is one that you think that everybody is already doing anyway (though I hardly think that's a good reason for not including it in the Common Core standards)

This is the kind of thing that discredits the standards.

It's laughable and eye rolling stuff.

I honestly don't understand why it discredits the standards to have a standard that says that kindergarteners should be able to listen and take turns when discussing a text. Should kindergarteners not be able to do this? Or maybe it's not important?

I gather that this is one that you think that everybody is already doing anyway (though I hardly think that's a good reason for not including it in the Common Core standards)

This is the kind of thing that discredits the standards.

It's laughable and eye rolling stuff.

reading emergent texts
counting to 100

just two examples of developmentally inappropriate for K

Anonymous wrote:

I'm still waiting for examples.

Why do you think we need a standard that says that the K teacher should teach the kids to take turns? You really think a teacher in Georgia teaches to that standard, but those in Oklahoma do not. Do you really think we need that? You really have no respect for teachers, do you?

I was waiting for examples of developmentally inappropriate standards, stupid standards, and standards that everybody is already doing anyway. I gather that this is one that you think that everybody is already doing anyway (though I hardly think that's a good reason for not including it in the Common Core standards). So, how about examples of developmentally inappropriate standards and stupid standards?

I'm still waiting for examples.

Why do you think we need a standard that says that the K teacher should teach the kids to take turns? You really think a teacher in Georgia teaches to that standard, but those in Oklahoma do not. Do you really think we need that? You really have no respect for teachers, do you?

Anonymous wrote:

Also, I wonder if you've ever said, "The kindergarten standards are developmentally inappropriate?" I hope not, given that, in your opinion, only some of them are.

Sure. Because if some are inappropriate, it poisons the pot.

I'm still waiting for examples.

Anonymous wrote:

Also, I wonder if you've ever said, "The kindergarten standards are developmentally inappropriate?" I hope not, given that, in your opinion, only some of them are.

Sure. Because if some are inappropriate, it poisons the pot.

All of the kindergarten standards are developmentally inappropriate because some of the kindergarten standards are developmentally inappropriate? You must be using the infectious disease model of educational standards.

Also, I wonder if you've ever said, "The kindergarten standards are developmentally inappropriate?" I hope not, given that, in your opinion, only some of them are.

Sure. Because if some are inappropriate, it poisons the pot.

Anonymous wrote:

Also, which is it? Will the Common Core standards damage a generation of children by requiring them to do developmentally inappropriate things, or are the Common Core standards irrelevant and redundant because they call for obvious things that everybody is already doing anyway?

They will be eliminated before they do too much damage, I hope.

But, other than that: all of the above.

Some are developmentally inappropriate.
Some are just plain stupid.
Some are fine--and unnecessary because K teachers have been teaching those skills anyway.

Could you give some examples of each, please? I'd like to know which standards are which.

Also, I wonder if you've ever said, "The kindergarten standards are developmentally inappropriate?" I hope not, given that, in your opinion, only some of them are.

Also, which is it? Will the Common Core standards damage a generation of children by requiring them to do developmentally inappropriate things, or are the Common Core standards irrelevant and redundant because they call for obvious things that everybody is already doing anyway?

They will be eliminated before they do too much damage, I hope.

But, other than that: all of the above.

Some are developmentally inappropriate.
Some are just plain stupid.
Some are fine--and unnecessary because K teachers have been teaching those skills anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Also, the standards are supposed to be educational standards. I hope you agree that learning to listen and take turns is part of a kindergarten education.

Different poster. I thought that was in the literacy standards.

Sure am glad they wrote it down though. Those poor dumb K teachers wouldn't ever have figured out that they need to help the kids learn to take turns talking.

No, it is in the English/Language Arts standards, under speaking and listening.

Also, which is it? Will the Common Core standards damage a generation of children by requiring them to do developmentally inappropriate things, or are the Common Core standards irrelevant and redundant because they call for obvious things that everybody is already doing anyway?