Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 19:22     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them

Where did you get the 10% from? Let's discuss real numbers, not hypotheticals.


Guesstimate--based on experience.

Please provide the research that says that the standards are developmentally appropriate. While you are at it, please provide the names of people on the committee who were Early Childhood specialists. We have already established that there were not any Early Childhood teachers.

Would you want First grade teachers setting the standards for Algebra? Why should college math professors set the standards for K? The Early Childhood standards were not written by teachers--or experts. But, then, we really don't know how they were developed, do we?




Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 19:12     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them
But if there are kindergarteners who can meet the standards (which there are), then it's not true that the standards are developmentally inappropriate.


What makes you think that? They are not appropriate for most Kindergarteners. I suspect you have never taught Kindergarten or First Grade, for that matter.

And, Gesell may be dated, but the research stands.
Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 19:00     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them
Anonymous wrote:


The point is that if some children can easily meet the standards, the standards are not developmentally inappropriate

That is why there should not be standards of this type for Kindergarten. You finally get it!


OOOPs! Should have known better. Thought you said "appropriate".

So, if 10% can easily meet them, then they are developmentally appropriate for those who cannot? Remember, these, we are told, are the "minimum standards."



Where did you get the 10% from? Let's discuss real numbers, not hypotheticals.
Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 18:59     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them
Anonymous wrote:
The point is that if some children can easily meet the standards, the standards are not developmentally inappropriate


That is why there should not be standards of this type for Kindergarten. You finally get it!


No, reread please.

You may argue, if you want, that there should not be standards for kindergarten because kindergarteners are variable. And I would certainly agree that kindergarteners are variable.

But if there are kindergarteners who can meet the standards (which there are), then it's not true that the standards are developmentally inappropriate.

Could you also please provide some examples of standards that are developmentally inappropriate? So far somebody has provided two examples. But there are many kindergarten standards. Which of the other ones are developmentally inappropriate, according to you?
Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 18:59     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them


The point is that if some children can easily meet the standards, the standards are not developmentally inappropriate


That is why there should not be standards of this type for Kindergarten. You finally get it!


OOOPs! Should have known better. Thought you said "appropriate".

So, if 10% can easily meet them, then they are developmentally appropriate for those who cannot? Remember, these, we are told, are the "minimum standards."



Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 18:52     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them
The point is that if some children can easily meet the standards, the standards are not developmentally inappropriate


That is why there should not be standards of this type for Kindergarten. You finally get it!
Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 18:48     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them
Anonymous wrote: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.


Gesell, really? Who next, Bettelheim and Freud?
Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 18:46     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them
Anonymous wrote:

Great post. The pro CC poster seems to think that because some of the children can easily meet the standards, all of them should be able to do so. That didn't work yesterday, won't work today, and will be an epic failure tomorrow.

These standards are too narrowly drawn, move too fast, and so many children will struggle with them that they will NOT be the minimum, they will be the absolute ceiling as everyone struggles to try to get as many kids as possible to meet them so that the teachers aren't fired.



There is no "pro CC poster". You are responding to multiple posters.

And the point is not that if some children can easily meet the standards, all of them should be able to do so. The point is that if some children can easily meet the standards, the standards are not developmentally inappropriate.
Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 12:47     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them
Anonymous wrote: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.


Great post. The pro CC poster seems to think that because some of the children can easily meet the standards, all of them should be able to do so. That didn't work yesterday, won't work today, and will be an epic failure tomorrow.

These standards are too narrowly drawn, move too fast, and so many children will struggle with them that they will NOT be the minimum, they will be the absolute ceiling as everyone struggles to try to get as many kids as possible to meet them so that the teachers aren't fired.

Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 12:39     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them

And, you most certainly pooh-pooed and marginalized the professors that were on the committees. That is a fact.


I said they were not the same as classroom teachers.

You really do not respect the opinions and experience of teachers. That is clear.




Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 12:38     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them

NO Early Childhood teachers on the committees. That's a problem.



That's false, as there were several elementary school teachers involved.



Once more: I did not say "elementary" --I said "Early Childhood".

Here's a little information for you:
Math Work team:
Elementary teacher =1
Middle school teachers=2 (and one of them has been quite critical of the standards)
High school teacher=1

State level=16
University level=24
Consultants, etc=7

You call that balance?
Math feedback group
1 5th grade teacher out of 22 people.




Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 12:24     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them
Anonymous wrote:

All professors, who aren't in classrooms with K students every day. You've already made the case that professors don't have a valid contribution to make toward the standards.

Or, are you trying to pick and choose - invalidate the professors who did participate and validate the ones who didn't?


You don't read very well. I've never said that professors shouldn't be on the committees-or "experts". I have said that the committees did not include enough classroom teachers. You really do not understand the concept of "balance", do you? I have said that people who have never been teachers in public schools--or those who are not current teachers--do not count as "classroom teachers." You twist and turn that.
Do you not understand that?

NO Early Childhood teachers on the committees. That's a problem.


And, you most certainly pooh-pooed and marginalized the professors that were on the committees. That is a fact.
Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 12:23     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them
Anonymous wrote:

All professors, who aren't in classrooms with K students every day. You've already made the case that professors don't have a valid contribution to make toward the standards.

Or, are you trying to pick and choose - invalidate the professors who did participate and validate the ones who didn't?


You don't read very well. I've never said that professors shouldn't be on the committees-or "experts". I have said that the committees did not include enough classroom teachers. You really do not understand the concept of "balance", do you? I have said that people who have never been teachers in public schools--or those who are not current teachers--do not count as "classroom teachers." You twist and turn that.
Do you not understand that?

NO Early Childhood teachers on the committees. That's a problem.


That's false, as there were several elementary school teachers involved.

But that's beside the point as again, you want to pick and choose whose expertise you are willing to accept and whose you aren't.

I will point out that there are NO Early Childhood CLASSROOM TEACHERS among the "experts" that you cite above either.
Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 11:15     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them

All professors, who aren't in classrooms with K students every day. You've already made the case that professors don't have a valid contribution to make toward the standards.

Or, are you trying to pick and choose - invalidate the professors who did participate and validate the ones who didn't?


You don't read very well. I've never said that professors shouldn't be on the committees-or "experts". I have said that the committees did not include enough classroom teachers. You really do not understand the concept of "balance", do you? I have said that people who have never been teachers in public schools--or those who are not current teachers--do not count as "classroom teachers." You twist and turn that.
Do you not understand that?

NO Early Childhood teachers on the committees. That's a problem.





Anonymous
Post 05/09/2015 10:39     Subject: Re:PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them
Anonymous wrote: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.


All professors, who aren't in classrooms with K students every day. You've already made the case that professors don't have a valid contribution to make toward the standards.

Or, are you trying to pick and choose - invalidate the professors who did participate and validate the ones who didn't?