Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the math standards in the early grades are very comparable to Singapore Math, which they actually used in Singapore, so either children develop differently in Singapore, or the standards are not inappropriate for child development.

Have you ever been to Singapore? Gorgeous place--but you better not do anything wrong there. Not exactly the model I want.

How are Singapore's laws about gum-chewing (etc.) relevant to whether or not it's appropriate to (for example) expect children to be able to understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem by the end of first grade?

..because this is what people on here do all the time when they have nothing else intelligent to add. They nit-pick at something unrelated, like the grammar or spelling, or in this case, Singapore laws.

How are Singapore's laws about gum-chewing (etc.) relevant to whether or not it's appropriate to (for example) expect children to be able to understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem by the end of first grade?

Now, let me see. Which teacher has an easier job? Those in Singapore, where kids are strongly disciplined-or here?

Anyway, CC is NOT Singapore math.

Anonymous wrote:

But the math standards in the early grades are very comparable to Singapore Math, which they actually used in Singapore, so either children develop differently in Singapore, or the standards are not inappropriate for child development.

Have you ever been to Singapore? Gorgeous place--but you better not do anything wrong there. Not exactly the model I want.

How are Singapore's laws about gum-chewing (etc.) relevant to whether or not it's appropriate to (for example) expect children to be able to understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem by the end of first grade?

But the math standards in the early grades are very comparable to Singapore Math, which they actually used in Singapore, so either children develop differently in Singapore, or the standards are not inappropriate for child development.

Have you ever been to Singapore? Gorgeous place--but you better not do anything wrong there. Not exactly the model I want.

Anonymous wrote:

Well, judging by the "why do people look down on teachers" thread, apparently teachers aren't necessarily the best judge of what is appropriate teaching material or standards.

Guess I need to read that thread. However, I trust the teachers more than professors in ivory towers.

Trust the teachers for what, though? I certainly trust the teachers more about teaching. I don't necessarily trust the teachers more (or less) about standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#2 Since teachers weren't involved, the standards are not appropriate and they are confusing to teachers.


Are teachers the only ones who are able to determine whether standards are appropriate? Are teachers unable to understand materials written by non-teachers?

No, but don't you think teachers are in a position to judge best what is appropriate? I think so.

Judge BEST? No, I don't think so. Like anybody else, teachers know what they know, and often don't know what they don't know. For example, there has been a lot of talk about how the math standards in the early grades are inappropriate for child development. But the math standards in the early grades are very comparable to Singapore Math, which they actually used in Singapore, so either children develop differently in Singapore, or the standards are not inappropriate for child development.

Teachers are certainly judges of what's appropriate, but they are not the only judges.

Well, judging by the "why do people look down on teachers" thread, apparently teachers aren't necessarily the best judge of what is appropriate teaching material or standards.

Guess I need to read that thread. However, I trust the teachers more than professors in ivory towers.

Anonymous wrote:#4. Materials and tests are developed by publishing companies that have one goal: money. I suspect that many of these companies have consultants who helped write the standards. Win/win for consultants and publishers.


This is true of any product produced by a for-profit company. It was also true of the educational materials companies before the Common Core standards, and it would remain true if the Common Core standards disappeared tomorrow.

True--but school systems are under great pressure to switch over to CC as quickly as possible. If a publishing company can claim it meets the standards the systems will jump on it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#2 Since teachers weren't involved, the standards are not appropriate and they are confusing to teachers.


Are teachers the only ones who are able to determine whether standards are appropriate? Are teachers unable to understand materials written by non-teachers?

No, but don't you think teachers are in a position to judge best what is appropriate? I think so.

Well, judging by the "why do people look down on teachers" thread, apparently teachers aren't necessarily the best judge of what is appropriate teaching material or standards.

Don't you think it is odd that they did not include teachers?

Anonymous wrote:#2 Since teachers weren't involved, the standards are not appropriate and they are confusing to teachers.


Are teachers the only ones who are able to determine whether standards are appropriate? Are teachers unable to understand materials written by non-teachers?

No, but don't you think teachers are in a position to judge best what is appropriate? I think so.

Anonymous wrote:#2 Since teachers weren't involved, the standards are not appropriate and they are confusing to teachers.

Are teachers the only ones who are able to determine whether standards are appropriate? Are teachers unable to understand materials written by non-teachers?

Anonymous wrote:#4. Materials and tests are developed by publishing companies that have one goal: money. I suspect that many of these companies have consultants who helped write the standards. Win/win for consultants and publishers.

This is true of any product produced by a for-profit company. It was also true of the educational materials companies before the Common Core standards, and it would remain true if the Common Core standards disappeared tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:#4. Materials and tests are developed by publishing companies that have one goal: money. I suspect that many of these companies have consultants who helped write the standards. Win/win for consultants and publishers.

This argument makes no sense. Publishing companies want to make money rather than lose it, that's true. But their main goal is to put out good books. And when writing materials and tests for a new set of standards, it sounds very sensible to hire the consultants who are most familiar with the new standards. Why shouldn't they do that?

Under common core, my DC#2 can do more complex problems both in writing and math than my DC#1 could do at the same age pre-CC.

Under CC, both my DCs are doing more complex problems than both my DH (from Europe) and I did (from US) at their age.

This is my experience. Is CC perfect? Is MCPS curriculum, perfect? Are the teachers and worksheets perfect? Nope. But none of these things were perfect pre CC either.