Actually that's exactly what the Common Core math standards do.

LOL!

Anonymous wrote:

Plus, what about the Gates Foundation? Is it all a big Gates Foundation conspiracy, or is it all a big Pearson conspiracy?)

No. Not a conspiracy--just inappropriate and unethical. Pretty open, actually, if one is willing to "google"........just take the names of the committee and look.

Could you provide a few examples of actions you consider unethical?

Anonymous wrote:I know someone whose kids are in K and 2 and she said both kids are constantly asked to cite evidence for their claims (whether or not they're reading). It's contrived, frustrating, a kill-joy, and unnecessary. Just because CC wants kids to know a skill by 12th grade does NOT mean they have to teach it and drill it from K on up. My 7th grader is being asked to do way too much analysis of text, find supporting evidence, bla bla bla, and way too little creative writing or even just plain essay writing. It is overkill and is already leading to burnout. Same (and even worse) with math. Just because at the college level you hope a student can perform some mathematics problem-solving and explain how and why they did it does not mean that they have to do this starting in K! It is very difficult to explain some of these things, and the verbal skills needed originate in a different area of the brain from the math skills. Why not concentrate on really teaching a solid foundation in math facts, problem-solving, and fluency and worry about explaining answers when they're a little older, like HS. As it is now, kids who are talented in math and could really get to a high level are being discouraged because it is hard for them to explain how or why they did something. My kid can do math calcalculations very fast in his head, almost at an unconscious level. That is a talent that should be celebrated. Instead he has to feel he is not good at math because he has trouble writing about it (though he is a good writer in English). How bout emphasizing whatever skills are needed for college in, say, 11th and 12th grades, and let the earlier years be more natural, rigorous relative to the actual content and needed skills, and enjoyable?

Actually that's exactly what the Common Core math standards do.

Anonymous wrote:I will also add that it can take years of performing mathematical operations over and over before a person has an a-ha moment of understanding why the algorithm works mathematically. That is a fantastic discovery process but requires lots of practice and maturity. CC is trying to put the cart before the horse and force understanding before being given enough practice to even appreciate the "understanding" they are "teaching."

Yes, it can. But if it's taught explicitly, from the get-go, then it usually doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:http://parcconline.org/parcc-governing-board-meets-appoints-parcc-chief-executive-officer

Laura McGiffert Slover was on the standards development team--and rose to be ceo of PARCC. Wow.

Wow, what? What is the conflict of interest? Do you think that Pearson said, "Hey, write those standards so that we -- and we alone, nobody else -- make lots of money off them, and then we'll reward you"? Because otherwise it seems to me that the PARCC consortium hired somebody who knew something about the Common Core standards, which makes a lot more sense than hiring somebody who knew nothing about the Common Core standards.

I know someone whose kids are in K and 2 and she said both kids are constantly asked to cite evidence for their claims (whether or not they're reading). It's contrived, frustrating, a kill-joy, and unnecessary. Just because CC wants kids to know a skill by 12th grade does NOT mean they have to teach it and drill it from K on up. My 7th grader is being asked to do way too much analysis of text, find supporting evidence, bla bla bla, and way too little creative writing or even just plain essay writing. It is overkill and is already leading to burnout. Same (and even worse) with math. Just because at the college level you hope a student can perform some mathematics problem-solving and explain how and why they did it does not mean that they have to do this starting in K! It is very difficult to explain some of these things, and the verbal skills needed originate in a different area of the brain from the math skills. Why not concentrate on really teaching a solid foundation in math facts, problem-solving, and fluency and worry about explaining answers when they're a little older, like HS. As it is now, kids who are talented in math and could really get to a high level are being discouraged because it is hard for them to explain how or why they did something. My kid can do math calcalculations very fast in his head, almost at an unconscious level. That is a talent that should be celebrated. Instead he has to feel he is not good at math because he has trouble writing about it (though he is a good writer in English). How bout emphasizing whatever skills are needed for college in, say, 11th and 12th grades, and let the earlier years be more natural, rigorous relative to the actual content and needed skills, and enjoyable?

I'm the K teacher who was mocked about the blocks. You just made my point. Kids need to learn how to think before we start drilling and testing them to death. If you cannot think, none of the rest matters.

I will also add that it can take years of performing mathematical operations over and over before a person has an a-ha moment of understanding why the algorithm works mathematically. That is a fantastic discovery process but requires lots of practice and maturity. CC is trying to put the cart before the horse and force understanding before being given enough practice to even appreciate the "understanding" they are "teaching."

I know someone whose kids are in K and 2 and she said both kids are constantly asked to cite evidence for their claims (whether or not they're reading). It's contrived, frustrating, a kill-joy, and unnecessary. Just because CC wants kids to know a skill by 12th grade does NOT mean they have to teach it and drill it from K on up. My 7th grader is being asked to do way too much analysis of text, find supporting evidence, bla bla bla, and way too little creative writing or even just plain essay writing. It is overkill and is already leading to burnout. Same (and even worse) with math. Just because at the college level you hope a student can perform some mathematics problem-solving and explain how and why they did it does not mean that they have to do this starting in K! It is very difficult to explain some of these things, and the verbal skills needed originate in a different area of the brain from the math skills. Why not concentrate on really teaching a solid foundation in math facts, problem-solving, and fluency and worry about explaining answers when they're a little older, like HS. As it is now, kids who are talented in math and could really get to a high level are being discouraged because it is hard for them to explain how or why they did something. My kid can do math calcalculations very fast in his head, almost at an unconscious level. That is a talent that should be celebrated. Instead he has to feel he is not good at math because he has trouble writing about it (though he is a good writer in English). How bout emphasizing whatever skills are needed for college in, say, 11th and 12th grades, and let the earlier years be more natural, rigorous relative to the actual content and needed skills, and enjoyable?

http://parcconline.org/parcc-governing-board-meets-appoints-parcc-chief-executive-officer

Laura McGiffert Slover was on the standards development team--and rose to be ceo of PARCC. Wow.

Plus, what about the Gates Foundation? Is it all a big Gates Foundation conspiracy, or is it all a big Pearson conspiracy?)

No. Not a conspiracy--just inappropriate and unethical. Pretty open, actually, if one is willing to "google"........just take the names of the committee and look.

Anonymous wrote:

Both? Both what? And what about consultants? And who, exactly, is having a conflict of interest, and what does this conflict of interest consist of?

Simple: many people with monetary connections to Pearson were on the committees.

What kind of monetary connections? In any case, monetary connections, by themselves, do not constitute a conflict of interest. They were developing standards, not awarding grants to Pearson.

(Plus, what about the Gates Foundation? Is it all a big Gates Foundation conspiracy, or is it all a big Pearson conspiracy?)

Anonymous wrote:

Both? Both what? And what about consultants? And who, exactly, is having a conflict of interest, and what does this conflict of interest consist of?

Simple: many people with monetary connections to Pearson were on the committees.

What, specifically, did they do that would make them extra money? All textbook companies continually modify, update and revise their content periodically, and continually sell new textbooks to school districts, regardless of what the standard is. That's been going on for decades.

What competetive advantage do you think Pearson got out of it that no other company did? If there was one, it sure doesn't show in terms of profits or stock valuations.

So, whatever conflict of interest you seem to think there was hasn't manifested itself anywhere.

Both? Both what? And what about consultants? And who, exactly, is having a conflict of interest, and what does this conflict of interest consist of?

Simple: many people with monetary connections to Pearson were on the committees.

Anonymous wrote:

So there were people on the Common Core committees who had previously written texts for Pearson? Or there were people on the Common Core committees who subsequently wrote texts for Pearson? Or there were people on the Common Core committees who were also at the same time writing texts for Pearson? Could you please explain? Names (of people and texts) would be useful too, please.

Both. Consultants, too.

Both? Both what? And what about consultants? And who, exactly, is having a conflict of interest, and what does this conflict of interest consist of?

So there were people on the Common Core committees who had previously written texts for Pearson? Or there were people on the Common Core committees who subsequently wrote texts for Pearson? Or there were people on the Common Core committees who were also at the same time writing texts for Pearson? Could you please explain? Names (of people and texts) would be useful too, please.

Both. Consultants, too.