All I know is that common core of no common core, today's teachers use eduspeak to communicate with parents. I have no idea what any of the standards mean and I don't think that I should have to in order to get how my kids are doing. The fcps report cards comment section is about the least useful thing I have ever seen. And at PTCs they seem to try to figure out ways to give you no real information. I do think it is important to know whether my kid is meeting standards but behind most of his classmates. Or if he is way ahead of the curve.

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core is a straitjacket. To the ugly folks who say, "Well, you just hate standards because your kid can't hack it.": federal law requires a leveled playing field for people with disabilities. There's a reason there's wheelchair ramps now, instead of the "Screw you, disabled person" attitude of past (which is prevalent on this thread).

I haven't noticed anybody on this thread saying that. I am sorry that you perceive it that way.

I am the OP. And yes, it sure did veer away. I personally have friends all across the U.S who are struggling with school now. And these are typical kids in Maryland, Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, California, etc. Implementation is EVERYTHING. Who cares if the standards are "good" if everyone is suffering because the teachers don't truly understand them yet.

Among my Internet connections with parents of other kids with special needs, Common Core is pretty much universally despised. The creators pretty much admit that special ed students were an afterthought, and we're all experiencing this lack of planning for kids with different needs. The creators are totally tone deaf and offer garbage talk like "unpacking the standards" and accommodations that will not work for most special need kids.

Common Core is a straitjacket. To the ugly folks who say, "Well, you just hate standards because your kid can't hack it.": federal law requires a leveled playing field for people with disabilities. There's a reason there's wheelchair ramps now, instead of the "Screw you, disabled person" attitude of past (which is prevalent on this thread).

You I'll say it: Disabled children need DIFFERENT standards based in their PERSONAL needs. A curriculum that constantly moves them forward, but doesn't insist in this B.S fantasy of , "Oh, if you just give them harder tests, they'll pass them!"

Anonymous wrote:Are we still on the topic of Common Core and Special Ed? or has this spiraled into a completely different topic?

It spiraled away from special ed on about page 4 I think.

Are we still on the topic of Common Core and Special Ed? or has this spiraled into a completely different topic?

Anonymous wrote:
I remember a lot of discussions about this when I was a college freshman, around 2 am, usually involving mood-altering substances. Further proof that the Common Core standards are developmentally inappropriate for young children!

I agree. Any standard for kindergarten that states a 5 year old is expected to answer a question is developmentally inappropriate. Kindergarteners are not old enough to be able to sensibly answer a question! They should just be playing with blocks and trucks and trains and dolls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.

Two vague terms:
"text" and "key details."

Amateurish.

Prompting is also vague, as is support.

Ask is pretty vague too!

I'm sneering at "with" and "and", myself.

And what exactly is meant by "question"? What does it mean to truly "answer" a "question"? And really, do we expect students to be able to truly answer any question? In Kindergarten?

I remember a lot of discussions about this when I was a college freshman, around 2 am, usually involving mood-altering substances. Further proof that the Common Core standards are developmentally inappropriate for young children!

Anonymous wrote:

Students will get better math instruction now under Common Core, it is clear.

NO. You clearly have not seen some of the math homework that teachers are giving. They are trying to meet the standards.

What I have seen is the bad homework over the past four years that my daughter has been given as teachers tried to meet the standards from K-3 in math in the state of MD> It is clear now looking at all those old expectations that there was very little attention paid to actually developing appropriate math skills (including fluency with basic facts). The new standards make a lot more sense. They focus on a few areas in details instead of trying to cover everything (including statistics and data analysis) in Kindergarten.

I love the fact that my child has been focusing on fractions for the past 8 weeks in 4th grade. The Common Core standards for fourth grade have a heavy emphasis on fractions and on developing a solid understanding of them. Instead of a 2 or 3 week unit on fractions and then moving on to the next, unrelated thing (AKA a sprial curriculum) they are spending enough time on this one area to cover it thoroughly. This is a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.


Two vague terms:
"text" and "key details."

Amateurish.


So, how would you rewrite this to be less vague, expert?

I guess the poster would prefer the old MD state standard:



Respond to questions and verify answers using illustration/text.


None of this "key detail" nonsense. Just "verify answers". (Which is vague)

The standards are all BS. Teachers used to teach successfully without them. The problem is in the assessments and the fact that people think the problem is lack of standards. It is not lack of standards. It is lack of readiness for school by some.

Your arguments are now officially all over the place. You (or you plus some of the people) have now argued:

1. Common Core standards are bad because they are standards. Standards need to be flexible.
2. Common Core standards are bad because they are too vague and teachers don't understand them.
3. Common Core standards are bad because teachers didn't write them.
4. Common Core standards aren't the problem - teachers used to teach without standards. The problem is the assessments which haven't been used yet.
5. The problem with the standards (that teachers didn't write) is teachers are assigning bad work based on the standards (wait, are these the same teachers who were going to write good standards?)
6. The Common Core standards are bad because they aren't any different from the old standards; you act as if these standards are something new, which they aren't; we have always taught this way.

Anonymous wrote:

With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.


Two vague terms:
"text" and "key details."

Amateurish.


So, how would you rewrite this to be less vague, expert?

I guess the poster would prefer the old MD state standard:



Respond to questions and verify answers using illustration/text.


None of this "key detail" nonsense. Just "verify answers". (Which is vague)

The standards are all BS. Teachers used to teach successfully without them. The problem is in the assessments and the fact that people think the problem is lack of standards. It is not lack of standards. It is lack of readiness for school by some.

Students will get better math instruction now under Common Core, it is clear.

NO. You clearly have not seen some of the math homework that teachers are giving. They are trying to meet the standards.

Anonymous wrote:

With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.


Two vague terms:
"text" and "key details."

Amateurish.

So, how would you rewrite this to be less vague, expert?

I guess the poster would prefer the old MD state standard:

Respond to questions and verify answers using illustration/text.

None of this "key detail" nonsense. Just "verify answers". (Which is vague)

Look, you don't need to be a genius to understand that when a kindergarten standard says "be able to answer questions about the key details in a text" that the "key details" mean --"the details".

"The very hungry caterpillar ate through one nice green leaf and after that he felt much better!"

What did he eat that made him feel all better? (a leaf!)

You don't need to over think this standard.

Meanwhile... now that I have looked at the former MD state standards for K math (and 1st and 2nd grade math) there is no question in my mind that the COmmon Core standards are much, much better. There's not even any point in discussing it.

Students will get better math instruction now under Common Core, it is clear.

And what exactly is meant by "question"? What does it mean to truly "answer" a "question"? And really, do we expect students to be able to truly answer any question? In Kindergarten?

Well, aren't you clever! You are comparing that to the meaning of "key details." Not the same.

Were the old MD standards written by classroom teachers? Were they "vetted" and "tested"?