Anonymous wrote:Standards should be concrete and measurable. Reading should not be goal in K.

Does Common Core actually say kids need to be able to read? It says they should have some basic concepts of phonics and a few other things down but beyond that it doesn't actually shift any reading expectations forward. If you read the 1st grade Common Core reading standards, their expectation is for kids to read materials appropriate for 1st grade. They aren't jumping all of that forward into K, contrary to what people seem to want to keep suggesting.

Standards should be concrete and measurable. Reading should not be goal in K.


Those are two separate, unrelated arguments.


Not PP, but I don't think it was intended to be anything but two separate arguments. Just like I said above, I don't agree with the appropriateness of many of the standards. That is a separate argument from how vague and poorly written they are. Can't you see two problems at once?

You're asking for a lot from the other poster. Walking and chewing gum at the same time is hard for some people. As a teacher you have to juggle many problems at once. The other poster has been looking for a simple top down solution to improve education and that solution is . . . voila! . . . "standards".

Yes I was making two separate points.

Standards should be concrete and measurable. Reading should not be goal in K.


Those are two separate, unrelated arguments.

Not PP, but I don't think it was intended to be anything but two separate arguments. Just like I said above, I don't agree with the appropriateness of many of the standards. That is a separate argument from how vague and poorly written they are. Can't you see two problems at once?

Here is the operable term for "measure" according to Merriam Webster--at least, this is what goes with the criterion for "measurable":

"4

: something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality "

The standard as it stands is not measurable. My point is that it is poor quality for a standard. Sure, if they were going to write it as a standard it should have said something like: "Child should correctly write in manuscript at least 10 uppercase letters." Or something like that. At least it would be a standard.

However, that does not mean I think it is appropriate.

The issue is that the people writing them did not even meet their own criterion. That leaves everything suspect. These standards are not even professionally written. That does not even address the educational content of them. Fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Of course it's measurable. Do you not know what "many" means? Would you be happier if the standard said, "K child should write at least 10 letters"?

For one thing, according to Merriam Webster, "many" is a large number that is indefinite. So, one K teacher may accept 10 and another may not. It is not a standard.

Now, I suggest you go look up "standard".

Here you go. What's your point?


: a level of quality, achievement, etc., that is considered acceptable or desirable

standards : ideas about morally correct and acceptable behavior

: something that is very good and that is used to make judgments about the quality of other things


Would you think that

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1.a
Print many upper- and lowercase letters.

was a good standard if it instead said "Print 14 upper- and 10 lowercase letters", or would you then criticize it as overly prescriptive?

Anonymous wrote:Standards should be concrete and measurable. Reading should not be goal in K.

Those are two separate, unrelated arguments.

Standards should be concrete and measurable. Reading should not be goal in K.

+100000


The standards are counterproductive. They focus on the wrong thing. We should have grade level guidelines--not standards. The goal should be to help the child learn as much as possible. In K, there are so many things the kids need to learn that will help them be better students later. Reading is not one of those things. Sure, many K kids will learn to read--but it should not be the standard.

Standards should be concrete and measurable. Reading should not be goal in K.

Of course it's measurable. Do you not know what "many" means? Would you be happier if the standard said, "K child should write at least 10 letters"?

For one thing, according to Merriam Webster, "many" is a large number that is indefinite. So, one K teacher may accept 10 and another may not. It is not a standard.

Now, I suggest you go look up "standard".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ I forgot to add. I'm not a Republican in case someone assumes my complaint is politically grounded.

OF COURSE YOU ARE. The Tea Party is following the Koch propaganda to oppose NCLB and Common Core. You view it as "ObamaCare for Education"

There was no doubt in anyone's mind.

LOL. This is funny. No. I really am a straight ticket democrat. And I am all for the ACA.

I just happen to feel strongly that teaching, to be effective, needs to be authentic and inspired, not forced and alienating.

Anonymous wrote:

No. You defend the indefensible. Here's an example of poorly written (from memory--you can go find the quote):

K child should write many letters.

That is a poorly written standard. It is not measurable and that is one of the criterion for the standards. Could be that the main problem with K and first standards are that there were not any Early Childhood experts on the committees. But, this should have been a glaring mistake to anyone who knows how to write standards.

Of course it's measurable. Do you not know what "many" means? Would you be happier if the standard said, "K child should write at least 10 letters"?

Anonymous wrote:
Bullshit.

The standards demand a learning level from K through 1st grade that is inappropriate. Multiple standards have been posted, with the Common Core fanatics saying that they are fine and that THEIR kid could do it so it's not that hard. (Ironically, the don't understand that they are saying their kids is of just average intelligence.)

Meanwhile, not ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE shows the standards are good or working or have any positive effect.

Multiple standards have been posted -- by me.

Could you please post some of those K-1 standards that you consider inappropriate?

No, there haven't. I have posted almost all of the standards that have been posted on the Common Core threads on DCUM, and I am not an opponent of the Common Core. Then the Common Core opponents respond with things like "LOL!" or "Developmentally inappropriate!" or "So badly written and unclear!", and then other non-opponents respond by asking why it's funny or developmentally inappropriate, or by saying that they understand the standard, and then the opponents gallop on to some other topic.

No. You defend the indefensible. Here's an example of poorly written (from memory--you can go find the quote):

K child should write many letters.

That is a poorly written standard. It is not measurable and that is one of the criterion for the standards. Could be that the main problem with K and first standards are that there were not any Early Childhood experts on the committees. But, this should have been a glaring mistake to anyone who knows how to write standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have yet to see anything on here that shows that the Common Core standards are making things worse for kids.

Well, certainly there have been a lot of people on this thread who have posted standards that are poorly written and inappropriate. There is a huge disagreement over the K and first grade standards--probably because more people can understand what is appropriate and inappropriate at that grade level.

No, there haven't. I have posted almost all of the standards that have been posted on the Common Core threads on DCUM, and I am not an opponent of the Common Core. Then the Common Core opponents respond with things like "LOL!" or "Developmentally inappropriate!" or "So badly written and unclear!", and then other non-opponents respond by asking why it's funny or developmentally inappropriate, or by saying that they understand the standard, and then the opponents gallop on to some other topic.

Bullshit.

The standards demand a learning level from K through 1st grade that is inappropriate. Multiple standards have been posted, with the Common Core fanatics saying that they are fine and that THEIR kid could do it so it's not that hard. (Ironically, the don't understand that they are saying their kids is of just average intelligence.)

Meanwhile, not ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE shows the standards are good or working or have any positive effect.