Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there 2 anti common core math posters posting here? One saying that the math problems for 6th grade math are causing his or her child to cry in frustration and they need to look up how to do them on Youtube? And another who is unhappy that MCPC Curriculum 2.0 math isn't advanced enough? I think you may be arguing two different anti common core points and I want to keep them straight.

Yes,I am the poster with the 6th grade student. And No, I will not post an example of one of his problems - don't try to patronize me.

Anonymous wrote:Different anti CC poster here. I suspect there are many of us--and one of you!

Anonymous wrote:Are there 2 anti common core math posters posting here? One saying that the math problems for 6th grade math are causing his or her child to cry in frustration and they need to look up how to do them on Youtube? And another who is unhappy that MCPC Curriculum 2.0 math isn't advanced enough? I think you may be arguing two different anti common core points and I want to keep them straight.

Anonymous wrote:

You oppose the Common Core standards because they're not a change, and because publishing companies make money by publishing educational materials related (or supposedly related) to the Common Core standards?

Well, ok.

#6. Many CC standards are taking time away from real instruction in the classroom. Teachers and students are "boxed in" to certain procedures that are unnecessary in many cases.

You oppose the Common Core standards because they're not a change, and because publishing companies make money by publishing educational materials related (or supposedly related) to the Common Core standards?

Well, ok.

Anonymous wrote:#4. They are pointless
#5. They are making a lot of money for publishing companies.

Anonymous wrote:

PP, there are three basic problems with the Common Core standards:

1. They are too easy.
2. They are too hard.
3. They are standards.

#3 is the appropriate response when somebody points out that #1 and #2 can't both be true.

There, now you're all prepared for further discussion.

Okay--they are too easy for many and too hard for others. What is the point of the standards? What do you do with the ones who do not meet them? The standards accomplish nothing for those for whom they are too easy.

Anonymous wrote:

PP, there are three basic problems with the Common Core standards:

1. They are too easy.
2. They are too hard.
3. They are standards.

#3 is the appropriate response when somebody points out that #1 and #2 can't both be true.

There, now you're all prepared for further discussion.

Okay--they are too easy for many and too hard for others. What is the point of the standards? What do you do with the ones who do not meet them? The standards accomplish nothing for those for whom they are too easy.

Anonymous wrote:

That's up to the district or the state. The Common Core is simply a list of standards, and states continue to make their own decisions about how to address individual kids who are struggling. Current "best practice" is to use a model called "Response to Intervention", where students move through various levels of intervention. They might start with what are called "Tier 1" interventions, which is when a teacher makes modifications for a specific student. Perhaps their reading group meets an extra time per week, or she gives reteach phonics lessons during centers, or she invites a high school student to come see her at lunch so she can explain a math concept again. If those interventions don't work, then kids are supposed to move to what are called "Tier 2" interventions, which might be a daily small group phonics lesson, or an invitation to an afterschool tutoring program for a high schooler. Tier 3 interventions are generally given in smaller groups and more intensively, and might be a double period of math, or a pull out reading group. Kids who show over time that they are not responsive to intervention.

Like teachers have never given extra help to those who need it? Really? Gee. Back when I was in school, teachers would keep kids after school to help them. I did the same thing when I taught.

Anonymous wrote:

But that's an issue with standards in general, not a specific criticism of Common Core. Schools have had standards for a long time. 2nd grade teachers have taught 2 digit addition and subtraction for a long time, and they've always had some kids who come in knowing how to do so. Problem solving for that isn't a new thing, and it isn't a problem that Common Core created.

So, you never heard of "word problems"?

But that's an issue with standards in general, not a specific criticism of Common Core. Schools have had standards for a long time. 2nd grade teachers have taught 2 digit addition and subtraction for a long time, and they've always had some kids who come in knowing how to do so. Problem solving for that isn't a new thing, and it isn't a problem that Common Core created.

That's up to the district or the state. The Common Core is simply a list of standards, and states continue to make their own decisions about how to address individual kids who are struggling. Current "best practice" is to use a model called "Response to Intervention", where students move through various levels of intervention. They might start with what are called "Tier 1" interventions, which is when a teacher makes modifications for a specific student. Perhaps their reading group meets an extra time per week, or she gives reteach phonics lessons during centers, or she invites a high school student to come see her at lunch so she can explain a math concept again. If those interventions don't work, then kids are supposed to move to what are called "Tier 2" interventions, which might be a daily small group phonics lesson, or an invitation to an afterschool tutoring program for a high schooler. Tier 3 interventions are generally given in smaller groups and more intensively, and might be a double period of math, or a pull out reading group. Kids who show over time that they are not responsive to intervention.