Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:39     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:
So you put out a piece of paper with 10 boxes and you say to the kid "write down what I just gave you here". Kid draws 4 blobs for the first 4, and then switches colors and draws six more.

That would be "recording with pictures", which is the standard.


Won't work.


This is a standard activity in kindergarten. My kids did it and the children I teach do it, and they did it under the old MD state standards as well.

Child has a 10 frame and three yellow circles are colored in; child is told to fill in the remainder of the boxes with red circles (or whatever color... don't get hung up on the color) and then count how many red counters were needed to make a 10. They write that answer (7) and/or record both the numbers "3" and "7".

This is EXTREMELY common and if you ever taught kindergarten you would be quite familiar with it.

That is what it means to "record with drawings or numbers" and you should know that.
Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:35     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:
So you put out a piece of paper with 10 boxes and you say to the kid "write down what I just gave you here". Kid draws 4 blobs for the first 4, and then switches colors and draws six more.

That would be "recording with pictures", which is the standard.


Won't work.


Why not?
Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:33     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
p.s. I taught K kids who didn't even know their colors. Seriously. You have no clue.
Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:33     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
So you put out a piece of paper with 10 boxes and you say to the kid "write down what I just gave you here". Kid draws 4 blobs for the first 4, and then switches colors and draws six more.

That would be "recording with pictures", which is the standard.


Won't work.
Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:31     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.OA.A.4
For any number from 1 to 9, find the number that makes 10 when added to the given number, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record the answer with a drawing or equation.



Inappropriate as a standard.

Here's a simple illustration of the thing that the PP seems to think is so difficult and inappropriate:

Get a bag of M&Ms. Put out 4 M&Ms. Kid needs to take the right number of additional M&Ms out of the bag to make it 10.

The PP's argument and objection is DESTROYED. PP is either incredibly obtuse or hasn't yet mastered Kindergarten math.


What part of "record" do you not understand? Have you mastered reading or vocabulary?


So you put out a piece of paper with 10 boxes and you say to the kid "write down what I just gave you here". Kid draws 4 blobs for the first 4, and then switches colors and draws six more.

That would be "recording with pictures", which is the standard.
Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:21     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:

So that kids who are able to use equations to represent their work are allowed to do so, and can demonstrate mastery without having to go back to drawing pictures.



And, they couldn't do that before? Gee. You'd think there was no teaching at all before Common Core.






Common Core is written to be a replacement for previous standards. Many many pieces of the Common Core appeared in previous standards. That's how standards work. For example, previous standards in almost every state called for Kindergarteners to learn to recognize numbers, for third graders to multiply single digit numbers, and for algebra students to solve for variables. Not surprisingly, the authors of Common Core also included those things in their standards. Not because there was "no teaching before Common Core" but because there were good things before Common Core that they wanted to see continue.
Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:19     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.OA.A.4
For any number from 1 to 9, find the number that makes 10 when added to the given number, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record the answer with a drawing or equation.



Inappropriate as a standard.

Here's a simple illustration of the thing that the PP seems to think is so difficult and inappropriate:

Get a bag of M&Ms. Put out 4 M&Ms. Kid needs to take the right number of additional M&Ms out of the bag to make it 10.

The PP's argument and objection is DESTROYED. PP is either incredibly obtuse or hasn't yet mastered Kindergarten math.


What part of "record" do you not understand? Have you mastered reading or vocabulary?
Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:18     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.OA.A.4
For any number from 1 to 9, find the number that makes 10 when added to the given number, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record the answer with a drawing or equation.



Inappropriate as a standard.

Here's a simple illustration of the thing that the PP seems to think is so difficult and inappropriate:

Get a bag of M&Ms. Put out 4 M&Ms. Kid needs to take the right number of additional M&Ms out of the bag to make it 10.

The PP's argument and objection is DESTROYED. PP is either incredibly obtuse or hasn't yet mastered Kindergarten math.
Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:13     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

So that kids who are able to use equations to represent their work are allowed to do so, and can demonstrate mastery without having to go back to drawing pictures.



And, they couldn't do that before? Gee. You'd think there was no teaching at all before Common Core.




Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:12     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
The Common Core magnifies it. It is on a much, much bigger scale. That is why it is going to fail.
Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:04     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:

How do the Common Core standards make testing a more serious problem?


Because testing (and money) is tied to CC standards.






Testing (and money) were also tied to the previous standards. If we revert to the previous standards then testing (and money) will again tied to them.

Do you think that there is no testing (and money) tied to STAAR testing in Texas, or the Virginia SOLs?
Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:02     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:

(Kindergarten students should see addition and subtraction equations, and student writing of equations in kindergarten is encouraged, but it is not required.) [/quote/


Then, why did they write it into a standard?

Once more, confusing and vague.



So that kids who are able to use equations to represent their work are allowed to do so, and can demonstrate mastery without having to go back to drawing pictures.
Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 22:02     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.OA.A.4
For any number from 1 to 9, find the number that makes 10 when added to the given number, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record the answer with a drawing or equation.


Inappropriate as a standard.


Here's a simple illustration of the thing that the PP seems to think is so difficult and inappropriate:

Get a bag of M&Ms. Put out 4 M&Ms. Kid needs to take the right number of additional M&Ms out of the bag to make it 10.

The PP's argument and objection is DESTROYED. PP is either incredibly obtuse or hasn't yet mastered Kindergarten math.

Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 21:28     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

How do the Common Core standards make testing a more serious problem?


Because testing (and money) is tied to CC standards.




Anonymous
Post 01/01/2015 21:27     Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

(Kindergarten students should see addition and subtraction equations, and student writing of equations in kindergarten is encouraged, but it is not required.) [/quote/


Then, why did they write it into a standard?

Once more, confusing and vague.