Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the common core science standards for 1st grade? I ask because I've heard of some very specific complaints from a relative on what their child is learning and that it's too difficult- like parts of the body, etc. But I thought Common Core was geared towards reading and math?

There are no Common Core standards for science. Not for any grade. There are only Common Core standards for math and for English language arts/literacy.

http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

Thank you! That's what I thought. Not sure why they thought it was a common core activity. Will pass this on to them.

It could have been a Common Core activity, because Common Core specifies reading and writing skills that children need to be able to demonstrate in the context of non-fiction texts.

So, for example, a first grader would be expected to "Identify the topic, and retell main details from the text". If a teacher or curriculum developer selects a passage or book related to whatever they're studying in science, and has the students practice this skill in that the context, then it's both a Common Core activity and a science activity. However, the Common Core doesn't specify which texts or which topics. So a first grader in one school might read a passage about the parts of the human body, identify the topic and retell main details, while a first grader in another state with different standards might be reading a book about butterflies or volcanoes, identifying the main idea and retelling details.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the common core science standards for 1st grade? I ask because I've heard of some very specific complaints from a relative on what their child is learning and that it's too difficult- like parts of the body, etc. But I thought Common Core was geared towards reading and math?

There are no Common Core standards for science. Not for any grade. There are only Common Core standards for math and for English language arts/literacy.

http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

Thank you! That's what I thought. Not sure why they thought it was a common core activity. Will pass this on to them.

Anonymous wrote:What are the common core science standards for 1st grade? I ask because I've heard of some very specific complaints from a relative on what their child is learning and that it's too difficult- like parts of the body, etc. But I thought Common Core was geared towards reading and math?

There are no Common Core standards for science. Not for any grade. There are only Common Core standards for math and for English language arts/literacy.

http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

What are the common core science standards for 1st grade? I ask because I've heard of some very specific complaints from a relative on what their child is learning and that it's too difficult- like parts of the body, etc. But I thought Common Core was geared towards reading and math?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, what this teacher is missing is that the testing is what's important because they will be the measure of the standards. She keeps bringing up New York, saying 'well, they created their own tests, etc". Yes, they did. Because they adopted common core and so re-did their testing to measure those standards. And they did it badly. And guess who is paying for that? The kids. With their frustration and their tears.

So hey, the standards are good, so who cares if a bunch of little kids suffer in the process - we have a point to prove, right?

NY State didn't just "create their own tests" they created ADDITIONAL STANDARDS. They adopted Common Core and ADDITIONAL STANDARDS, and then designed a test (and made it pretty hard).

I'm sorry kids are paying for it with their frustration and tears. It was clearly an example of overreaching by New York State.

It is pretty awful up there right now- a good friend is switching to a non-test grade next year because it is just so bad. Kids are frustrated and crying all the time trying to live up to these standards and tests.

Anonymous wrote:

What, specifically, do you object to with the Common Core? Having standards? There were standards before the Common Core. Testing students based on those standards? Again, this happened before the Common Core. Evaluating teachers based on students' test results? Again, this happened before the Common Core.

[Report Post]

The standards are not as well thought out as you seem to think. Once you start figuring out how to test them, the problems appear. They were not written with input from classroom teachers who are on the frontlines.

Which standards, specifically, don't you like?

Anonymous wrote:

What, specifically, do you object to with the Common Core? Having standards? There were standards before the Common Core. Testing students based on those standards? Again, this happened before the Common Core. Evaluating teachers based on students' test results? Again, this happened before the Common Core.

[Report Post]

The standards are not as well thought out as you seem to think. Once you start figuring out how to test them, the problems appear. They were not written with input from classroom teachers who are on the frontlines.

The standards are pretty good, and most teachers I know seem to like them. I just wrote a whole post on what I like about the Foundational Skills standards -- they are quite thorough, and I can't find much to quibble with. They are MUCH better than what we used to have in MD, and even better than the SOLs I used to work with in VA. So the fact that they may not have been written with input from classroom teachers (if true) does't bother me much at all -- if they are good, they are good, and I'll be happy to teach by them.

Anonymous wrote:

What, specifically, do you object to with the Common Core? Having standards? There were standards before the Common Core. Testing students based on those standards? Again, this happened before the Common Core. Evaluating teachers based on students' test results? Again, this happened before the Common Core.

[Report Post]

The standards are not as well thought out as you seem to think. Once you start figuring out how to test them, the problems appear. They were not written with input from classroom teachers who are on the frontlines.

Can you link to a few specific standards that you think are no well thought out, and explain why you dislike those specific standards? I have heard this repeatedly as a general comment but no one seems to be able to say "I don't like RL.4.2 because . . . "

What, specifically, do you object to with the Common Core? Having standards? There were standards before the Common Core. Testing students based on those standards? Again, this happened before the Common Core. Evaluating teachers based on students' test results? Again, this happened before the Common Core.

[Report Post]

The standards are not as well thought out as you seem to think. Once you start figuring out how to test them, the problems appear. They were not written with input from classroom teachers who are on the frontlines.

Anonymous wrote:Again, what this teacher is missing is that the testing is what's important because they will be the measure of the standards. She keeps bringing up New York, saying 'well, they created their own tests, etc". Yes, they did. Because they adopted common core and so re-did their testing to measure those standards. And they did it badly. And guess who is paying for that? The kids. With their frustration and their tears.

So hey, the standards are good, so who cares if a bunch of little kids suffer in the process - we have a point to prove, right?

No, New York State redid their testing to measure THE STANDARDS NEW YORK STATE ADOPTED. Which included Common Core standards. And also included a whole bunch of additional stuff. (And yes, they did it badly.)

What, specifically, do you object to with the Common Core? Having standards? There were standards before the Common Core. Testing students based on those standards? Again, this happened before the Common Core. Evaluating teachers based on students' test results? Again, this happened before the Common Core.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what homework did you on your school? Sounds like you took either their word for it or looked at some data rankings. I did that with my major, then also investigated who went where in my area, and talked to people in the industry about what kind of grads the school turned out.

How nice for you. The point is not what homework you or I did. The point is whether or not the program is good.

And you find that out by doing your homework.

So your solution to teacher training programs that don't actually train their graduates to be teachers is -- people should do their homework?

You know something that would be really useful for people to know when they are doing their homework about teacher training programs? Whether the graduates of the teacher training programs are performing well in the classroom.

Anonymous wrote:Again, what this teacher is missing is that the testing is what's important because they will be the measure of the standards. She keeps bringing up New York, saying 'well, they created their own tests, etc". Yes, they did. Because they adopted common core and so re-did their testing to measure those standards. And they did it badly. And guess who is paying for that? The kids. With their frustration and their tears.

So hey, the standards are good, so who cares if a bunch of little kids suffer in the process - we have a point to prove, right?

NY State didn't just "create their own tests" they created ADDITIONAL STANDARDS. They adopted Common Core and ADDITIONAL STANDARDS, and then designed a test (and made it pretty hard).

I'm sorry kids are paying for it with their frustration and tears. It was clearly an example of overreaching by New York State.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The trouble with evaluating teachers on test scores is clear: put teachers in a GT class and his/her scores will glow. Put him/her in very low SES, and trouble awaits in keeping the job.

At least in MD, teachers will be evaluated (in PART) on student GROWTH, as measured by pre and post tests, not on whether children pass an end of the year test.

Students in low SES schools who start the year very low, have a high potential for growth. Students in the G/T classes start off high already (ceiling effect) and it may be difficult to show growth, actually.

No. It is not that simple. Example: a student tests on 3rd grade level in math--but is in fifth grade. Does teacher test him on 5th grade standards? He's not likely to show growth. Lots of problems to be ironed out.

In MD, teachers were allowed to select which students they wanted to focus on for creating our SLOs to show student growth. We also could choose our testing instruments.

So for example, one SLO goal could be "Kids working on grade level with show XYZ improvement on state benchmark test."

Another goal could be "Kids working 2+ years below grade level in math will show XYZ improvement, as measured by different math skills test."

Of course overall goal for kids working 2+ years below grade level in math, is to have them make 1.5 to 2 years' growth in math per year (i.e. more gains than kids on grade level) because if they don't they will never catch up.

Anonymous wrote:
The trouble with evaluating teachers on test scores is clear: put teachers in a GT class and his/her scores will glow. Put him/her in very low SES, and trouble awaits in keeping the job.

At least in MD, teachers will be evaluated (in PART) on student GROWTH, as measured by pre and post tests, not on whether children pass an end of the year test.

Students in low SES schools who start the year very low, have a high potential for growth. Students in the G/T classes start off high already (ceiling effect) and it may be difficult to show growth, actually.

No. It is not that simple. Example: a student tests on 3rd grade level in math--but is in fifth grade. Does teacher test him on 5th grade standards? He's not likely to show growth. Lots of problems to be ironed out.

Anonymous wrote:Again, what this teacher is missing is that the testing is what's important because they will be the measure of the standards. She keeps bringing up New York, saying 'well, they created their own tests, etc". Yes, they did. Because they adopted common core and so re-did their testing to measure those standards. And they did it badly. And guess who is paying for that? The kids. With their frustration and their tears.

So hey, the standards are good, so who cares if a bunch of little kids suffer in the process - we have a point to prove, right?

States have been trying out different standards for decades, and you act like this is somehow new? And do you really think that if Common Core were to go away tomorrow, that this would somehow change? And do you think that not having a standard at all is somehow good, productive and useful?