Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article in taking the fact that 47% of kids in MD public PreK (a program limited to kid who either have disabilities, don't speak English, or are considered at high risk of academic failure) did something, and extrapolating it to "PreK students in MD".

Given that it was written by adults who presumably graduated school pre-Common Core, and is being shared by people here who presumably did too, that's a pretty a compelling argument for reforming math instruction and raising standards, at least in the area of statistics.

This is really the most important comment (not mine!). If the article really is comparing apples (all kindergartners last year) to oranges (kids coming out of public preschools this year), then this whole discussion is built on a fallacy.

Grasping at straws to defend Common Core, are we?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But we are not talking about whether or not early reading is important. We are talking about whether the majority of children are capable of meeting the kindergarten Common Core standard for reading level. Yes, they are.

So mistaken. This is absolutely not true.

It's true in Montgomery County Public Schools.

http://sharedaccountability.mcpsmd.org/reports/list.php?selection=927

Anonymous wrote:

But we are not talking about whether or not early reading is important. We are talking about whether the majority of children are capable of meeting the kindergarten Common Core standard for reading level. Yes, they are.

So mistaken. This is absolutely not true.

Anonymous wrote:

Not only that, but holy crap talk about shooting the messenger. Instead of being concerned that more than half of all Baltimore kindergartners aren't ready to learn, OP starts prattling on nonsensically about Common Core being evil. WTF.



Right? That sounds like the real problem here.

But, our CC apologist says that all kids can achieve CC standards in K.

Not only that, but holy crap talk about shooting the messenger. Instead of being concerned that more than half of all Baltimore kindergartners aren't ready to learn, OP starts prattling on nonsensically about Common Core being evil. WTF.



Right? That sounds like the real problem here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the WBAL story, and I still can't figure out what on earth they're talking about:

http://www.wbal.com/article/115161/21/study-less-than-half-of-maryland-kindergartners-are-ready-for-the-common-core-curriculum

What "Common Core statistics"? And Maryland could not have introduced the Common Core standards for pre-K three years ago, because there are no Common Core standards for pre-K. Bad journalism.

Not only that, but holy crap talk about shooting the messenger. Instead of being concerned that more than half of all Baltimore kindergartners aren't ready to learn, OP starts prattling on nonsensically about Common Core being evil. WTF.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article in taking the fact that 47% of kids in MD public PreK (a program limited to kid who either have disabilities, don't speak English, or are considered at high risk of academic failure) did something, and extrapolating it to "PreK students in MD".

Given that it was written by adults who presumably graduated school pre-Common Core, and is being shared by people here who presumably did too, that's a pretty a compelling argument for reforming math instruction and raising standards, at least in the area of statistics.

This is really the most important comment (not mine!). If the article really is comparing apples (all kindergartners last year) to oranges (kids coming out of public preschools this year), then this whole discussion is built on a fallacy.

But we are not talking about whether or not early reading is important. We are talking about whether the majority of children are capable of meeting the kindergarten Common Core standard for reading level. Yes, they are.

Anonymous wrote:Here's the WBAL story, and I still can't figure out what on earth they're talking about:

http://www.wbal.com/article/115161/21/study-less-than-half-of-maryland-kindergartners-are-ready-for-the-common-core-curriculum

What "Common Core statistics"? And Maryland could not have introduced the Common Core standards for pre-K three years ago, because there are no Common Core standards for pre-K. Bad journalism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who says we are? Who says it is?

Read the standards. Read the article. The kids are not ready. So, they will get extensive "training" in order to "catch up" to something for which they are not ready.

No, you are arguing in circles. Your argument goes like this: I know that kindergarten is boot camp because I know that we are pushing the kindergarteners because I know that kindergarteners are not ready for the Common Core standards because I know that kindergarten is boot camp because...

Anonymous wrote:This article in taking the fact that 47% of kids in MD public PreK (a program limited to kid who either have disabilities, don't speak English, or are considered at high risk of academic failure) did something, and extrapolating it to "PreK students in MD".

Given that it was written by adults who presumably graduated school pre-Common Core, and is being shared by people here who presumably did too, that's a pretty a compelling argument for reforming math instruction and raising standards, at least in the area of statistics.

Anonymous wrote:

Who says we are? Who says it is?

Read the standards. Read the article. The kids are not ready. So, they will get extensive "training" in order to "catch up" to something for which they are not ready.

Anonymous wrote:

The great majority of kindergarteners in all demographic and income groups are reading at kindergarten grade level by the end of kindergarten in Montgomery County. I don't feel like digging up the documentation for this, but it's easy enough to find on the Internet.

Good for Montgomery County. Studies show that early reading is not that important.

Who says we are? Who says it is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A) op posted only opinion pieces. Nowhere in them was there a link to the actual report. The second document made it sound as if the numbers are apples to oranges (87% of preschoolers were ready last year; 40 something % of kindergarteners are ready to meet the benchmarks at this point now. So it is hard to know what the facts are.

B) the first opinion piece link takes pains to stress that kids develop at different rates and this is just biological. Sure I can grant that. What I cannot grant is that it is just a coincidence that the vast majority of the kids that "biologically" need lower standards and more time are almost all low income (special needs excepted obviously). If it is biological you would not expect to see such a high concentration of school struggles primarily with poor kids.

It is absolutely correct that kids able to go faster should not be held back and those with special needs require specific accommodations. But it is not unreasonable to set benchmarks that should be achievable for MOST (not all!!!) kids and work like heck to get the kids there to ensure that the poorer kids who can get there if supported aren't left behind.

The test changed because of Common Core. That's a stated fact. The numbers dropped. Another stated fact.