Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So: the Common Core standards are bad because Illinois has decided to link test results to high school graduation?

In that case, the standards that Maryland had before adopting the Common Core standards must also be bad, because Maryland linked test results for those standards to high school graduation.

It's idiotic to link standards that you haven even used to graduation, yes. It's even more idiotic to set your cut scores arbitrarily so 70 percent of students fail.

If 70 percent of students are failing, you are teaching the wrong things in the wrong way, or testing the wrong things in the wrong way, or both.

Exactly. You are teaching the wrong things in the wrong way! That's exactly it. And as people begin to teach the right things in the right way, more students will be able to do the things they should be able to do (which is good), and more students will score at proficient or higher on the tests.

Except for Kentucky has been giving Pearson tests, the forerunner of PARCC, for three years now, with little change in test scores. 3 years, a quarter of a child's education, is a long time to waste on standards that aren't making sense.

Alternatively, maybe it's taking Kentucky a while to begin teaching the right things in the right way. Maybe Kentucky never will begin teaching the right things in the right way. That doesn't mean that the standards make no sense. It means that improving education is complicated and depends on a lot of different factors.

Except for Kentucky has been giving Pearson tests, the forerunner of PARCC, for three years now, with little change in test scores. 3 years, a quarter of a child's education, is a long time to waste on standards that aren't making sense.

Agree. I'm interested to see the explanation of that K standard posted above. I'm beginning to understand why people hate this so much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So: the Common Core standards are bad because Illinois has decided to link test results to high school graduation?

In that case, the standards that Maryland had before adopting the Common Core standards must also be bad, because Maryland linked test results for those standards to high school graduation.

It's idiotic to link standards that you haven even used to graduation, yes. It's even more idiotic to set your cut scores arbitrarily so 70 percent of students fail.

If 70 percent of students are failing, you are teaching the wrong things in the wrong way, or testing the wrong things in the wrong way, or both.

Exactly. You are teaching the wrong things in the wrong way! That's exactly it. And as people begin to teach the right things in the right way, more students will be able to do the things they should be able to do (which is good), and more students will score at proficient or higher on the tests.

Except for Kentucky has been giving Pearson tests, the forerunner of PARCC, for three years now, with little change in test scores. 3 years, a quarter of a child's education, is a long time to waste on standards that aren't making sense.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.K.8
With prompting and support, identify the reasons an author gives to support points in a text.


How about this K standard?

Anyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.B.3
Tell and write time in hours and half-hours using analog and digital clocks.

Probably easier a few years ago than now. Do people still have analog clocks?

We do. My 6 yr is learning now. About 5 min. ago DC just read the analog clock (which has roman numeral numbers instead of actual numbers). It teachers DC to count by 5's.

Sorry - should be "teaches", not "teachers". Boy, I have been making all kinds of typing errors on DCUM today.

Anonymous wrote:

CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.B.3
Tell and write time in hours and half-hours using analog and digital clocks.

Probably easier a few years ago than now. Do people still have analog clocks?

We do. My 6 yr is learning now. About 5 min. ago DC just read the analog clock (which has roman numeral numbers instead of actual numbers). It teachers DC to count by 5's.

Anonymous wrote:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.K.8
With prompting and support, identify the reasons an author gives to support points in a text.


How about this K standard?

What does this mean?

Explain it please.

Anonymous wrote:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.K.8
With prompting and support, identify the reasons an author gives to support points in a text.

How about this K standard?

What about it?

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.K.8
With prompting and support, identify the reasons an author gives to support points in a text.

How about this K standard?

Anonymous wrote:

CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.B.3
Tell and write time in hours and half-hours using analog and digital clocks.

Probably easier a few years ago than now. Do people still have analog clocks?

Yes.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.B.3
Tell and write time in hours and half-hours using analog and digital clocks.

Probably easier a few years ago than now. Do people still have analog clocks?

Anonymous wrote:

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1
Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.

If lots of third-graders are currently unable to meet this standard, should we throw out the standard? Or should we improve math education, so that in the future, most third-graders will be able to meet this standard?

I don't think this is the type of standard that people are complaining about. This is clear. Many are not. And, I would think that most third graders already do this.

If most third-graders already do this, then there won't be a problem on this part of the test, right?

But I wish that somebody would provide an example of the type of standard that people are complaining about. How about this first-grade math standard? Is it clear?

CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.B.3
Tell and write time in hours and half-hours using analog and digital clocks.

(Keeping in mind that first-graders don't take the NCLB tests.)

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1
Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.

If lots of third-graders are currently unable to meet this standard, should we throw out the standard? Or should we improve math education, so that in the future, most third-graders will be able to meet this standard?

I don't think this is the type of standard that people are complaining about. This is clear. Many are not. And, I would think that most third graders already do this.

Anonymous wrote:

And as people begin to teach the right things in the right way, more students will be able to do the things they should be able to do (which is good), and more students will score at proficient or higher on the tests.

LOL!

What's funny?

Of course it's also possible that people will continue to teach the wrong things in the wrong way, and students will continue to be unable to do the things they should be able to, and the proficiency rate on the tests won't go up. But either way, it's not a problem with the tests.