Anonymous wrote:
No, it doesn't work that way. You said that they are inappropriate. Which standards are inappropriate, and how do you know that they are inappropriate?
There is one posted above. I've posted several on other threads.
Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. There was no development process. Committees were chosen tow write the standards. Committees that did not even include people from early childhood expertise.
Oh, look, we're back to the sausage-making, instead of the actual sausage.
How it generally works is that theory has to be put into practice in order to verify the theory. Otherwise what you have is just theoretical. You cannot know if it works for the majority of children until it is tried (the experimental phase).
If practice (experience) shows that theory is lacking, theory needs to change to explain the results of practice.
Has there been enough time for this process to unfold? Is it premature to make any big decisions based on the "tests"?
The fact that there is so much argument suggests that there has not been enough time to vet the process thoroughly. Argument is good if it hones the standards and the whole process.
Where is your data and what are your specific criteria to support your assertion that "many" kindergarten standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child?
Experience. Where is your data to support your assertion that they are appropriate?
No, it doesn't work that way. You said that they are inappropriate. Which standards are inappropriate, and how do you know that they are inappropriate?
Anonymous wrote:
Where is your data and what are your specific criteria to support your assertion that "many" kindergarten standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child?
Experience. Where is your data to support your assertion that they are appropriate?
Where is your data and what are your specific criteria to support your assertion that "many" kindergarten standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Actually, it is. To be developmentally appropriate MOST KIDS should be able to relatively easily meet the standards. There are a few people who are developmentally capable of being geniuses -- but most people aren't and that isn't considered the standard.
Good point, and many of the K standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child.
Could you please give some examples of the "many" kindergarten standards that are not developmentally appropriate for the average child? Also, how do you know that they are not developmentally appropriate?
Anonymous wrote:
Actually, it is. To be developmentally appropriate MOST KIDS should be able to relatively easily meet the standards. There are a few people who are developmentally capable of being geniuses -- but most people aren't and that isn't considered the standard.
Good point, and many of the K standards are not developmentally appropriate for the average child.
Actually, it is. To be developmentally appropriate MOST KIDS should be able to relatively easily meet the standards. There are a few people who are developmentally capable of being geniuses -- but most people aren't and that isn't considered the standard.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
My child was in Montessori and all in one pre-k year learned numbers 1-10, teens, hundreds, thousands, counting and skip counting with chains, and what's called the "bank game" and "exchange game" where kids take those base 10 blocks and exchange hundreds for 10's and so forth to add and subtract numbers. This is actually a very common occurrence for a pre-k child in Montessori. It would make sense that kindergarten could teach these things to kids one year older but they often don't have the materials to do so well. The Montessori materials for learning place value look like this http://www.montessorioutlet.com/cgi-bin/item/51050...ri-Outlet-Golden-Bead-Material
Given the fact that you are writing on DCUM, I would imagine that your child started pre-K with a fairly decent vocabulary along with other skills that many, many kids do not have before K.
It is invalid to argue that the kindergarten standards are developmentally inappropriate when there are many kindergarteners (and indeed pre-kindergarteners) who are able to meet the standards.
I'm certain that there are many kindergarteners who are not able to meet the standards, but that is not an issue of child development.
Actually, it is. To be developmentally appropriate MOST KIDS should be able to relatively easily meet the standards. There are a few people who are developmentally capable of being geniuses -- but most people aren't and that isn't considered the standard.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
My child was in Montessori and all in one pre-k year learned numbers 1-10, teens, hundreds, thousands, counting and skip counting with chains, and what's called the "bank game" and "exchange game" where kids take those base 10 blocks and exchange hundreds for 10's and so forth to add and subtract numbers. This is actually a very common occurrence for a pre-k child in Montessori. It would make sense that kindergarten could teach these things to kids one year older but they often don't have the materials to do so well. The Montessori materials for learning place value look like this http://www.montessorioutlet.com/cgi-bin/item/51050...ri-Outlet-Golden-Bead-Material
Given the fact that you are writing on DCUM, I would imagine that your child started pre-K with a fairly decent vocabulary along with other skills that many, many kids do not have before K.
It is invalid to argue that the kindergarten standards are developmentally inappropriate when there are many kindergarteners (and indeed pre-kindergarteners) who are able to meet the standards.
I'm certain that there are many kindergarteners who are not able to meet the standards, but that is not an issue of child development.
I am not a lawyer. Do county circuit court judges typically rule on Congressional authorization of interstate compacts?
Anonymous wrote:http://m.ky3.com/missouri-judge-rules-pact-with-common-core-testing-illegal/21050392_31458122
More unraveling?