Anonymous wrote:

I do think a few of the K standards are either too ambitious, or not necessary. The standard that says students will know a letter NAME for every capital AND lowercase letter. I think that is unnecessary. Students should be expected to learn a SOUND for every letter but not to produce the name. That is a more efficient way to teach beginning reading. When kids see the word "hop" they need to be ale to say /h/ .../o/.../p/ (the sounds of the letters). Whether they know that the letter "h" is an /aitch/ is irrelevant.

Disagree. Name of the letter should come before the sound. I would expect K kids to know the names of all the letters and some sounds--not vice versa.

Well, you and a whole lot of people think we should teach letter names before letter sounds.

But the smart, most efficient way to teach kids to read is to introduce each letter by its most common sound. That's the Montessori method BTW.

The reason this is more efficient is that SO MANY of the letter names in English do not bear a resemblance to the most common sound.

The letters b, d, j, k, p, t, v and z are pretty easy to move from letter name to sound. "bee", "dee", "tee" etc -- once the child can segment sounds, they can segment the initial sound /t/ from the ending sound /ee/ and go from letter name tee to common sound /t/.

The letters f, l, m, n, s, and x are not too hard either but kids need to learn that you take the letter name "ef" and segment it to /e/ /f/ and it's the second phoneme not the first that is the most common sound.

The letters c and g are a bit more troublesome in that the first phoneme in their letter name IS a possible sound for that letter, but not the most common one. So kids need to learn "c" represents the sound k or s etc.

The names for h, w and y are completely useless and trip kids up. It helps you not at all to know that the letter 'h' is an "aitch" and the letter "w" is a "Doubleyou". It would be much better to rename them "hay" and "wuh "!

Don't even get me started on the short vowels.

A MUCH more efficient way to teach letter sounds is to introduce them FIRST as their most common sounds. After that, it is a simple matter to teach the correct letter names. Much easier than the way we have traditionally done things.

Yet, what the anti-CC folks are advocating for is to eliminate even the "slow and pointless" of simple picture books and emergent readers for Kindergartners (and again, tens of millions of us grew up just fine reading them in K) in favor of nothing but the spoken word. From dumb to dumber is the direction that they want to pursue.

Obviously, you have trouble with your own reading skills if that is your interpretation of the anti CC group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

agree common core is not the problem. Common core is just a standardization of what the states were already doing. The problem is accelerated academics and an emphasis on decoding (what we used to call reading) in K. It has been going on for a decade with very little to show for it.

But, Common Core affirms this and extends it.

been going on since the ;late 90s with very little to show for it. And I find it hilarious that kids would talk about those dick and jane books. Even when I read them (in 1st grade not kindergarten) I found then slow and pointless.

Yet, what the anti-CC folks are advocating for is to eliminate even the "slow and pointless" of simple picture books and emergent readers for Kindergartners (and again, tens of millions of us grew up just fine reading them in K) in favor of nothing but the spoken word. From dumb to dumber is the direction that they want to pursue.

Anonymous wrote:

agree common core is not the problem. Common core is just a standardization of what the states were already doing. The problem is accelerated academics and an emphasis on decoding (what we used to call reading) in K. It has been going on for a decade with very little to show for it.

But, Common Core affirms this and extends it.

been going on since the ;late 90s with very little to show for it. And I find it hilarious that kids would talk about those dick and jane books. Even when I read them (in 1st grade not kindergarten) I found then slow and pointless.

They definitely started in kindergarten even with some of the lower students in the 70's. I went to K overseas and started in the US in 1st and was upset not to have read them. Kids talked about Dick and Jane stories for years but there was no Amazon at the time to pick them up and read for fun.

Dick and Jane were pretty much done by then. School system must have been using old books.

Anonymous wrote:

"See Spot Run", "Dick and Jane

Those were basal readers. They are not the same thing you are talking about. And, they were not used in kindergarten.

They definitely started in kindergarten even with some of the lower students in the 70's. I went to K overseas and started in the US in 1st and was upset not to have read them. Kids talked about Dick and Jane stories for years but there was no Amazon at the time to pick them up and read for fun.

Affirms, I can see, but explain how it extends it?

by encouraging all states to adopt them. The more states they are in, the harder it will be to eliminate them.

Anonymous wrote:

agree common core is not the problem. Common core is just a standardization of what the states were already doing. The problem is accelerated academics and an emphasis on decoding (what we used to call reading) in K. It has been going on for a decade with very little to show for it.

But, Common Core affirms this and extends it.

Affirms, I can see, but explain how it extends it?

agree common core is not the problem. Common core is just a standardization of what the states were already doing. The problem is accelerated academics and an emphasis on decoding (what we used to call reading) in K. It has been going on for a decade with very little to show for it.

But, Common Core affirms this and extends it.

I do think a few of the K standards are either too ambitious, or not necessary. The standard that says students will know a letter NAME for every capital AND lowercase letter. I think that is unnecessary. Students should be expected to learn a SOUND for every letter but not to produce the name. That is a more efficient way to teach beginning reading. When kids see the word "hop" they need to be ale to say /h/ .../o/.../p/ (the sounds of the letters). Whether they know that the letter "h" is an /aitch/ is irrelevant.

Disagree. Name of the letter should come before the sound. I would expect K kids to know the names of all the letters and some sounds--not vice versa.

agree common core is not the problem. Common core is just a standardization of what the states were already doing. The problem is accelerated academics and an emphasis on decoding (what we used to call reading) in K. It has been going on for a decade with very little to show for it.

I think the real way that Common Core is wrecking Kindergarten is snow days. Since Common Core there have been so many snow days! My poor kid can hardly get in a routine. It's so developmentally inappropriate.

I don't think that matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, people - the Common Core standards don't demand reading to be mastered in K. For example, the 1st Grade standard still has kids working on phonics and other basics.

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/1/

You are absolutely correct. The Common Core standards state that by the end of K students should be able to read EMERGENT LEVEL texts -- that's not really "reading" at all. These texts are very simple, very repetitive, and the text matches the pictures. The standards do not say whether they should be able to read these texts "cold" or with teacher modeling and assistance. I think it should be made clear that they will do this with modeling and assistance.

I do think a few of the K standards are either too ambitious, or not necessary. The standard that says students will know a letter NAME for every capital AND lowercase letter. I think that is unnecessary. Students should be expected to learn a SOUND for every letter but not to produce the name. That is a more efficient way to teach beginning reading. When kids see the word "hop" they need to be ale to say /h/ .../o/.../p/ (the sounds of the letters). Whether they know that the letter "h" is an /aitch/ is irrelevant.

Common Core standards, or the way they are interpreted, do call for reading by the end of K. In DC, it's a Level C and I think it's the same in the 'burbs (this is Fountas and Pinnell). They do DIBELS three times per year and they pull kids that are below benchmark for special reading help. My kid was at a B by the end of K (in June) and was at a C at the beginning of First Grade so he was pulled for extra reading help. I couldn't understand how he could be behind when I started first grade knowing NOTHING about reading. And now, in first this year, he's fine, more or less (Level F - I think they want G). But the problem is that there is so much focus on Reading and Math that there is not enough time to focus on play and social emotional development. Kids rebel, ADHD diagnoses sky rocket. Wiggly boys running around in K used to be the norm. Now it is cause for an evaluation. That's the SPECIFIC example.

What was your school's benchmark BEFORE Common Core, by which I mean immediately before, not 50 years before?

In MCPS, the current expected reading level halfway through kindergarten is 1, and the expected reading level at the end of kindergarten is less than 2 to 3.

Under the previous curriculum, the target reading levels were 1 (A) at the end of the second quarter, 2-3 (B-C) at the end of the third quarter, and 4 (C) at the end of the year.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/english/elementary/7keystextlevels.pdf

So the reading standards for kindergarten in Montgomery County are actually lower under the Common Core standards than they used to be.