Anonymous wrote:

If the CC materials are bad because the educational publishing industry produced them, then the pre-CC materials are also bad, because the educational publishing industry also produced them

Well, since most of the CC standard writers work for or with publishing companies, I guess we can assume that they wrote the crappy standards to match the crappy worksheets. Congratulations.

But they also wrote the crappy stuff before the Common Core standards. And if you replace the Common Core standards with something else, they will write the crappy stuff for that too. It sounds like your problem is with the publishing companies in general. Getting rid of the Common Core standards will do nothing to fix that problem.

If the CC materials are bad because the educational publishing industry produced them, then the pre-CC materials are also bad, because the educational publishing industry also produced them

Well, since most of the CC standard writers work for or with publishing companies, I guess we can assume that they wrote the crappy standards to match the crappy worksheets. Congratulations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Every new curriculum has problems. I don't think that's a reason to never change the curriculum.

New curriculums are supposed to be tested on smaller groups--not do wholesale change without checks and balances.

That's a lovely idea, but I doubt that it actually happens in reality. Could you give me some examples of curricula actually used in meaningful numbers in the US that were tested on smaller groups before getting rolled out?

Just to add to this, when was the last time a whole curriculum changed and the materials changed along with it? I don't want my kids to learn the same curriculum I did 40+ yrs ago. The world has changed; the job market has significantly changed and will continue to do so as technological advances are made. My kids know how to type long before I ever did. They also read, write, do math problems at a level higher than I or my DH did at their age, and DH was educated in Europe. I think it's pretty impressive.

There hasn't been any wholesale change of curriculum or materials under CC. Most of the examples of "lousy CC curriculum" and "poorly worded CC problems" that are being circulated can be found in the textbook editions, workbooks, worksheets that publishers were printing 10 years prior. But many schools and administrators aren't sufficiently on the ball to realize that they are making poor choices of textbooks and materials, many of which are now being marketed as "Common Core" but which are really just a rehash of the lousy textbooks and materials they have been selling for years.

Anyone who thinks it suddenly made curriculum and testing worse wasn't around 10 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think that has mostly to do with the little prep time and not-so great materials they are getting rather than the standards themselves.

You mean the standards that were written by people with little or no experience in a classroom? Imagine that? And, you blame it on the "not so great materials"?

Let's say that the materials related to the Common Core standards are bad because the Common Core standards are bad because they were produced by the educational publishing industry. But who produced the materials these Common-Core-related materials are replacing? The educational publishing industry did -- didn't they? So why would the Common Core-related materials produced by the educational publishing industry be worse than the previous materials produced by the educational publishing industry?

Do you realize how crazy you sound? I'm convinced, based on your writing style and your ideas of what is logical, that you yourself are the one writing these math word problems that are on these common core worksheets. It would explain your insane defense of it as well.

Let me simplify for you, then.

If the CC materials are bad because the educational publishing industry produced them, then the pre-CC materials are also bad, because the educational publishing industry also produced them.

I hope that is simple enough for you.

Was that supposed to be funny? ?

I got what you were saying the first time, even though it was as painful to read as a common core math word problem, but I was just making a point.

Fwiw, most publishing company worksheets suck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think that has mostly to do with the little prep time and not-so great materials they are getting rather than the standards themselves.

You mean the standards that were written by people with little or no experience in a classroom? Imagine that? And, you blame it on the "not so great materials"?

Let's say that the materials related to the Common Core standards are bad because the Common Core standards are bad because they were produced by the educational publishing industry. But who produced the materials these Common-Core-related materials are replacing? The educational publishing industry did -- didn't they? So why would the Common Core-related materials produced by the educational publishing industry be worse than the previous materials produced by the educational publishing industry?

Do you realize how crazy you sound? I'm convinced, based on your writing style and your ideas of what is logical, that you yourself are the one writing these math word problems that are on these common core worksheets. It would explain your insane defense of it as well.

Let me simplify for you, then.

If the CC materials are bad because the educational publishing industry produced them, then the pre-CC materials are also bad, because the educational publishing industry also produced them.

I hope that is simple enough for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think that has mostly to do with the little prep time and not-so great materials they are getting rather than the standards themselves.

You mean the standards that were written by people with little or no experience in a classroom? Imagine that? And, you blame it on the "not so great materials"?

Let's say that the materials related to the Common Core standards are bad because the Common Core standards are bad because they were produced by the educational publishing industry. But who produced the materials these Common-Core-related materials are replacing? The educational publishing industry did -- didn't they? So why would the Common Core-related materials produced by the educational publishing industry be worse than the previous materials produced by the educational publishing industry?

Do you realize how crazy you sound? I'm convinced, based on your writing style and your ideas of what is logical, that you yourself are the one writing these math word problems that are on these common core worksheets. It would explain your insane defense of it as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are full of grammatical and syntax errors.

You oppose the Common Core standards because you think the copy editors did a bad job?

Who are you? Like seriously, who are you? I'm a np here and you seriously seem crazy to me in your insane defense and love of common core. Why? There has to be some reason. It must benefit you personally in some way.

I agree. She also twists things around. Teacher support is crashing and burning. They are hating Common Core now.

Only in schools and districts where they've botched the rollout. That's local, not national.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Every new curriculum has problems. I don't think that's a reason to never change the curriculum.

New curriculums are supposed to be tested on smaller groups--not do wholesale change without checks and balances.

That's a lovely idea, but I doubt that it actually happens in reality. Could you give me some examples of curricula actually used in meaningful numbers in the US that were tested on smaller groups before getting rolled out?

Just to add to this, when was the last time a whole curriculum changed and the materials changed along with it? I don't want my kids to learn the same curriculum I did 40+ yrs ago. The world has changed; the job market has significantly changed and will continue to do so as technological advances are made. My kids know how to type long before I ever did. They also read, write, do math problems at a level higher than I or my DH did at their age, and DH was educated in Europe. I think it's pretty impressive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the federal idea of using students' results from the NCLB-mandated tests for teacher performance evaluations -- which also is unrelated to the standards themselves.

The tests aren't related to the standards? Who knew.

The tests are related to the standards. The federal idea of using students' results from the NCLB-mandated tests for teacher performance evaluations is unrelated to the standards. If the Common Core standards went away tomorrow, NCLB would still mandate tests, and people would still call for using students' results from the NCLB-mandated tests for teacher performance evaluations.

In fact DC did want to use students' results from the NCLB-mandated tests for teacher performance evaluations, and that was BEFORE the Common Core standards.

+1

Regardless of whether you like CC standards or not, people need to get their facts straight.

NCLB was implemented under the Bush Admin, waaay before CC standards. Under Obama's admin., the Race to the Top funds became tied to CC standards, but not because his admin. developed them, but because they were trying to reward schools for improving performance. They jumped on the CC standards bandwagon as a means to use something as a benchmark to reward the schools.

Sheesh, people. Get your facts straight.

Anonymous wrote:

And the federal idea of using students' results from the NCLB-mandated tests for teacher performance evaluations -- which also is unrelated to the standards themselves.

The tests aren't related to the standards? Who knew.

The tests are related to the standards. The federal idea of using students' results from the NCLB-mandated tests for teacher performance evaluations is unrelated to the standards. If the Common Core standards went away tomorrow, NCLB would still mandate tests, and people would still call for using students' results from the NCLB-mandated tests for teacher performance evaluations.

In fact DC did want to use students' results from the NCLB-mandated tests for teacher performance evaluations, and that was BEFORE the Common Core standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Every new curriculum has problems. I don't think that's a reason to never change the curriculum.

New curriculums are supposed to be tested on smaller groups--not do wholesale change without checks and balances.

That's a lovely idea, but I doubt that it actually happens in reality. Could you give me some examples of curricula actually used in meaningful numbers in the US that were tested on smaller groups before getting rolled out?

Anonymous wrote:

I think that has mostly to do with the little prep time and not-so great materials they are getting rather than the standards themselves.

You mean the standards that were written by people with little or no experience in a classroom? Imagine that? And, you blame it on the "not so great materials"?

Let's say that the materials related to the Common Core standards are bad because the Common Core standards are bad because they were produced by the educational publishing industry. But who produced the materials these Common-Core-related materials are replacing? The educational publishing industry did -- didn't they? So why would the Common Core-related materials produced by the educational publishing industry be worse than the previous materials produced by the educational publishing industry?

Every new curriculum has problems. I don't think that's a reason to never change the curriculum.

New curriculums are supposed to be tested on smaller groups--not do wholesale change without checks and balances.

And the federal idea of using students' results from the NCLB-mandated tests for teacher performance evaluations -- which also is unrelated to the standards themselves.

The tests aren't related to the standards? Who knew.

Anonymous wrote:

Practically speaking, what's the difference? We're supposed to love the Common Core of 10-15 years from now, when the kinks are worked out? How?

Every new curriculum has problems. I don't think that's a reason to never change the curriculum.