Common Core Education Standards (1 Viewer)

[Ilov80s]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PprP5TCZBRI

This high school senior does an amazing job of breaking down his criticisms on Common Core and the direction our education system is being pulled.

This high school senior does an amazing job of regurgitating the same old lines that are full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and full-out wrongness...

Based on what I have read and what you have posted here, the kid is wrong about quite a few items- particularly his opening comments regarding the lack of teacher involvement in crafting the standards. However, that does not negate other portions of his speech which I believe are very important (teaching and learning can't be measured with a series of data points, education isn't about checking off a list of standards, etc.)

None of which have anything to do with the common core. If you are upset with testing practices or teacher effectiveness or school district effectiveness or federal funding for education then great...but don't blame it on common core standards. That's like being mad at the bank when you get your statement because your job doesn't pay enough.

Actually, it does. It is a checklist of grade by grade what every kid must know. Also, a major component of the entire Common Core movement is testing.

No, it isn't. What do you mean "must know"? What happens if they don't???And the "Common Core Movement" is a politically derived term that has little or no meaning in actual education. The Common Core is merely a set of standards -- that's it. What states and districts choose to do with those standards is up to the individual state and district.

I have no idea why I have allowed myself back into this debate...I'm obviously not making a dent in the misconceptions.

What is a standard if not what kids have to learn or attempt to learn? You can also go to the Common Core's own website in the FAQ section and if says, "the Common Core State Standards enable collaboration between states on a range of tools and policies, including: the development and implementation of common comprehensive assessment systems to measure student performance annually that will replace existing state testing systems"

You are right the CC are just standards of what needs to be taught at each level. However, it is being created with the mass testing of these standards in mind. It was one of the motivating factors behind the CC creation. You can separate the two and discuss the actual standards vs the testing. However, I don't see how anything that is posted in this thread about testing should be dismissed by you as not having anything to do with CC.

To me, one of the advantages of the common core standards is that it allows the opportunities for common testing across states. But guess what? Most states were already taking standardized (or not so standardized) tests over older standards and many of those standards and many of those tests weren't very good. This isn't some new phenomena created by common core. Anybody can make a test and slap the term "common core" across the top of it and try to sell it. States and districts have to be selective in the materials they choose, as they have always needed to be.

Most textbook and testing companies are low down, dirty, SOB's. They take old stuff, slap a new title on it with the latest catch-prhase, raise the prices, and sell as many as they can. I was at the National Science Teachers Association in San Antonio last year exactly 1 day after the Next Generation Science Standards (sort of like common core for science) were released. There were companies in the exhibits hall selling materials that were "aligned to NGSS" -- so they had written a text book overnight to match the standards??? The guy in charge of the group that wrote the standards told one "you guys must have worked awfully hard last night!"

So does the common core enable collaboration on materials including testing - sure. But those materials and tests are not part of the common core, they are designed and sold by competing companies. If states/districts are foolish enough to purchase poor materials, then that is on that particular state or district, not the common core. My guess is they were probably making poor purchasing decisions before as well, and there's not much a set of standards can do about that.

I'm actually excited about the testing options that are being designed. Here in Kentucky we have been designing our own assessments for the past 20 years or so, and the reliability and validity of those tests have been questionable at best. The test we've used for common core the last couple of years has been somewhat better (although more difficult) and I think there will be even better options out there when our contract with these testing materials runs out. But again, if we pick one that is crap, I'm not going to run around bashing the standards. I'm going to question the people that made the test and those that purchased it.

There are 2 main groups producing the tests for Common Core: Smarter Balanced and PARCC. PARCC is a consortium of 18 states, Smarter Balanced is made up of 23 states. Both consortia claim that the testing will be ready by 14-15 school year. Kentucky is part of PARCC. So, most states have already committed to their future tests and it isn't from a private company, it is led by key educational figures from the participating states. However, it is difficult to really tell who is actually designing the adaptive computer assessments. Michigan is in the Smarter Balanced consortium. I attended a workshop on Common Core and the Smarter Balanced Assessment and the most serious concern that I came away with was that even the people leading this workshop (which was clearly designed to sell teachers on the standards and assessment) could not answer many questions. Some of the questions and responses:

1. Q: If all the kids have to take the test on a computer, how will this work for schools like mine that don't have anywhere near enough computers for every kid?

A: Don't worry, you will get all the computers you need. That is all going to be taken care of. I'm not sure how or when, but you will get lots of computers.

Michigan is broke, the computer fairy isn't pulling up with 600 computers and if it did, we don't have anywhere to put them.

2. Q: What about English Second Language students and students with disabilities? Are their accommodations for the test? Is their assistive technology that will read test items to students?

A: I don't have the answers to that, but I am sure that will be taken care of and you won't need to worry about it.

It is my job to worry about special education students and I am used to hearing a lot of BS promises, so I will continue to worry.

3. Q: How often will the tests be given?

A: At the end of the year definitely. Maybe in the middle too. It could be monthly, but nobody seems willing to pay for it yet. It is just a matter of getting the states and districts to pay more money to get more tests.

Sounds like a solid plan. I really hope my broke state and district can scrape up money for more tests. Maybe we can axe our music department or sports programs to pay for it.

I am concerned that when these multi-state online tests roll out, there will massive technical issues. It is a massive undertaking and IMO, one that won't actually make kids any smarter. You can weigh a pig everyday, it won't make him any fatter.

This thread should really be about Race to the Top as I think many of the issues here are far beyond the actual standards of the Common Core.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PprP5TCZBRI

This high school senior does an amazing job of breaking down his criticisms on Common Core and the direction our education system is being pulled.

This high school senior does an amazing job of regurgitating the same old lines that are full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and full-out wrongness...

Based on what I have read and what you have posted here, the kid is wrong about quite a few items- particularly his opening comments regarding the lack of teacher involvement in crafting the standards. However, that does not negate other portions of his speech which I believe are very important (teaching and learning can't be measured with a series of data points, education isn't about checking off a list of standards, etc.)

None of which have anything to do with the common core. If you are upset with testing practices or teacher effectiveness or school district effectiveness or federal funding for education then great...but don't blame it on common core standards. That's like being mad at the bank when you get your statement because your job doesn't pay enough.

Actually, it does. It is a checklist of grade by grade what every kid must know. Also, a major component of the entire Common Core movement is testing.

No, it isn't. What do you mean "must know"? What happens if they don't???And the "Common Core Movement" is a politically derived term that has little or no meaning in actual education. The Common Core is merely a set of standards -- that's it. What states and districts choose to do with those standards is up to the individual state and district.

I have no idea why I have allowed myself back into this debate...I'm obviously not making a dent in the misconceptions.

What is a standard if not what kids have to learn or attempt to learn? You can also go to the Common Core's own website in the FAQ section and if says, "the Common Core State Standards enable collaboration between states on a range of tools and policies, including: the development and implementation of common comprehensive assessment systems to measure student performance annually that will replace existing state testing systems"

You are right the CC are just standards of what needs to be taught at each level. However, it is being created with the mass testing of these standards in mind. It was one of the motivating factors behind the CC creation. You can separate the two and discuss the actual standards vs the testing. However, I don't see how anything that is posted in this thread about testing should be dismissed by you as not having anything to do with CC.

To me, one of the advantages of the common core standards is that it allows the opportunities for common testing across states. But guess what? Most states were already taking standardized (or not so standardized) tests over older standards and many of those standards and many of those tests weren't very good. This isn't some new phenomena created by common core. Anybody can make a test and slap the term "common core" across the top of it and try to sell it. States and districts have to be selective in the materials they choose, as they have always needed to be.

Most textbook and testing companies are low down, dirty, SOB's. They take old stuff, slap a new title on it with the latest catch-prhase, raise the prices, and sell as many as they can. I was at the National Science Teachers Association in San Antonio last year exactly 1 day after the Next Generation Science Standards (sort of like common core for science) were released. There were companies in the exhibits hall selling materials that were "aligned to NGSS" -- so they had written a text book overnight to match the standards??? The guy in charge of the group that wrote the standards told one "you guys must have worked awfully hard last night!"

So does the common core enable collaboration on materials including testing - sure. But those materials and tests are not part of the common core, they are designed and sold by competing companies. If states/districts are foolish enough to purchase poor materials, then that is on that particular state or district, not the common core. My guess is they were probably making poor purchasing decisions before as well, and there's not much a set of standards can do about that.

I'm actually excited about the testing options that are being designed. Here in Kentucky we have been designing our own assessments for the past 20 years or so, and the reliability and validity of those tests have been questionable at best. The test we've used for common core the last couple of years has been somewhat better (although more difficult) and I think there will be even better options out there when our contract with these testing materials runs out. But again, if we pick one that is crap, I'm not going to run around bashing the standards. I'm going to question the people that made the test and those that purchased it.

There are 2 main groups producing the tests for Common Core: Smarter Balanced and PARCC. PARCC is a consortium of 18 states, Smarter Balanced is made up of 23 states. Both consortia claim that the testing will be ready by 14-15 school year. Kentucky is part of PARCC. So, most states have already committed to their future tests and it isn't from a private company, it is led by key educational figures from the participating states. However, it is difficult to really tell who is actually designing the adaptive computer assessments. Michigan is in the Smarter Balanced consortium.

Pearson makes tests for the Common Core already, as do many other testing companies. Kentucky and New York have their own "interim" tests that they are currently using. The 2 consortia you mention do not have exclusivity on the testing market, and from everything I have heard there is no commitment to use the tests those consortia create. We field-tested the ACT Aspire test last year, and I really liked the way it was designed. Our state has a history with ACT designed products, and I have a feeling that we will end up going with that test series.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

This thread should really be about Race to the Top as I think many of the issues here are far beyond the actual standards of the Common Core.

You would get no argument from me on this. I just get really sick of people (not you, mainly the people politicizing things or crappy teachers that don't like it because they are going to have to come up with a new set of lesson plans) complaining about "Common Core" when their complaints aren't really about the common core. Technology issues, special education accommodations, roll-out procedures, money issues...all of these are major educational issues, but it's become a political tool by many to call of these Common Core problems.

 

[Rich Conway]

This thread should really be about Race to the Top as I think many of the issues here are far beyond the actual standards of the Common Core.

You would get no argument from me on this. I just get really sick of people (not you, mainly the people politicizing things or crappy teachers that don't like it because they are going to have to come up with a new set of lesson plans) complaining about "Common Core" when their complaints aren't really about the common core. Technology issues, special education accommodations, roll-out procedures, money issues...all of these are major educational issues, but it's become a political tool by many to call of these Common Core problems.

All of these things are part of a process of moving from one curriculum to another. You can repeat until you're blue in the face that "the new standards have nothing to do with that stuff", but you need to realize that in the real world, adopting new standards necessarily entails all of that stuff as part of the implementation.

 

[Ilov80s]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PprP5TCZBRI

This high school senior does an amazing job of breaking down his criticisms on Common Core and the direction our education system is being pulled.

This high school senior does an amazing job of regurgitating the same old lines that are full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and full-out wrongness...

Based on what I have read and what you have posted here, the kid is wrong about quite a few items- particularly his opening comments regarding the lack of teacher involvement in crafting the standards. However, that does not negate other portions of his speech which I believe are very important (teaching and learning can't be measured with a series of data points, education isn't about checking off a list of standards, etc.)

None of which have anything to do with the common core. If you are upset with testing practices or teacher effectiveness or school district effectiveness or federal funding for education then great...but don't blame it on common core standards. That's like being mad at the bank when you get your statement because your job doesn't pay enough.

Actually, it does. It is a checklist of grade by grade what every kid must know. Also, a major component of the entire Common Core movement is testing.

No, it isn't. What do you mean "must know"? What happens if they don't???And the "Common Core Movement" is a politically derived term that has little or no meaning in actual education. The Common Core is merely a set of standards -- that's it. What states and districts choose to do with those standards is up to the individual state and district.

I have no idea why I have allowed myself back into this debate...I'm obviously not making a dent in the misconceptions.

What is a standard if not what kids have to learn or attempt to learn? You can also go to the Common Core's own website in the FAQ section and if says, "the Common Core State Standards enable collaboration between states on a range of tools and policies, including: the development and implementation of common comprehensive assessment systems to measure student performance annually that will replace existing state testing systems"You are right the CC are just standards of what needs to be taught at each level. However, it is being created with the mass testing of these standards in mind. It was one of the motivating factors behind the CC creation. You can separate the two and discuss the actual standards vs the testing. However, I don't see how anything that is posted in this thread about testing should be dismissed by you as not having anything to do with CC.

To me, one of the advantages of the common core standards is that it allows the opportunities for common testing across states. But guess what? Most states were already taking standardized (or not so standardized) tests over older standards and many of those standards and many of those tests weren't very good. This isn't some new phenomena created by common core. Anybody can make a test and slap the term "common core" across the top of it and try to sell it. States and districts have to be selective in the materials they choose, as they have always needed to be.

Most textbook and testing companies are low down, dirty, SOB's. They take old stuff, slap a new title on it with the latest catch-prhase, raise the prices, and sell as many as they can. I was at the National Science Teachers Association in San Antonio last year exactly 1 day after the Next Generation Science Standards (sort of like common core for science) were released. There were companies in the exhibits hall selling materials that were "aligned to NGSS" -- so they had written a text book overnight to match the standards??? The guy in charge of the group that wrote the standards told one "you guys must have worked awfully hard last night!"

So does the common core enable collaboration on materials including testing - sure. But those materials and tests are not part of the common core, they are designed and sold by competing companies. If states/districts are foolish enough to purchase poor materials, then that is on that particular state or district, not the common core. My guess is they were probably making poor purchasing decisions before as well, and there's not much a set of standards can do about that.

I'm actually excited about the testing options that are being designed. Here in Kentucky we have been designing our own assessments for the past 20 years or so, and the reliability and validity of those tests have been questionable at best. The test we've used for common core the last couple of years has been somewhat better (although more difficult) and I think there will be even better options out there when our contract with these testing materials runs out. But again, if we pick one that is crap, I'm not going to run around bashing the standards. I'm going to question the people that made the test and those that purchased it.

There are 2 main groups producing the tests for Common Core: Smarter Balanced and PARCC. PARCC is a consortium of 18 states, Smarter Balanced is made up of 23 states. Both consortia claim that the testing will be ready by 14-15 school year. Kentucky is part of PARCC. So, most states have already committed to their future tests and it isn't from a private company, it is led by key educational figures from the participating states. However, it is difficult to really tell who is actually designing the adaptive computer assessments. Michigan is in the Smarter Balanced consortium.

Pearson makes tests for the Common Core already, as do many other testing companies. Kentucky and New York have their own "interim" tests that they are currently using. The 2 consortia you mention do not have exclusivity on the testing market, and from everything I have heard there is no commitment to use the tests those consortia create. We field-tested the ACT Aspire test last year, and I really liked the way it was designed. Our state has a history with ACT designed products, and I have a feeling that we will end up going with that test series.

There aren't any commitments and some states are looking to drop the consortia testing due to concerns over quality and cost. It seems weird for say Kentucky to spend 4 years as a original member of PARCC and be an influential member in shaping it only to not use it. I don't know what that says about PARCC.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

This thread should really be about Race to the Top as I think many of the issues here are far beyond the actual standards of the Common Core.

You would get no argument from me on this. I just get really sick of people (not you, mainly the people politicizing things or crappy teachers that don't like it because they are going to have to come up with a new set of lesson plans) complaining about "Common Core" when their complaints aren't really about the common core. Technology issues, special education accommodations, roll-out procedures, money issues...all of these are major educational issues, but it's become a political tool by many to call of these Common Core problems.

All of these things are part of a process of moving from one curriculum to another. You can repeat until you're blue in the face that "the new standards have nothing to do with that stuff", but you need to realize that in the real world, adopting new standards necessarily entails all of that stuff as part of the implementation.

Agreed, but what I'm trying to say is that there are choices to be made at the state/district level on those issues. Nowhere in the common core standards does it state that you have to test on computers. Heck, nowhere in there does it say that you have to assess it at all. The common core standards can't address special ed accommodations because the regs for those are going to be different district to district and state to state. And those special education students would need those accommodations regardless of the standards being tested.

It reminds me of the people at work freaking out over their insurance rates going up this year, when our insurance rates have increased for each of the past 10 years. We have educational funding issues and everybody blames common core, but there were funding issues before and still funding issues for those states that didn't adopt common core.

 

[Ilov80s]

This thread should really be about Race to the Top as I think many of the issues here are far beyond the actual standards of the Common Core.

You would get no argument from me on this. I just get really sick of people (not you, mainly the people politicizing things or crappy teachers that don't like it because they are going to have to come up with a new set of lesson plans) complaining about "Common Core" when their complaints aren't really about the common core. Technology issues, special education accommodations, roll-out procedures, money issues...all of these are major educational issues, but it's become a political tool by many to call of these Common Core problems.

All of these things are part of a process of moving from one curriculum to another. You can repeat until you're blue in the face that "the new standards have nothing to do with that stuff", but you need to realize that in the real world, adopting new standards necessarily entails all of that stuff as part of the implementation.

Agreed, but what I'm trying to say is that there are choices to be made at the state/district level on those issues. Nowhere in the common core standards does it state that you have to test on computers. Heck, nowhere in there does it say that you have to assess it at all. The common core standards can't address special ed accommodations because the regs for those are going to be different district to district and state to state. And those special education students would need those accommodations regardless of the standards being tested.

It reminds me of the people at work freaking out over their insurance rates going up this year, when our insurance rates have increased for each of the past 10 years. We have educational funding issues and everybody blames common core, but there were funding issues before and still funding issues for those states that didn't adopt common core.

It is valid to complain that at a time when they may be funding issues, dropping what may amount to a billion dollar into new standards (I know the standards themselves don't cost a billion, but implementation may) is somewhere between stupid and criminal.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

It is valid to complain that at a time when they may be funding issues, dropping what may amount to a billion dollar into new standards (I know the standards themselves don't cost a billion, but implementation may) is somewhere between stupid and criminal.

But there are always funding issues (or at least there has always been as long as I've been in education)...and that billion dollars (seems like a vast overestimate, but we'll go with it) was going to be spent on something, it might as well be spent on improving our public education system (which I think it will).

 

[vnel8tn]

http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/19/3298877/kansas-house-committee-to-hear.html

The Kansas Legislature has been addressing this recently.

 

[Mario Kart]

http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/19/3298877/kansas-house-committee-to-hear.html

The Kansas Legislature has been addressing this recently.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/jessica_vanegeren/bill-to-eliminate-common-core-in-wisconsin-abruptly-pulled-from/article_e48e83fc-9a55-11e3-ac72-0019bb2963f4.html

Wisconsin as well however things are going back and forth.

 

[tikigods]

Two criticisms of Common Core:

1. Too hard- only geared for college ready students.

2. Violation of FERPA by mining private student data through Smarter Balance standardized testing.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Two criticisms of Common Core:

1. Too hard- only geared for college ready students.

2. Violation of FERPA by mining private student data through Smarter Balance standardized testing.

Clueless

 

[Hooper31]

Two criticisms of Common Core:

1. Too hard- only geared for college ready students.

2. Violation of FERPA by mining private student data through Smarter Balance standardized testing.

I think the first one is a valid criticism and I can point to specific standards that I think are bad. Who should get to choose which standards are included?

 

[tikigods]

Two criticisms of Common Core:

1. Too hard- only geared for college ready students.

2. Violation of FERPA by mining private student data through Smarter Balance standardized testing.

Clueless

Your criticism is too vague. Ironically, CCSS ask you to do your research, analyze your research, synthesize your results, and write a clear conclusion that evaluates your findings.

Obviously you haven't had CCSS training.

 

[Ilov80s]

Two criticisms of Common Core:

1. Too hard- only geared for college ready students.

2. Violation of FERPA by mining private student data through Smarter Balance standardized testing.

Clueless

And you are clueful? Enlighten me sunshine.

 

[tikigods]

Two criticisms of Common Core:

1. Too hard- only geared for college ready students.

2. Violation of FERPA by mining private student data through Smarter Balance standardized testing.

I think the first one is a valid criticism and I can point to specific standards that I think are bad. Who should get to choose which standards are included?

The Tea Partiers, at least in my area, feel that CCSS is some government conspiracy to mine private student information protected by FERPA.

 

[Ilov80s]

Two criticisms of Common Core:

1. Too hard- only geared for college ready students.

2. Violation of FERPA by mining private student data through Smarter Balance standardized testing.

I think the first one is a valid criticism and I can point to specific standards that I think are bad. Who should get to choose which standards are included?

The Tea Partiers, at least in my area, feel that CCSS is some government conspiracy to mine private student information protected by FERPA.

I don't think it is a government consipiracy, but the data will be mined. That is the point of it.

 

[Slapdash]

Two criticisms of Common Core:

1. Too hard- only geared for college ready students.

2. Violation of FERPA by mining private student data through Smarter Balance standardized testing.

I think the first one is a valid criticism and I can point to specific standards that I think are bad. Who should get to choose which standards are included?

The Tea Partiers, at least in my area, feel that CCSS is some government conspiracy to mine private student information protected by FERPA.

If the kids aren't doing anything wrong then what do they have to worry about?

 

[tikigods]

Two criticisms of Common Core:

1. Too hard- only geared for college ready students.

2. Violation of FERPA by mining private student data through Smarter Balance standardized testing.

I think the first one is a valid criticism and I can point to specific standards that I think are bad. Who should get to choose which standards are included?

The Tea Partiers, at least in my area, feel that CCSS is some government conspiracy to mine private student information protected by FERPA.

I don't think it is a government consipiracy, but the data will be mined. That is the point of it.

They seem to want to contend that it's the federal government reach into a state's right to educate children, thus circumventing the 10th Amendment. State's that line up to receive federal funding by implementing CCSS will be giving their sovereignty to educate over to them.

I dunno. I think the CCSS are good for kids, challenging, and focusing on critical thinking.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

States have been taking federal money and implementing federal education mandates for decades...

eta: and again i feel compelled to stress that common core isn't a federal mandate.

 

[tikigods]

States have been taking federal money and implementing federal education mandates for decades...

eta: and again i feel compelled to stress that common core isn't a federal mandate.

Clearly. It's also the reason that there is such a mess with special education and local school districts having to fund unfunded federal mandates.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the intent and purpose of the actual standards. For the most part, I think they provide the ability for school districts to create rich and viable curriculums. They get kids away from the rote memorization and regurgitation of facts of No Child Left Behind. However, any time you climb in bed with the federal government, you're asking for trouble.

 

[Ilov80s]

States have been taking federal money and implementing federal education mandates for decades...

eta: and again i feel compelled to stress that common core isn't a federal mandate.

Clearly. It's also the reason that there is such a mess with special education and local school districts having to fund unfunded federal mandates.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the intent and purpose of the actual standards. For the most part, I think they provide the ability for school districts to create rich and viable curriculums. They get kids away from the rote memorization and regurgitation of facts of No Child Left Behind. However, any time you climb in bed with the federal government, you're asking for trouble.

NCLB didn't have anything to do with schools focusing on memorization. Also, Common Core does not provide anything for distrcits to create rich, viable curriculums. It is a new set of standards and tests that will come with it. I wish we were getting things like new technology to provide something better.

 

[tikigods]

States have been taking federal money and implementing federal education mandates for decades...

eta: and again i feel compelled to stress that common core isn't a federal mandate.

Clearly. It's also the reason that there is such a mess with special education and local school districts having to fund unfunded federal mandates.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the intent and purpose of the actual standards. For the most part, I think they provide the ability for school districts to create rich and viable curriculums. They get kids away from the rote memorization and regurgitation of facts of No Child Left Behind. However, any time you climb in bed with the federal government, you're asking for trouble.

NCLB didn't have anything to do with schools focusing on memorization. Also, Common Core does not provide anything for distrcits to create rich, viable curriculums. It is a new set of standards and tests that will come with it. I wish we were getting things like new technology to provide something better.

I understand your a teacher so I'll ask you this, when your students take an standardized test under NCLB, how was it scored? Scoring being defined as how the test creators determined advanced, proficient, etc.

Common Core Standards focus more on students learning how to research and present findings, collaboratively, and focused on critical thinking. Schools can have more freedom to focus on depth rather than breadth in their curriculums. If your district isn't thinking this way then they obviously are not getting the point of CCSS.

New technology? How does your district deal with the constant changing of technology?

 

[Ilov80s]

States have been taking federal money and implementing federal education mandates for decades...

eta: and again i feel compelled to stress that common core isn't a federal mandate.

Clearly. It's also the reason that there is such a mess with special education and local school districts having to fund unfunded federal mandates.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the intent and purpose of the actual standards. For the most part, I think they provide the ability for school districts to create rich and viable curriculums. They get kids away from the rote memorization and regurgitation of facts of No Child Left Behind. However, any time you climb in bed with the federal government, you're asking for trouble.

NCLB didn't have anything to do with schools focusing on memorization. Also, Common Core does not provide anything for distrcits to create rich, viable curriculums. It is a new set of standards and tests that will come with it. I wish we were getting things like new technology to provide something better.

I understand your a teacher so I'll ask you this, when your students take an standardized test under NCLB, how was it scored? Scoring being defined as how the test creators determined advanced, proficient, etc.

Common Core Standards focus more on students learning how to research and present findings, collaboratively, and focused on critical thinking. Schools can have more freedom to focus on depth rather than breadth in their curriculums. If your district isn't thinking this way then they obviously are not getting the point of CCSS.

New technology? How does your district deal with the constant changing of technology?

1. The tests students take are whatever the state decides they should take. NCLB didn't have specific tests that came with it or even specific standards to measure. Our state has it's own created test (MEAP/MME) and the ACT that it used. Students read passages/look at data/map/graph and answer questions about it that range from simple understanding to making conculsions or predictions. It has little memorization and in math, the formulas are provided. A lot of the teachers in high school didn't like the test because for example in science, we have all these laws, theories, and ideas we have to teach the kids. However, on these tests, there aren't questions about them. It is all reading and interpreting graphs. Which is fine, but we could improve the kids test scores more by just spending all day reading data and analyzing it. Perhaps that is the direction that Common Core will take us. I'm not sure how colleges will feel about that when the kids come into chemistry and don't know what a redox reaction is or know what a titration is, but hopefully they can figure it out quick with improved reading skills.

2. Saying to schools, "teach with more depth" is nice, but it doesn't really provide any resources to do. It doesn't add minutes to the day or put new lab equipment in the room. I think we already teach a lot of depth where I work. The biggest obstacle is time and the students themselves, but Common Core doesn't change that.

3. My district deals with changing technology by being broke and scraping together pennies to save the technology we already have.

 

[Mario Kart]

Just a comment but if the Feds are going to give states money that implement this and tests to quantify where the kids are within that state... than the Feds will have power to take money away when students don't meet the requirements and so forth. I am thinking ahead here and attempting to see the road down the line.

One problem with these attempts to "standardize" things is that they do not take the real element at all. A kid in an urban setting who is worried about his/her next meal or where they might stay the night is much different than the kid waking up with breakfast waiting when they get downstairs from their warm shower. Yet, both are expected to know, think, analyze and comprehend the same thing by the end of the day. Ain't going to happen and does nothing for either kid to standardize each of them.

Plus, it will all fall back onto the kid at some point. Is graduation going to depend on a standardized test as a senior for everyone? The numbers will be skewed in a terrible way. If you try to take the real element out of education, nothing is going to work.

 

[tikigods]

States have been taking federal money and implementing federal education mandates for decades...

eta: and again i feel compelled to stress that common core isn't a federal mandate.

Clearly. It's also the reason that there is such a mess with special education and local school districts having to fund unfunded federal mandates.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the intent and purpose of the actual standards. For the most part, I think they provide the ability for school districts to create rich and viable curriculums. They get kids away from the rote memorization and regurgitation of facts of No Child Left Behind. However, any time you climb in bed with the federal government, you're asking for trouble.

NCLB didn't have anything to do with schools focusing on memorization. Also, Common Core does not provide anything for distrcits to create rich, viable curriculums. It is a new set of standards and tests that will come with it. I wish we were getting things like new technology to provide something better.

I understand your a teacher so I'll ask you this, when your students take an standardized test under NCLB, how was it scored? Scoring being defined as how the test creators determined advanced, proficient, etc.

Common Core Standards focus more on students learning how to research and present findings, collaboratively, and focused on critical thinking. Schools can have more freedom to focus on depth rather than breadth in their curriculums. If your district isn't thinking this way then they obviously are not getting the point of CCSS.

New technology? How does your district deal with the constant changing of technology?

1. The tests students take are whatever the state decides they should take. NCLB didn't have specific tests that came with it or even specific standards to measure. Our state has it's own created test (MEAP/MME) and the ACT that it used. Students read passages/look at data/map/graph and answer questions about it that range from simple understanding to making conculsions or predictions. It has little memorization and in math, the formulas are provided. A lot of the teachers in high school didn't like the test because for example in science, we have all these laws, theories, and ideas we have to teach the kids. However, on these tests, there aren't questions about them. It is all reading and interpreting graphs. Which is fine, but we could improve the kids test scores more by just spending all day reading data and analyzing it. Perhaps that is the direction that Common Core will take us. I'm not sure how colleges will feel about that when the kids come into chemistry and don't know what a redox reaction is or know what a titration is, but hopefully they can figure it out quick with improved reading skills.

2. Saying to schools, "teach with more depth" is nice, but it doesn't really provide any resources to do. It doesn't add minutes to the day or put new lab equipment in the room. I think we already teach a lot of depth where I work. The biggest obstacle is time and the students themselves, but Common Core doesn't change that.

3. My district deals with changing technology by being broke and scraping together pennies to save the technology we already have.

 

[Ilov80s]

Just a comment but if the Feds are going to give states money that implement this and tests to quantify where the kids are within that state... than the Feds will have power to take money away when students don't meet the requirements and so forth. I am thinking ahead here and attempting to see the road down the line.

.

That is how most federal education guidelines work. The Feds dangle money in exchange for changes in school policies. The difference here is that they aren't giving any money. The carrot was to get into a competition for a one time lump sum of money in the middle of the recession. Only 2 or 3 States won any money. The Feds aren't paying States for new books, new tests, the computers needed to take the tests, training or anything. It's all going to fall on the States and local districts.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Arizona Senate panel votes to dump Common Core

February 21, 2014 12:00 am • By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services52
PHOENIX — Ignoring pleas from business leaders, the Senate Education Committee voted 6-3 along party lines Thursday to bar Arizona from implementing the Common Core standards the state adopted four years ago.

Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, who championed SB 1310, said he believes the concept of some nationally recognized standards started out as a “pretty admirable pursuit by the private sector and governors.”

“It got hijacked by Washington, by the federal government,” said Melvin, a candidate for governor, and “as a conservative Reagan Republican I’m suspect about the U.S. Department of Education in general, but also any standards that are coming out of that department.”

Melvin’s comments led Sen. David Bradley, D-Tucson, to ask him whether he’s actually read the Common Core standards, which have been adopted by 45 states.

“I’ve been exposed to them,” Melvin responded.

Pressed by Bradley for specifics, Melvin said he understands “some of the reading material is borderline pornographic.” And he said the program uses “fuzzy math,” substituting letters for numbers in some examples.

Fuzzy math

 

[Lutherman2112]

Unbelievable; from same article:

And the committee defeated another bill that would have paved the way for a pilot program to replace textbooks with computers. Foes like parent Jennifer Reynolds said she sees the computers as part of Common Core, and part of a move to have students “indoctrinated of the concepts of global warming, evolution, defaming the Founders.”

 

[dutch]

Algebra=fuzzy math. Brilliant!

 

[joffer]

Arizona Senate panel votes to dump Common Core

February 21, 2014 12:00 am By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services52

PHOENIX Ignoring pleas from business leaders, the Senate Education Committee voted 6-3 along party lines Thursday to bar Arizona from implementing the Common Core standards the state adopted four years ago.

Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, who championed SB 1310, said he believes the concept of some nationally recognized standards started out as a pretty admirable pursuit by the private sector and governors.

It got hijacked by Washington, by the federal government, said Melvin, a candidate for governor, and as a conservative Reagan Republican Im suspect about the U.S. Department of Education in general, but also any standards that are coming out of that department.

Melvins comments led Sen. David Bradley, D-Tucson, to ask him whether hes actually read the Common Core standards, which have been adopted by 45 states.

Ive been exposed to them, Melvin responded.

Pressed by Bradley for specifics, Melvin said he understands some of the reading material is borderline pornographic. And he said the program uses fuzzy math, substituting letters for numbers in some examples.

Fuzzy math

Hey, algebra was invented by Muslims. One day we're solving for x, the next day it's Sharia Law.

 

[joffer]

Computers that only taught evolution. Man, that would be sweet.

What planet are these people from? Did they interview golddigger for this article?

 

[Lutherman2112]

Arizona Senate panel votes to dump Common Core

February 21, 2014 12:00 am By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services52

PHOENIX Ignoring pleas from business leaders, the Senate Education Committee voted 6-3 along party lines Thursday to bar Arizona from implementing the Common Core standards the state adopted four years ago.

Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, who championed SB 1310, said he believes the concept of some nationally recognized standards started out as a pretty admirable pursuit by the private sector and governors.

It got hijacked by Washington, by the federal government, said Melvin, a candidate for governor, and as a conservative Reagan Republican Im suspect about the U.S. Department of Education in general, but also any standards that are coming out of that department.

Melvins comments led Sen. David Bradley, D-Tucson, to ask him whether hes actually read the Common Core standards, which have been adopted by 45 states.

Ive been exposed to them, Melvin responded.

Pressed by Bradley for specifics, Melvin said he understands some of the reading material is borderline pornographic. And he said the program uses fuzzy math, substituting letters for numbers in some examples.

Fuzzy math

Hey, algebra was invented by Muslims. One day we're solving for x, the next day it's Sharia Law.

Let's not forget the radicals...

 

[saintfool]

i'm getting out of the curriculum side of ed tech in favor of a new gig with a new assessment provider. should be interesting and hope to provide some insight in direct dealing with school and district administrators.

 

[tommyGunZ]

black dot for later

 

[Ilov80s]

Common Core getting dropped in a few states. Indiana is out, OK senate votes to drop and NY plans a 3 year moratorium. A local middle school has a pilot next 3 weeks (had to "borrow" every laptop in the district, which is majorly cramping the HS class plans) and I will be checking it out.

Also, a report from MSU says that much of the materials being marketed for Common Core are just the same materials with a new label ( some are word for word the same). http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?DISPATCHED=true&cid=25983841&item=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edweek.org%2Few%2Farticles%2F2014%2F03%2F05%2F23textbooks_ep.h33.html

 

[rascal]

Common Core getting dropped in a few states. Indiana is out, OK senate votes to drop and NY plans a 3 year moratorium. A local middle school has a pilot next 3 weeks (had to "borrow" every laptop in the district, which is majorly cramping the HS class plans) and I will be checking it out.

Also, a report from MSU says that much of the materials being marketed for Common Core are just the same materials with a new label ( some are word for word the same). http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?DISPATCHED=true&cid=25983841&item=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edweek.org%2Few%2Farticles%2F2014%2F03%2F05%2F23textbooks_ep.h33.html

So, what are they doing instead?7

 

[Rich Conway]

CT has been moving towards common core for a while now, but parents are pretty pissed off now that it's actually being implemented and they see what it is. The bits of it I've seen for my child's math homework is a disaster.

 

[Ilov80s]

Common Core getting dropped in a few states. Indiana is out, OK senate votes to drop and NY plans a 3 year moratorium. A local middle school has a pilot next 3 weeks (had to "borrow" every laptop in the district, which is majorly cramping the HS class plans) and I will be checking it out.

Also, a report from MSU says that much of the materials being marketed for Common Core are just the same materials with a new label ( some are word for word the same). http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?DISPATCHED=true&cid=25983841&item=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edweek.org%2Few%2Farticles%2F2014%2F03%2F05%2F23textbooks_ep.h33.html

So, what are they doing instead?7

I assume keeping the standards they have been using.

 

[El Floppo]

I'm sure this is a thread that has devolved into political in-fighting, but for the educational part.

 

[jonessed]

My daughter's elementary school and middle school have switched.

The most common complaint amongst teachers doesn't seem to be the curriculum, but that the energy and money put into switching would have been better spent on other core education needs.

 

[Ilov80s]

I'm sure this is a thread that has devolved into political in-fighting, but for the educational part.

Not really, which I actually think might be a bad thing.

 

[igbomb]

Common Core getting dropped in a few states. Indiana is out, OK senate votes to drop and NY plans a 3 year moratorium. A local middle school has a pilot next 3 weeks (had to "borrow" every laptop in the district, which is majorly cramping the HS class plans) and I will be checking it out.

Also, a report from MSU says that much of the materials being marketed for Common Core are just the same materials with a new label ( some are word for word the same). http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?DISPATCHED=true&cid=25983841&item=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edweek.org%2Few%2Farticles%2F2014%2F03%2F05%2F23textbooks_ep.h33.html

I have gotten in the habit of hovering over links before clicking just to make sure I don't stumble onto something that will get me fired.

Your link has the word Farticles in it.

 

[Hooper31]

The bits of it I've seen for my child's math homework is a disaster.

What specific standard from the CCS is a disaster?

 

[Rich Conway]

The bits of it I've seen for my child's math homework is a disaster.

What specific standard from the CCS is a disaster?

The assignments themselves are a disaster. Whether that is the fault of common core or the fault of those in charge of implementation or the fault of the teacher, I couldn't say. I suspect it's not the teacher, as I'm pretty sure these are preprinted assignments out of the textbook.

 

[saintfool]

Common Core getting dropped in a few states. Indiana is out, OK senate votes to drop and NY plans a 3 year moratorium. A local middle school has a pilot next 3 weeks (had to "borrow" every laptop in the district, which is majorly cramping the HS class plans) and I will be checking it out.

Also, a report from MSU says that much of the materials being marketed for Common Core are just the same materials with a new label ( some are word for word the same). http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?DISPATCHED=true&cid=25983841&item=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edweek.org%2Few%2Farticles%2F2014%2F03%2F05%2F23textbooks_ep.h33.html

So, what are they doing instead?7

I assume keeping the standards they have been using.

My new job - assessments - puts me directly into the CCSS, NGSS standards discussion. States could retain something like 15% of their own local standards before. IN, from what I understand, is hewing very closely to those national standards even if they aren't adopting them entirely. It's theater on the part of Pence and other states really. It's kind of the same push-back by states to ACA, I think.

 

[Black Box]

My kindergartener has been doing things with math at school. Things like "tiny tumblers" where they have one half of a sum on one side of an inverted V and the other half on the other side. They are then to provide the total number of "tumblers". Like this. Also learning number pairs (maybe they call them "friends") where they learn all the pairs that sum up to a number. I've seen graphing numbers, counting numbers, and just plain old fashioned addition/subtraction.

Is this common core stuff or traditional kindergarten stuff? She's our oldest so I have no previous experience at this grade level, outside of my own which I do not remember.

TIA.

 

[saintfool]

My kindergartener has been doing things with math at school. Things like "tiny tumblers" where they have one half of a sum on one side of an inverted V and the other half on the other side. They are then to provide the total number of "tumblers". Like this. Also learning number pairs (maybe they call them "friends") where they learn all the pairs that sum up to a number. I've seen graphing numbers, counting numbers, and just plain old fashioned addition/subtraction.

Is this common core stuff or traditional kindergarten stuff? She's our oldest so I have no previous experience at this grade level, outside of my own which I do not remember.

TIA.

Think of Common Core as a collection of standards across subjects. These standards are found at every grade from K through 12. These standards are essentially lessons that illustrate mastery or proficiency. Teachers sometimes put them in "I can..." statements like "I can divide fractions", "I can identify different rock types". Now pair those "I can..." statements with grade levels so that you say by "By the end of grade 6, I can divide fractions". How a teacher can teach the lesson that supports the standard is almost immaterial. The curriculum used will vary just as much as the teaching style. Common Core provides national framework for standards for math and language arts. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are similar. Make sense?

 

[Black Box]

My kindergartener has been doing things with math at school. Things like "tiny tumblers" where they have one half of a sum on one side of an inverted V and the other half on the other side. They are then to provide the total number of "tumblers". Like this. Also learning number pairs (maybe they call them "friends") where they learn all the pairs that sum up to a number. I've seen graphing numbers, counting numbers, and just plain old fashioned addition/subtraction.

Is this common core stuff or traditional kindergarten stuff? She's our oldest so I have no previous experience at this grade level, outside of my own which I do not remember.

TIA.

Think of Common Core as a collection of standards across subjects. These standards are found at every grade from K through 12. These standards are essentially lessons that illustrate mastery or proficiency. Teachers sometimes put them in "I can..." statements like "I can divide fractions", "I can identify different rock types". Now pair those "I can..." statements with grade levels so that you say by "By the end of grade 6, I can divide fractions". How a teacher can teach the lesson that supports the standard is almost immaterial. The curriculum used will vary just as much as the teaching style. Common Core provides national framework for standards for math and language arts. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are similar. Make sense?

Ah, that makes complete sense. Thanks for the easy explanation

 

[Ilov80s]

The testing is the piece that I find more interesting and debatable than the standards. Ultimately, if there are standard tests in place that determine school ranking, teacher rating, student achievement, then the tests are what matters not the standards.