Common Core Education Standards (1 Viewer)

[Prince Myshkin]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

At the heart of the debate is the whole states rights issue, no getting around that.

WHY??????????

Each state has the option to use Common Core or not. NO STATE IS BEING FORCED INTO THIS!

 

[johnnycakes]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

At the heart of the debate is the whole states rights issue, no getting around that.

WHY??????????

Each state has the option to use Common Core or not. NO STATE IS BEING FORCED INTO THIS!

Yah. Like no state was forced to adopt the 55-mph speed limit way back when, right? Let's face it... holding back funding for not playing the game IS the same as forcing the states' hands.

ETA: It's like the last speeding ticket I got my ex-wife off of. MA law says if you want to adopt a speed limit other than their 'default' speed limits for thickly- and non-thickly-settled areas, you have to get state highway department approval. In order to get state highway department approval, they have to conduct a speed study, and no speed limit will be approved below the 85th percentile. Well, my ex-wife got a ticket in one particular municipality. It was not a thickly settled area... speed limit should be 40mph, but they had signs posted 30mph. Never got state highway department approval, it turns out. I got her off the ticket with that... and then the state highway department turns around and tells the town they have 30 days to take down their speed limit signs or else they will withhold highway funds for that town until the problem is corrected. Lemme tell you... those signs were down within a week of getting that letter. Yeah, technically that town had a right to post a lower speed limit. Perhaps. But if they did so they would lose highway funds from the state. Their hand was forced, just like the feds are doing to the states with this whole Common Core thing.

 

[Mario Kart]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

Common Core along with Standards based grading will not affect teaching per se. It will affect what your child knows. As in, if your child cannot demonstrate that he/she knows how to do a certain standard, she will not be awarded a high school diploma. I am speaking to an extreme with that statement however if you look up Common Core as well as your states social studies standards, by the 12th grade your student better have had demonstrated each of those standards to the fullest or else.

The lower grades are and can adapt quicker than the higher grades. Colleges will take many years, if ever, to adopt it so that leaves the high schools as the middle ground. Overall though, many high school students are not going to pass high school if they cannot demonstrate their "ability" to do the standards.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I've read your articles. If you didn't already have it, you now have kook status. Get em Todd.

Good info here.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

At the heart of the debate is the whole states rights issue, no getting around that.

WHY??????????

Each state has the option to use Common Core or not. NO STATE IS BEING FORCED INTO THIS!

Yah. Like no state was forced to adopt the 55-mph speed limit way back when, right? Let's face it... holding back funding for not playing the game IS the same as forcing the states' hands.

ETA: It's like the last speeding ticket I got my ex-wife off of. MA law says if you want to adopt a speed limit other than their 'default' speed limits for thickly- and non-thickly-settled areas, you have to get state highway department approval. In order to get state highway department approval, they have to conduct a speed study, and no speed limit will be approved below the 85th percentile. Well, my ex-wife got a ticket in one particular municipality. It was not a thickly settled area... speed limit should be 40mph, but they had signs posted 30mph. Never got state highway department approval, it turns out. I got her off the ticket with that... and then the state highway department turns around and tells the town they have 30 days to take down their speed limit signs or else they will withhold highway funds for that town until the problem is corrected. Lemme tell you... those signs were down within a week of getting that letter. Yeah, technically that town had a right to post a lower speed limit. Perhaps. But if they did so they would lose highway funds from the state. Their hand was forced, just like the feds are doing to the states with this whole Common Core thing.

To my knowledge, no funding is being withheld for states not adopting.

As an aside, it also seems a silly argument to cry "state's rights" and then complain about not getting federal money...

 

[johnnycakes]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

At the heart of the debate is the whole states rights issue, no getting around that.

WHY??????????

Each state has the option to use Common Core or not. NO STATE IS BEING FORCED INTO THIS!

Yah. Like no state was forced to adopt the 55-mph speed limit way back when, right? Let's face it... holding back funding for not playing the game IS the same as forcing the states' hands.

ETA: It's like the last speeding ticket I got my ex-wife off of. MA law says if you want to adopt a speed limit other than their 'default' speed limits for thickly- and non-thickly-settled areas, you have to get state highway department approval. In order to get state highway department approval, they have to conduct a speed study, and no speed limit will be approved below the 85th percentile. Well, my ex-wife got a ticket in one particular municipality. It was not a thickly settled area... speed limit should be 40mph, but they had signs posted 30mph. Never got state highway department approval, it turns out. I got her off the ticket with that... and then the state highway department turns around and tells the town they have 30 days to take down their speed limit signs or else they will withhold highway funds for that town until the problem is corrected. Lemme tell you... those signs were down within a week of getting that letter. Yeah, technically that town had a right to post a lower speed limit. Perhaps. But if they did so they would lose highway funds from the state. Their hand was forced, just like the feds are doing to the states with this whole Common Core thing.

To my knowledge, no funding is being withheld for states not adopting.

As an aside, it also seems a silly argument to cry "state's rights" and then complain about not getting federal money...

Ugh. Sometimes I wish I didn't have to think for everyone, all the time. Of course it's tied to funding... how else do you get something like 45 (just a guess...???) of the 50 states to adopt it so quickly? This blurb from Stop Common Core in NY.. and I have seen this claim elsewhere, it's just that this was the easiest for me to find and link to.

The beginnings of Common Core can be traced to the 2009 Stimulus bill which gave $4.35 billion to the federal Department of Education which then created the “Race to the Top” competition between states. In order to qualify for funding, the states needed to adopt Common Core sight unseen. An added incentive to adoption of CCS was that participating states would be exempted from many of the more onerous provisions of George Bush’s “No child left behind” program.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

I received the Top Ten Reasons to Support Common Core in an email this week from Kentucky Commissioner of Education Dr. Terry Holliday. He also included "Why Teachers Support Common Core" and "What Do These Standards Mean For My Child? What a Parent Can Expect From the Common Core".

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

At the heart of the debate is the whole states rights issue, no getting around that.

WHY??????????

Each state has the option to use Common Core or not. NO STATE IS BEING FORCED INTO THIS!

Yah. Like no state was forced to adopt the 55-mph speed limit way back when, right? Let's face it... holding back funding for not playing the game IS the same as forcing the states' hands.

ETA: It's like the last speeding ticket I got my ex-wife off of. MA law says if you want to adopt a speed limit other than their 'default' speed limits for thickly- and non-thickly-settled areas, you have to get state highway department approval. In order to get state highway department approval, they have to conduct a speed study, and no speed limit will be approved below the 85th percentile. Well, my ex-wife got a ticket in one particular municipality. It was not a thickly settled area... speed limit should be 40mph, but they had signs posted 30mph. Never got state highway department approval, it turns out. I got her off the ticket with that... and then the state highway department turns around and tells the town they have 30 days to take down their speed limit signs or else they will withhold highway funds for that town until the problem is corrected. Lemme tell you... those signs were down within a week of getting that letter. Yeah, technically that town had a right to post a lower speed limit. Perhaps. But if they did so they would lose highway funds from the state. Their hand was forced, just like the feds are doing to the states with this whole Common Core thing.

To my knowledge, no funding is being withheld for states not adopting.

As an aside, it also seems a silly argument to cry "state's rights" and then complain about not getting federal money...

Ugh. Sometimes I wish I didn't have to think for everyone, all the time. Of course it's tied to funding... how else do you get something like 45 (just a guess...???) of the 50 states to adopt it so quickly? This blurb from Stop Common Core in NY.. and I have seen this claim elsewhere, it's just that this was the easiest for me to find and link to.

The beginnings of Common Core can be traced to the 2009 Stimulus bill which gave $4.35 billion to the federal Department of Education which then created the “Race to the Top” competition between states. In order to qualify for funding, the states needed to adopt Common Core sight unseen. An added incentive to adoption of CCS was that participating states would be exempted from many of the more onerous provisions of George Bush’s “No child left behind” program.

Or maybe they were adopted because the standards are actually pretty good???

The rest of that is pretty much garbage. There were many criteria that went into Race To The Top grant applications, one of which was having an acceptable statewide set of standards. Common Core standards were deemed acceptable, but others were as well. And only a handful of states received those grants, so to view that as the main reason why a large percentage of states adopted.

We adopted Common Core in Kentucky for several reasons, one of which being our legislature had just a year earlier passed a law that said our standards had to be revamped. Using the common core saved us millions of dollars that we would have had to spend to develop standards on our own.

 

[johnnycakes]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

At the heart of the debate is the whole states rights issue, no getting around that.

WHY??????????

Each state has the option to use Common Core or not. NO STATE IS BEING FORCED INTO THIS!

Yah. Like no state was forced to adopt the 55-mph speed limit way back when, right? Let's face it... holding back funding for not playing the game IS the same as forcing the states' hands.

ETA: It's like the last speeding ticket I got my ex-wife off of. MA law says if you want to adopt a speed limit other than their 'default' speed limits for thickly- and non-thickly-settled areas, you have to get state highway department approval. In order to get state highway department approval, they have to conduct a speed study, and no speed limit will be approved below the 85th percentile. Well, my ex-wife got a ticket in one particular municipality. It was not a thickly settled area... speed limit should be 40mph, but they had signs posted 30mph. Never got state highway department approval, it turns out. I got her off the ticket with that... and then the state highway department turns around and tells the town they have 30 days to take down their speed limit signs or else they will withhold highway funds for that town until the problem is corrected. Lemme tell you... those signs were down within a week of getting that letter. Yeah, technically that town had a right to post a lower speed limit. Perhaps. But if they did so they would lose highway funds from the state. Their hand was forced, just like the feds are doing to the states with this whole Common Core thing.

To my knowledge, no funding is being withheld for states not adopting.

As an aside, it also seems a silly argument to cry "state's rights" and then complain about not getting federal money...

Ugh. Sometimes I wish I didn't have to think for everyone, all the time. Of course it's tied to funding... how else do you get something like 45 (just a guess...???) of the 50 states to adopt it so quickly? This blurb from Stop Common Core in NY.. and I have seen this claim elsewhere, it's just that this was the easiest for me to find and link to.

The beginnings of Common Core can be traced to the 2009 Stimulus bill which gave $4.35 billion to the federal Department of Education which then created the “Race to the Top” competition between states. In order to qualify for funding, the states needed to adopt Common Core sight unseen. An added incentive to adoption of CCS was that participating states would be exempted from many of the more onerous provisions of George Bush’s “No child left behind” program.

Or maybe they were adopted because the standards are actually pretty good???

The rest of that is pretty much garbage. There were many criteria that went into Race To The Top grant applications, one of which was having an acceptable statewide set of standards. Common Core standards were deemed acceptable, but others were as well. And only a handful of states received those grants, so to view that as the main reason why a large percentage of states adopted.

We adopted Common Core in Kentucky for several reasons, one of which being our legislature had just a year earlier passed a law that said our standards had to be revamped. Using the common core saved us millions of dollars that we would have had to spend to develop standards on our own.

I suspect there was probably a big disparity between the education one gets in Kentucky public schools and the education a kid gets in New York or Massachusetts.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

Common Core along with Standards based grading will not affect teaching per se. It will affect what your child knows. As in, if your child cannot demonstrate that he/she knows how to do a certain standard, she will not be awarded a high school diploma. I am speaking to an extreme with that statement however if you look up Common Core as well as your states social studies standards, by the 12th grade your student better have had demonstrated each of those standards to the fullest or else.

The lower grades are and can adapt quicker than the higher grades. Colleges will take many years, if ever, to adopt it so that leaves the high schools as the middle ground. Overall though, many high school students are not going to pass high school if they cannot demonstrate their "ability" to do the standards.

Unfortunately I don't see this happening. Most states have funding tied to graduation rates and would be cutting their on necks by doing this. I'm not saying I'm opposed, but just that I don't think it's very likely.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

At the heart of the debate is the whole states rights issue, no getting around that.

WHY??????????

Each state has the option to use Common Core or not. NO STATE IS BEING FORCED INTO THIS!

Yah. Like no state was forced to adopt the 55-mph speed limit way back when, right? Let's face it... holding back funding for not playing the game IS the same as forcing the states' hands.

ETA: It's like the last speeding ticket I got my ex-wife off of. MA law says if you want to adopt a speed limit other than their 'default' speed limits for thickly- and non-thickly-settled areas, you have to get state highway department approval. In order to get state highway department approval, they have to conduct a speed study, and no speed limit will be approved below the 85th percentile. Well, my ex-wife got a ticket in one particular municipality. It was not a thickly settled area... speed limit should be 40mph, but they had signs posted 30mph. Never got state highway department approval, it turns out. I got her off the ticket with that... and then the state highway department turns around and tells the town they have 30 days to take down their speed limit signs or else they will withhold highway funds for that town until the problem is corrected. Lemme tell you... those signs were down within a week of getting that letter. Yeah, technically that town had a right to post a lower speed limit. Perhaps. But if they did so they would lose highway funds from the state. Their hand was forced, just like the feds are doing to the states with this whole Common Core thing.

To my knowledge, no funding is being withheld for states not adopting.

As an aside, it also seems a silly argument to cry "state's rights" and then complain about not getting federal money...

Ugh. Sometimes I wish I didn't have to think for everyone, all the time. Of course it's tied to funding... how else do you get something like 45 (just a guess...???) of the 50 states to adopt it so quickly? This blurb from Stop Common Core in NY.. and I have seen this claim elsewhere, it's just that this was the easiest for me to find and link to.

The beginnings of Common Core can be traced to the 2009 Stimulus bill which gave $4.35 billion to the federal Department of Education which then created the “Race to the Top” competition between states. In order to qualify for funding, the states needed to adopt Common Core sight unseen. An added incentive to adoption of CCS was that participating states would be exempted from many of the more onerous provisions of George Bush’s “No child left behind” program.

Or maybe they were adopted because the standards are actually pretty good???

The rest of that is pretty much garbage. There were many criteria that went into Race To The Top grant applications, one of which was having an acceptable statewide set of standards. Common Core standards were deemed acceptable, but others were as well. And only a handful of states received those grants, so to view that as the main reason why a large percentage of states adopted.

We adopted Common Core in Kentucky for several reasons, one of which being our legislature had just a year earlier passed a law that said our standards had to be revamped. Using the common core saved us millions of dollars that we would have had to spend to develop standards on our own.

I suspect there was probably a big disparity between the education one gets in Kentucky public schools and the education a kid gets in New York or Massachusetts.

According to the Quality Counts Report, there is a slight one. New York and Massachusetts were 2 of the 3 states that received a B grade (Maryland was the only state to score higher with a B+). Kentucky came in on the next tier with a B- ranking along with 8 other states.

 

[Hooper31]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

The bolded portion here is very wrong. Common Core doesn't address anything with regard to HOW you teach. Common Core is about setting up standards as to WHAT gets taught.

Its not rocket science. Check it out for yourself.

http://www.corestandards.org

 

[Ilov80s]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

The bolded portion here is very wrong. Common Core doesn't address anything with regard to HOW you teach. Common Core is about setting up standards as to WHAT gets taught.

Its not rocket science. Check it out for yourself.

http://www.corestandards.org

Right but that impacts how teachers teach. The standards and content influence the method.

 

[Hooper31]

It kills me that the more important questions were never asked and never answered.

Who should be responsible for determining what a high school graduate should know and be able to do? **

Does it have to be the same for every student?

Can some students be better in different subjects?

Are these standards really the lowest acceptable level for all graduates?

** Edit. IMO this shouldn't be teachers.

 

[Ilov80s]

It kills me that the more important questions were never asked and never answered.

Who should be responsible for determining what a high school graduate should know and be able to do? **

Does it have to be the same for every student?

Can some students be better in different subjects?

Are these standards really the lowest acceptable level for all graduates?

** Edit. IMO this shouldn't be teachers.

One of the hardest parts of my job is working with the kids that are being forced into classes that do not align with their skill set. It's soul crushing to work so hard with a 14 year old in Algebra that just isn't ready or a kid in Chemistry knowing that they aren't college material and could be working towards something much more meaningful to their future.

 

[Mario Kart]

It kills me that the more important questions were never asked and never answered.

Who should be responsible for determining what a high school graduate should know and be able to do? **

Does it have to be the same for every student?

Can some students be better in different subjects?

Are these standards really the lowest acceptable level for all graduates?

** Edit. IMO this shouldn't be teachers.

One of the hardest parts of my job is working with the kids that are being forced into classes that do not align with their skill set. It's soul crushing to work so hard with a 14 year old in Algebra that just isn't ready or a kid in Chemistry knowing that they aren't college material and could be working towards something much more meaningful to their future.

This is a great point that only teachers seem to acknowledge or even are aware of. Every kid is not the same nor is every kid college bound like we hope. Also, some kids are not mature enough to grasp some concepts at a certain age. Sure, if every thing was perfect, every kid would walk in, sit down, be ready to listen and do the reading at home. This is not a perfect world and some people either are not aware of that or simply do not want to acknowledge that.

Change teaching? For the most part, teaching methods are fine. The apathy of some students and lack of even picking up a pencil is the thing that needs to be addressed more than the adults trying to teach.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

So now we are saying that we think schools are too tough and that the standards need to be dumbed down?

 

[Mario Kart]

So now we are saying that we think schools are too tough and that the standards need to be dumbed down?

Who's saying that?

 

[Prince Myshkin]

It kills me that the more important questions were never asked and never answered.

Who should be responsible for determining what a high school graduate should know and be able to do? **

Does it have to be the same for every student?

Can some students be better in different subjects?

Are these standards really the lowest acceptable level for all graduates?

** Edit. IMO this shouldn't be teachers.

So now we are saying that we think schools are too tough and that the standards need to be dumbed down?

Who's saying that?

Well I assumed the "not every kid can learn algebra or chemistry" stuff meant that these areas were too difficult and therefore shouldn't be included in the standards...

 

[Mario Kart]

I think the bottom line is not every kid is capable of learning the likes of those classes... doesn't mean anything against the standards.

My experience tells me that teachers and kids are going to be sweating over some standards when those students could be much better off doing something more hands on like a trade or something. The standards themselves are fine however they do inhibit some students from reaching their potentials.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

It kills me that the more important questions were never asked and never answered.

Who should be responsible for determining what a high school graduate should know and be able to do? **

-They (the people developing the standards) did answer that question by the people they chose to work on the standards. It was a collaboration of teachers from K-post-secondary (including career and technical schools), administrators, and educational experts. Now whether you agree with their answer or not is another matter for debate.

Does it have to be the same for every student?

- I would argue that yes, it needs to be standard

Can some students be better in different subjects?

- Of course they are. Nobody is saying otherwise. But we are saying that a common school education should have a certain baseline that all students should be able to know.

Are these standards really the lowest acceptable level for all graduates?

- This is a good question, and one I struggle with. I can look at the standards and pick out areas where I think "maybe that's not entirely necessary." But on the whole, I think they do a pretty good job of addressing student needs.

** Edit. IMO this shouldn't be teachers.

- I agree to an extent. Teachers shouldn't be left out of the decision, but I know many high school and college teachers that feel their subject is so important that everybody should know everything about it, and that's obviously not reasonable. However, I also don't believe that decision should be left strictly to parents or politicians.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

I think the bottom line is not every kid is capable of learning the likes of those classes... doesn't mean anything against the standards.

My experience tells me that teachers and kids are going to be sweating over some standards when those students could be much better off doing something more hands on like a trade or something. The standards themselves are fine however they do inhibit some students from reaching their potentials.

Many of our students get the majority of their math credits while taking vocational classes, and their test scores are actually showing improvement. There is nothing in the standards that says you can't teach algebra to a student while teaching him carpentry or diesel mechanics...

 

[Mario Kart]

I think the bottom line is not every kid is capable of learning the likes of those classes... doesn't mean anything against the standards.

My experience tells me that teachers and kids are going to be sweating over some standards when those students could be much better off doing something more hands on like a trade or something. The standards themselves are fine however they do inhibit some students from reaching their potentials.

Many of our students get the majority of their math credits while taking vocational classes, and their test scores are actually showing improvement. There is nothing in the standards that says you can't teach algebra to a student while teaching him carpentry or diesel mechanics...

True, but a school must then offer carpentry or diesel mechanics. Maybe yours does but 99% of the schools, I would wager, do not.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

I think the bottom line is not every kid is capable of learning the likes of those classes... doesn't mean anything against the standards.

My experience tells me that teachers and kids are going to be sweating over some standards when those students could be much better off doing something more hands on like a trade or something. The standards themselves are fine however they do inhibit some students from reaching their potentials.

Many of our students get the majority of their math credits while taking vocational classes, and their test scores are actually showing improvement. There is nothing in the standards that says you can't teach algebra to a student while teaching him carpentry or diesel mechanics...

True, but a school must then offer carpentry or diesel mechanics. Maybe yours does but 99% of the schools, I would wager, do not.

I believe most schools have access to some form of career/vocational training.

 

[Mario Kart]

I think the bottom line is not every kid is capable of learning the likes of those classes... doesn't mean anything against the standards.

My experience tells me that teachers and kids are going to be sweating over some standards when those students could be much better off doing something more hands on like a trade or something. The standards themselves are fine however they do inhibit some students from reaching their potentials.

Many of our students get the majority of their math credits while taking vocational classes, and their test scores are actually showing improvement. There is nothing in the standards that says you can't teach algebra to a student while teaching him carpentry or diesel mechanics...

True, but a school must then offer carpentry or diesel mechanics. Maybe yours does but 99% of the schools, I would wager, do not.

I believe most schools have access to some form of career/vocational training.

That would be incorrect.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

At the heart of the debate is the whole states rights issue, no getting around that.

WHY??????????

Each state has the option to use Common Core or not. NO STATE IS BEING FORCED INTO THIS!

Yah. Like no state was forced to adopt the 55-mph speed limit way back when, right? Let's face it... holding back funding for not playing the game IS the same as forcing the states' hands.

ETA: It's like the last speeding ticket I got my ex-wife off of. MA law says if you want to adopt a speed limit other than their 'default' speed limits for thickly- and non-thickly-settled areas, you have to get state highway department approval. In order to get state highway department approval, they have to conduct a speed study, and no speed limit will be approved below the 85th percentile. Well, my ex-wife got a ticket in one particular municipality. It was not a thickly settled area... speed limit should be 40mph, but they had signs posted 30mph. Never got state highway department approval, it turns out. I got her off the ticket with that... and then the state highway department turns around and tells the town they have 30 days to take down their speed limit signs or else they will withhold highway funds for that town until the problem is corrected. Lemme tell you... those signs were down within a week of getting that letter. Yeah, technically that town had a right to post a lower speed limit. Perhaps. But if they did so they would lose highway funds from the state. Their hand was forced, just like the feds are doing to the states with this whole Common Core thing.

The federal government is not withholding money from states.

 

[Hooper31]

My responses in blue.

It kills me that the more important questions were never asked and never answered.

Who should be responsible for determining what a high school graduate should know and be able to do? **
-They (the people developing the standards) did answer that question by the people they chose to work on the standards. It was a collaboration of teachers from K-post-secondary (including career and technical schools), administrators, and educational experts. Now whether you agree with their answer or not is another matter for debate.

Again, I'm not asking who developed the standards. I'm asking who SHOULD be developing the standards. As you mentioned in your post teachers have a tendency to think pretty highly of their own subject matter. I agree with you. I don't think teachers should be involved in choosing what's important. I would much rather let parents and successful community members make this determination. What's successful? I don't know. We could define that in lots of ways. However, I would rather allow successful businessmen, priests, doctors, contractors, hairstylists, etc make those determinations. I'm talking about people out there living in the real world. I won't deny that academia tend to live in a sheltered fake world.

As a teacher I feel that I work for the community. Its not my job to be telling society what's important to live a successful life in terms of skills and "standards". I try to focus on a general love of learning new things. I think many of the math standards are a joke for the majority of students. Sure, some of them will grasp, enjoy, and need those standards, but most are being drowned in unnecessary minutia.

Does it have to be the same for every student?
- I would argue that yes, it needs to be standard

Can some students be better in different subjects?
- Of course they are. Nobody is saying otherwise. But we are saying that a common school education should have a certain baseline that all students should be able to know.

Baseline. Chew on that for a moment. Speaking from a point of view of someone that has read and knows this list of math standards very well I'm telling you that this isn't a baseline. They're aiming much higher. I think they should be basic skills that people need. Not shooting for the moon know that not every student can get there. Its not reasonable and its not going to happen. Proving triangle congruence, trigonometry, and the quadratic equation are not basic skills. What percentage of society knows and uses these skills even once during their lifetime?

Are these standards really the lowest acceptable level for all graduates?
- This is a good question, and one I struggle with. I can look at the standards and pick out areas where I think "maybe that's not entirely necessary." But on the whole, I think they do a pretty good job of addressing student needs.

** Edit. IMO this shouldn't be teachers.
- I agree to an extent. Teachers shouldn't be left out of the decision, but I know many high school and college teachers that feel their subject is so important that everybody should know everything about it, and that's obviously not reasonable. However, I also don't believe that decision should be left strictly to parents or politicians.

As a teacher, I'm saying that teachers absolutely should be left out of that conversation. Teachers know their subject from an academic point of view. As a group I think they're the worst when it comes to knowing and understanding what should count as "baseline". Most teachers are delusional when it comes to making a list of what is basic in their subject area.

I don't want to sound like someone that's just being negative. I believe we should have standards, and I believe that bar shouldn't be so low that they're a joke, but I don't see why that bar has to be the same for every student in every subject. I believe that everyone should be good at something. Why not let them choose a major in high school? Some would choose English. Some would choose math. Some might choose art. Is there something wrong with that?

 

[Ilov80s]

It kills me that the more important questions were never asked and never answered.

Who should be responsible for determining what a high school graduate should know and be able to do? **

Does it have to be the same for every student?

Can some students be better in different subjects?

Are these standards really the lowest acceptable level for all graduates?

** Edit. IMO this shouldn't be teachers.

So now we are saying that we think schools are too tough and that the standards need to be dumbed down?

Who's saying that?

Well I assumed the "not every kid can learn algebra or chemistry" stuff meant that these areas were too difficult and therefore shouldn't be included in the standards...

Just because chemistry may not be appropriate for some kids, doesn't mean it shouldn't be required for many other kids in the same way that just because some kids are ready for calculus, doesn't mean all kids should made to take calculus. There is a need for flexibility based on the individual students. Since you have been more involved than anyone else here with CC, can you explain to me how it will impact special education? What is in place to deal with students with disabilities?

 

[Ilov80s]

I think the bottom line is not every kid is capable of learning the likes of those classes... doesn't mean anything against the standards.

My experience tells me that teachers and kids are going to be sweating over some standards when those students could be much better off doing something more hands on like a trade or something. The standards themselves are fine however they do inhibit some students from reaching their potentials.

Many of our students get the majority of their math credits while taking vocational classes, and their test scores are actually showing improvement. There is nothing in the standards that says you can't teach algebra to a student while teaching him carpentry or diesel mechanics...

We have vocational classes like auto shop and building trades, but the teachers of those classes are not certified math and are not covering linear inequalities, matrices, or factoring. I would love to see the vocational classes that are covering even algebra 1 level content. Very cool, but I've never seen or heard of it.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

It kills me that the more important questions were never asked and never answered.

Who should be responsible for determining what a high school graduate should know and be able to do? **

Does it have to be the same for every student?

Can some students be better in different subjects?

Are these standards really the lowest acceptable level for all graduates?

** Edit. IMO this shouldn't be teachers.

So now we are saying that we think schools are too tough and that the standards need to be dumbed down?

Who's saying that?

Well I assumed the "not every kid can learn algebra or chemistry" stuff meant that these areas were too difficult and therefore shouldn't be included in the standards...

Just because chemistry may not be appropriate for some kids, doesn't mean it shouldn't be required for many other kids in the same way that just because some kids are ready for calculus, doesn't mean all kids should made to take calculus. There is a need for flexibility based on the individual students. Since you have been more involved than anyone else here with CC, can you explain to me how it will impact special education? What is in place to deal with students with disabilities?

I honestly don't know how it will/has effected special education. The special education teachers at my school and in my district are more concerned with the new regulations (unrelated to common core) they have to follow to get/keep a student in special ed.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Another thing to keep in mind is that these are not just high school standards. There are standards from kindergarten up. My daughter is in kindergarten this year, and her teacher (the most amazing primary teacher I've ever seen) is doing things differently than she used to do because of the new standards. They are already (5 weeks into the school year) identifying character, setting, and plot from stories and focusing on patterns in math. Some of those things she used to not introduce until much later in the year.

Our current high school students might struggle to meet the standards, but the hope is that with increased focus and rigor at the elementary and middle school level, future high schoolers will be better prepared and more successful.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

My responses in blue.

It kills me that the more important questions were never asked and never answered.

Who should be responsible for determining what a high school graduate should know and be able to do? **

-They (the people developing the standards) did answer that question by the people they chose to work on the standards. It was a collaboration of teachers from K-post-secondary (including career and technical schools), administrators, and educational experts. Now whether you agree with their answer or not is another matter for debate.

Again, I'm not asking who developed the standards. I'm asking who SHOULD be developing the standards. As you mentioned in your post teachers have a tendency to think pretty highly of their own subject matter. I agree with you. I don't think teachers should be involved in choosing what's important. I would much rather let parents and successful community members make this determination. What's successful? I don't know. We could define that in lots of ways. However, I would rather allow successful businessmen, priests, doctors, contractors, hairstylists, etc make those determinations. I'm talking about people out there living in the real world. I won't deny that academia tend to live in a sheltered fake world.

As a teacher I feel that I work for the community. Its not my job to be telling society what's important to live a successful life in terms of skills and "standards". I try to focus on a general love of learning new things. I think many of the math standards are a joke for the majority of students. Sure, some of them will grasp, enjoy, and need those standards, but most are being drowned in unnecessary minutia.

Does it have to be the same for every student?

- I would argue that yes, it needs to be standard

Can some students be better in different subjects?

- Of course they are. Nobody is saying otherwise. But we are saying that a common school education should have a certain baseline that all students should be able to know.

Baseline. Chew on that for a moment. Speaking from a point of view of someone that has read and knows this list of math standards very well I'm telling you that this isn't a baseline. They're aiming much higher. I think they should be basic skills that people need. Not shooting for the moon know that not every student can get there. Its not reasonable and its not going to happen. Proving triangle congruence, trigonometry, and the quadratic equation are not basic skills. What percentage of society knows and uses these skills even once during their lifetime?

Are these standards really the lowest acceptable level for all graduates?

- This is a good question, and one I struggle with. I can look at the standards and pick out areas where I think "maybe that's not entirely necessary." But on the whole, I think they do a pretty good job of addressing student needs.

** Edit. IMO this shouldn't be teachers.

- I agree to an extent. Teachers shouldn't be left out of the decision, but I know many high school and college teachers that feel their subject is so important that everybody should know everything about it, and that's obviously not reasonable. However, I also don't believe that decision should be left strictly to parents or politicians.

As a teacher, I'm saying that teachers absolutely should be left out of that conversation. Teachers know their subject from an academic point of view. As a group I think they're the worst when it comes to knowing and understanding what should count as "baseline". Most teachers are delusional when it comes to making a list of what is basic in their subject area.

I don't want to sound like someone that's just being negative. I believe we should have standards, and I believe that bar shouldn't be so low that they're a joke, but I don't see why that bar has to be the same for every student in every subject. I believe that everyone should be good at something. Why not let them choose a major in high school? Some would choose English. Some would choose math. Some might choose art. Is there something wrong with that?

I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on this point (and I doubt either of us will change the other's mind). Are there teachers out there that are fanatical about their subject area? Sure. But there are a much larger portion that are pretty level-headed. And keep in mind that we are not just talking about high school here. Middle and elementary school teachers are generally trained in more than one subject area and have a broader view of what is important. How many community members are going to be willing to even read the entire standards, more less actually go through the process of developing them? And out of those, I think you would find an even larger proportion of fanatics and personal agendas.

As far as choosing a major in high school, that might not be a bad idea, but how many people really know what they want to do or even what they are capable of at 14 years old? I think a large portion of high schoolers would sell themselves short and opt for the "easy" way and avoid the more challenging classes if given the choice.

 

[johnnycakes]

This guy obviously needs to get with the program.

 

[Ilov80s]

My responses in blue.

It kills me that the more important questions were never asked and never answered.

Who should be responsible for determining what a high school graduate should know and be able to do? **

-They (the people developing the standards) did answer that question by the people they chose to work on the standards. It was a collaboration of teachers from K-post-secondary (including career and technical schools), administrators, and educational experts. Now whether you agree with their answer or not is another matter for debate.

Again, I'm not asking who developed the standards. I'm asking who SHOULD be developing the standards. As you mentioned in your post teachers have a tendency to think pretty highly of their own subject matter. I agree with you. I don't think teachers should be involved in choosing what's important. I would much rather let parents and successful community members make this determination. What's successful? I don't know. We could define that in lots of ways. However, I would rather allow successful businessmen, priests, doctors, contractors, hairstylists, etc make those determinations. I'm talking about people out there living in the real world. I won't deny that academia tend to live in a sheltered fake world.

As a teacher I feel that I work for the community. Its not my job to be telling society what's important to live a successful life in terms of skills and "standards". I try to focus on a general love of learning new things. I think many of the math standards are a joke for the majority of students. Sure, some of them will grasp, enjoy, and need those standards, but most are being drowned in unnecessary minutia.

Does it have to be the same for every student?

- I would argue that yes, it needs to be standard

Can some students be better in different subjects?

- Of course they are. Nobody is saying otherwise. But we are saying that a common school education should have a certain baseline that all students should be able to know.

Baseline. Chew on that for a moment. Speaking from a point of view of someone that has read and knows this list of math standards very well I'm telling you that this isn't a baseline. They're aiming much higher. I think they should be basic skills that people need. Not shooting for the moon know that not every student can get there. Its not reasonable and its not going to happen. Proving triangle congruence, trigonometry, and the quadratic equation are not basic skills. What percentage of society knows and uses these skills even once during their lifetime?

Are these standards really the lowest acceptable level for all graduates?

- This is a good question, and one I struggle with. I can look at the standards and pick out areas where I think "maybe that's not entirely necessary." But on the whole, I think they do a pretty good job of addressing student needs.

** Edit. IMO this shouldn't be teachers.

- I agree to an extent. Teachers shouldn't be left out of the decision, but I know many high school and college teachers that feel their subject is so important that everybody should know everything about it, and that's obviously not reasonable. However, I also don't believe that decision should be left strictly to parents or politicians.

As a teacher, I'm saying that teachers absolutely should be left out of that conversation. Teachers know their subject from an academic point of view. As a group I think they're the worst when it comes to knowing and understanding what should count as "baseline". Most teachers are delusional when it comes to making a list of what is basic in their subject area.

I don't want to sound like someone that's just being negative. I believe we should have standards, and I believe that bar shouldn't be so low that they're a joke, but I don't see why that bar has to be the same for every student in every subject. I believe that everyone should be good at something. Why not let them choose a major in high school? Some would choose English. Some would choose math. Some might choose art. Is there something wrong with that?

I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on this point (and I doubt either of us will change the other's mind). Are there teachers out there that are fanatical about their subject area? Sure. But there are a much larger portion that are pretty level-headed. And keep in mind that we are not just talking about high school here. Middle and elementary school teachers are generally trained in more than one subject area and have a broader view of what is important. How many community members are going to be willing to even read the entire standards, more less actually go through the process of developing them? And out of those, I think you would find an even larger proportion of fanatics and personal agendas. As far as choosing a major in high school, that might not be a bad idea, but how many people really know what they want to do or even what they are capable of at 14 years old? I think a large portion of high schoolers would sell themselves short and opt for the "easy" way and avoid the more challenging classes if given the choice.

Major isnt the right word, it's more like focus. Also the kid isn't choosing, the parents would be choosing with input from the school and the child.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

You kind of snipped my point, which is that the very existence of standardized tests and the basing of funding on those tests is what dumbs down education. Instead of teaching actual thinking and thought processes, teachers are forced to teach rote memorization and "teach to the test".

The not so "unintended consequences" of the right's demand for "accountability" with education funding.

You and I both live in Maryland - which is a very Democratic state - so even though I'm a liberal, I don't fault the right alone for the terrible falloff in educational quality I've seen between my older son's experience and that of his 5-years-younger sister.

I live in a great school district. Parental involvement, 99% of kids passing the Maryland School Assessment annual standardized test, etc. And yet now school for my 5th grade daughter is about almost nothing but test prep. Double-length class periods in Math and Language Arts every day because those are the only two tested subjects; Science and Social Studies are held in alternating quarters, because there isn't enough time in the day to cover them both with the double-long periods in subjects being tested. Music and art also alternate by quarter.

This is freaking terrible.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

The bolded portion here is very wrong. Common Core doesn't address anything with regard to HOW you teach. Common Core is about setting up standards as to WHAT gets taught.

Its not rocket science. Check it out for yourself.

http://www.corestandards.org

Although for those of us that don't teach Math or LA it will impact how we teach in terms of not having to prep for a state test in our area(s).

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

The bolded portion here is very wrong. Common Core doesn't address anything with regard to HOW you teach. Common Core is about setting up standards as to WHAT gets taught.

Its not rocket science. Check it out for yourself.

http://www.corestandards.org

Although for those of us that don't teach Math or LA it will impact how we teach in terms of not having to prep for a state test in our area(s).

Again, this is not a factor of Common Core. Common Core has nothing to do with testing requirements at the state level. NCLB decided that ELA and Math would be tested at every grade level, and it has been that way for several years. If anybody wants to get up in arms about state's rights, NCLB should be their focus, not Common Core.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

The bolded portion here is very wrong. Common Core doesn't address anything with regard to HOW you teach. Common Core is about setting up standards as to WHAT gets taught.

Its not rocket science. Check it out for yourself.

http://www.corestandards.org

Although for those of us that don't teach Math or LA it will impact how we teach in terms of not having to prep for a state test in our area(s).

Again, this is not a factor of Common Core. Common Core has nothing to do with testing requirements at the state level. NCLB decided that ELA and Math would be tested at every grade level, and it has been that way for several years. If anybody wants to get up in arms about state's rights, NCLB should be their focus, not Common Core.

I have no idea what this has to do with what I posted.

In Calif there has been a History/Social Science section on the STAR test (8th grade) for the last 6-7 years.

There will be no LA, Math, or History STAR tests this year because we will be adopting all new tests thanks to Common Core in 2014-2015.

This will impact how I teach since I do not have the state test hanging over my head.

I didn't say a word about states' rights or NCLB.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Found out we have a meeting on Monday for parents regarding the implementation of Common Core next year. Happy to see a 5 page thread on FBG about it! Sad to see that the thread is basically 5 pages of garbage and little information on exactly what Common Core is going to mean for my child.

After the meeting, I'll report back with some basics. To me, it seems expensive for many school districts, as it appears they are going to totally change how they teach. Can't imagine teachers at happy with it either. But if it does a better job of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, then I'm all for it.

The bolded portion here is very wrong. Common Core doesn't address anything with regard to HOW you teach. Common Core is about setting up standards as to WHAT gets taught.

Its not rocket science. Check it out for yourself.

http://www.corestandards.org

Although for those of us that don't teach Math or LA it will impact how we teach in terms of not having to prep for a state test in our area(s).

Again, this is not a factor of Common Core. Common Core has nothing to do with testing requirements at the state level. NCLB decided that ELA and Math would be tested at every grade level, and it has been that way for several years. If anybody wants to get up in arms about state's rights, NCLB should be their focus, not Common Core.

I have no idea what this has to do with what I posted.

In Calif there has been a History/Social Science section on the STAR test (8th grade) for the last 6-7 years.

There will be no LA, Math, or History STAR tests this year because we will be adopting all new tests thanks to Common Core in 2014-2015.

This will impact how I teach since I do not have the state test hanging over my head.

I didn't say a word about states' rights or NCLB.

Common Core is merely a set of standards. If California decided to stop testing in other subject areas, that's a California decision, not a Common Core decision. In Kentucky we adopted Common Core, but we still test in social studies and science. So it's not thanks to common core that you are not having other tests, it's thanks to whoever makes those decisions in Calif.

The rest of my reply was not intended for you. Well maybe the part about NCLB requiring tests in ELA and Math every year. But the state's rights stuff was meant for those who had used that complaint against Common Core.

 

[Mario Kart]

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

Things are getting real.

 

[parasaurolophus]

A common complaint I hear during these discussions is that teachers will just teach to the test. Can somebody give a concrete example of this in action?

I can see how a teacher teaching to their own test could be done, since they would know the test in advance and could just teach the kids 35 questions and the answers. How could they do it for a test they don't have?

 

[Lutherman2112]

Teaching to the test is most effective for skill based learning such as typing or even athletics. Teaching to the test in these instances is not necessarily a bad thing.

The problem starts when the instruction delivered in the class focuses solely on test items or items that are similar to test content; also called item teaching.

What I saw at my children's elementary school was relentless drilling on test content, elimination of curricular content not covered by the test, practice sessions that incorporated items from previous standardized tests, and practiced test taking skills.

 

[igbomb]

[SIZE=medium]The one standard fits all perspective doesn’t bother me on the states’ rights issue at all. Personally, I don’t think it would be fair to kids in particular states to have their curriculum corrupted by political ideologies, even if it is the prevailing perspective in that state. I’m all for a federal approach to education.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]What I don’t like is that it pushes all kids towards the same standards. The more I think on it, the more I like the notion of different bands of education at the high school level, with different graduation objectives. Many European countries follow this approach where at some point kids are split off into different bands with some heading down the vocational path while others preparing for college. There is research that shows that the more narrow in ability that a classroom is, the more effective the education is for all the kids, both those at the higher end and the lower end. Teaching the same concepts to kids at the high end as well as those who are struggling is one of the most frequent complaints I’ve heard from teacher friends.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The question, of course, is when to split them. Finland, the subject of another thread, appears to split into tracks around 16 years of age. Germany is much earlier, with the kids moving into the different schools at 10 (though my friend’s daughter is already in the evaluation process in third grade). The encouraging part from his perspective is that it isn’t just a one-time test with kids split based on the results. It’s a comprehensive review with all of the kids’ teachers, testing, interviews, etc.[/SIZE]

 

[Ilov80s]

I just received an email from our superintendent. The gist was Common Core are the standards we are using as they were approved by the Michigan Department of Ed. However, the legislature has refused to allow the MDE to spend any money on it. Therefore, the actual testing that was planned to be used with it (massive component of Common Core) is out as the district can't afford to pay for it from it's own pocket. Any other resources, training, etc for Common Core must be funded locally and not from the state. We have already spent a lot of money/time on learning about the tests, teacher development for the tests, etc. That training may not end up being all that useful.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

I just received an email from our superintendent. The gist was Common Core are the standards we are using as they were approved by the Michigan Department of Ed. However, the legislature has refused to allow the MDE to spend any money on it. Therefore, the actual testing that was planned to be used with it (massive component of Common Core) is out as the district can't afford to pay for it from it's own pocket. Any other resources, training, etc for Common Core must be funded locally and not from the state. We have already spent a lot of money/time on learning about the tests, teacher development for the tests, etc. That training may not end up being all that useful.

ugh...i'm sure the legislature is much more suited to make academic decisions than the state board of education. sounds like a major political cluster#$*%

 

[Ilov80s]

I just received an email from our superintendent. The gist was Common Core are the standards we are using as they were approved by the Michigan Department of Ed. However, the legislature has refused to allow the MDE to spend any money on it. Therefore, the actual testing that was planned to be used with it (massive component of Common Core) is out as the district can't afford to pay for it from it's own pocket. Any other resources, training, etc for Common Core must be funded locally and not from the state. We have already spent a lot of money/time on learning about the tests, teacher development for the tests, etc. That training may not end up being all that useful.

ugh...i'm sure the legislature is much more suited to make academic decisions than the state board of education. sounds like a major political cluster#$*%

Yeah, districts have spent 2 years getting ready for these tests. It is definitely politically motivated. Republicans have made a big push to squash it. I have been an opponent of the CC, but this is ridiculous and actually is a reason I prefer localized control. I hate to see education become another political agenda.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

I just received an email from our superintendent. The gist was Common Core are the standards we are using as they were approved by the Michigan Department of Ed. However, the legislature has refused to allow the MDE to spend any money on it. Therefore, the actual testing that was planned to be used with it (massive component of Common Core) is out as the district can't afford to pay for it from it's own pocket. Any other resources, training, etc for Common Core must be funded locally and not from the state. We have already spent a lot of money/time on learning about the tests, teacher development for the tests, etc. That training may not end up being all that useful.

ugh...i'm sure the legislature is much more suited to make academic decisions than the state board of education. sounds like a major political cluster#$*%

Yeah, districts have spent 2 years getting ready for these tests. It is definitely politically motivated. Republicans have made a big push to squash it. I have been an opponent of the CC, but this is ridiculous and actually is a reason I prefer localized control. I hate to see education become another political agenda.

Don't see how local control fixes this. You already said the district couldn't afford to pay for the tests...

On a bigger scale, can somebody please explain to me why this has become a Republican issue? Have they simply jumped on the "states rights" issue or is it anything that happens during the current president's term can't be good (even if the federal government has nothing to do with it) or???? And why now? Common core was developed almost 3 years ago, yet I've heard more about it in the mainstream media the last 2 weeks than in the previous 2 years.

 

[Ilov80s]

I just received an email from our superintendent. The gist was Common Core are the standards we are using as they were approved by the Michigan Department of Ed. However, the legislature has refused to allow the MDE to spend any money on it. Therefore, the actual testing that was planned to be used with it (massive component of Common Core) is out as the district can't afford to pay for it from it's own pocket. Any other resources, training, etc for Common Core must be funded locally and not from the state. We have already spent a lot of money/time on learning about the tests, teacher development for the tests, etc. That training may not end up being all that useful.

ugh...i'm sure the legislature is much more suited to make academic decisions than the state board of education. sounds like a major political cluster#$*%

Yeah, districts have spent 2 years getting ready for these tests. It is definitely politically motivated. Republicans have made a big push to squash it. I have been an opponent of the CC, but this is ridiculous and actually is a reason I prefer localized control. I hate to see education become another political agenda.

Don't see how local control fixes this. You already said the district couldn't afford to pay for the tests...On a bigger scale, can somebody please explain to me why this has become a Republican issue? Have they simply jumped on the "states rights" issue or is it anything that happens during the current president's term can't be good (even if the federal government has nothing to do with it) or???? And why now? Common core was developed almost 3 years ago, yet I've heard more about it in the mainstream media the last 2 weeks than in the previous 2 years.

Because if we had more local control, we wouldn't get jerked around on every political whim like this. If our local SD had planned on major changes, we wouldn't have seen it all flipped around because of politics. From what I can tell, the Republicans are jumping on the states rights, local control and cost issues.

 

[Ilov80s]

Interesting look at what 1 graders are being tested at in math

 

[Buckfast 1]

Interesting look at what 1 graders are being tested at in math

Summary: Common Core Standards are bad because they ask multiple choice questions involving addition and subtraction to first graders. Adding and subtracting is too hard for first graders!!!