Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's part of CC.
CC assessments start next year and many schools across the US are backing out.
CC assessments are annual.
CC testing is done annually, of course. The data should be reviewed annually. That however does not mean that a teacher should be praised or discipline based on a single year. That is solely based on the judgement of the district (or maybe state).
Again, CC is only a set of standards. They only benchmark a student's progress. All the extra stuff that people keep adding in are evaluations by people. That extra stuff is not part of the standard.
The CC standard are very much like miles. You know that a mile in New York is the same as a mile in Utah. If you tell someone that you are 5 miles away, they know how far that is. If you get a speeding ticket because you are driving too fast, that fault is not that mile are standardized it's that you did something wrong.
CC testing is done annually, of course. The data should be reviewed annually. That however does not mean that a teacher should be praised or discipline based on a single year. That is solely based on the judgement of the district (or maybe state).
Again, CC is only a set of standards. They only benchmark a student's progress. All the extra stuff that people keep adding in are evaluations by people. That extra stuff is not part of the standard.
The CC standard are very much like miles. You know that a mile in New York is the same as a mile in Utah. If you tell someone that you are 5 miles away, they know how far that is. If you get a speeding ticket because you are driving too fast, that fault is not that mile are standardized it's that you did something wrong.
When it comes from the top (Duncan) and goes hand in hand with the standard then it does become part of the standard.
Can someone help me understand?
1) Who came with this brilliant idea and why?
2) Do all states have to comply with these tests? What happens if a state (or school district) refuses to do so? Are these tests a requirement for receiving federal aid?
3) What is the point of so many tests?
4) Who decided on the questions and their level (They could ask easier questions...)
5)
There's nothing new in that sentence. 6th grade math has taught about fractions going back to I don't know when.
What is NEW in CC are the measurements of performance and additional standardized testing.
You have more frequent standardized testing and teachers are now accountable for student failure.
A bad teacher in an upper income school has a better chance of keeping their job than the best teacher in a low performing at risk school. That's what CC amounts to.
One of the key points in the Chicago teacher strike was this teacher accountability affecting their jobs.
This was also a major issue in NYC with teachers when CC and RTT were implemented.
It's not necessarily the standards but the expectation of the way the standards are taught. The premise is that conceptual knowledge drives understanding when it doesn't work that way for many students, especially those who lack fundamental skills and underlying conceptual knowledge.
Piaget, Erikson, and others conducted extensive research on how children learn. Understanding underlying concepts and skills on a concrete basis is a necessary component to abstract understanding.
I have talked to many people who work in applied mathematics and science in the real world. Many of these engineers, doctors, and scientists worked from skills to concepts. Only after a strong acquisition of skills could they truly appreciate the conceptual component. The big picture driving the details came at a later point in their learning curve as they matured and had extensive practice with requisite skills.
Most professors and education professionals responsible for creating the Common Core are driven by their love of learning and are thinking about the way they like to learn. This may or may not have been how they actually learned when they were a child. Regardless, it is not developmentally the way that most children learn. For the students with poor basic reading and mathematics skills the design of the Common Core is a problem and results in a lot of frustration and little understanding.
It's not necessarily the standards but the expectation of the way the standards are taught. The premise is that conceptual knowledge drives understanding when it doesn't work that way for many students, especially those who lack fundamental skills and underlying conceptual knowledge.
Piaget, Erikson, and others conducted extensive research on how children learn. Understanding underlying concepts and skills on a concrete basis is a necessary component to abstract understanding.
I have talked to many people who work in applied mathematics and science in the real world. Many of these engineers, doctors, and scientists worked from skills to concepts. Only after a strong acquisition of skills could they truly appreciate the conceptual component. The big picture driving the details came at a later point in their learning curve as they matured and had extensive practice with requisite skills.
Most professors and education professionals responsible for creating the Common Core are driven by their love of learning and are thinking about the way they like to learn. This may or may not have been how they actually learned when they were a child. Regardless, it is not developmentally the way that most children learn. For the students with poor basic reading and mathematics skills the design of the Common Core is a problem and results in a lot of frustration and little understanding.
Yes I know that and agree. I work mostly with middle school students and this is where the transition from concrete to abstract starts. I see the struggle when you introduce variables and start to make the switch from just doing arithmetic to get an answer to forming an equation and solving it.
Maybe those higher up making changes think children have changed ?
There's nothing new in that sentence. 6th grade math has taught about fractions going back to I don't know when.
What is NEW in CC are the measurements of performance and additional standardized testing.
You have more frequent standardized testing and teachers are now accountable for student failure.
A bad teacher in an upper income school has a better chance of keeping their job than the best teacher in a low performing at risk school. That's what CC amounts to.
One of the key points in the Chicago teacher strike was this teacher accountability affecting their jobs.
This was also a major issue in NYC with teachers when CC and RTT were implemented.
I wish I could give you a thousand rep points. I have been trying to get this same point across to all the parents who keep talking about this in my social circle.
I agree with the concept of a common core but what is being pushed down to us seems to have come from people who know nothing about the subjects we teach.
I'm told to teach less and go deep but they took the deep topics out of the CC??? I teach chemistry and the depth in chemistry comes when you start tying together different concepts. When they take those concepts out, there is no deep.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 04-17-2014 at 10:50 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
