I challenge anyone who is concerned with the Common Core to actually READ the
standards and then try to find something objectionable. I appreciate the effort
to ensure that my children don't come across a teacher that teaches only
what they like to or what they are most comfortable with rather than what my
student needs to know.
Great article. The commenters don't seem to understand that Common Core
mandates that we under legally binding documents, Utah not add anything beyond
15% to what Common Core national standards dictate. Commenters don't seem
to understand that the federal government dictates that we synchronize tests
nationally and give status updates and collected data to the feds after our kids
take the high stakes nationalized tests. Google Cooperative Agreement and SBAC.
You will read that 8 page document that ties us, hand and foot, for yourselves.
Oh my goodness, people don't understand the definition of an educational
standard. I will post one here for an example:"Students will
write informational and literary text to reflect on and recreate experiences,
report observations, and persuade others."Let's look at
this for a minute. Does this standard dictate what experiences, observations, or
persuasions the student should use in the writing? Does this outline how the
teacher is to teach this standard? No, there is still a lot of room for
creativity in teaching to this standard.I think too many of us are
letting misinformation cloud our opinions of this matter.
Champions run alone. To make a common core is to take away individual
creativity and make sheep of our students. They will follow a central authority.
...Oh, and as for the editorial: of course you want a checkpoint (though as
mentioned, it would be better as a course-level rather than a grade-level
checkpoint). If I just taught my students what they felt like learning we would
skip a lot of important subjects that are necessary for the next class. My sixth grade teacher wasn't very comfortable with math and so we
didn't do it much. When I tried to take Algebra as a 7th grader I had to
work extra hard to figure out the things I was supposed to have been taught.
Being pretty gifted at math (toot-toot) I was okay, but if I as a teacher just
skipped something like graphing lines because it didn't fit the
personalities of my students, their Algebra II teacher would be furious.We should have uniformity in the skills of our graduates. Otherwise our
diplomas become unreliable as a statement of what someone can do. Imagine your
certified RN saying they couldn't give an intravenous injection, because
their class was creeped out by needles so they skipped that unit. If
we follow Lynn's opinion, our diplomas will become worthless.
As a math teacher, the common core means to me that when I have a student who
moves from Virginia and who says they were taking Algebra, I will now know what
they were being taught in Algebra. Before you had no idea what was in an Algebra
class in various states.My frustrations are A) we have little to no
support in place for this new core, as in no textbooks - meaning teachers are
being left to come up with not only the lessons, but all of the practice
problems as well. And B) students are now being assigned to math classes by
grade and not by ability level. There are honors options available, but I have
many students whose skills are more advanced than even the honors courses, and I
have many who are going to be put into a class that is one or two levels above
where they should be... and there's nothing really in place to help those
students that fail. The district math people keep throwing out the phrase,
"You don't catch someone up by moving them slower," but dragging
them doesn't work either.
@azamatbagatov, education is rightly within the rights of the states to
regulate, per our constitution, whether you like it or not. If you'd
bother to look at the educational systems of the countries ahead of us (look up
the program for international student assessment results, released every three
years since 2000), you'll see that some are federally regulated (e.g.,
China) and some are locally regulated (e.g., Finland).
What a disingenuous article by the author. As a former educator, she should
well know the difference between standards and curriculum. The common core is
not a curriculum at all, but a set of standards, goals as it were, to hold our
students to. You can use direct instruction, investigative approaches, or
whichever curricular approach you like to try and accomplish that standard.The "common" in the core refers to a set of standards commonly
adopted by many states. These standards were not put together by the feds, but
instead by sets of educators who saw a common need across many states. In fact,
this opens up a world of potential new materials as some states (e.g.,
California) only allowed materials shown to align with their state standards.
Materials are now going to be used that adhere to the standards adopted, and
created by, many states.Claiming that adopting a shared set of
standards somehow dehumanizes teaching is misleading. I seriously question the
author's motives in writing this article as more tied to her authoring
several books on educational reform than concern for students.
Truth, I guess the countries that are beating us in math and
science all have local agencies deciding what standards they want to use. Oh, wait, no they have a national system of standards. If we leave it to
local districts to decide a student that moves from the Canyons district to the
Granite district may be way ahead, or way behind, depending on each districts,
Lets see, 25 kids.... how much would the charge be for daycare for 25 kids?
About $200 or so per kid - 25 x $200= $5000 a week.... multiplied by about what
40 weeks with summers off.. $200,000 per year. Add in some
conservative rhetoric about the free market always being correct and I can
conclude that teachers are definetly NOT overpaid. The market has spoken.
'azamatbagatov' is good example of wanting to do things out "good
intentions".The government takes power, then more ans more ans
more power, that is what government does. that is what government has always
done.The department of education was created for imposing standards,
and then to it tie wealth redistribution to them, and to take local control away
from locals and parents, and control what is taught to your children.just look at the more and more red tape and regulation that parents must go
through to home teach their own children.Do we need standards?
yes.Do we need federal government imposed standards? NO!Our
children were taught quite well before the left wanted federal government
involvement and control, and look as what that has done to education and loss of
control we have over our schools.If you want to improve our
education system, then get government out and let education system and
communities do what they do best - educate their children.
Standards have to be set in education. If not, what is the point? It seems
like anymore people are so stuck on making kids feel good about themselves,
instead of being stuck on what is good for them. If a student in 6th grade
can't read above a second grade level, why should they be allowed to move
forward? Because of the social aspect. This is a disservice to the student,
and the education system that is tasked with teaching this student the same
thing as students that are on grade level.If we didn't have
standards with which to measure student achievement, then let's just hand
out diplomas to everyone when they turn 18.
We can NOT have federally imposed standards, the federal government
will always tie federal dollars to them.More to the point, education
is a local and community thing and the federal government should just stay out
it is not their place.We do not need nor should we have the federal
government's nose in everything.While their may be good
intentions, you know where to the road is paved with good intentions.You need to have more than good intentions.We can have excellent
education without federal government imposed standards.
"Do we really want students to become uniform in knowledge and
skills?"I would have to answer a resounding 'Yes' to
that. I definitely want all students to have competent reading, writing, and
math skills. Beyond that we can individualize, but really what a silly
question. I don't know if I'm completely for or against the common
core, but I do think there are certain standards that are imperative that all
CCSS = Common Core State Standards. "Standards" are neither curriculum
nor pedagogy. These standards are a necessary upgrade. They include a vision of
shared, cross-curricular standards never imagined in Utah's version, Mr.
This is an odd article. The people who developed common core were not "far
removed," they were schoolteachers themselves! And what good teacher
doesn't already know that she teaches children, not subjects, regardless of
Lynn, I usually agree wholeheartedly with your editorials -- I still have one
about vouchers that is pinned to the board next to my desk. But, in this case,
I think you hit just off the mark.Standards are not a bad thing to
have. They give us something to aim for and check off. Utah has had standards
and objectives for years. Your statement, "It specifies what all students
should know and be able to do at grade-level check points" tells us what is
good about the core.Your outrage should be directed more about how
we know when these standards have been met. Your very next statement reveals the
true problem that has existed since NCLB was begun, and continues and even grows
now: "It pressures teachers, with excessive testing, to make students fit
the curriculum. The testing draws forth low level teaching by trying to measure
student growth in likenesses."It's not the standards that
we need to get rid of; it's the expensive, time-consuming/wasting,
productivity stopping, not-really-testing what it-say's-it's-testing,
soon to be several times a year, TESTS.
The point is, with or without federal dollars the CC allows Utah parents,
teachers and students to set goals as high as they would like. The opinion
writer's and Mero's statements that having common standards or federal
$ somehow hampers local districts are scare tactics.
The author has it correct. Take away the federal dollars from CC and you
have...you have...well, you have better standards that Utah educators and
parents and students would create and achieve on their own. Lacking other
rational arguments, it's clear that CC is ALL about the money.
Providing teachers a list of WHAT should be taught at each grade level and then
allowing them to decide for themselves HOW to teach it is providing guidelines.
You want teachers to teach whatever they want? If a teacher is not strong in
geography, it's okay to skip it? Thank about what you're asking for.
"All students can learn" is the mantra buried into every teacher. A
common core provides a backbone on which good teachers can buil. A a science
teacher, knowing how far e lag behind the rest of the world in education, the
common core is a resource that helps me be a better teacher while helping
prepare my students for their tomorrow. It is my duty as a teacher to do this.
The core is not what is in my way, it lights the path. It is the parents that
think their precious darlings can do no wrong, therefore I must do something
different for them that turn off the lights. Trust me to know how to teach my
students. That is what I have been trained to do.
Yet another opinion based on misinformation and spreading misinformation. The
Common Core Standards are a guide -- not a mandate. The standards are designed
to do exactly what this opinion suggests -- set the floor with the sky as the
limit.. The only people confused are those (like this writer) who refer to the
"Common Core Curriculum" or "Core Curriculum." There is no such
thing. The curriculum is set by local schools and individual teachers.