What do you think abt the new Common Core?

[Momof3]

What do you think about the new common core standards?

 

I've read a few articles on this recently (mostly from an anti-common core viewpoint)... The argument is that we are dumbing down our standards, and this will prove to be one more failed goverment education program (think NCLB).

 

Curious to hear some discussion. Do you use common core to determine how your child is doing? (I confess I have...but it does leave me wondering if we're really achieving as much as we could or should. But then I tend to be an overachiever...) If you don't use common core, what do you use?

[mommyto4QT]

My concern is how the Common Core with affect homeschoolers (especially those that do not use CC aligned curriculum) when our children take the ACT/SAT and go to college. From the articles I've read that are pro-CC, they say the changes will even effect colleges and college admittance testing eventually.

[Momof3]

I guess my biggest concern is with so "standardizing" our educational system that nothing else is acceptable.

 

So...say I want to teach my kids creationism as opposed to evolution. If evolution is a part of the Common Core for Science, am I going to be allowed to teach my kids something different? Maybe for right now...but for how long? If the federal govt decides what is the "standard" for education, can they then decide what is not "standard?" Is this the camel getting its nose under the tent flap?

 

Not at all wanting to be sensational or "conspiracy theorist" here...but I have seldom seen our federal govt content with just one step in any direction.

[Murmer]

It sounds like a great idea, getting all the states on the "same" page so that students can move around the country freely without worry of missing things. Which as a child who moved often I remember getting multiple years of physical science but no biology in Jr. High lol because the age tracks were different between the 3 jr. high's I attended.

BUT the people putting together the core are not the ones in the trenches seeing what the children are doing or paying attention to the developmental research. The common core is a rigid set of rules that do not allow for natural development difference or the needs of non "typical" learners. I would prefer to see a set of common bands of knowledge that take into account developmental differences. IE the new commmon core requires end of year kindergarteners to be reading at a Guided Reading level D...but not all kindergarteners are ready to be reading at a level D but if instead it could be acknowledged that a child showing progress in reading by being somewhere between a B and G (a common level for high functioning Kinders to get to) would still be considered progressing assuming that they have progressed during the year. To extend the idea now a 2nd grader could be within the band of K - O instead of the current level N. Thus there is still a way to see children who are in need of help (they would be lower than the lowest level of the band) and those that are truly accelerated. Rather than a be all end all point.

[Butter]

As with anything, there are positives and negatives. The pro people are all sunshine and roses and the anti people are all gloom and doom. I suspect reality is somewhere in between. The biggest issue I see is that our government has screwed up public education so thoroughly (No Child Left Behind, anyone?) already how can anyone think that more regulation is going to help. On the other hand, I'm not buying that we are dumbing down overall. We are moving next month from MD to TX. We are going to put our kids in school for a year so we can get the same curriculum we use now for free (virtual school) so I've been looking at this stuff closely. I have discovered that MD schools are WAY behind TX schools. We use Calvert. According to the guy who does our reviews, it is 1 1/2 years ahead of the local public schools by the end of 8th grade. This is accurate ased on my friends' kids and what they are doing in school. However, Calvert is right on (and in some cases *behind*) compared to the same grades in the public schools in the district where we are moving. So, because standards are clearly so vastly different between states/districts, CC seems like it may dumb down for some and increase the level for others. This will help a lot in really comparing states (MD likes to talk about how they are #1 in the nation... but their schools are behind in practice. I also think the CC may help for kids moving to different states as often happens nowadays. Thank goodness my kids haven't been public schooled where we live. They'd be behind when we move!

[Farrar]

My thoughts...

 

Good things...

*It will standardize some aspects of education from state to state.

*The standards are often an improvement, especially in critical thinking.

*The testing is supposed to be better written and better aligned with the standards, which is a potentially good thing.

 

Bad things...

*It doesn't change the narrative for public schools - it's still standardized testing and it's yet another changeover, so things will stay in "crisis" mode.

*The standards are still rigid standards, not allowing for many different paces of development, especially in the younger grades.

*They don't address science except in the context of literacy, which means science still won't get taught.

*While lip service is being given to allowing for schools to exceed the standards, especially with gifted kids, I won't believe it until I see it - this has yet to happen anywhere with the testing movement.

*They're extremely expensive with private companies selling testing materials being the biggest beneficiaries.

 

My metaphor about testing in schools is a medical one. If you went to the doctor and said, "I'm sick!" and all the doctor did was take your temperature, then that would be a pretty rotten exam. Standardized tests are the thermometer of education. All Common Core does is give us a better thermometer. That's useful in a way because before that, the nurses had a bunch of broken thermometers. So, hey, great. We have a working thermometer. But we're still not equipped to do anything else. It's still a one dimensional assessment.

[Roadrunner]

If it brings about the adoption of SM style math programs, significant overhaul of Everyday Mathematic type texts, I would say CC is a good thing for math.

I do see some WTM type things in CC that isn't currently part of PS learning. For example, love the idea of reading original essays written by scientists, which is what CC means when it asks schools to increase non-fiction reading. Implemented well, this (in addition to newly published science standards) could be a positive change from the way science is currently taught.

Literature reading lists recommended in CC just like the lists in WTM.

I think schools that implement CC well can really change the way kids are educated. Unfortunately, there is no gurantee that CC will be implemented well in every school.

I don't see how CC can be worse that what we have.

[ScoutTN]

More government control of education cannot possibly improve anything.

[Farrar]

I'm pretty sure it's an independent organization and the standards just replace existing ones. The biggest beneficiaries, as I said, are private companies, who lobbied for CC and stand to make a lot of money from it.

[boscopup]

What do you think about the new common core standards?

 

They don't really affect me, so I don't really care. Though I have seen some improvements in local public schools due to common core. One local school had a huge increase in their 6th grade class being "on grade level" in math when previously they were really struggling. The teachers there said they had more freedom to teach. So apparently, that school district is doing very well with it. You'll hear horror stories from idiot districts and good stories from non-idiot districts. CCS is just a set of standards. It's NOT curriculum, so the teaching and the curriculum is all still left up to the teachers and the districts. They can be implemented in a gazillion ways.

 

Do you use common core to determine how your child is doing? (I confess I have...but it does leave me wondering if we're really achieving as much as we could or should. But then I tend to be an overachiever...) If you don't use common core, what do you use?

 

No, I do not use CCS to see how my children are doing. I don't really use anything? I initially read the WTM book to see what I basically needed to teach my kids (what subjects and such), and then I ran with it. I use curricula that are thorough. My children's education looks different from that of the public schools, but I'm ok with that. I'm taking a different path, so in some subjects, my kids may look ahead of the public schools and in others they may look behind. But in high school, when the paths merge, I think my kids will be out on top because of the foundation they had when they were younger (for example, I want quality writing over quantity, so my kids don't write as much at a very young age as public school kids, but what they do write is better quality).

 

Basically, I have my own standards. ;)

[Word Nerd]

What do you think about the new common core standards?

 

I've read a few articles on this recently (mostly from an anti-common core viewpoint)... The argument is that we are dumbing down our standards, and this will prove to be one more failed goverment education program (think NCLB).

 

 

 

I've seen more complaints that the standards are developmentally unreasonable or too difficult. It depends on the particular state's standards before CCSSI was implemented.

[Mrs Twain]

I am using the Common Core to make sure we do not have gaps. I choose my curricula partly on the basis of these scope and sequences to make sure my kids are at least on the appropriate levels for their grades regarding content and skills (though I prefer my kids to be above the standards in many subjects). I also use the Core Knowledge K-8 Sequence because it is more specific concerning content. Someday your kids will need to take standardized tests and compete against other kids. It is prudent to make sure your kids are prepared and competitive with their peers, even if your homeschool is not modeled after the public schools.

[nomadgirl]

We moved from Virginia Beach to a small town in West Virginia and the difference between the schools was astonishing. My DS started 2nd grade in WV and was bringing home papers that was work he did in K and early 1st in VA BCH. I met with the teacher and let her know where we have left off in VA BCH she expressed that the work he was doing was something that they may not get to in 2nd grade here in WV. I was completely shocked. Within 3 weeks, he was being homeschooled. So, I do see where CC can make a difference but, it has to be utilized correctly and that is my fear. I don't think that you can put these standarizations in because there is not a standard child! Also, like the above posted stated, I don't think more government involvement will fix our public education system.

[Annabel Lee]

One of the biggest lobbiers for CC was the Gates Foundation.

 

I think it's odd that CCS calls for private student data to be sent to big corporations (aka "data mining").

[Hunter]

My biggest problem with CC is that I think the standards are too wide for national implementation for ALL children. I think new teachers have a hard time taking a wide list of topics and knowing which ones to prioritize when teaching struggling students. I think it would help a lot if the priority standards were bolded, and everyone agreed on what was most important to cover.

 

I don't think it's possible to have all children working at the same level and on the same topics. There is too much variety in student biology and environment.

[Spy Car]

I've read a few articles on this recently (mostly from an anti-common core viewpoint)... The argument is that we are dumbing down our standards, and this will prove to be one more failed goverment education program (think NCLB).

 

 

Teaching "creationism" in place of valid scientific theory is about the most agregious example of "dumbing down" standards I can imagine, so I'd be careful about throwing stones.

 

Bill

[madteaparty]

my son in NYC public schools is currently in Day 3 of testing using the Common Core standard. The issue with this is that NYC public schools have not yet adopted a Common Core standard. Therefore, kids are being tested ona standard no one has yet attempted to teach them, rewarding, in my view, afterschooled and tutored kids, which is not what public school is supposed to be about.

Curriculum-wise, I support the new standards because in our case, they have already meant a move towards a better math curriculum (I see more SM concepts as was noted upthread, for example).