What Is Common Core?

My mom works for the Department of Education in Iowa. I asked her what it meant. She told me it was made up as a set of things to say what kids need to know at each grade level. Such as all kids in first grade should be able to add and subtract and write in basic sentences. So it was made as a guideline for teachers to follow so all kids were learning the same things. It was the teachers job to make sure their students learned those things, however it worked for them in their classroom. Unfortunately, it has changed and morphed into this thing now where it means all kids must learn the same things, the same way, and what the government wants them to learn, so they can pass a standardized test. Crazy. I don't think it is a good thing. It takes the joy out of teaching and learning.

Personally? I don't like it. For me - they are teaching to test - but VERY slanted. ..that's how I see it. I don't like it.

When the government steps in and starts touting something - especially when it comes to education? I question it.

I'm sure you will find people in love with it...just as you will find people opposed to it.

http://www.myrecordjournal.com/wallingford/wallingfordnew...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/eig...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347973/two-moms-vs-...

You should read some of the "CORE" stuff yourself...you too might be appalled.

Common Core is a set of standards that all schools must live up to, and the benchmarks are set at a few different grade levels.
A major benefit is that kids who move from one place to another will be able to do so more seamlessly. Another is that all states will be judged by the set of standards. Before, a school could have a very good rating, but meanwhile, because some states had very low standards, that school would be considered failing in a different part of the country.

A downside is that, just like No Child Left Behind, it determines if the standards are being met using standardized tests. And there are many people who are against standardized tests for any reason. Teachers have to spend time teaching on how to take tests (which is a learned skill and takes away from time that could be spent learning other things), and some kids just don't test well and it's stressful.

What it is not (and this drives me a little crazy about the discussion): It is NOT a national curriculum. It says that kids must know addition, subtraction, and how to write complete sentences by 1st grade. It does not dictate to any school how they must teach math or writing. It says that 1st graders should know how to read. But it doesn't dictate what books they have to read. HOW the subjects are taught is still determined locally (in my area it is by school district, in some places it may be by the state).

Whether or not your school is incorporating racism or tolerance into the curriculum has nothing to do with the CC.

I am a teacher. When Common Core was introduced, I was a bit skeptical. However, the more I have learned about Common Core, the more supportive I have become.

Common Core is a set of common standards about SKILLS that are to be taught.

If done right, a child should be able to move from one state to another and still be "on grade level" in their learning since they would be learning the same skills.

What Common Core is NOT is a set curriculum. I have seen some of the rants against it and they are not accurate. There is no political agenda. In fact, in Common Core, there are ONLY set standards for English and Math. There ARE several companies which have taken Common Core and set out a curriculum based upon those standards. Most of the rants I have seen against Common Core have been centered around those curriculums that either districts or textbook companies have developed.

There is NOTHING in Common Core about the president. Like I said, the actual Common Core is based upon standards for literacy and math only. Teachers have the option to use whatever means they wish to teach those.

You can go to the real Common Core website and read the actual standards.

In fact, one thing I like about Common Core is that it teaches children to question what they read (important in today's media world) as well as to have justification for their opinions.

One of the problems with local control over education is that a bunch of people with an agenda can insert/delete things from the curriculum, whether or not they have any credentials. People may object to "government control" but what they mean is federal government - they want the power to be in the hands of local communities. Which is fine if all local communities are responsible. The problem is, when there are no national standards, kids who move from one state to the next are not prepared for a new school, and they fail.

We also have an entire generation of kids who are missing key skills, are incapable of writing in sentences, are missing critical thinking skills, and are unprepared for college and the workforce. Colleges are teaching remedial English to kids born and educated here, but who cannot write coherently or read with comprehension; colleges are teaching middle school skills. High school and college graduates do not have any consistent or minimal level of skills, and suffer in the job market.

While I am not in favor of "teaching to the test" because I think so many kids learn differently from others, I do think there's a place for minimum standards. And when we see a huge lack of basic literacy, knowledge of civics and history, and math skills, we have an entire class of uneducated voters who don't understand the structure of government set up in the Constitution. Most native-born citizens cannot, for example, pass the citizenship exam we require of immigrants! (Try it yourself - it's available on line.)

It's much easier for people with an agenda (racist, religious, philosophical, whatever) to institute their priorities at the local level, and that's usually done with a whole lot of "anti big government" hysteria. That doesn't mean it's easy to establish and implement a national standard - it't not. And there are so many teachers who are not equipped to teach, it's hard to implement even a perfect curriculum.

Everyone's going to have problems with a standardized, national anything. But I agree with you that it's easy to be anti-standards when what people are really ticked off about is a black president. So you're wise to question motives here.

As mynewnickname and JulieW said, it's a set of standards. States that adopt Common Core agree to align their standards with the national standards - meaning that the skills that a 4th grader in Massachusetts is expected to have mastered in language arts and math are the same skills that a 4th grader in Mississippi is expected to have mastered as well.

Common Core DOES NOT dictate curricula. But as states adopt it, districts within that state may find that they need to adjust their curricula to ensure that students meet the goals. As a related example, my state adopted a set of standards a decade or two ago that required that 9th grade students take and pass a statewide exam in science, which includes physical science and technology. In response to that requirement, my school district added a technology course in 8th grade and a physical science course (basic physics) in 9th grade.

An organization did a state by state review of the state standards vs. proposed Common Core standards a couple of years ago. My state's standards exceeded Common Core in most areas but there were some isolated spots where our standards were less rigorous, so our state adjusted those areas to meet Common Core. Many states were found to have really awful standards that were poorly defined, ambiguous, difficult to measure and not rigorous enough. Common Core is designed to benefit those states the most. It's not fair that my kids get a great public education here and kids in Alabama get something that's way less rigorous.

People who blame content that they don't like on Common Core are flat out incorrect in their understanding of why a school teaches what it does. Actual curricula reflects how and what a district (or state) chooses to teach students - Common Core just guides the district (and state) in saying "here are the goals that your curricula must help your students reach."

Common Core does not involve history, so I am not sure what your friend is appalled by. It only deals with the literacy aspect of it, such as being able to find main ideas, back up opinions with facts, etc.

Common Core is a set of standards to be reached at each grade level. You could think of them as goals. I am actually taking a break from writing my lesson plans right now. Here is an example of what we are working on in 4th grade in Operations and Algebraic Thinking:

4.OA.3. Solve multistep word problems posed with whole numbers and having whole-number answers using the four operations, including problems in which remainders must be interpreted. Represent these problems using equations with a letter standing for the unknown quantity. Assess the reasonableness of answers using mental computation and estimation strategies including rounding

We have always had standards to meet at each grade level. This just makes it more standard across more states. I have no problem with it. Just lets me know my goals for the little munchkins!

What does Common Core have to do with liking a president's skin color? I don't understand why you brought that up. Ever so often the education gurus come up with another way to teach our kids. They keep trying to make it better. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. There are always pros and cons. A lot of people didn't like "No Child Left Behind". You can't please everyone.

And ANYONE who uses the next teaching method to try to "brainwash" against our president's color is just a hatemonger and a racist.

The Common Core State Standards are only truly addressing changes in Language Arts and Math education. The other subjects are then supporting the Language Arts and math with supporting standards such as literacy standards. My history standards for high school have not changed at all, I just have to add in some writing and literacy standards (which most good teachers already do.) There is a focus on non-fiction for language arts and if you do research you should be able to find the standards grade by grade. I am not sure how I feel about them yet. As with anything in education, teachers just put their heads down and wait for the pendulum to swing back.

Instead of just looking on FaceBook.....Go to YOUR State's Department of Education website.
All public schools have one.
On it, look up the Common Core and see what it says, for your State.
And also look up, YOUR child's school's website, and look up the Common Core State Standards.
ie: this is my State's Department of Education page, on Common Core Standards:
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/St...

Kids also learn, from their parents.
And they learn to have their own thoughts and opinions and how to discern the world, from their parents. Not only from school.

Common Core are academic standards that claims to prepare students for college and career; it is not a curriculum but a one-size-fits-all approach written by the National Governors Association (NGA)—an organization of governors, their head staff members, and policy makers, and the Council of Chief State School Officials (CCSSO). States receive federal funding for adopting and implement the Common Core.
Common Core outlines what students are expected to learn in English language arts and mathematics from kindergarten through high school.
Teachers must teach from the same, and at the same prescribed pace.
Most moms think their kids are learning more;, kids now days have a huge load of homework, projects and many hours at school, but that doesn't mean they are learning what they actually need for college or a career. It is supposed to provide an individualized attention, but it is far from that since it is a uniform education for almost 60 million kids. In my opinion, increasing emphasis on computer-assisted learning further eliminates the possibility for individualization.
Individualized education comes from a teacher identifying a student's strengths and weaknesses and helping him learn in light of these. It does not come from computers that are programmed to change questions based on certain inputs; the computer will never know that a child may have decided to simply click “C” no matter how many ways the test question is asked. Individualized education is not fostered when a teacher receives a dismal report about her students’ progress, but she is given no time to help struggling students. Instead, she must rush to the next concept in order to cover this year’s prescribed standards.
Common Core standards jeopardizes the goal of preparing children by sacrificing the pursuits of literacy, future curiosity, love for learning, real critical thinking since all students will be thinking and learning the same no matter what skills or level of learning they have.
The best education is when teachers have the opportunity to teach small-enough classes, they are able to know when they should introduce particular concepts and where they should focus based on the interests of their students. Then students can be taught as individual human beings—not machines that can be analyzed and responded to by a computer program. It is sad that there is no such individualized education in the unbending, computerized Common Core.
Common Core Standards are academically deficient. Three of five members of the Common Core Validation Committee who refused to validate the standards have published reports condemning their academic worth. The Common Core English language arts standards do not make students “college- and career-ready,” there is a lack of literary material and cultural knowledge for REAL college-level work. The Common Core mathematics standards, leaves students one or two years behind the National Mathematics Advisory Panel's recommendations, the requirements of some states, and the standards of leading countries by students’ 8th-grade year.
No, I am sorry I do not like it.

It is a fact that a vast majority of kids today go into college totally unprepared. Colleges are having to offer more remedial classes in basics like English, Math and Science before students can go on to take the classes needed for a degree.
No Child Left Behind was a failure. Nothing like giving a child a standardized test on material that isn't on the assigned curriculum until a month *after* the test, leaving the teacher scrambling to teach not only what they are to learn at that time but make sure they also master a second set of materials to make sure they pass the test so they don't loose their jobs. NCLB set everyone up for failure.
Common Core is trying to address the mess we're now facing with this generation of children. I think it's good in idea but not good in practice.
Anything that is set up as a one size fits all is setting children up to fail. You can't teach every child one on one when you have a classroom of 30 children but you can't teach them all exactly the same and expect them to get it either. You're going to get the children that are going to get it quickly but have to trudge along at the slower pace which can lead to boredom and sometimes behaviour problems. You're going to have those that are slower, get confused and just give up.
Not all teachers are created equal either. I had some real losers in my school days. The "I copied the words right there on the board out of your book with no other explanation or examples because it's right there, can't you see it". Um..no..can't see it, that's what you're supposed to be teaching me thank you very much.
I agree that we do need some sort of national minimums, letting local government control it isn't working. Even when I was younger we ran into this. We moved from one school district to another in the same city. The one we moved into told us that the district we transferred out of was behind them and even though I was in advanced classes getting great grades I could not take any of their higher classes because I was not up to "snuff" for them. I ended up in classes that were so behind where I was that even the teachers felt pitty for me, but I was stuck. I barely made it through my high school years because of this. I was defeated. I was not "dumb" by any stretch of the term, but I was held back and prevented from moving forward and excelling. Kids don't need to be put through that.
They also do not need to be put into highly stressful, high stakes testing. Not all kids can handle it. Not all kids can take tests, even when they know the material. Schools in our area literally have a weeks worth of pep rallies and other activities to "pump the kid up" for the weeks worth of high stake testing. That week of testing are set on special time schedules. Everything else just shuts down. Bell schedules are different, start and end time of school days change. Teachers hate it and can't wait for it to all be over with.
I admit, I do not have the perfect system to offer up, but what we have now is pretty bad. Common Core is a little better in idea at least. Still not perfect.

I'm still deciding if I care or not. Our state was one of the first to adopt it and SD got the tail end of it. What it mean to her was that one of her classes was taught by an idiot but she still had to take the common test.

One of my teacher friends is probably going to retire sooner rather than later because she feels like she is no longer able to teach effectively. She spends too much time worrying about a test that she has no control over. She's been Teacher of the Year more than once, so this is not some half-a$$ed instructor. She works hours and hours after the school day to keep up with all the new things she needs to know. She is very frustrated.

So far, DD seems to be doing fine, but we're just starting K. I was worried that DD would not be able to be catered to if she did well here and there, and they are finding ways to do so.

I've never liked teaching to test, and our district has had district-level tests (everyone should pass the same algebra exam) for several years, so this seems to be an extension of that.

I've already decided that I will teach DD cursive, if it is shoved out of her regular curriculum at school.

Moving from one school to another when we were kids meant my sister ended up behind and had to be tutored to keep up with her class. Fortunately our mom was up to the job and they worked through 2 levels of reading at home. If not? A couple of early moves would have put her behind her peers, just because nobody taught the same things at the same times - even in the same district! For that alone I would see a common core as a benefit to students, especially those in military families.