In the meantime, states are implementing
the common core standards because they are convinced that it is in their best interest, and in the interest of the nation as a whole, for young people to develop the knowledge and skills the standards embody.
Education Commissioner John B. King Jr. said during a televised forum in Buffalo that the state will continue to lead the way in implementing
the Common Core standards because «it's the right thing for students.»
Not exact matches
But, they postponed a vote on a plan to allow teachers who are dismissed to argue that they were unable to teach properly
because of inadequate implementation of the
Common Core standards.
«It's important to emphasize that the changes in scores do not mean that schools have taught less or that students have learned less, but rather reflect this new
standard, the
Common Core adopted by 46 states
because these
standards represent the trajectory to college and career success,» King said, on a conference call.
«It got the name
Common Core because 45 states developed these
standards over a period of two - and - a-half years.
«Schools are being asked to do more with less
because of the new
Common Core standards,» Mulgrew said.
The proposal aims to provide a «safety net» to educators whose ratings were affected by the rough transition to the
Common Core standards in New York and who could be fired
because of it.
Other publishers are likely to follow suit,
because the 45 states that have adopted the
common core standards represent a near - national market.
We've said it before and we'll say it again: The
Common Core standards are worth supporting
because they're educationally solid.
We have actually moved reasonably close to these changes in some dimensions, partly
because of the
standards and testing associated with the
common core and partly
because of the waiver process.
And
because all of the states showing strong improvements have adopted
Common Core State
Standards (CCSS), the authors say there is a strong likelihood that
Common Core induced this sudden improvement in the rigor of states»
standards.
Not surprisingly,
because the state's prior
standards were somewhat lower than the
Common Core standards.
If so, they might be looking for a while,
because even states that never adopted the
Common Core seem to have
standards that are a lot like them.
«This is deeply important
because there is very little that helps young people, students, and teachers in school that gives them real flesh to the bone of the
Common Core standards or any other
standards as a statement of what people should know or do,» Seidel says.
And that's largely
because of the new
Common Core education
standards, currently in effect in more than 40 states and the District of Columbia.
And California's state testing system will not report scores next year
because of the transition to
Common Core standards, which will make it even harder to track progress.
They say that,
because Common Core standards don't call for cursive instruction, public schools are more likely to drop or, at least, de-emphasize it.
1)
Common Core doesn't matter
because standards mostly don't matter.
The
standards themselves — and the
Common Core - aligned tests that many students nationwide first took this past spring — don't specify what knowledge students should learn in each grade,
because they're designed to be used across the country.
Virginia didn't adopt the
Common Core standards in part
because it was already happy with its
Standards of Learning, written by devout Hirschites in the 1990s.
«Although teachers were allowed to submit comments as the
standards were developed, there is no indication that these comments were actually reviewed and incorporated into the final product
because only a summary was released to the public,» Effrem's group stated in its
Common Core analysis.
It collapsed
because some parents saw that
Common Core was actually lowering
standards in their children's schools.
He liked the
Common Core standards when he first read them
because they emphasized writing and speaking and listening.
The
Common Core standards being adopted in the District, Maryland and most other states grew in part from the work of E.D. Hirsch Jr., a University of Virginia scholar who persuaded many advocates like Petrilli that children often don't learn to read very well
because they have not been taught enough facts about their world to understand what they are reading.
The
Common Core standards wouldn't even be relevant if we didn't have the ELD
standards to meet the needs of our students,
because there are so many different levels of language.
In fact, even though
Common Core advocates conceded that Massachusetts»
standards were at least as good as those of the
Common Core, they mounted a furious (and successful) push in 2009 and 2010 to get Massachusetts to adopt the
Common Core — precisely
because of the state's symbolic importance.
He had just told a gathering of state superintendents of education that «white suburban moms» were rebelling against the
Common Core academic
standards — new guidelines for math and language arts instruction —
because their kids had done poorly on the tough new tests.
This is a shame,
because they probably have the best argument against the
Common Core, at least in their home state of Massachusetts: The Bay State's
standards were already excellent and already getting results.
I'll offer a few examples of what I have in mind
because the easiest way to demonstrate that something was foreseeable is to show that people foresaw it (recall that the
Common Core standards were introduced in 2010 and most states started implementation in 2011).
Teachers are right to be angry at those broken promises, especially
because so much of the backlash to
Common Core has little to do with the
standards themselves.
It's an experiment that — while proven successful in at least two other states — has its origins in a Democratic President's administration and comes fresh off of lawmakers» brush with
Common Core state
standards, a broad - reaching education policy that blew up into a toxic political football among conservatives
because it de-emphasized local control.
Content
standards, tests, and curriculum that had been provided by the states — thus far — will now
because of
Common Core be provided by federally - endorsed national curriculum - content
standards, federally - funded tests, and curriculum (some of it federally funded) based on those tests and curriculum - content
standards.
Teacher protests have accelerated in the last year
because the new evaluation systems are coming online at the same time states roll out tough new exams aligned to the
Common Core standards.
But
because the
standards emphasize critical thinking and citing evidence, most teachers expect that new tests aligned with the
Common Core will require students to write essays based on multiple reading passages.
Why should I feel better about PARCC and
Common Core just
because a state bureaucrat or leader of a taxpayer funded school board or school administrator association tells me we have had state mandated
standards and testing for a long time when the original set of
standards and tests were broken and built from an economic view point, not an educational one.
About 100 of 176 Catholic dioceses have adopted the
standards because it is increasingly difficult to buy classroom materials and send teachers to professional development programs that are not influenced by the
Common Core, Catholic educators said.
With the new
Common Core State
Standards, I am excited to implement this workshop again next year
because it fits perfectly with these new
standards.»
Doug Fisher suggests that the
Common Core speaking and listening
standards are so critical to a learner's success that every discipline and every state should consider employing them
because they help learners «consolidate» their learning (Fisher, April 13, 2015).
Just
because a PR firm was hired to promote the
Common Core Standards and that PR firm, through focus groups, determined that «rigor» was the word that would sell the
standards to the American public does not make the
standards or the SBAC test rigorous.
Melinda Bundy used to teach a unit on the legends of King Arthur, but
because the new
Common Core standards require more nonfiction, she's now using President John F. Kennedy's inauguration speech.
Whatever strategy school districts use, Foughty says, they would be making investments with or without the
Common Core because Indiana would have needed to revise its own academic
standards in the coming years to remain competitive with students outside the U.S.
«The
Common Core standards are exciting because they give us a common hook, an internationally benchmarked set of college and career ready standards from which to develop the competencies and assessments.&
Common Core standards are exciting
because they give us a
common hook, an internationally benchmarked set of college and career ready standards from which to develop the competencies and assessments.&
common hook, an internationally benchmarked set of college and career ready
standards from which to develop the competencies and assessments.»
But it's unlikely the nonfiction requirement will go away
because state law dictates whatever
standards Indiana ends up with be modeled after the
Common Core.
«
Common Core supporters argue that this started as a state - based initiative and still is
because states can pull out of the
standards,» writes Michelle Gininger, spokesperson for the Fordham Institute, in an email.
Indiana teachers started making the transition to
Common Core two years ago, but it's unlikely state tests will change until the 2015 - 16 school year
because lawmakers want a chance to review the new
standards first.
Because remember — the
Common Core is one set of
standards.»
Here come the new social - emotional
standards to complement
Common Core —
because nothing says children have feelings more than benchmarks!
«The lesson plans are simple to follow and are attractive
because of the embedded connection to the
Common Core writing
standards.»
This move toward a single set of
standards has been embraced by a bipartisan crowd of politicians and educators largely
because of what the
Common Core standards are replacing: a mess.
To do so could undermine support for the
Common Core standards, which teachers have largely embraced
because they know they're what their students need to succeed.