Comment by dubya | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dubya | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

What is actually done is that teachers have children do tons of worksheets focusing on small aspects of reading. This allows teachers to check the boxes showing that they've covered the relevant standards, because this is what's supposedly covered on standardized tests. The standards are difficult to turn into lesson plans (even if that was a good idea), so often they use the clip-art encrusted crap available on the web (e.g. https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Browse/Grade-Level/First...)

Occasionally they will actually read short passages from readers. After they read anything they will have to fill in some sort of (standards aligned) paperwork. They will never have extended reading time in class.

As an example, a 1st grade reading teacher needs to cover CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.1.(1-10) (reading literature); CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.1.(1-10) (reading information text); and CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.1.(1-4) (but actually 15 substandards) (foundational skills).

Actual standards at http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/1/

My kids are in school doing common core and that's not what it's like at all. They do worksheets around learning specific small-bore topics, but otherwise do a ton of book reading and long-form writing assignments. Unless you have a cite, I don't think you're representing what the people in this article are talking about.

I wasn't addressing the article, just the GP. My experience was with my daughter's school. She was in 1st grade five years ago, but through 4th grade she was still bringing home piles of worksheets that had been done in class, and some more for homework(!). Talking with other parents at other schools at the time, they had similar experiences. I'd be thrilled if five years has made a huge difference, but I'm not optimistic.

I should note that we're in a not-terrific school district, and that there's a whole chain of people from the teacher up to state legislators on up to, I suppose, Betsy DeVos who can effect how the standards are addressed.

More anecdata: my younger two are bilingual and didn't know how to read more than really basic sight words before starting K (common core class). They are now highly proficient at reading (english), which (they are decent learners and have no challenges) I reason are due to two things: 1) An interest in reading which is fostered by the class atmosphere - they have "choice" time and some of that can be reading. 2) They have an expectation in class to spend a lot of time reading or being read-to.

I will admit we did read to them every night since they were babies, so that's probably also helpful. But kids usually love the bedtime story.

> The standards are difficult to turn into lesson plans

That people can say that with a straight face indicated to me that we have a real problem in teacher education [0]. The standards you link may be different than what is addressed in lesson plans that have been handed down with only incremental modification for decades, but nothing about them seems to difficult to develop a year-long lesson plan that incorporates then.

> They will never have extended reading time in class.

Which is hard to blame on the standard you post, since you almost certainly cannot properly assess CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.1.4.A without it.

[0] and, to be fair, also in allocating work time and pay for the one-time effort of initial curriculum development to support the new standards; the effort is clearly different than adapting existing lesson plans to incremental changes to legacy standards.

It's not that hard to develop lessons that meet the standards. It is time consuming and typically not paid for, teachers are expected to do it on their own time.

My state adopted new social studies standards last year and will require that they be taught in all grade levels as of next year. They allowed time for phasing them in due in part to the knowledge that there is no money behind redoing the lessons that teachers will need to develop and also no money for curriculum purchases to support it. Last weekend my wife went to a training on the new standard which we paid for out of our own pocket as one example.

> That people can say that with a straight face indicated to me that we have a real problem in teacher education [0]. The standards you link may be different than what is addressed in lesson plans that have been handed down with only incremental modification for decades, but nothing about them seems to difficult to develop a year-long lesson plan that incorporates then.

The problem isn't translating a single standard into a single lesson or set of lessons, it's putting three sets of reading standards, a writing standard, a speaking & listening standard, and a language standard into a coherent, interesting curriculum. It's not impossible, but it's a lot to expect from, say, a small group of first grade teachers.

Oh wow, that sounds suicidally boring. Way to kill the joy, eh.

It's mandatory to be boring. Anything else is offensive.

Little kids want to read about flinging poo, farting, projectile vomit, violence, and every possible misbehavior.

Supposed "children's books" are actually marketed toward grandmothers and public school librarians.

What about that Captain Underpants crap? I hated it when I was a kid but it seemed pretty good to the other kids and kind of acceptable to the adults.

Not sure where the other poster lives but the entire Captain Underpants series is in our son's school library. That's where he read the first one and we purchased the rest for him as he's a voracious reader. They aren't the best books but there's a big benefit in the kids having something that they are interested in reading and will read without being pushed.

That often gets banned for crudeness, but otherwise yes. It has the right idea.

I object to it for a completely different reason: bad spelling and grammar. I think a kid's book should set a perfect example.

Some teachers don't have to do that.

One reason we sent our daughters to (private) Montessori school was to have teachers and lessons completely free from Common Core.

Note that Bill Gates also sent his children to a private school that never adopted Common Core, although he was instrumental in pushing and forcing Common Core requirements across the public schools of the country.

Common core standards for English and math were released 2012 with adoption spread out across years for many states. Development of the standards started in 2009. Gate's youngest child would have been starting school ~2008.

Actually the release date was 2010 not 2012: "Standards were released for mathematics and English language arts on June 2, 2010, with a majority of states adopting the standards in the subsequent months." [1] It was adopted by Washington State in 2011. [2]

Are you implying that his children were subjected to Common Core, or that they couldn't have? by 2011, they were age 9, 12, and 15.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_In...

[2] https://www.seattleschools.org/academics/curriculum/common_c...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com