The significance of "supporting components" is that looking only at the STANDARDS themselves(as some may suggest) provides information on only one piece of common core. To better understand the common core, interested parties may wish to understand the "supporting components".
No, because that's equivocation.
Yes, the SAT is going to make changes in order to align with Common Core. But the SAT is not Common Core, it's the SAT. Learning about changes to the SAT doesn't teach you about Common Core, it teaches you about changes to the SAT.
There's nothing in the standards that says that the SAT should be testing for high-frequency vocabulary words rather than archaic ones. That's a choice they made on their own.
The Race To the Top Executive Summary document indicates the alignments and supporting components which are required to be
responsive to CCSS.
Therefore some may say that learning about changes to these components does provide insight into the specific item which they are required to be responsive to.
Understanding supporting components to better understand an object is not unique to common core and does not constitute equivocation. For example, in studying a gifted child, some experts wish to also know about the parents... in studying a bridge or building, it may be important to know what undergirds it.
The relationships between things indicate a
system. There is no conflation, ambiguity, or deception. From the
common core website "
The Importance of a Standards-Based System Many respondents said that while it is important to get the standards right, standards are only one part of a complex system."
I do not feel the need to persuade or convince. In raising awareness of resources (shared in previous posts on this thread), each person may respectfully follow his/her own inclinations and leanings.
The
publisher's criteria reminds us: "...reading well means gaining the maximum insight or knowledge possible from each source."
