"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The wackos are a very small extreme group. The pro people like to point them out. Most of the anti people have well thought out positions.

Well thought out positions, like Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie? Here is their position: "I need to change my mind and be against the Common Core because I want to win the Republican presidential primary."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

confuse and conflate NCLB and Common Core

Some people do not know the difference, but I think most on here do. And, PARCC testing is Common Core.

The great majority of states are using something other than the PARCC tests to meet the NCLB requirement for testing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/what-happens-when-the-common-core-becomes-less--common/2015/01/25/33b8eb58-a2bf-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The remainder include some liberals, some of whom do know schools and teaching, but who are whiny about accountability just the same, or who have bleeding heart ideas about equity, meaning that we should just have all kids be equal by catering to the lowest common denominator rather than trying to push each kid to his potential.

No, I'm the liberal who posted. I do not think we should "have all kids be equal". That's impossible. It's not doable. We should help kids starting where they are and help them get to their potential. I said nothing about lowest common denominator. That's ridiculous.

I'm not whiny about accountability. I want that. I just want it to be based on something that makes sense and is valid.

Does this make sense? Is it valid?

CCSS.Math.Content.5.MD.C.4
Measure volumes by counting unit cubes, using cubic cm, cubic in, cubic ft, and improvised units.

How about this?

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.4.1
Write opinion pieces on topics or texts, supporting a point of view with reasons and information.

[Anonymous]

Kind of shrill calling everybody a shill, aren't you? That supposedly rightwing shill Pioneer Institute has a Democrat as its research director and also recently brought on former Massachusetts Senate President (Tom Bimringham) as senior education fellow: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/02/former_massachusetts_senate_pr_1.html. They seem to choose pretty good people to work with given that: "Birmingham was a principal author of Massachusetts' 1993 Education Reform Act." (see article)
Sometimes you have to work harder than engage in simple-minded ad hominem attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kind of shrill calling everybody a shill, aren't you? That supposedly rightwing shill Pioneer Institute has a Democrat as its research director and also recently brought on former Massachusetts Senate President (Tom Bimringham) as senior education fellow: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/02/former_massachusetts_senate_pr_1.html. They seem to choose pretty good people to work with given that: "Birmingham was a principal author of Massachusetts' 1993 Education Reform Act." (see article)
Sometimes you have to work harder than engage in simple-minded ad hominem attacks.

I'm more interested in who funds the Pioneer Institute than the political party affiliations of the various people they hire. So, who does fund the Pioneer Institute?

[Anonymous]

The "well thought out positions" seem to be lacking in even the most basic of things, like being able to answer, cogently, which specific standards are problematic, by what criteria, and by what specific observational evidence, along with delving into whether the standard is problematic because the standard is actually problematic, or whether it's because your screwed the pooch on meeting the foundational requirements that were a prerequisite to kids being able to build upon it in the subsequent year - for example, expecting kids to do long division in an appropriate grade but being unable to do so because the prior grades let addition and subtraction slide?

Far more likely that the kids started school without number sense and the teachers had to push ahead in order to meet the standards--instead of teaching what the kids really needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Far more likely that the kids started school without number sense and the teachers had to push ahead in order to meet the standards--instead of teaching what the kids really needed.

This argument never makes sense to me. If the kids are starting school without number sense, then pushing them ahead is not going to get them to meet the standards.

[Anonymous]

This argument never makes sense to me. If the kids are starting school without number sense, then pushing them ahead is not going to get them to meet the standards.

Exactly. And, the elephant in the room is that if you bring this up you are accused of the "bigotry of low expectations."

[Anonymous]

Every child can learn, but it is unreasonable to expect them all to achieve the same standards in a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This argument never makes sense to me. If the kids are starting school without number sense, then pushing them ahead is not going to get them to meet the standards.

Exactly. And, the elephant in the room is that if you bring this up you are accused of the "bigotry of low expectations."

Exactly what? The point is, given the choice between

1. Teaching the children what they really need (which won't get them to meet the standards)
2. Pushing the children ahead (which won't get them to meet the standards)

it doesn't make any sense to push the children ahead. Either way, they won't meet the standards. So there is no rational reason for teachers to push them ahead or for administrators to require teachers to push them ahead.
The Common Core standards do not require children to be taught at grade level, regardless of where the children actually are, and rational administrators will not require it either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every child can learn, but it is unreasonable to expect them all to achieve the same standards in a year.

The requirement that all children be on grade level is a No Child Left Behind Act requirement, not a Common Core requirement.

[Anonymous]

The requirement that all children be on grade level is a No Child Left Behind Act requirement, not a Common Core requirement.

NCLB needs to go. And, why do CC standards state a grade level if teachers don't have to teach to those standards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The requirement that all children be on grade level is a No Child Left Behind Act requirement, not a Common Core requirement.

NCLB needs to go. And, why do CC standards state a grade level if teachers don't have to teach to those standards?

Because they are grade-level standards. They say what a student should be able to do by the end of that grade, in order to be on grade level.

[Anonymous]

And, why do CC standards state a grade level if teachers don't have to teach to those standards?




Because they are grade-level standards. They say what a student should be able to do by the end of that grade, in order to be on grade level.

Circular firing squad.

[Anonymous]

The Common Core standards do not require children to be taught at grade level, regardless of where the children actually are, and rational administrators will not require it either.

But, there are tests. And, I know that is NCLB, but CC was designed with tests in mind.