"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry but you are barking up the wrong tree again.

Common Core doesn't assume kids are starting school with number sense - it has kids taught number sense in K as part of the standard: http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/K/introduction/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They're secretive about their funders but the Koch brothers and other conservatives do figure highly:

Kochs and More: Pioneer Institute Funding

SPN think tanks do not as a general rule publicly disclose their donors. Pioneer, however, does list select donors (without specific donation amounts) in its annual reports, which show that David Koch has given at least $100,000 a year directly to the organization in most years since 1998.[45] CMD has also discovered that David Koch gave $125,000 directly to the Massachusetts-based SPN member think tank Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research in 2007, making him (individually) the largest donor that year. A list of 2007 funders that was disclosed to the IRS was inadvertently made public. That list of funders -- featuring Pennsylvania-based Sovereign Bank, oil and gas magnate Lovett C. Peters, banker William Edgerly, retired Blue Seal Feeds CEO Dean Webster (former director of the right-wing think tank Capital Research Center), Mitt Romney's lieutenant governor Kerry Healey, and textile heir Roger Milliken in addition to David Koch -- provides an important case study in how SPN's member think tanks are funded, and by whom.[46]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pioneer_Institute_for_Public_Policy_Research

[Anonymous]

What they used to do is have kids repeat a grade if they were struggling to master the material. Then it was decided that this was somehow too cruel to kids. Though, nobody seems to have figured out that it's even more cruel to kids to set them up for lifelong failure by not giving them a second chance to catch up, than it is to have them suffer the great indignity or whateverthefuck of having a second chance. The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.

[Anonymous]

^ As though social promotion and pushing kids forward a grade when they are not ready isn't going to make that kid's problems even worse, since what's taught in the following grade is generally dependent on them knowing what was taught in the grade that they didn't master...

[Anonymous]

The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.

It would be great to have summer programs, but there is not longer money for them. Bleeding hearts or not.

And students who are double blocked for math and reading already happens. Those kids get to watch their peers go off to classes like art, cooking, electonics, music, and other electives while their elective is shanghaied. There's nothing touchy feely about it. It already happens. It's great.

[Anonymous]

I have taught students who are going through 9th grade for the third time (failed twice) AMA---Ask Me Anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.

It would be great to have summer programs, but there is not longer money for them. Bleeding hearts or not.

And students who are double blocked for math and reading already happens. Those kids get to watch their peers go off to classes like art, cooking, electonics, music, and other electives while their elective is shanghaied. There's nothing touchy feely about it. It already happens. It's great.

+1 Summer programs were cut a long time ago, because schools can't afford the utilities bill during the summer months. Not because liberals have an ideology that you heard someone ranting about on a radio show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please explain. Do you think that there should be no such thing as grade-level standards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have read this assertion several times here, but there has not been any evidence to support it. There was one PP who provided links, but the links did not say what the PP said they said.

Regardless, if a child is below grade level,

1. the Common Core standards do not require the child to be taught at grade level, and
2. teaching the child at grade level will not improve the child's test results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What they used to do is have kids repeat a grade if they were struggling to master the material. Then it was decided that this was somehow too cruel to kids. Though, nobody seems to have figured out that it's even more cruel to kids to set them up for lifelong failure by not giving them a second chance to catch up, than it is to have them suffer the great indignity or whateverthefuck of having a second chance. The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.

Actually it was decided (based on actual research) that retention did not improve academic performance but did increase the likelihood that the student would drop out of school.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar08/vol65/num06/Grade-Retention.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.



I have read this assertion several times here, but there has not been any evidence to support it. There was one PP who provided links, but the links did not say what the PP said they said.

Regardless, if a child is below grade level,

1. the Common Core standards do not require the child to be taught at grade level, and
2. teaching the child at grade level will not improve the child's test results.

Yes, but this child will be required to take the end of year standardized test (whichever one) regardless because it is mandated by federal law. The teacher will know that the child is going to fail and that the test is an exercise in futility, yet they have to do it. It's more than just heartless; it's absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have taught students who are going through 9th grade for the third time (failed twice) AMA---Ask Me Anything.

I finally lost a senior this semester who was in my 9th grade inclusion class.

He felt no shame either . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.

It would be great to have summer programs, but there is not longer money for them. Bleeding hearts or not.

And students who are double blocked for math and reading already happens. Those kids get to watch their peers go off to classes like art, cooking, electonics, music, and other electives while their elective is shanghaied. There's nothing touchy feely about it. It already happens. It's great.

+1 Summer programs were cut a long time ago, because schools can't afford the utilities bill during the summer months. Not because liberals have an ideology that you heard someone ranting about on a radio show.

Mo Co has extended year and George B. Thomas Saturday school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What they used to do is have kids repeat a grade if they were struggling to master the material. Then it was decided that this was somehow too cruel to kids. Though, nobody seems to have figured out that it's even more cruel to kids to set them up for lifelong failure by not giving them a second chance to catch up, than it is to have them suffer the great indignity or whateverthefuck of having a second chance. The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.


Actually it was decided (based on actual research) that retention did not improve academic performance but did increase the likelihood that the student would drop out of school.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leade...l65/num06/Grade-Retention.aspx

This is true. These kids drop out of school. If you don't give kids a way to find success, they drop out. Giving them test after test that they fail pretty much "fails them". What is needed are more voc-tech programs where they can find success and have a marketable skill. But I'm sure that would be "cheating them" or "poor implementation" or "low standards" or something.

I have a kid right now whose dad dropped out of school. The dad can see that his son has the same cognitive issues that he had. He wants his son to get some trade skills---like electronics---but we have no resources to do that where he is. He's going to end up just like his dad---we haven't gained anything with him. It is so sad. BTW, the dad and his son are homeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they used to do is have kids repeat a grade if they were struggling to master the material. Then it was decided that this was somehow too cruel to kids. Though, nobody seems to have figured out that it's even more cruel to kids to set them up for lifelong failure by not giving them a second chance to catch up, than it is to have them suffer the great indignity or whateverthefuck of having a second chance. The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.

Actually it was decided (based on actual research) that retention did not improve academic performance but did increase the likelihood that the student would drop out of school.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar08/vol65/num06/Grade-Retention.aspx

Look, you're really not winning either way.

Given academics already went by the wayside when you started doing social promotion, what's the fucking difference whether a kid drops out of school in 10th grade versus stays through 12th and graduates, but really only got an 8th grade education because he fell behind, was lost/gave up long prior and was only carried along by the inertia of social promotion? It's mostly already a sham at that point. The only point seems to be to keep them off the street. Used to be that if they dropped out early, at least they might find a job somewhere but even that's screwed at this point.