"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because of the insistence, including at very young ages, to write a paragraph about every damn problem them solve.

Common Core is conscripted thinking. God forbid you should have an original thought -- Common Core punishes that.

Could you please cite one or two specific Common Core standards that call for the writing of a paragraph about every damn problem?

And actually, while you're looking at the Common Core standards, could you also please cite one or two specific Common Core standards that punish original thought? Unless, by "original thought", you mean something like thinking that 1+1=3. That would be an original thought, I guess.

The PP is not off the hood on this one, about "write a paragraph about every damn problem them solve" and "God forbid you should have an original thought -- Common Core punishes that"

Either cite the specific standard that you are referring to or retract your statements.

[Anonymous]

^ off the hook

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Again, you are responding to many, many different posters, all with different specialities. I'm the copy editor as well as a parent who hates what the standards are doing to her kid.

What are the standards doing to your kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! The PP keeps flipping between being an expert copy editor, then an expert on early childhood development, then an expert english teacher, then an expert math teacher, then an expert on standards, then an expert on professional organizations and so on... And then goes on to make some vague yet opinionated post about "it's bad, it's poorly written, it's developmentally inappropriate..." I just roll my eyes with every post.

Again, you are responding to many, many different posters, all with different specialities. I'm the copy editor as well as a parent who hates what the standards are doing to her kid.

Doubtful. I think I'm responding to maybe 2 posters tops who are responsible for 90% of the anti-CC posts. And both of which are full of shit.

[Anonymous]

Doubtful. I think I'm responding to maybe 2 posters tops who are responsible for 90% of the anti-CC posts. And both of which are full of shit.

Well, we have at least one copy editor and one with years of experience and advanced degrees in Early Childhood education. I'm the latter.

[Anonymous]

Doubtful. I think I'm responding to maybe 2 posters tops who are responsible for 90% of the anti-CC posts. And both of which are full of shit.

Oh, I suspect there are more than two--but, of course cannot be sure. I, for one, have advanced degrees in Early Childhood education and years of REAL classroom experience.

And, you?

[Anonymous]

Interesting that someone who claims to have "advanced degrees in Early Childhood education and years of REAL classroom experience" can't seem to come up with any coherent explanation with SPECIFICS of exactly why the standards are "bad" and "developmentally appropriate"

And interesting that someone who claims to be a copy editor can't seem to come up with any coherent explanation of their position either, other than just vague generalities of "bad" based on some nitpicky idiocy and their own intentional obtuseness....

Not to mention that either of them just come across as utterly clueless, whether speaking on standards, NCLB, testing, copy editing or education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that someone who claims to have "advanced degrees in Early Childhood education and years of REAL classroom experience" can't seem to come up with any coherent explanation with SPECIFICS of exactly why the standards are "bad" and "developmentally appropriate"

And interesting that someone who claims to be a copy editor can't seem to come up with any coherent explanation of their position either, other than just vague generalities of "bad" based on some nitpicky idiocy and their own intentional obtuseness....

Not to mention that either of them just come across as utterly clueless, whether speaking on standards, NCLB, testing, copy editing or education.

Copy editor here. Stop embarrassing yourself. You are just unhinged in your support over these UNPROVEN standards. Meanwhile, all across the country, parents are rising up and taking action against these standards and the testing that comes with them because of NCLB.

There have been multiple news stories posted on the opt outs, the disagreement over the standards and their developmental appropriateness and the personal experiences of parents, teachers and students.

It's not two people -- it's a rising storm.

[Anonymous]

Interesting that someone who claims to have "advanced degrees in Early Childhood education and years of REAL classroom experience" can't seem to come up with any coherent explanation with SPECIFICS of exactly why the standards are "bad" and "developmentally appropriate"

And interesting that someone who claims to be a copy editor can't seem to come up with any coherent explanation of their position either, other than just vague generalities of "bad" based on some nitpicky idiocy and their own intentional obtuseness....

Not to mention that either of them just come across as utterly clueless, whether speaking on standards, NCLB, testing, copy editing or education.

I am neither the copy editor not the early childhood educator. However, I can see that both of them have thought deeply about this issue. Their statements are not incoherent nor based on "nitpicky idiocy". A lot of what they are saying is resonating with me.

[Anonymous]

I am neither the copy editor not the early childhood educator. However, I can see that both of them have thought deeply about this issue. Their statements are not incoherent nor based on "nitpicky idiocy". A lot of what they are saying is resonating with me.

Early Childhood person here. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

^ LOL Astroturf city around here....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Interesting that someone who claims to have "advanced degrees in Early Childhood education and years of REAL classroom experience" can't seem to come up with any coherent explanation with SPECIFICS of exactly why the standards are "bad" and "developmentally appropriate"

And interesting that someone who claims to be a copy editor can't seem to come up with any coherent explanation of their position either, other than just vague generalities of "bad" based on some nitpicky idiocy and their own intentional obtuseness....

Not to mention that either of them just come across as utterly clueless, whether speaking on standards, NCLB, testing, copy editing or education.

I am neither the copy editor not the early childhood educator. However, I can see that both of them have thought deeply about this issue. Their statements are not incoherent nor based on "nitpicky idiocy". A lot of what they are saying is resonating with me.

What's there to "resonate?" All they have ever posted is factless opinion. They say the standards are "bad" but provide zero tangible or credible basis or substance for saying so. They say the standards are "developmentally inappropriate" yet can't seem to post any data, any studies, any analyses, any criteria to back those claims up. And worst of all, they now claim to be "experts" - sorry, but REAL experts would actually have those facts, data and concrete criteria at their fingertips. As I see it there's nothing but a couple of fraudulent sock puppets here, desperately trying to pretend "there's a rising storm."

[Anonymous]

Factless Opinion? LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Factless Opinion? LOL!

Yep, factless. That empty phrase "developmentally inappropriate" has been brought up a bajillion times, yet NOT ONCE has anyone actually presented any data, any criteria, any studies which would actually demonstrate that even a single one of the standards is developmentally inappropriate.

LACKING IN FACTS.

If you actually had facts, you and your "rising storm of experts" would have been able to present those facts on the very first page of this discussion thread.

[Anonymous]

The anti-CCers have also not yet presented any kind of coherent, rational or factual case for why each state needs its own separate standard.

Frankly they still haven't even gotten off of square one in terms of making a compelling argument, other than the fallacious appeal to emotion and factless, vague claims about "they are just bad because we say so."