"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, we are disassembling the Common Core around the country. It's slow now, but once the test results hit like a jackhammer next fall, Common Core will be dead standards walking as politicians run for cover and start axing them state by state.

Are you the poster who assured me that administration of the PARCC tests was going to be a disaster? If so, you might want to check to make sure that your crystal ball is properly calibrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wroteoes anyone on here have any results from the testing and piloting of the Common Core standards? Were they really just thrown out to the public without full vetting and testing? Anyone?


No, they weren't just thrown out there without vetting and testing. For one, they were for the most part based on existing, tested state standards that were already in existence and being implemented in various states. For another, they were put out for large scale teacher review and comment by state teacher groups, by NEA, AFT, NCTM, et cetera as well as for full public review and comment several times before being finalized.

So, where is the documentation? Where is the data? Where are the comments? You posted talking points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wroteoes anyone on here have any results from the testing and piloting of the Common Core standards? Were they really just thrown out to the public without full vetting and testing? Anyone?

No, they weren't just thrown out there without vetting and testing. For one, they were for the most part based on existing, tested state standards that were already in existence and being implemented in various states. For another, they were put out for large scale teacher review and comment by state teacher groups, by NEA, AFT, NCTM, et cetera as well as for full public review and comment several times before being finalized.

So, where is the documentation? Where is the data? Where are the comments? You posted talking points.

Asked and answered, eh?

[Anonymous]

Asked and answered, eh?

Yes. There is no data--or none the supporters want us to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Asked and answered, eh?

Yes. There is no data--or none the supporters want us to see.

No. To quote the PP further -- it's been answered; you just didn't like the answers.

[Anonymous]

http://zhaolearning.com/2012/10/07/is-there-evidence-to-support-the-common-core-my-questions-to-new-york-education-commissioner-king/

Interesting article. Common Core supporter (comm of Ed in NY) could not cite data. This was three years ago.

[Anonymous]

No. To quote the PP further -- it's been answered; you just didn't like the answers.

Must have missed it. Please post a link to the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No. To quote the PP further -- it's been answered; you just didn't like the answers.

Must have missed it. Please post a link to the data.

You didn't miss it (assuming that you have been following along on all 119 pages (so far) of this increasingly absurd and meta thread). You just didn't accept it when you saw it.

To quote a PP on p. 105 (or so):

There has already been plenty of information presented to debunk the claims, that there were no teachers involved, that they didn't have any input, et cetera. Many examples and details have been given, to demonstrate sufficiently enough that the claims have no merit. But instead, they are choosing to try and turn it into a slippery slope of moving goal posts and unreasonability.

The analogy would be that the anti-CCers started out claiming the moon has no craters, but having now been handed a telescope to see for themselves, they still aren't satisfied, and are now demanding to know the exact number of craters, their names, coordinates, diameters and impact dates for when they were created before accepting the fact that there are indeed many craters present. But what then? Next, they will want to be physically there, touching the craters? But then they will decide that this isn't enough either, they will demand a time machine, so that they can be physically present to witness the formation of the crater before actually accepting it...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopeless. We've given lots of examples of poor standards.

If these standards are so good: please document.

Actually, I've posted almost all of the standards that have posted. The discussion has mostly gone like this.

Me: *posts standard* Is this a bad standard?
anti-CCSS poster: LOL yes.
Me: Why?
anti-CCSS poster: Well, duh.

Sometimes there is more detail in the response. For example,

-"It's not measurable" (except that it is; I think that these anti-CCSS posters don't necessarily understand measurement)
-"It's developmentally inappropriate" (which begs the question; specifically what about it is developmentally inappropriate?)
-"It's badly written" (the copy-editor issue; unfortunately the copy-editors so far have not provided any editing suggestions)

And no, I don't need to document that the standards are good. You're the one saying that they're not good; it's on you to support what you're saying.

Well, there's some great Common Core critical thinking for you.

No, it really is on you and the rest of the establishment to prove these standards are good. Otherwise, we won't continue jumping through hoops.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. You haven't brought any meaningful, objective proof to bear with your accusations that the standards are "bad" or "developmentally inappropriate" and you are now saying you aren't willing to do so.

In a court of law, if you accuse someone of something bad, there has to be robust evidence. Otherwise, the accused walks free with the presumption that there was nothing bad. Basically you have conceded the argument.

Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, we are disassembling the Common Core around the country. It's slow now, but once the test results hit like a jackhammer next fall, Common Core will be dead standards walking as politicians run for cover and start axing them state by state.

Who exactly is this mythical "we" - again, do you understand that NCLB opt-outs as protest to Common Core aren't even 1%? More people believe in Bigfoot, UFOs and Chemtrails than believe in the Grand Common Core Conspiracy that you are so desperately trying to promote here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wroteoes anyone on here have any results from the testing and piloting of the Common Core standards? Were they really just thrown out to the public without full vetting and testing? Anyone?


No, they weren't just thrown out there without vetting and testing. For one, they were for the most part based on existing, tested state standards that were already in existence and being implemented in various states. For another, they were put out for large scale teacher review and comment by state teacher groups, by NEA, AFT, NCTM, et cetera as well as for full public review and comment several times before being finalized.

So, where is the documentation? Where is the data? Where are the comments? You posted talking points.

You've already REPEATEDLY been given contact info, email, phone number, mailing address for CSSO and NGA several times so that you can get more detailed info.

[Anonymous]

^Plus, NGA and CSSO are right in DC so you could even drop in and visit in person!

[Anonymous]

Hopeless. We've given lots of examples of poor standards.

If these standards are so good: please document.


You posted maybe 2 or 3 examples and then simply opined that they were "bad" and/or "developmentally inappropriate", without any objective criteria, without any data to support their appropriateness, without any comparison to other relevant non-CC state standards, nor for that matter even considering them in the proper context of the adjacent, complementary CC standards that they go together with. You said "poorly written" and "can't understand it" only to then immediately have 3 or 4 posters then easily explain it to you since they understood it perfectly. You said "can't be implemented, can't be measured" only to then have 3 or 4 posters immediately give cogent examples of how they can be implemented and measured.

Sorry, but you really haven't proven anything whatsoever yet. No data, no objective criteria, no nothing. You are the one lacking in documentation. You are the one who has not made the case.

Thank you, PP, for this excellent post.

[Anonymous]

Getting rid of testing wouldn't solve any of that. NCLB has a federal mandate, so that's why money is being allocated. If NCLB goes away, so does the money. It doesn't magically keep flowing and simply get reprogrammed.

It could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Getting rid of testing wouldn't solve any of that. NCLB has a federal mandate, so that's why money is being allocated. If NCLB goes away, so does the money. It doesn't magically keep flowing and simply get reprogrammed.

It could.

Pigs could fly.

I apologize for being rude, but really, have you been paying attention to Congress, lately? Have you noticed Congress accomplishing much? I haven't.

[Anonymous]

You've already REPEATEDLY been given contact info, email, phone number, mailing address for CSSO and NGA several times so that you can get more detailed info.

Great. You are the one who claims they have it. You get it and post it.