"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And what would you have spent it on instead?

Easy. Teachers in classrooms.

Again, how much money? How many teachers in how many classrooms would the money pay for? And would there be enough highly-qualified teachers to meet the need, or would you have to hire less-qualified teachers?

And how would you accomplish this, short of waving a magic wand? For example, if the testing requirement of No Child Left Behind went away, how would you persuade everybody (state governors, state legislatures, state boards of education, local boards of education, municipalities and localities) to spend the money on teachers that they had previously spent on NCLB tests? (Keeping in mind that the NCLB testing requirement has nothing to do with the Common Core State Standards.)

I'm not saying that the money (how much money?) wouldn't be better spent elsewhere. I'm saying it's not as easy as saying that's what should be done and then it's done.

[Anonymous]

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-secretary-education-duncan-announces-winners-competition-improve-student-assessments

Just a start: 330 Million from feds to develop tests aligned with Common Core.

This is just peanuts to the total--but it is difficult to find it all in one place.


Gates has several hundred million in grants for Common Core development.

[Anonymous]

Total would easily be over billion. That's a lot of teachers. Even if it just helped a few kids, it would be better spent. At least it would be an improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And what would you have spent it on instead?

Easy. Teachers in classrooms.

Whoah. Again, what makes you think the money would be available to spend if Common Core and NCLB were nixed? Congress would cut that funding.

There is no "spend the money on x instead of y." It's probably a fluke that there was even money made available for CC and NCLB in the first place, and with a hostile GOP-run Congress that wants Department of Education DEAD AND GONE your chances of getting anything but cuts are virtually guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

I'm saying it's not as easy as saying that's what should be done and then it's done.

This is the country that defeated the Japanese, landed on the moon, and so much more. Those things were not easy either. They weren't just "done". Sometimes the things that are easy to do are not the ones that matter.

Nobody is saying this will be easy. We can see that it won't be, but we're not quitters. This is worth winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-secretary-education-duncan-announces-winners-competition-improve-student-assessments

Just a start: 330 Million from feds to develop tests aligned with Common Core.

This is just peanuts to the total--but it is difficult to find it all in one place.


Gates has several hundred million in grants for Common Core development.

Good God, I certainly hope you are not a math teacher, because your grasp of math is atrocious. Do the math on $330 million over several years.

Per the National Center for Education Statistics, there are over 98,000 public schools in the US. Divide 330 million by 98,000 and you get $3339 per school spent over several years. Just how many teachers did you think you were going to hire for $3339?

[Anonymous]

URL: 98,000 public schools in the US http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

[Anonymous]

Whoah. Again, what makes you think the money would be available to spend if Common Core and NCLB were nixed? Congress would cut that funding.

There is no "spend the money on x instead of y." It's probably a fluke that there was even money made available for CC and NCLB in the first place, and with a hostile GOP-run Congress that wants Department of Education DEAD AND GONE your chances of getting anything but cuts are virtually guaranteed.

So the choice is between wasteful spending and no spending?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm saying it's not as easy as saying that's what should be done and then it's done.

This is the country that defeated the Japanese, landed on the moon, and so much more. Those things were not easy either. They weren't just "done". Sometimes the things that are easy to do are not the ones that matter.

Nobody is saying this will be easy. We can see that it won't be, but we're not quitters. This is worth winning.

Look, we landed on the moon because we had a PLAN and OBJECTIVES, we defeated the Japanese because we had a PLAN and OBJECTIVES.

Common Core contains a PLAN and OBJECTIVES.

Getting rid of Common Core gets rid of the PLAN AND OBJECTIVES.

We damn sure didn't defeat the Japanese by having each soldier and sailor wing it entirely on his own, as the anti-CC folks want to have us do by balkanizing education so that Alabama can teach fractions differently than North Dakota, just because "states rights"...

[Anonymous]

Good God, I certainly hope you are not a math teacher, because your grasp of math is atrocious. Do the math on $330 million over several years.

Per the National Center for Education Statistics, there are over 98,000 public schools in the US. Divide 330 million by 98,000 and you get $3339 per school spent over several years. Just how many teachers did you think you were going to hire for $3339?

You are forgetting to add in the cost of the tests and study materials and reporting administration in all the schools. That is way more than 3339.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Whoah. Again, what makes you think the money would be available to spend if Common Core and NCLB were nixed? Congress would cut that funding.

There is no "spend the money on x instead of y." It's probably a fluke that there was even money made available for CC and NCLB in the first place, and with a hostile GOP-run Congress that wants Department of Education DEAD AND GONE your chances of getting anything but cuts are virtually guaranteed.

So the choice is between wasteful spending and no spending?

Yep. Though, you still haven't made the case that it's "wasteful."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good God, I certainly hope you are not a math teacher, because your grasp of math is atrocious. Do the math on $330 million over several years.

Per the National Center for Education Statistics, there are over 98,000 public schools in the US. Divide 330 million by 98,000 and you get $3339 per school spent over several years. Just how many teachers did you think you were going to hire for $3339?

You are forgetting to add in the cost of the tests and study materials and reporting administration in all the schools. That is way more than 3339.

a.) It goes to show that "all that federal and foundation money" isn't really that much, in the grand scheme of things.

b.) It's money that schools spend each year regardless. Schools are constantly buying new books, curricula, materials, testing, software, computers, et cetera, whether there is a change in curriculum, testing mandate or not.

School districts all around the country were wasting millions of dollars a year on Pearson and Harcourt contracts 10 years ago, long before Common Core. Might as well have all of that spending at least aligned to some common goals and objectives, rather than just being random as it has been for decades.

[Anonymous]

Per the National Center for Education Statistics, there are over 98,000 public schools in the US. Divide 330 million by 98,000 and you get $3339 per school spent over several years. Just how many teachers did you think you were going to hire for $3339?

I said the 330Million was just a part. That was just for test development by the feds. Waste.

[Anonymous]

also, the costs do not include all that the local schools and states have spent on Common Core--which is probably much greater than what the feds have spent.

[Anonymous]

And, I was asked what I would choose to do with the money. Of course, I don't expect it to be used in that way.