"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

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"...

You have now officially "jumped the shark"! Congratulations or something.

[Anonymous]

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"...

Funny, when we won the war, states were in charge of education............how did we ever do that without Common Core?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you slow? This was already addressed. There is no "choice" - it was either to help states not fuck up CC and NCLB or nothing. Something was better than nothing no matter how much you want to call it "wasteful." It certainly would have been FAR MORE wasteful to have states fuck up CC and NCLB rollouts all on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"...

Funny, when we won the war, states were in charge of education............how did we ever do that without Common Core?

Ha! I know! And we won in no small part because Marines, pilots, sailors and soldiers were independent thinkers and able to improvise -- unlike the Germans and the Japanese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"...

You have now officially "jumped the shark"! Congratulations or something.

Jumped the shark? I wasn't the one who brought up WWII. But that said, obviously you know NOTHING about how we won WWII. It didn't just happen organically, "because of grit and determination and American exceptionalism..." It was through strong, centralized government coordination and planning, not just military but civilian, to ensure we had the resources back home to support the effort as well, through production, through rationing, et cetera.

As for how states did on education with those soldiers and sailors who were fighting in WWII, they for DAMN sure didn't water down everything with your kind of pathetic "it's developmentally inappropriate" whining - if you actually look at some of the textbooks and class materials from back then, you'll see they were pushing harder in many areas than we were prior to Common Core. The typical 8th grader back then had a much stronger foundation in math and English than an 8th grader circa 2005 did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

A billion is not a lot of money. Even two billion is not a lot of money. Even two billion a year is not a lot of money. The annual operating budget just for MCPS is $2.4 billion.

[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.

Those are NCLB costs, not Common Core costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Funny, when we won the war, states were in charge of education............how did we ever do that without Common Core?

States still are in charge of education.

[Anonymous]

^ the shrill anti-CC hysteria is what jumped the shark, long, long ago. Did we really need to still sit through the 57th, 64th, 127th time that someone shrieked "the standards are developmentally inappropriate" only to hear crickets chirping when someone asked "which standard, specifically - and by what criteria, by what study, by what data?"

That debate was LOST and OVER the very first time it came up - and the first time the anti-CC crowd came up empty on a response. Yet it keeps coming around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around....

Gotta hand it to people for having the extreme patience for dealing with this nutty anti-CC crowd.

[Anonymous]

the shrill anti-CC hysteria is what jumped the shark, long, long ago. Did we really need to still sit through the 57th, 64th, 127th time that someone shrieked "the standards are developmentally inappropriate" only to hear crickets chirping when someone asked "which standard, specifically - and by what criteria, by what study, by what data?"

That debate was LOST and OVER the very first time it came up - and the first time the anti-CC crowd came up empty on a response. Yet it keeps coming around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around....

Gotta hand it to people for having the extreme patience for dealing with this nutty anti-CC crowd.

Extreme? Comparing Common Core to our war efforts--that's extreme. And wrong.

[Anonymous]

Jumped the shark? I wasn't the one who brought up WWII. But that said, obviously you know NOTHING about how we won WWII. It didn't just happen organically, "because of grit and determination and American exceptionalism..." It was through strong, centralized government coordination and planning, not just military but civilian, to ensure we had the resources back home to support the effort as well, through production, through rationing, et cetera.

Wow. Centralized government and planning? That would be Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Initiative and ingenuity were what won the war for us. At home and at war.

[Anonymous]

Something was better than nothing no matter how much you want to call it "wasteful." It certainly would have been FAR MORE wasteful to have states fuck up CC and NCLB rollouts all on their own.

Is that language really necessary?

Who says there was "nothing" before Common Core. Why do you think it is better?

[Anonymous]

if you actually look at some of the textbooks and class materials from back then, you'll see they were pushing harder in many areas than we were prior to Common Core. The typical 8th grader back then had a much stronger foundation in math and English than an 8th grader circa 2005 did.

News flash: Most people did not go past 8th grade back then. Many did not even make it to 8th grade so you had the strongest students going to school. My grandparents were some of the ones who didn't go that far. We were a much more agricultural country before WW2. WW2 changed everything in terms of industrialization and going to school longer. But even through the 1970's there were much higher drop out rates that were deemed acceptable.

[Anonymous]

News flash: Most people did not go past 8th grade back then. Many did not even make it to 8th grade so you had the strongest students going to school. My grandparents were some of the ones who didn't go that far. We were a much more agricultural country before WW2. WW2 changed everything in terms of industrialization and going to school longer. But even through the 1970's there were much higher drop out rates that were deemed acceptable.

+10000

I had a family member who was writing editorials on a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper when he was 21--with an eighth grade education.

[Anonymous]

obviously you know NOTHING about how we won WWII. It didn't just happen organically, "because of grit and determination and American exceptionalism..." It was through strong, centralized government coordination and planning, not just military but civilian, to ensure we had the resources back home to support the effort as well, through production, through rationing, et cetera.

You are dismissing what the troops on the ground did to win WWII. The heroes were the central planners? It's the same as your dismissal of teachers and the states. Central planners can do it all I guess.

The real stories are not the ones told by the "central planners". Try reading "Unbroken" or "The Forgotten Highlander". Those are the real stories. The real stories in education and the real warriors are in the classrooms. They need to be heard.