"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

One root cause has been an uneven patchwork of academic standards that vary from state to state and do not agree on what students should know and be able to do at each grade level.

Research does not support the premise that this is a problem. No one has ever established that it is a problem.

[Anonymous]

One root cause has been an uneven patchwork of academic standards that vary from state to state and do not agree on what students should know and be able to do at each grade level.


Research does not support the premise that this is a problem. No one has ever established that it is a problem.

But it was "convenient" for the politicians and the test publishers to hone in on this as a "root cause".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, it DOES. There are numerous independent comparative analyses of state standards, and they ALL varied.

Sorry. My bad. What I meant was that research does not support connection between standards and achievement. So, as Hillary says. what difference does it make?

What's your baseline for that assertion? Even 100 years ago there were typically minimum educational expectations in schools for grammar, literacy, math, et cetera. Historically, you didn't just go from grade to grade without any tests. You didn't just go from grade to grade without reaching some level of mastery. Millions of kids were educated using things like McGuffey Readers which laid out a graduated plan with expectations of attainment at each level. Can you provide a meaningful, relevant and documented example of public schooling where achievement was somehow the same or better without any standards or expectations of attainment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

One root cause has been an uneven patchwork of academic standards that vary from state to state and do not agree on what students should know and be able to do at each grade level.


Research does not support the premise that this is a problem. No one has ever established that it is a problem.

But it was "convenient" for the politicians and the test publishers to hone in on this as a "root cause".

Actually test publishers are likely to make LESS money given economies of scale thanks to standardization. If there are less flavors of tests, that's less money in their pockets for consulting and test development going state by state. Guess you didn't think of that.

Ooops, there goes your grand conspiracy. Up in smoke. Pffffft....

[Anonymous]

Actually test publishers are likely to make LESS money given economies of scale thanks to standardization. If there are less flavors of tests, that's less money in their pockets for consulting and test development going state by state. Guess you didn't think of that.

You're pretty naive if you think this is how things work. Technology will change, software will change, and curriculum will be always changing. There will be a 2.0, 3.0, etc.

Things are changing faster than ever in fact. Those Mc Guffy readers lasted a long time compared to anything that comes out now. The CC standards are going to look like something very different in 10 years, IF they survive.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/class-struggle/post/why-common-core-standards-will-fail/2012/02/23/gIQATLgbUR_blog.html

What's your baseline for that assertion? Even 100 years ago there were typically minimum educational expectations in schools for grammar, literacy, math, et cetera. Historically, you didn't just go from grade to grade without any tests. You didn't just go from grade to grade without reaching some level of mastery. Millions of kids were educated using things like McGuffey Readers which laid out a graduated plan with expectations of attainment at each level. Can you provide a meaningful, relevant and documented example of public schooling where achievement was somehow the same or better without any standards or expectations of attainment?

here you go

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What it is saying is that students should at least be prepared enough to have the opportunity of college.

Look for the drop out rate to rise.

But that is problematic. Of course you can't go to college if you didn't graduate from high school. But you also can't go to college if you graduated from high school unprepared for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

One root cause has been an uneven patchwork of academic standards that vary from state to state and do not agree on what students should know and be able to do at each grade level.

Research does not support the premise that this is a problem. No one has ever established that it is a problem.

"No one has ever established that it is a problem" is different from "research does not support the premise that this is a problem". Which is it? Has there been research on the effects of the uneven patchwork of academic standards that vary from state to state? If so, what did that research find? If there hasn't been -- it certainly seems reasonable that an uneven patch work of academic standards that vary from state to state would cause problems. If I were doing the research, that's the hypothesis I would want to test.

[Anonymous]

But that is problematic. Of course you can't go to college if you didn't graduate from high school. But you also can't go to college if you graduated from high school unprepared for college.

So, you think graduating from high school has no value unless you are prepared for college? That's not necessarily the purpose of education. Or, at least, it didn't used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But that is problematic. Of course you can't go to college if you didn't graduate from high school. But you also can't go to college if you graduated from high school unprepared for college.

So, you think graduating from high school has no value unless you are prepared for college? That's not necessarily the purpose of education. Or, at least, it didn't used to be.

No, please take the comment in context. The argument was that the purpose of the Common Core standards is to prepare students so that they can go to college if they want to go, and the counter-argument (which I was responding to) was that the Common Core standards will increase the drop-out rate.

Obviously a person who has a high school diploma is more employable than a person who does not. But that doesn't necessarily have much to do with education. It mostly has to do with having the credential of a high school diploma. And there are plenty of people who have high school diplomas but are not prepared for college. That is well-established.

[Anonymous]

Obviously a person who has a high school diploma is more employable than a person who does not. But that doesn't necessarily have much to do with education. It mostly has to do with having the credential of a high school diploma. And there are plenty of people who have high school diplomas but are not prepared for college. That is well-established.

+1 High school graduation shows persistence toward a goal. It shows that the person can endure. It shows that the person can defer gratification for a goal. It shows that the person has some stability in their life. Those are all very important assets to employers. It's a marker for many things that are way more important than CC. The sad reality is that those other things that help a person get to graduation are what we need to focus on. The CC is a HUGE distraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

One root cause has been an uneven patchwork of academic standards that vary from state to state and do not agree on what students should know and be able to do at each grade level.


Research does not support the premise that this is a problem. No one has ever established that it is a problem.



"No one has ever established that it is a problem" is different from "research does not support the premise that this is a problem". Which is it? Has there been research on the effects of the uneven patchwork of academic standards that vary from state to state? If so, what did that research find? If there hasn't been -- it certainly seems reasonable that an uneven patch work of academic standards that vary from state to state would cause problems. If I were doing the research, that's the hypothesis I would want to test.

When I read stuff like this, it is dizzying. I am not either of the PPs on this one.

We have lost our ability to use COMMON SENSE in this country. We seem to need "research" and "data" and "graphs" and "charts" when all we really need to do is listen to those who are in schools every day experiencing kids and using their COMMON SENSE.

[Anonymous]

Fact: Common Core standards are not going to improve anything.

The standards are limiting for some kids and for others are unachievable.

That is common sense.

[Anonymous]

This is what should be the standard:
Take the kid where he is and teach him as much as he can absorb and learn.

[Anonymous]

This is what should be the standard:
Take the kid where he is and teach him as much as he can absorb and learn.

I am a teacher and this has been my standard for years and years. It works and it works well. Plus it doesn't cost a ton of money and the students respond well to it.