"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are many, many posters here against the Common Core. We've posted endless links and news stories, quotes from teachers across the country, and yet you think there's no opposition. In fact, the opposition is huge, and it will grow to tidal wave force once the testing hits -- and the dismal results come in.

Nobody has said that there is no opposition. If they did, it would be an absurd thing to say. What multiple posters have said is that opponents of the Common Core have provided argument after argument about why the Common Core standards are bad, and the discussion has gone like this:

Opponent: The standards are developmentally inappropriate.
Non-opponent: Which standard, and how do you know?
O: Well, no teachers were involved.
Non-O: Yes, they were.
O: Not REAL teachers. Anyway, the writers worked for Pearson.
Non-O: No, they didn't.
O: Well, Pearson is writing all the tests.
Non-O: No, they aren't.
O: Well, the standards aren't going to solve the problems of poverty.
Non-O: Nobody said they would.
O: Well, everybody has failed the tests every year.
Non-O: No, nobody has even taken the tests yet.
O: Well, everybody will fail the tests, because the standards are developmentally inappropriate.

And around, and around, and around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

ACT, College Board, et cetera. Looks like people who have a shitload of background and experience in developing standardized testing.

Apparently your preference would have been to hire people who don't know a fucking thing about standardized testing.

So, the ends justify the means?

You've got the "teaching to the test" people writing the standards. Instead of thinking about what kids should learn, they may very well be thinking about standards that are easy to test. That could be a problem. At the very least there should be more perspective.

You're Gish galloping.

Pearson wrote the standards! No, the people who wrote the standards worked for ACT, the College Board, etc. No wonder the standards are bad, they were written by experts in standardized testing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If lots of students fail the standardized tests, will the standards be changed or will the tests be changed?

Chicken or egg?

Good question. Most likely, political heads will roll. Common Core has already been defunded, and once they can get rid of Duncan who is wielding his NCLB waivers as threats to force the Common Core and testing, people will likely pull back from the core.

It's too bad -- it was a good idea. But the standards are written in a way to micromanage learning and the testing boxes in teachers to teach to the test.

That statement really comes across as uninformed and confused.

Testing is tied to NCLB, which is entirely separate from Common Core. Take Common Core away, and it does nothing about NCLB. Take NCLB away, and it does nothing about Common Core. Common Core just happens to be the standard to which NCLB is supposed to align. The states are allowed to make their own decisions about how to implement that testing, though - and many chose PARCC, some chose Smarter Balanced, some chose tests of their own.

As for "micromanagement" I have to strongly disagree. The standards are just minimum standards, and they DO NOT dictate HOW to teach, or what materials or texts to use, nor do they restrict teachers from implementing their own creative curricula. They only specify a base set of criteria - which, by my reading of them, are perfectly appropriate and reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are many, many posters here against the Common Core. We've posted endless links and news stories, quotes from teachers across the country, and yet you think there's no opposition. In fact, the opposition is huge, and it will grow to tidal wave force once the testing hits -- and the dismal results come in.

Nobody has said that there is no opposition. If they did, it would be an absurd thing to say. What multiple posters have said is that opponents of the Common Core have provided argument after argument about why the Common Core standards are bad, and the discussion has gone like this:

Opponent: The standards are developmentally inappropriate.
Non-opponent: Which standard, and how do you know?
O: Well, no teachers were involved.
Non-O: Yes, they were.
O: Not REAL teachers. Anyway, the writers worked for Pearson.
Non-O: No, they didn't.
O: Well, Pearson is writing all the tests.
Non-O: No, they aren't.
O: Well, the standards aren't going to solve the problems of poverty.
Non-O: Nobody said they would.
O: Well, everybody has failed the tests every year.
Non-O: No, nobody has even taken the tests yet.
O: Well, everybody will fail the tests, because the standards are developmentally inappropriate.

And around, and around, and around.

^ This, 1000% When someone points out that they are misinformed, they deflect and return to another talking point. When someone points out that they are misinformed on that one too, they deflect and go on to the next talking point... and so on, around, around and around in a circle, never getting anywhere, and meanwhile not listening bothering advancing their own knowledge on the topic one iota, and instead just repeating the same stale old nonsense over and over.

[Anonymous]

Testing is tied to NCLB, which is entirely separate from Common Core. Take Common Core away, and it does nothing about NCLB. Take NCLB away, and it does nothing about Common Core.

Take NCLB away and you have solved a lot of the problem. Then CC can be used as standards without standardized testing that penalizes schools and teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Testing is tied to NCLB, which is entirely separate from Common Core. Take Common Core away, and it does nothing about NCLB. Take NCLB away, and it does nothing about Common Core.

Take NCLB away and you have solved a lot of the problem. Then CC can be used as standards without standardized testing that penalizes schools and teachers.

If NCLB is the problem, why are you wasting your time attacking the Common Core standards, instead of fighting to get NCLB changed? (Assuming that you are attacking the Common Core standards; but maybe you're not.)

[Anonymous]

Common Core just happens to be the standard to which NCLB is supposed to align.

NCLB does not have to align to CC. There is no law that says it has to be CC standards. The states can decide on their own standards (as evidenced by many of them dropping out of the CC). If NCLB mandated testing had been dropped, I have a feeling that CC would have been more readily accepted. Since the kinks have not been worked out of CC yet, testing based on CC is causing a lot of angst so states would rather just drop it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core just happens to be the standard to which NCLB is supposed to align.

NCLB does not have to align to CC. There is no law that says it has to be CC standards. The states can decide on their own standards (as evidenced by many of them dropping out of the CC). If NCLB mandated testing had been dropped, I have a feeling that CC would have been more readily accepted. Since the kinks have not been worked out of CC yet, testing based on CC is causing a lot of angst so states would rather just drop it.

Here is what would have made the Common Core standards more readily accepted: if the Obama administration hadn't supported them.

[Anonymous]

If NCLB is the problem, why are you wasting your time attacking the Common Core standards, instead of fighting to get NCLB changed? (Assuming that you are attacking the Common Core standards; but maybe you're not.)

I am attacking the rush to test based on these CC standards. The standards could be okay if districts had time to work with them and figure out how to align the curriculum with the standards. This takes time when any new standards are put in. The standardized testing is premature. The standards may also need to be refined after piloting by the districts. Some states have had no time to do that. Doing this from the top down with no consideration of the implementation glitches (and there are always those) is just shortsighted.

[Anonymous]

Here is what would have made the Common Core standards more readily accepted: if the Obama administration hadn't supported them.

Here is what would have made them more readily accepted: if the standards (and fabulous teaching materials) had been taken to the teachers first and grass roots support had been generated for the standards ahead of time.

I really don't think most of the public was even aware of these standards until recently. Now there are cash strapped local districts that are being asked to pay for new materials and new and expensive tests that they have not been convinced are going to make things any better than the old tests did. Yeah, there's the crux of the problem. Obama isn't all that much a part of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If NCLB is the problem, why are you wasting your time attacking the Common Core standards, instead of fighting to get NCLB changed? (Assuming that you are attacking the Common Core standards; but maybe you're not.)

I am attacking the rush to test based on these CC standards. The standards could be okay if districts had time to work with them and figure out how to align the curriculum with the standards. This takes time when any new standards are put in. The standardized testing is premature. The standards may also need to be refined after piloting by the districts. Some states have had no time to do that. Doing this from the top down with no consideration of the implementation glitches (and there are always those) is just shortsighted.

So you think it would be better if the states kept testing based on curricula they no longer use?

[Anonymous]

So you think it would be better if the states kept testing based on curricula they no longer use?

They could have a testing moratorium. Several superintendents have favored that approach. Having a year or two without testing would not be the end of the world.

Or, like Virginia, they could keep their previous standards and continue their own state testing (as is it is their choice, not the feds choice). If they want to incorporate some parts of the CC into their own standards, great. If they want to choose CC and then tweak it, great. They can work with another state or states on those things as well. There has to be some flexibility or it won't work. Choosing the best from various sources is probably the kind of flexibility that districts want (and most people want this kind of situation in life---choices). Education, at its most fundamental level, is about the student. Adaptability is key.

[Anonymous]

So you think it would be better if the states kept testing based on curricula they no longer use?

I thought that CC was not a curricula---that it is standards. Does CC provide a curricula as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Testing is tied to NCLB, which is entirely separate from Common Core. Take Common Core away, and it does nothing about NCLB. Take NCLB away, and it does nothing about Common Core.

Take NCLB away and you have solved a lot of the problem. Then CC can be used as standards without standardized testing that penalizes schools and teachers.

The problem you are referring to is a local administration problem. NCLB does not mandate things like firings of teachers. That's always been the decision of school administrators, and if you feel how it's been implemented is a problem, that won't go away if NCLB goes away - you are still stuck with bad administrators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So you think it would be better if the states kept testing based on curricula they no longer use?

I thought that CC was not a curricula---that it is standards. Does CC provide a curricula as well?

No. CC is just a standard. CC does not develop curriculum.