PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them

[Anonymous]

They are hiding their ineptitude.




ASSUMPTION.

The "assumption" is on the part of the CC supporter who claims that the standards were "vetted". There may have been a comment period--but there is not any evidence that the comments were considered.

The Common core website is not exactly an unbiased entity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meanwhile, we've got incredible increases in ADHD in children. Could there be an environmental component? And why is the rate so much higher in the US than in other countries?

Is a lack of recess and creative classroom time boring students and causing their minds to "wander"? Is it possible that trying to make students focus before they are ready causes them to seek distractions?

One has to wonder what the effects might be of forcing students to focus on cognitive processes for which their brains are not ready.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/255195.php

Oh, sure ADHD is because of Common Core too. As are rabies, flatulence and vampirism. Or was that because of gay marriage?

I don't think the PP said anything about Common Core. The person mentioned recess time and lack of creativity. Nothing about Common Core there. You're making an assumption.

So how is it relevant? There's nothing in Common Core or PARCC that says children are not allowed to have recess or be creative. Thus, totally irrelevant to bring up an increase in ADHD given there's no direct connection to be made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They are hiding their ineptitude.




ASSUMPTION.

The "assumption" is on the part of the CC supporter who claims that the standards were "vetted". There may have been a comment period--but there is not any evidence that the comments were considered.

The Common core website is not exactly an unbiased entity.

Ah, we are not supposed to believe anything the Common Core website says, because it disagrees with your own biased worldview.

Despite the fact that you do not have any actual evidence that proves anything posted to the Common Core website has been a lie...

[Anonymous]

Despite the fact that you do not have any actual evidence that proves anything posted to the Common Core website has been a lie

Lots of input from classroom teachers is a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They are hiding their ineptitude.




ASSUMPTION.

The "assumption" is on the part of the CC supporter who claims that the standards were "vetted". There may have been a comment period--but there is not any evidence that the comments were considered.

The Common core website is not exactly an unbiased entity.

It is DEFINITELY an assumption on your part, because you have not seen all of the comments. Mind you, we DID give you contact information for going to their offices where they probably have big thick files along with notes on how they addressed the comments... what was that, MONTHS ago?

Also, you do not have any evidence that the standards were *not* vetted, whereas there has been plenty of information presented about multiple rounds of review and comment, along with what should be a glaringly obvious fact that most of the standards were taken from pre-existing state SOLs which were also vetted for many years prior to Common Core.

Me: evidence. You: No evidence, just accusations.

[Anonymous]

is DEFINITELY an assumption on your part, because you have not seen all of the comments. Mind you, we DID give you contact information for going to their offices where they probably have big thick files along with notes on how they addressed the comments... what was that, MONTHS ago?

Also, you do not have any evidence that the standards were *not* vetted, whereas there has been plenty of information presented about multiple rounds of review and comment, along with what should be a glaringly obvious fact that most of the standards were taken from pre-existing state SOLs which were also vetted for many years prior to Common Core.

If you have evidence that they did it, then please post it. It is not my job to go to their office. That is your job.

[Anonymous]

....and while you are at it, please list the early childhood people on the committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Despite the fact that you do not have any actual evidence that proves anything posted to the Common Core website has been a lie

Lots of input from classroom teachers is a lie.

Prove it. Thousands of comments say otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

is DEFINITELY an assumption on your part, because you have not seen all of the comments. Mind you, we DID give you contact information for going to their offices where they probably have big thick files along with notes on how they addressed the comments... what was that, MONTHS ago?

Also, you do not have any evidence that the standards were *not* vetted, whereas there has been plenty of information presented about multiple rounds of review and comment, along with what should be a glaringly obvious fact that most of the standards were taken from pre-existing state SOLs which were also vetted for many years prior to Common Core.

If you have evidence that they did it, then please post it. It is not my job to go to their office. That is your job.

WRONG! It *IS* your job. You are the one making accusations. Burden of proof is 100% on you.

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

And over the course of the last several months, you have FAILED to make good on your burden, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

[Anonymous]

WRONG! It *IS* your job. You are the one making accusations. Burden of proof is 100% on you.

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

And over the course of the last several months, you have FAILED to make good on your burden, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

Wow. Must have touched a nerve. You are screaming. You know, as well as I do, that they did not vet these standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:....and while you are at it, please list the early childhood people on the committee.

It's already been shown in these threads that there were indeed several elementary school teachers and other experts with early childhood development expertise involved in development and validation. You wanted to discount them for various confabulated reasons. Who made you queen of DCUM to make the rules about who can or can't be accepted for their early childhood development expertise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

WRONG! It *IS* your job. You are the one making accusations. Burden of proof is 100% on you.

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

And over the course of the last several months, you have FAILED to make good on your burden, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

Wow. Must have touched a nerve. You are screaming. You know, as well as I do, that they did not vet these standards.

Correction - you take it as a matter of religious faith, without any actual evidence, that they did not vet these standards.

As far as what I know, don't dare presume to speak for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

WRONG! It *IS* your job. You are the one making accusations. Burden of proof is 100% on you.

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

And over the course of the last several months, you have FAILED to make good on your burden, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

Wow. Must have touched a nerve. You are screaming. You know, as well as I do, that they did not vet these standards.

I'm not screaming but I am definitely and rightly annoyed with you. It is still your job to PROVE your accusations. PROVE, you know - not just repeat the same accusation over again.

Clearly you do not understand the difference between logic and rhetoric. You constantly try to resort to rhetorical devices such as appeals to emotion and red herrings. But these are logical fallacies. Just because you believe something does not mean you are right. You have to actually PROVE it, logically, and with evidence. And that is something that you have consistently failed to do.

If you cannot make any posts with actual hard PROOF then you are just wasting your time here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:....and while you are at it, please list the early childhood people on the committee.

It's already been shown in these threads that there were indeed several elementary school teachers and other experts with early childhood development expertise involved in development and validation. You wanted to discount them for various confabulated reasons. Who made you queen of DCUM to make the rules about who can or can't be accepted for their early childhood development expertise?

"Oh, we can't count this one because she contributed to a book written for a publisher that was bought by Pearson"
"Oh, we can't count this one because she's a professor" (never mind that she taught hundreds of teachers)
"Oh, we can't count this one because...."

Such a bunch of bullshit. You don't get to throw things away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:....and while you are at it, please list the early childhood people on the committee.

Early childhood results from Kentucky show a marked performance improvement, so obviously they've done something right