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

[Anonymous]

1.) The poster claiming there was insufficient expertise on the committees is the one expecting all of us to take it on faith that she knows better than all of the rest of us, knows better than anyone involved in the committees or development process.

I don't think she wants anyone to take anything on faith. I think that's why she keeps asking for information . . . so that people can come to their own conclusions. This is called "healthy skepticism". I think that when this much power and money is involved in making public policy, all parts of it must be public (as it affects the public greatly). Wouldn't you agree?

[Anonymous]

We do not have the information even about the bios of the committee members. There really are not any bios--just the current job. This leaves finding the information to internet surfing. It would have been a good thing if the CC website had given us more information about the people writing the standards--and how the standards were developed and vetted--other than that they were.

People should not have to "internet surf" to find out about how CC standards were developed and who developed them. The information has been left off the CC website on purpose. It certainly hasn't been added since people have asked for it. What are people led to believe by these actions? The lack of information speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Who in the hell are YOU, to be questioning ANY of their credentials? Numerous members of the committees are nationally recognized, are proven experts, are folks who have risen through the ranks of education, are published, hold multiple degrees, have decades of experience.

And you? Some nameless, anonymous nobody on the Internet, with delusions of grandeur and a serious narcissism complex, to be thinking you are so much better and know so much better than everyone else.


This is really an interesting quote. Irony? Anonymous poster condemning another anonymous poster for being anonymous. DCUM at its finest.


Sorry, no - irony doesn't work that way. I'm not the one going around claiming I know more than any of the committee members. There is no equivalence there.

No, you're just the one going around claiming that you know the committee members, but you don't want to share your knowledge and we should trust you in your "faith" in these committee members. But you are an anonymous poster and think you don't have to share your knowledge.

We have one person asking for information and saying they have not been able to find it. The other person says, "well, it's not my job to find it. Go find it yourself because I know it's there." Other person says, "I can't find it. Please help." Other person says, "It's not for me to find. It's just for me to tell you it's there."

Finally second person says, "Well the committee members are great and have all the experience they need to have." Second person says, "No, this is not the experience that would help to make the committee work well." Now that is a truly debatable point. That is a valid argument. Were the committee members in positions where they could truly understand the children for whom the standards were being written? This can be argued.

Another argument that I see is valid is the one about the vetting. One thing that is concerning is the lack of publishing of certain opinions---which have now come to light. That is a problem that needs to be addressed, but has not. The CC website is a promotional website so it is really not a good source.

I am not either PP.

1.) The poster claiming there was insufficient expertise on the committees is the one expecting all of us to take it on faith that she knows better than all of the rest of us, knows better than anyone involved in the committees or development process.

2.) The person asking for information has already been repeatedly provided the information, but then just denies it and ignores it. I should also point out that the person requesting the information is the one making accusations and burden of proof is on the accuser. If you want to make accusations, then you have to bring evidence.

3.) As for committee member expertise see 1.) - Who is the poster, to be saying she knows better than anyone else, and in particular, the folks actually involved in standards development, to be making determinations of whether the committee members were qualified or not? For all we know the poster making accusations could be someone only claiming to be a teacher, but who who has zero education background and has never taught a day in her life. We have know way of knowing, and no way to assess the veracity of any statements or claims made.

4.) As for the vetting - again, it has repeatedly been shown that a.) the standards were *not* developed in a vacuum - the vast majority of them were adapted from pre-existing state SOLs which were developed by prior panels of experts and which were already previously vetted and which have already been in production and in classrooms for years and b.) the standards compiled by the CC development committee did *not* just go straight from a closed room of development committee members into classrooms, that there were several rounds of review and comment during the development phase, and then there was a separate validation phase involving a separate set of experts, and then additional rounds of review and comment. To say there was "no" vetting is absolutely, undisputably false.

Spot-on summary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

1.) The poster claiming there was insufficient expertise on the committees is the one expecting all of us to take it on faith that she knows better than all of the rest of us, knows better than anyone involved in the committees or development process.

I don't think she wants anyone to take anything on faith. I think that's why she keeps asking for information . . . so that people can come to their own conclusions. This is called "healthy skepticism". I think that when this much power and money is involved in making public policy, all parts of it must be public (as it affects the public greatly). Wouldn't you agree?

It's one thing to be a skeptic, but there is a difference between asking for information and not getting a response vs. asking for information and then denying and ignoring the answers received because you didn't like them and then going on pretending there was no response. By denying the other side's information you aren't engaging in anything "healthy."

Add to that spreading disinformation claiming things as "fact" when they aren't, making accusations and not providing any evidence to support them is not what I would call "skepticism" and likewise is not a "healthy" dialogue. That is what I mean by expecting others to take things on faith. There's been a steady stream of anti-Common-Core and anti-testing opinion being touted as "fact" that we are supposed to take on good faith despite a lack of any real evidence to support it.

It's not healthy to arrive at a conclusion and then ignore evidence and facts. That's precisely what climate deniers do. They arrive at a conclusion ahead of the facts, and then ignore or try to deny any evidence and facts that contradict their conclusion - while refusing to provide any evidence of their own position.

What we are dealing with is an anti-Common-Core poster who keeps resorting to fallacious rhetorical devices rather than presenting actual facts and logic.

[Anonymous]

It's not healthy to arrive at a conclusion and then ignore evidence and facts. That's precisely what climate deniers do. They arrive at a conclusion ahead of the facts, and then ignore or try to deny any evidence and facts that contradict their conclusion - while refusing to provide any evidence of their own position.

What we are dealing with is an anti-Common-Core poster who keeps resorting to fallacious rhetorical devices rather than presenting actual facts and logic.

No. I think I am the poster you are referring to. You refuse to see the truth.

You have only to look at the numbers.

How many committee members? 135 total math and ELA work and feedback groups
How many classroom teachers? A handful--and they are almost all high school teachers. 3 elementary --at most.
How many people with no classroom experience? More of them than those with current classroom experience.

Now, once more, that teacher with 30 years of experience (the one you said I demeaned or something)was teaching in a "select admission" high school. Hardly someone who can relate to the teacher in an average high school. Nevertheless, it is okay for her to be on the committee--if it were balanced by other teachers. It was not.

You mention the man from ACHIEVE as being an experienced classroom teacher. After a little research, it was easy to determine that the experience was for a few years many years ago. Then he went into administration and a lengthy career as a consultant. Perhaps, he brings something to the table--but he brings limited experience from the classroom. He certainly does not understand the day to day challenge of current teachers.

I am still waiting for you to post the teachers from the early years.

[Anonymous]

4.) As for the vetting - again, it has repeatedly been shown that a.) the standards were *not* developed in a vacuum - the vast majority of them were adapted from pre-existing state SOLs which were developed by prior panels of experts and which were already previously vetted and which have already been in production and in classrooms for years and b.) the standards compiled by the CC development committee did *not* just go straight from a closed room of development committee members into classrooms, that there were several rounds of review and comment during the development phase, and then there was a separate validation phase involving a separate set of experts, and then additional rounds of review and comment. To say there was "no" vetting is absolutely, undisputably false.

And, how do we know this? It is from the Common Core website. When did the committees meet? How did they operate? Did all math members work on all math standards? Were the members paid? If so, how much?

Where are the published comments? Did the committees meet again to rewrite the standards after the comment period? How did they vet the standards?

If it is "indisputable" that they were vetted, why don't the developers share the results?

[Anonymous]

And, how do we know this? It is from the Common Core website. When did the committees meet? How did they operate? Did all math members work on all math standards? Were the members paid? If so, how much?

Where are the published comments? Did the committees meet again to rewrite the standards after the comment period? How did they vet the standards?

If it is "indisputable" that they were vetted, why don't the developers share the results?

I am not either of these posters, but I think the above questions are valid and that the states adopting these standards should have had these answers before they voted to adopt them. If they had this information, it should be in the public arena.

However, the other poster says that he has answered questions and that the above poster is ignoring the answers. But I just don't see where the answers to these questions are in his posts or on the website. So I don't think the above poster is getting a response even though the below poster says she is.

It's one thing to be a skeptic, but there is a difference between asking for information and not getting a response vs. asking for information and then denying and ignoring the answers received because you didn't like them and then going on pretending there was no response. By denying the other side's information you aren't engaging in anything "healthy."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's not healthy to arrive at a conclusion and then ignore evidence and facts. That's precisely what climate deniers do. They arrive at a conclusion ahead of the facts, and then ignore or try to deny any evidence and facts that contradict their conclusion - while refusing to provide any evidence of their own position.

What we are dealing with is an anti-Common-Core poster who keeps resorting to fallacious rhetorical devices rather than presenting actual facts and logic.

No. I think I am the poster you are referring to. You refuse to see the truth.

You have only to look at the numbers.

How many committee members? 135 total math and ELA work and feedback groups
How many classroom teachers? A handful--and they are almost all high school teachers. 3 elementary --at most.
How many people with no classroom experience? More of them than those with current classroom experience.

Now, once more, that teacher with 30 years of experience (the one you said I demeaned or something)was teaching in a "select admission" high school. Hardly someone who can relate to the teacher in an average high school. Nevertheless, it is okay for her to be on the committee--if it were balanced by other teachers. It was not.

You mention the man from ACHIEVE as being an experienced classroom teacher. After a little research, it was easy to determine that the experience was for a few years many years ago. Then he went into administration and a lengthy career as a consultant. Perhaps, he brings something to the table--but he brings limited experience from the classroom. He certainly does not understand the day to day challenge of current teachers.

I am still waiting for you to post the teachers from the early years.

Who made you queen of DCUM that you get to discount and discredit peoples' experience?

[Anonymous]

I am neither of those posters, but it is clear to me that the Common Core standards were railroaded through during the "Race to the Top". The "Race to the Top" was a convenient way to get the standards adopted before real vetting took place.

It's so sad because so much money was spent unwisely. Arne Duncan should be gone.

[Anonymous]

Who made you queen of DCUM that you get to discount and discredit peoples' experience?

I'm sure those people had good intentions and they have had great experiences. But that doesn't mean that the whole process they were engaged in was perfect. It's really less about them individually and more of an indictment of the whole process. The process was far from transparent and, even now, there are not answers.

[Anonymous]

Who made you queen of DCUM that you get to discount and discredit peoples' experience?

Stating a fact is discrediting?

Once more: where are the early childhood names?

[Anonymous]

Who made you queen of DCUM that you get to discount and discredit peoples' experience?

This kind of a comment is really not useful to the argument. You have continually attacked this other poster in personal and unprofessional ways just because you do not like what she is saying. Thou doth protesteth too much I'm afraid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

4.) As for the vetting - again, it has repeatedly been shown that a.) the standards were *not* developed in a vacuum - the vast majority of them were adapted from pre-existing state SOLs which were developed by prior panels of experts and which were already previously vetted and which have already been in production and in classrooms for years and b.) the standards compiled by the CC development committee did *not* just go straight from a closed room of development committee members into classrooms, that there were several rounds of review and comment during the development phase, and then there was a separate validation phase involving a separate set of experts, and then additional rounds of review and comment. To say there was "no" vetting is absolutely, undisputably false.

And, how do we know this? It is from the Common Core website. When did the committees meet? How did they operate? Did all math members work on all math standards? Were the members paid? If so, how much?

Where are the published comments? Did the committees meet again to rewrite the standards after the comment period? How did they vet the standards?

If it is "indisputable" that they were vetted, why don't the developers share the results?

No, there are many articles out there talking about the process, for example all of the unions that were involved in development also talked about the development process, and there are several separate reports out there which compare CC standards to state SOLs which clearly show all of the parallels between CC and existing standards, and which demonstrate the standards did not come out of a vacuum. Interestingly the comparisons also show significant correlation and consensus on standards across MULTIPLE states, whose standards were all independently developed. Most states already had some version of what is in the Common Core elementary math standard as their SOL.

Meanwhile in there you also put a faulty premise that one cannot believe anything published on the Common Core website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who made you queen of DCUM that you get to discount and discredit peoples' experience?

This kind of a comment is really not useful to the argument. You have continually attacked this other poster in personal and unprofessional ways just because you do not like what she is saying. Thou doth protesteth too much I'm afraid.

One of you used that very argument against me, so turnabout is fair play. Tough luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who made you queen of DCUM that you get to discount and discredit peoples' experience?

Stating a fact is discrediting?

Once more: where are the early childhood names?

Your "stating a fact" keeps coming with an implicit "and therefore you can't count that person's experience and therefore there were no teachers on the committees."

Sorry, NO. NO, NO and NO.

You do not get to discount or ignore any of their experience.