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

[Anonymous]

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

Not the poster you are responding to--however, I used the "queen of the DCUM" phrase when you tried to set the rules of what could be posted. That is a different context. And, listing a teacher's experience in or out of the classroom is not discrediting him. It is simply a fact.

I understand that you are frustrated about this issue. I don't understand why it is so important to you.

This process was flawed and therefore the result is flawed. That means it won't last. However, it is doing a lot of damage, and it is causing frustration for students and teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

We already went through this very discussion about experience of committee members on this very thread last week, and it's also been discussed several times prior. It's not at all reasonable to have to keep re-answering the same question from the same poster over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not the poster you are responding to--however, I used the "queen of the DCUM" phrase when you tried to set the rules of what could be posted. That is a different context. And, listing a teacher's experience in or out of the classroom is not discrediting him. It is simply a fact.

I understand that you are frustrated about this issue. I don't understand why it is so important to you.

This process was flawed and therefore the result is flawed. That means it won't last. However, it is doing a lot of damage, and it is causing frustration for students and teachers.

Then YOU should not impose a set of rules regarding whose experience we can or can't accept.

Their experience IS A FACT whether you like it or not.

My frustration is that you keep touting opinion, i.e. "the process was flawed" as though it were fact - yet you consistently fail to produce any actual evidence to support it. Where is your evidence of "a lot of damage?" The data does not back you up. And in fact the data shows gains and improvements in primary school grades.

I have actual evidence. You do not.

[Anonymous]

There are studies showing that Common Core standards align closely with well-performing standards in other nations:

http://edr.sagepub.com/content/41/8/294.abstract

Also, the Fordham study shows that Common Core standards are in most cases clearer than pre-existing state standards, and cover a slightly broader range of material, but that they also aren't so extreme and rigorous that they go far beyond existing state standards, as roughly a dozen states had more rigorous standards.

http://edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-of-standards-and-the-common-core-in-2010.html

Both of those studies are more detailed, comprehensive and in-depth than any analysis you have ever posted.

So much for "a lot of damage" and your characterization of "flawed".

[Anonymous]

I have actual evidence. You do not.

You really do not understand the difference between an "expert" who taught in a classroom for three years many years ago and a teacher who is required to use the standards? Really? You think that pointing that out is discrediting that person?

My argument is that there were almost no classroom teachers on the committee. It is a valid argument. Not once have you proved it wrong. There were 135 members. It does not trouble you at all that there were not any early childhood teachers on the committees? Not one?
It does not trouble you that there were less than five elementary teachers? Maybe, only three?

And, no, teaching twenty years ago is not the same as using the standards in the classroom today. Much of the experience that you tout was prior to NCLB. These teachers have never had the pressure of testing along with the standards. Do you really not get that?

I would have no problem with these "experts" if they were balanced by real world teachers. The committees were not balanced. You can look at the lists and figure that out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have actual evidence. You do not.

You really do not understand the difference between an "expert" who taught in a classroom for three years many years ago and a teacher who is required to use the standards? Really? You think that pointing that out is discrediting that person?

My argument is that there were almost no classroom teachers on the committee. It is a valid argument. Not once have you proved it wrong. There were 135 members. It does not trouble you at all that there were not any early childhood teachers on the committees? Not one?
It does not trouble you that there were less than five elementary teachers? Maybe, only three?

And, no, teaching twenty years ago is not the same as using the standards in the classroom today. Much of the experience that you tout was prior to NCLB. These teachers have never had the pressure of testing along with the standards. Do you really not get that?

I would have no problem with these "experts" if they were balanced by real world teachers. The committees were not balanced. You can look at the lists and figure that out.

There you go again, discounting and discrediting. If you can discount and discredit their opinion then I can discount and discredit your opinion. Even more so given I don't even have your bio whereas their experience and qualifications are actually documented whether you like it or not.

And where is your evidence of "all the damage" that CC is causing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have actual evidence. You do not.

You really do not understand the difference between an "expert" who taught in a classroom for three years many years ago and a teacher who is required to use the standards? Really? You think that pointing that out is discrediting that person?

My argument is that there were almost no classroom teachers on the committee. It is a valid argument. Not once have you proved it wrong. There were 135 members. It does not trouble you at all that there were not any early childhood teachers on the committees? Not one?
It does not trouble you that there were less than five elementary teachers? Maybe, only three?

And, no, teaching twenty years ago is not the same as using the standards in the classroom today. Much of the experience that you tout was prior to NCLB. These teachers have never had the pressure of testing along with the standards. Do you really not get that?

I would have no problem with these "experts" if they were balanced by real world teachers. The committees were not balanced. You can look at the lists and figure that out.

What makes your opinion valid? You don't use the standards. You aren't in a classroom today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure I do. Because my kid suffers every day from this dumb grand experiment you are so enamored with.

[Anonymous]

What makes your opinion valid? You don't use the standards. You aren't in a classroom today.

I have friends who teach. I have never said that I should be on the committees. I have said that classroom teachers should have been on the committees. I can read the K-2 standards and question them because I have been there.

I remember what it is like when the "experts" come in and talk to teachers. I suspect that you have never been a regular everyday classroom teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have actual evidence. You do not.

You really do not understand the difference between an "expert" who taught in a classroom for three years many years ago and a teacher who is required to use the standards? Really? You think that pointing that out is discrediting that person?

My argument is that there were almost no classroom teachers on the committee. It is a valid argument. Not once have you proved it wrong. There were 135 members. It does not trouble you at all that there were not any early childhood teachers on the committees? Not one?
It does not trouble you that there were less than five elementary teachers? Maybe, only three?

And, no, teaching twenty years ago is not the same as using the standards in the classroom today. Much of the experience that you tout was prior to NCLB. These teachers have never had the pressure of testing along with the standards. Do you really not get that?

I would have no problem with these "experts" if they were balanced by real world teachers. The committees were not balanced. You can look at the lists and figure that out.

It doesn't particularly trouble me given that Common Core Elementary math standards align pretty extensively with most state SOLs for Elementary.

Just because you think the process was flawed doesn't mean the product is flawed. A.) It's only your opinion that the process was flawed, and you've willfully ignored all of the information out there that refutes your notion that the development committee came up with the standards in a vacuum with zero input and that there was zero vetting - and B.) it's a logical fallacy to assume the product must be flawed even if the process were flawed. It's not necessarily a valid conclusion to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What makes your opinion valid? You don't use the standards. You aren't in a classroom today.

I have friends who teach. I have never said that I should be on the committees. I have said that classroom teachers should have been on the committees. I can read the K-2 standards and question them because I have been there.

I remember what it is like when the "experts" come in and talk to teachers. I suspect that you have never been a regular everyday classroom teacher.

Why then do you find it necessary to speak for your "friends who teach?" Can't they speak for themselves?

[Anonymous]

all of the information out there that refutes your notion that the development committee came up with the standards in a vacuum with zero input and that there was zero vetting

Where are the results?

Where are the early childhood teachers? Name one.

[Anonymous]

Why then do you find it necessary to speak for your "friends who teach?" Can't they speak for themselves?

Who are you speaking for? You've never shared your experience.

Please name an early childhood teacher on the committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

all of the information out there that refutes your notion that the development committee came up with the standards in a vacuum with zero input and that there was zero vetting

Where are the results?

Where are the early childhood teachers? Name one.

Lather, rinse, repeat. If you want my answers, you can go back through these threads and re-read them.

How about I don't answer any more of your questions until you start answering mine. I have already repeatedly addressed a ton of your questions but you have not ever reciprocated, so at this point, you owe me far more answers than I owe you.

Where is your actual evidence of "all the damage" that Common Core is causing?

And sorry, opinion pieces don't count. I want actual data from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

all of the information out there that refutes your notion that the development committee came up with the standards in a vacuum with zero input and that there was zero vetting

Where are the results?

Where are the early childhood teachers? Name one.

Lather, rinse, repeat. If you want my answers, you can go back through these threads and re-read them.

How about I don't answer any more of your questions until you start answering mine. I have already repeatedly addressed a ton of your questions but you have not ever reciprocated, so at this point, you owe me far more answers than I owe you.

Where is your actual evidence of "all the damage" that Common Core is causing?

And sorry, opinion pieces don't count. I want actual data from you.

Oh, wait, how silly of me... you don't actually want my answers, since you keep ignoring my answers. Since you don't actually want an answer, I don't really feel obliged to answer.

So that really just leaves my question to you:

Where is your actual evidence of "all the damage" that Common Core is causing?

And sorry, opinion pieces don't count. I want actual data from you.