PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Where is your data from the vetting process? And, please name the early childhood teachers on the committees. |
Anonymous
You keep repeatedly denying and/or ignoring the answers you have already been given, which demonstrates you are not asking in good faith and aren't actually interested in any answers. How about answering my question - where is your data to prove your accusation that Common Core is "damaging?" |
Anonymous
|
Well? Still no answer? You have repeatedly made claims and accusations of how "damaging" Common Core is.
You should have the data at your fingertips given your repeated insistence. So, where is it? Well? |
Anonymous
|
Where is your data from the vetting process?
Who were Early Childhood teachers on the committee? |
Anonymous
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/05/02/6-reasons-to-reject-common-core-k-3-standards-and-6-axioms-to-guide-policy/
Paper which includes information from studies on early childhood development and why the CC standards are inappropriate for early childhood grades. If we mess up the foundation, the structure may topple. |
Anonymous
Is "early childhood expert Nancy Carlsson-Paige of Lesley University in Cambridge" a classroom teacher? Is Randi Weingarten a classroom teacher? Have they ever taught? When did they teach? How long did they teach? What grades did they teach, and where? |
Anonymous
Great article! It is clear that the writers should have started with how children learn and not how they can test them. It is clear that they were seeking standards that they can measure through testing. This is probably not possible at such a young age and they will have to accept that fact. Obviously they don't want to accept that. Children at those ages develop in vastly different ways and that has to be accepted as a fact of how humans develop. After reading this I am totally in agreement with the woman on here who says that the developmental aspects of early children were not considered when writing the standards. I am not an early childhood educator, but I can see how this problem occurred. It needs to be rectified or the standards will not work for the most important grades! If we mess up in those grades, holy cow. |
Anonymous
|
^ And, obviously, if teachers don't like these standards, they must be lazy. It's their fault that the standards don't work. |
Anonymous
|
They had test experts in search of test items based on standards that would be easily testable by means of a "standardized test" that would be easy to score. The standards reflect the process. We really don't even need to be told how it went, but it would be nice if they came clean about it. Because we are so tired of this BS. |
Anonymous
Nancy Carlsson-Paige doesn't appear to have ever taught primary years in a classroom. Based on the criteria that the anti-CCers repeatedly gave, that would mean her experience and expertise is invalid. Additionally, Nancy Carlsson-Paige has published books through Hudson Street Press and other Pearson subsidiaries which according to the anti-CCers also invalidates her experience. I smell deep hypocrisy and dishonesty from the anti-CCers here who want to cherrypick what experience and expertise they consider valid. The biggest argument cited is along the lines of "There is no research showing long-term advantages to reading at 5 compared to reading at 6 or 7" and "There is a lack of research to support the current early childhood CCSS" which is not at all the same as "there is research indicating that it is damaging to have kids reading at 5" as the anti-CCers keep trying to claim. So again, you have no evidence that it is damaging. And again, there IS Kentucky primary school data that shows the exact opposite, that not only is it not damaging, it shows early gains. Aside from this, most of the other arguments cited in that Valerie Strauss OPINION PIECE are red herrings, for example: Standards "devalue the whole child and the importance of social-emotional development, play, art, music, science and physical development" - sorry, no, that is thoroughly either misunderstanding or deliberately mischaracterizing the standards, which only deal with reading and math, and don't prohibit or preclude art, music, science. "The adoption of CCSS falsely implies that making children learn these standards will combat the impact of poverty on development and learning" - red herring. Where does the corestandards.org site say anything about CC overcoming poverty? Citation from corestandards.org, please... So you are back to the start. Where is your DATA to show that it is damaging? |
Anonymous
Did she suggest that she should have been on the committee? Who were the Early Childhood teachers on the committee? |
Anonymous
If her opinion wouldn't be valid if she were on the committee, what makes her opinion valid outside of the committee? And where is your data showing that CC is damaging? |
Anonymous
|
Why can't you answer the question and provide data showing that CC is damaging? You've been making the accusation for almost 300 thread pages, between this thread and the other one.
If you can't provide the data then there is a serious and fundamental problem with your position. |
Anonymous
Common sense. What makes you think the people on the committee knew what they were doing? How were they chosen? Who chose them? |
Anonymous
That is not responsive to your hypocrisy and cherrypicking whose expertise you are or aren't willing to accept. And again, where is your data showing that Common Core is damaging? |