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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For what it's worth, you = anybody who has said that people on the Common Core development committees were not qualified on grounds that they weren't current full-time classroom teachers.

You=someone who thinks classroom teachers don't count.

No objection to people who are not currently in the classroom being on the committee. However, to leave classroom teachers almost entirely off the committee (less than 4%) is wrong. You present these teachers who taught years ago as the same as a current classroom teacher. That's the problem. NO balance on the committees--and there are a number who have no classroom experience. No current early childhood teachers and almost no elementary teachers.

135 members is a lot of people. Seems like they could have included at least one teacher from each grade level on math and ELA. There are more on the committee who have never taught in the classroom than there are current teachers. That is not balanced.

Again, it begs the question. Who chose these members? What was the criteria for selection?

You = someone who lies claiming people don't have experience when in fact they do.
You = someone who thinks classroom teachers don't count, if they have ever done anything in addition to teaching in a classroom.
You = someone who thinks classroom teachers are the *only* people with relevant experience
You = someone who has never been involved in standards development, yet who claims to know more than anyone about what the process should be and what the makeup of committees should be
You = someone who doesn't think there is any relevance to having experts on math and language, no relevance to have people who actually have a background in standards development, no relevance to having folks who know psychometrics and performance measures, no relevance to having professors who have actually published research on childhood development and educational topics, no relevance to having professors from education schools who have worked with and continue to work with hundreds of teachers, again you only seem to think the only valid input is from teachers.

[Anonymous]

Aha. You are not a current classroom teacher. Therefore, you don't know what you're talking about. Degrees, previous experience, other experience -- all of that is irrelevant. Or so at least one opponent of the Common Core standards has been saying.

Oh-- did you read what I wrote? I did not say I should be on the committee. Nevertheless, I speak from real world experience and education. And, you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a current teacher who has recently posted. I am not a current teacher. However, I do have years of experience in public schools-with, as you probably have figured out--primary grades. That is the basis of my opinions--my concern and interest in the education of young children.

I also have an advanced degree in Early Childhood Education. My experience in the public schools includes teaching children from all kinds of environments--with more time spent at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum than the higher. I never taught children of extremely affluent families.

I also have some experience in testing and evaluation of educational materials.

You are disqualified by the very criteria that you presume to impose on others.

Hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Aha. You are not a current classroom teacher. Therefore, you don't know what you're talking about. Degrees, previous experience, other experience -- all of that is irrelevant. Or so at least one opponent of the Common Core standards has been saying.

Oh-- did you read what I wrote? I did not say I should be on the committee. Nevertheless, I speak from real world experience and education. And, you?

No, you've already insisted that anyone who isn't a current teacher cannot speak from real world experience. Therefore you have no valid contribution to make.

Your own criteria, your own rules.

If you think your insights are valid then how can you possibly sit there and insist that various committee members were not?

You cannot possibly keep that position without being a huge hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

You are disqualified by the very criteria that you presume to impose on others.

Hypocrite.

So, because I say that current classroom teachers should be on the committee over those long out of the classroom---I am a hypocrite? No. To the contrary, I have said that from the beginning. That has been my beef from the beginning. I do not think I should be on the committee--although, I actually do have more experience than many who are on it.

If I said I should be on the committee, that would be hypocritical. You, on the other hand, defend the committee no matter what the story.

[Anonymous]

You are disqualified by the very criteria that you presume to impose on others.

But, by your criteria, I am well qualified!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are disqualified by the very criteria that you presume to impose on others.

Hypocrite.

So, because I say that current classroom teachers should be on the committee over those long out of the classroom---I am a hypocrite? No. To the contrary, I have said that from the beginning. That has been my beef from the beginning. I do not think I should be on the committee--although, I actually do have more experience than many who are on it.

If I said I should be on the committee, that would be hypocritical. You, on the other hand, defend the committee no matter what the story.

It may not be hypocritical to disqualify everybody who isn't a current full-time classroom teacher without yourself being a current full-time classroom teacher. But it does lead to the question of whether you know what you're talking about when you do that, given that you're not a current full-time classroom teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are disqualified by the very criteria that you presume to impose on others.

But, by your criteria, I am well qualified!

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but yes, by my criteria, you are qualified to offer an opinion based on your personal experience and education.

[Anonymous]

You = someone who lies claiming people don't have experience when in fact they do.
You = someone who thinks classroom teachers don't count, if they have ever done anything in addition to teaching in a classroom.
You = someone who thinks classroom teachers are the *only* people with relevant experience
You = someone who has never been involved in standards development, yet who claims to know more than anyone about what the process should be and what the makeup of committees should be
You = someone who doesn't think there is any relevance to having experts on math and language, no relevance to have people who actually have a background in standards development, no relevance to having folks who know psychometrics and performance measures, no relevance to having professors who have actually published research on childhood development and educational topics, no relevance to having professors from education schools who have worked with and continue to work with hundreds of teachers, again you only seem to think the only valid input is from teachers.

YOU=someone who does not understand the importance of classroom teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You = someone who lies claiming people don't have experience when in fact they do.
You = someone who thinks classroom teachers don't count, if they have ever done anything in addition to teaching in a classroom.
You = someone who thinks classroom teachers are the *only* people with relevant experience
You = someone who has never been involved in standards development, yet who claims to know more than anyone about what the process should be and what the makeup of committees should be
You = someone who doesn't think there is any relevance to having experts on math and language, no relevance to have people who actually have a background in standards development, no relevance to having folks who know psychometrics and performance measures, no relevance to having professors who have actually published research on childhood development and educational topics, no relevance to having professors from education schools who have worked with and continue to work with hundreds of teachers, again you only seem to think the only valid input is from teachers.

YOU=someone who does not understand the importance of classroom teachers.

When has that PP ever said that classroom teachers are unimportant?

To say that people who are not current full-time classroom teachers are not by definition unqualified to develop standards is not to say that classroom teachers are unimportant. It merely says that people who are not current full-time classroom teachers are not by definition unqualified to develop standards. In contrast, you seem to believe that people are not current full-time classroom teachers are by definition qualified to develop standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are disqualified by the very criteria that you presume to impose on others.

Hypocrite.

So, because I say that current classroom teachers should be on the committee over those long out of the classroom---I am a hypocrite? No. To the contrary, I have said that from the beginning. That has been my beef from the beginning. I do not think I should be on the committee--although, I actually do have more experience than many who are on it.

If I said I should be on the committee, that would be hypocritical. You, on the other hand, defend the committee no matter what the story.

Nobody is asking about you being on the committee. The question is whether someone's expertise, insight or opinion is relevant or valid if they aren't a current classroom teacher.

You insisted repeatedly that it isn't.

Therefore your own expertise, insight and opinion is not relevant or valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You = someone who lies claiming people don't have experience when in fact they do.
You = someone who thinks classroom teachers don't count, if they have ever done anything in addition to teaching in a classroom.
You = someone who thinks classroom teachers are the *only* people with relevant experience
You = someone who has never been involved in standards development, yet who claims to know more than anyone about what the process should be and what the makeup of committees should be
You = someone who doesn't think there is any relevance to having experts on math and language, no relevance to have people who actually have a background in standards development, no relevance to having folks who know psychometrics and performance measures, no relevance to having professors who have actually published research on childhood development and educational topics, no relevance to having professors from education schools who have worked with and continue to work with hundreds of teachers, again you only seem to think the only valid input is from teachers.

YOU=someone who does not understand the importance of classroom teachers.

When has that PP ever said that classroom teachers are unimportant?

To say that people who are not current full-time classroom teachers are not by definition unqualified to develop standards is not to say that classroom teachers are unimportant. It merely says that people who are not current full-time classroom teachers are not by definition unqualified to develop standards. In contrast, you seem to believe that people are not current full-time classroom teachers are by definition qualified to develop standards.

That's right - I never said they were unimportant. Yet another red herring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are disqualified by the very criteria that you presume to impose on others.

But, by your criteria, I am well qualified!

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either you are well qualified (and so are the committee members) or neither you nor the committee members are qualified.

If you want to stick to your notion that the committee members are unqualified then so too are you unqualified to offer anything here.

[Anonymous]

If you want to stick to your notion that the committee members are unqualified then so too are you unqualified to offer anything here.

135 members
less than 5 elementary teachers

This is unbalanced.

I have said from the beginning that there was a lack of classroom teachers on the committees. This is still true. I have never said that the committee should be composed of only classroom teachers.

I have also said that there is a lack of early childhood teachers on the committee. This is still true.

You seem to think that a college professor who has not taught in public schools for 23 years "counts" as a classroom teacher. Sorry, that does not fly. Even if she takes a week every summer to teach elementary children. (Teaching for a week in a summer program is far from managing a classroom.)

You = someone who doesn't think there is any relevance to having experts on math and language, no relevance to have people who actually have a background in standards development, no relevance to having folks who know psychometrics and performance measures, no relevance to having professors who have actually published research on childhood development and educational topics, no relevance to having professors from education schools who have worked with and continue to work with hundreds of teachers, again you only seem to think the only valid input is from teachers.

I never said there was no relevance. However, the committee is composed almost entirely of people you describe. A number of these people do not have ANY experience in the classroom. There are more with NO experience than those with current experience. And, do you really think that classroom teachers have no experience with performance measures?
You really think that teaching college students is the same as teaching--and managing--a classroom?

Do you really think that some of these professors who have never even taught in an elementary classroom--ever--understand the dynamics of a Kindergarten class? Do you think they understand the needs of a Kindergarten student?

Once more: please list the early childhood teachers on the committee.

[Anonymous]

Again, you keep trying to disqualify and discredit the people that did participate on the committee.

And all of it is an attempt to try and discredit the process and imply it was flawed - and that therefore the end product is flawed.

That is fallacious reasoning - and, even so, not even particularly relevant as you have not been able to produce any data or evidence that the end product is flawed.