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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What I keep finding is that the list that you present as "valid complaints" seems to pop up, verbatim, in many other places, like the articles by Valerie Strauss and elsewhere. Seems pretty evident to me that they are talking points that have been disseminated in an organized way, as opposed to being your own independent judgement based on "education, training and experience" - that notion is all the more confirmed by the fact that some of them have repeatedly been shown to be wrong (i.e. comparison of Common Core vs. prior SOLs) and you have not been able to further articulate them or successfully defend them when others have challenged them.

At one point on one of these threads on DCUM, all of a sudden somebody started saying that the Common Core standards were like thalidomide. "Say what?" I thought. So I Googled "thalidomide Common Core", and there it was, as a talking point from right-wing sources.

[Anonymous]

What I keep finding is that the list that you present as "valid complaints" seems to pop up, verbatim, in many other places, like the articles by Valerie Strauss and elsewhere. Seems pretty evident to me that they are talking points that have been disseminated in an organized way, as opposed to being your own independent judgement based on "education, training and experience" - that notion is all the more confirmed by the fact that some of them have repeatedly been shown to be wrong (i.e. comparison of Common Core vs. prior SOLs) and you have not been able to further articulate them or successfully defend them when others have challenged them

Once more, you return to politics.

No, these are not "talking points"--they are facts.

Why weren't there any Early Childhood Teachers on the committees? Had there been, I suspect the Kindergarten standards would have been quite different. You have no problem with college professors (many who have never taught in public school-much less Kindergarten) setting the standards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Once more, you return to politics.

No, these are not "talking points"--they are facts.

Why weren't there any Early Childhood Teachers on the committees? Had there been, I suspect the Kindergarten standards would have been quite different. You have no problem with college professors (many who have never taught in public school-much less Kindergarten) setting the standards?

How do you define Early Childhood Teacher?

Also, were there any Early Childhood Teachers on the committees that wrote the standards that Maryland had before Maryland adopted the Common Core standards? Those standards are quite similar to the Common Core standards for kindergarten.

Also, could you give some examples of Common Core standards for kindergarten that you think would have been different had there (as you say) been Early Childhood Teachers on the development committees?

[Anonymous]

How do you define Early Childhood Teacher?

Up through grade 2. In public schools, it has historically been K-2. These days, with special programs, there are also some preschool teachers in the public schools. However, Common Core standards begin with Kindergarten.

I don't have much time right now--but the standard about reading emergent texts would be one that I do not approve. There are many. Some of the math ones are also inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How do you define Early Childhood Teacher?

Up through grade 2. In public schools, it has historically been K-2. These days, with special programs, there are also some preschool teachers in the public schools. However, Common Core standards begin with Kindergarten.

I don't have much time right now--but the standard about reading emergent texts would be one that I do not approve. There are many. Some of the math ones are also inappropriate.

People always say "there are many", but somehow the only specific one they ever cite is

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.4
Read emergent-reader texts with purpose and understanding.

The pre-Common Core Maryland standards called for a similar reading level at the end of kindergarten.

How about this one? Is it inappropriate?

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1.a
Follow words from left to right, top to bottom, and page by page.

[Anonymous]

LOL! Sorry, no equivalency there - I have yet to see any Common Core supporters running around saying kids will become gay muslims if Common Core goes away.

But why do you keep getting down in the gutter with this stuff. Why do you keep mentioning it instead of taking the high road and telling the positives about Common Core. Just because there are a few nuts out there doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons to question Common Core. The arguments need to be kept above this level, but you keep returning to the gutter even when the people on here have not been in the gutter. Why do you like to go there? Why can't you stay above the Jerry Springer show? Do you like that stuff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What I keep finding is that the list that you present as "valid complaints" seems to pop up, verbatim, in many other places, like the articles by Valerie Strauss and elsewhere. Seems pretty evident to me that they are talking points that have been disseminated in an organized way, as opposed to being your own independent judgement based on "education, training and experience" - that notion is all the more confirmed by the fact that some of them have repeatedly been shown to be wrong (i.e. comparison of Common Core vs. prior SOLs) and you have not been able to further articulate them or successfully defend them when others have challenged them

Once more, you return to politics.

No, these are not "talking points"--they are facts.

Why weren't there any Early Childhood Teachers on the committees? Had there been, I suspect the Kindergarten standards would have been quite different. You have no problem with college professors (many who have never taught in public school-much less Kindergarten) setting the standards?

They aren't "facts" - most of them are subjective, many are opinions, and several have been shown to be flat-out wrong. But the fact that you keep returning to them again and again without being able to robustly defend them keeps making it look like you are working from a set of talking points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

LOL! Sorry, no equivalency there - I have yet to see any Common Core supporters running around saying kids will become gay muslims if Common Core goes away.

But why do you keep getting down in the gutter with this stuff. Why do you keep mentioning it instead of taking the high road and telling the positives about Common Core. Just because there are a few nuts out there doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons to question Common Core. The arguments need to be kept above this level, but you keep returning to the gutter even when the people on here have not been in the gutter. Why do you like to go there? Why can't you stay above the Jerry Springer show? Do you like that stuff?

You're a bit confused. I'm not the one going around saying anything will turn kids into "gay muslims" - I'm merely pointing out that the anti-Common Core folks are going around doing that. If you don't like that "gutter" then you need to deal with that with your fellow anti-Common Core cohort. I'm merely pointing it out, nothing more. They are a liability to you, not to me. They reflect poorly on you, not me. You are the one with one foot in the gutter. I'm the one standing on the curb pointing that out to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

LOL! Sorry, no equivalency there - I have yet to see any Common Core supporters running around saying kids will become gay muslims if Common Core goes away.

But why do you keep getting down in the gutter with this stuff. Why do you keep mentioning it instead of taking the high road and telling the positives about Common Core. Just because there are a few nuts out there doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons to question Common Core. The arguments need to be kept above this level, but you keep returning to the gutter even when the people on here have not been in the gutter. Why do you like to go there? Why can't you stay above the Jerry Springer show? Do you like that stuff?

It's the difference between

Opponent: The Common Core standards are bad because [x,y,z]
Supporter: The Common Core standards are good because [x,y,z]

(which is basically talking past each other)

and

Opponent: The Common Core standards are bad because [x,y,z]
Non-Opponent: [x,y,z] is invalid/factually incorrect/illogical/contradictory/whatever

(which is actually engaging in discussion and argument)

If you want to have a thread that goes like this:

Supporter: The Common Core standards are good because [x,y,z]
Non-Supporter: [x,y,z] is invalid/factually incorrect/illogical/contradictory/whatever

then you are free to start one.

[Anonymous]

You're a bit confused. I'm not the one going around saying anything will turn kids into "gay muslims" - I'm merely pointing out that the anti-Common Core folks are going around doing that. If you don't like that "gutter" then you need to deal with that with your fellow anti-Common Core cohort.
I'm merely pointing it out, nothing more. They are a liability to you, not to me. They reflect poorly on you, not me. You are the one with one foot in the gutter. I'm the one standing on the curb pointing that out to you.

No, they don't reflect poorly on me. They reflect poorly on the people who say those things. I'm not one of them. You want to make this argument about them because you don't have a good argument. It's easier for you to get in the dirt. This argument should not be about crazy people. There are crazies everywhere. They should not be considered in the argument. You want to say that the rational people are crazy by associating them with these other people. It isn't the way to make progress. The crazies will continue to be crazy despite whatever you or I do. We have to stay on the higher plane. If you want to hang out with the crazies and read all their stuff, have fun. Seems like you enjoy that.

[Anonymous]

No, they don't reflect poorly on me. They reflect poorly on the people who say those things. I'm not one of them. You want to make this argument about them because you don't have a good argument. It's easier for you to get in the dirt. This argument should not be about crazy people. There are crazies everywhere. They should not be considered in the argument. You want to say that the rational people are crazy by associating them with these other people. It isn't the way to make progress. The crazies will continue to be crazy despite whatever you or I do. We have to stay on the higher plane. If you want to hang out with the crazies and read all their stuff, have fun. Seems like you enjoy that.

+100000

Actually, I think there is been very little "crazy" stuff posted here--except for the pro CC supporter who keeps screaming that the people who oppose it, do so for political reasons. Even though a number of valid issues have been raised.

[Anonymous]

No, they don't reflect poorly on me. They reflect poorly on the people who say those things. I'm not one of them. You want to make this argument about them because you don't have a good argument. It's easier for you to get in the dirt. This argument should not be about crazy people. There are crazies everywhere. They should not be considered in the argument. You want to say that the rational people are crazy by associating them with these other people. It isn't the way to make progress. The crazies will continue to be crazy despite whatever you or I do. We have to stay on the higher plane. If you want to hang out with the crazies and read all their stuff, have fun. Seems like you enjoy that.

+100000

Actually, I think there is been very little "crazy" stuff posted here--except for the pro CC supporter who keeps screaming that the people who oppose it, do so for political reasons. Even though a number of valid issues have been raised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+100000

Actually, I think there is been very little "crazy" stuff posted here--except for the pro CC supporter who keeps screaming that the people who oppose it, do so for political reasons. Even though a number of valid issues have been raised.

Nobody has said that all opposition to the Common Core standards is political. What people have said is that some of the opposition to the Common Core standards is political. Which is a fact.

[Anonymous]

Nobody has said that all opposition to the Common Core standards is political. What people have said is that some of the opposition to the Common Core standards is political. Which is a fact.

There have been posts on here that have said that all the opposition is political--despite the rational posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nobody has said that all opposition to the Common Core standards is political. What people have said is that some of the opposition to the Common Core standards is political. Which is a fact.

There have been posts on here that have said that all the opposition is political--despite the rational posts.

Could you find some specific posts, please? I don't remember any.