"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

There have been various posts on this page and the previous page of this thread, answering that very question.

Oh, you mean the post that said: because they are "common" and because they are "good". Sorry. That won't fly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There have been various posts on this page and the previous page of this thread, answering that very question.

Oh, you mean the post that said: because they are "common" and because they are "good". Sorry. That won't fly.

No, that was on another thread, and you are misquoting. Look again.

[Anonymous]

No, that was on another thread, and you are misquoting. Look again.

Well, I've read this thread. No positive outcomes of Common Core on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How does it make sense for Alabama to have different math standards from Wyoming or Rhode Island?

I would bet that the difference between the math standards in those states is not wildly huge. Also, the residents of those states can and should lobby for higher standards if they are dissatisfied. And, furthermore, the state standards do not completely drive the course offerings in the schools. If they did, we would not have anything beyond Algebra 2 here in Virginia (because that's the most the state requires for graduation). The truth is that the requirements to get into college are driving people's choices, especially at the high school level. The parents probably need to be educated on the entrance requirements for a national university if that is what the child wants. The good news is that students can take courses at NOVA and NOVA will help them get up to four year national college level if, for some reason, that didn't happen in high school (lack of maturity is a big reason). People under age 18 are still children (and even those over 18) in many ways.

If the difference in standards from state to state isn't so huge then why all the pretense that so much control needs to be in the states, and why all the objections about just going ahead and making them uniform across the board? It's far more cost-effective to develop and maintain one standard, rather than independently developing and maintaining 50 different standards for each state. It's also pointless to have 50 different standards, given the needs from one state to the next really aren't different.

[Anonymous]

If the difference in standards from state to state isn't so huge then why all the pretense that so much control needs to be in the states, and why all the objections about just going ahead and making them uniform across the board? It's far more cost-effective to develop and maintain one standard, rather than independently developing and maintaining 50 different standards for each state. It's also pointless to have 50 different standards, given the needs from one state to the next really aren't different.

Why spend all that money when they already have standards they chose?

[Anonymous]

If the difference in standards from state to state isn't so huge then why all the pretense that so much control needs to be in the states, and why all the objections about just going ahead and making them uniform across the board? It's far more cost-effective to develop and maintain one standard, rather than independently developing and maintaining 50 different standards for each state. It's also pointless to have 50 different standards, given the needs from one state to the next really aren't different.

expensive bureaucracy

[Anonymous]

If the difference in standards from state to state isn't so huge then why all the pretense that so much control needs to be in the states, and why all the objections about just going ahead and making them uniform across the board? It's far more cost-effective to develop and maintain one standard, rather than independently developing and maintaining 50 different standards for each state. It's also pointless to have 50 different standards, given the needs from one state to the next really aren't different.

It's not a pretense. It's real.

And cost-effective??? Really? How expensive is it to "develop and maintain" standards? Apparently the CC ones were quite expensive. I know some people who work for less and they do a really, really good job.

[Anonymous]

why all the objections about just going ahead and making them uniform across the board?

Well, there's the devil you know and the devil you don't know. And I'd rather stick with the one I know. It's closer to my home. The other one breathes hotter, nastier flames.

[Anonymous]

There's something about dealing with people you can see and talk to that makes the process just a wee bit more manageable and workable.

[Anonymous]

There's something about dealing with people you can see and talk to that makes the process just a wee bit more manageable and workable.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If the difference in standards from state to state isn't so huge then why all the pretense that so much control needs to be in the states, and why all the objections about just going ahead and making them uniform across the board? It's far more cost-effective to develop and maintain one standard, rather than independently developing and maintaining 50 different standards for each state. It's also pointless to have 50 different standards, given the needs from one state to the next really aren't different.

Why spend all that money when they already have standards they chose?

How much money is "all that money"?

Also, if a state's standards were basically already the same as the Common Core standards, why would it cost "all that money" to switch to the Common Core standards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, that was on another thread, and you are misquoting. Look again.

Well, I've read this thread. No positive outcomes of Common Core on this thread.

The question was "Please tell me what problem they will solve." not "What are the positive outcomes of Common Core?"

The answer is: they will solve the problem of different states having different standards of differing quality.

Next you will say, "But that's not a problem!"

Then somebody will ask, "Why isn't it a problem?"

And then you will say...well, what will you say?

[Anonymous]

Also, if a state's standards were basically already the same as the Common Core standards, why would it cost "all that money" to switch to the Common Core standards?

Oh, I don't think all are essentially the same. The K standards are a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also, if a state's standards were basically already the same as the Common Core standards, why would it cost "all that money" to switch to the Common Core standards?

Oh, I don't think all are essentially the same. The K standards are a mess.

OK, so every state basically had the same standards already, and they were basically already the same as the Common Core standards, except for the ones that weren't.

So, which kindergarten standards are a mess? And why would it cost "all that money" to switch to the Common Core standards that were basically already the same as the states' standards (that were all basically already the same) except for the kindergarten standards?

[Anonymous]

OK, so every state basically had the same standards already, and they were basically already the same as the Common Core standards, except for the ones that weren't.

So, which kindergarten standards are a mess? And why would it cost "all that money" to switch to the Common Core standards that were basically already the same as the states' standards (that were all basically already the same) except for the kindergarten standards?

The CC people are pretty desperate to get these standards in all the states. Wow. Somebody's job must be on the line.