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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The issues of low-income parenting is a totally separate and different one that was never and has never been tied programmatically to academic standards or testing let alone funding for those, whether Common Core or EVER prior to that.

Income level has been tied to test scores in a pretty direct way.

They don't allocate funding to improve outcomes that way and typically never have.

[Anonymous]

During the development process, the standards were divided into two categories:
•First, the college- and career-readiness standards, which address what students are expected to know and understand by the time they graduate from high school
•Second, the K-12 standards, which address expectations for elementary school through high school

The college- and career-readiness standards were developed first and then incorporated into the K-12 standards in the final version of the Common Core we have today.

This is from the commoncore website. Top down.

[Anonymous]

They don't allocate funding to improve outcomes that way and typically never have.

Ever heard of Title I?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You clearly haven't actually READ the standards. They build step by step, with foundational building blocks at each step.

No. Actually, they were written from the top down. They started with the standards they wanted for college students and worked backwards. That is pretty well documented in the literature.

If standards don't reach a level where prospective college students need to be upon graduation then you have slammed the door on students ever being able to get into college.

Sure, let's just dumb kids down, they don't need to go to college anyhow. Let them get a job digging ditches or stocking shelves, we don't need any engineers or scientists, heck, maybe we don't even need teachers to have degrees if we dumb it down enough.

</sarcasm>

[Anonymous]

If standards don't reach a level where prospective college students need to be upon graduation then you have slammed the door on students ever being able to get into college.

Sure, let's just dumb kids down, they don't need to go to college anyhow. Let them get a job digging ditches or stocking shelves, we don't need any engineers or scientists, heck, maybe we don't even need teachers to have degrees if we dumb it down enough.

Do you put the roof on the house before you pour the foundation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They don't allocate funding to improve outcomes that way and typically never have.

Ever heard of Title I?

Title 1 DOES NOT go to fund the programs that the PP wanted, such as supports for low-income parents.

[Anonymous]

Income level has been tied to test scores in a pretty direct way.


They don't allocate funding to improve outcomes that way and typically never have.

Who said anything in this post about parent education? This is what the Title I post was responding to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If standards don't reach a level where prospective college students need to be upon graduation then you have slammed the door on students ever being able to get into college.

Sure, let's just dumb kids down, they don't need to go to college anyhow. Let them get a job digging ditches or stocking shelves, we don't need any engineers or scientists, heck, maybe we don't even need teachers to have degrees if we dumb it down enough.

Do you put the roof on the house before you pour the foundation?

You have that analogy backasswards and that's not at all how the standards actually work. By "top down" in the Common Core literature, that's about the framework, developing the blueprint BEFORE you even start building, and then figuring out what needs to be built when, where and how.

You on the other hand want to just wing it and build a house that a.) has no blueprint and b.) is built on quicksand. Aside from your complete lack of vision or strategy (no blueprint), your bottom-up approach has such low expectations that by the time you're ready to try and put the roof on, it's sunk into that quicksand.

Common Core standards try to establish not only a blueprint, but establish a more solid foundation and planned sequence of building to reduce the likelihood of that happening.

[Anonymous]

Common Core standards try to establish not only a blueprint, but establish a more solid foundation and planned sequence of building to reduce the likelihood of that happening.

No. You have that all wrong. They forgot to test the soil first. You must do different prep work before you build a foundation on sand than you do on clay. I'm glad you carried this analogy further--because that is such a clear problem with Common Core. They forgot to test the soil! Thank you for pointing that out. Common Core requires that everyone use the same blueprint and the same foundation--even if it means the foundation may slide down the hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If standards don't reach a level where prospective college students need to be upon graduation then you have slammed the door on students ever being able to get into college.

Sure, let's just dumb kids down, they don't need to go to college anyhow. Let them get a job digging ditches or stocking shelves, we don't need any engineers or scientists, heck, maybe we don't even need teachers to have degrees if we dumb it down enough.

Do you put the roof on the house before you pour the foundation?

You have that analogy backasswards and that's not at all how the standards actually work. By "top down" in the Common Core literature, that's about the framework, developing the blueprint BEFORE you even start building, and then figuring out what needs to be built when, where and how.

You on the other hand want to just wing it and build a house that a.) has no blueprint and b.) is built on quicksand. Aside from your complete lack of vision or strategy (no blueprint), your bottom-up approach has such low expectations that by the time you're ready to try and put the roof on, it's sunk into that quicksand.

Common Core standards try to establish not only a blueprint, but establish a more solid foundation and planned sequence of building to reduce the likelihood of that happening.

Yeah, imagine if homes were built the way these anti-CC folks want education to be run... No blueprints, no plan, just slap some 2x4s, doors and windows together haphazardly and randomly, and GOD FORBID we have any building inspectors checking to see if any of it was done right or safely... and hopefully it doesn't fall down before it is finished. Oh, you wanted PLUMBING? Too bad. The lower income folks couldn't figure out how to get the plumbing to work so we just scrapped that for everyone across the board, it was "developmentally inappropriate"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core standards try to establish not only a blueprint, but establish a more solid foundation and planned sequence of building to reduce the likelihood of that happening.

No. You have that all wrong. They forgot to test the soil first. You must do different prep work before you build a foundation on sand than you do on clay. I'm glad you carried this analogy further--because that is such a clear problem with Common Core. They forgot to test the soil! Thank you for pointing that out. Common Core requires that everyone use the same blueprint and the same foundation--even if it means the foundation may slide down the hill.

LMAO! Sorry, anti-CCer but YOU are the one who WANTS NO TESTING and you are the one WHO DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A BLUEPRINT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core standards try to establish not only a blueprint, but establish a more solid foundation and planned sequence of building to reduce the likelihood of that happening.

No. You have that all wrong. They forgot to test the soil first. You must do different prep work before you build a foundation on sand than you do on clay. I'm glad you carried this analogy further--because that is such a clear problem with Common Core. They forgot to test the soil! Thank you for pointing that out. Common Core requires that everyone use the same blueprint and the same foundation--even if it means the foundation may slide down the hill.

Oh, please. I don't at all have it wrong. You aren't doing any "soil testing" - by rejecting standards and testing you are just completely winging it all the way.

[Anonymous]

LMAO! Sorry, anti-CCer but YOU are the one who WANTS NO TESTING and you are the one WHO DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A BLUEPRINT.

My goodness. You want the project manager down in Washington to supervise. I'd rather trust the builder on site--he's the one that knows what the soil is like. He's the one that understands the weather conditions. Most important, he knows the workers--the carpenters, the plumbers, etc. He knows how fast he can realistically build the house. He can also find the flawed lumber and the pipes with the pinholes in them. But, of course, sometimes the contractor off site is in charge and ignores the variables. He may not know that it snowed the day the foundation was poured and that the concrete wasn't seasoned properly.

[Anonymous]

Oh, please. I don't at all have it wrong. You aren't doing any "soil testing" - by rejecting standards and testing you are just completely winging it all the way

No. The local builder is working hands on. He knows how fast he can build that house. He also knows if the foundation can support the frame.

[Anonymous]

No. The local builder is working hands on. He knows how fast he can build that house. He also knows if the foundation can support the frame.

This is it. Common Core eliminates all custom built housing. It's all tract all the way. Requiring that all houses be the same--even if the soil conditions are different. Even if some people don't want the McMansion but want a well built smaller home with trees.