"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

You just keep going in circles over and over again with this stuff, asking the same questions over and over again when they have already been answered so many times over, it just makes you look at best confused and/or immensely forgetful and at worst deliberately and willfully ignorant, which really doesn't help your cause in either event.

You've never answered the question. There is always someone who is in charge of the committee or whatever. As long as you don't answer the question, you cannot complain about the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can't fatten a pig by weighing it.

No, but if you want to know how much a pig weighs, it helps to weigh the pig.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PARCC is punitive. Rather than offer assistance to schools that are low-performing and identifying ways to improve equity, we punish teachers and students for factors beyond their control.

I told my children that if they ever entertained education as a major, I'd pull their college funds from them.

No, the No Child Left Behind Act does that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You can't fatten a pig by weighing it.


No, but if you want to know how much a pig weighs, it helps to weigh the pig.

If you can see the pig's ribs sticking out, you don't need to weigh it to know that you should give it more food. However, if those who buy the golden scales are unwilling to pay for food, the pig will continue to have a weight problem. But they will insist on the purchase of the scales (that relay the weights electronically) so that they can keep compiling data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can't fatten a pig by weighing it.

No, but if you want to know how much a pig weighs, it helps to weigh the pig.

If you can see the pig's ribs sticking out, you don't need to weigh it to know that you should give it more food. However, if those who buy the golden scales are unwilling to pay for food, the pig will continue to have a weight problem. But they will insist on the purchase of the scales (that relay the weights electronically) so that they can keep compiling data.

I agree with all of that. But first you need to weigh the pig. The problem is when the first AND LAST thing anybody does is weigh the pig.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You just keep going in circles over and over again with this stuff, asking the same questions over and over again when they have already been answered so many times over, it just makes you look at best confused and/or immensely forgetful and at worst deliberately and willfully ignorant, which really doesn't help your cause in either event.

You've never answered the question. There is always someone who is in charge of the committee or whatever. As long as you don't answer the question, you cannot complain about the question.

The question *WAS* answered, or were you looking for something hyperspecific specific, as though it would be supremely meaningful and earthshatteringly relevant to the discussion if one specific person from NGA's name was Joe and another's were Nancy?

You'd just move on to some other question anyways. And then a couple days later would go right back to "Who were they?" and we'd start all of this nonsense all over again.

Again, YOU LOOK FOOLISH doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PARCC is punitive. Rather than offer assistance to schools that are low-performing and identifying ways to improve equity, we punish teachers and students for factors beyond their control.

I told my children that if they ever entertained education as a major, I'd pull their college funds from them.

That's not a testing problem, it's a school district problem.

seriously?

So it's a system's fault?

especially when it's forced by federal and state mandates to test kids regardless of their reading levels?

You're blaming the systems?

sort of like blaming the victims, eh?

good job, genius

There's nothing inherently wrong with testing kids regardless of their reading levels. What's wrong is punishing teachers because of their ESL, Special Needs and other students who may have good reasons for not being at the appropriate reading level - but again, that's not something that NCLB mandates or requires, that's stupidity happening at the local level. At some point you need to get it through your head that getting rid of testing won't remove that stupidity problem and it will still be a threat to teachers regardless of Common Core or NCLB. At some point you need to recognize and understand that change needs to happen at the local level rather than blaming everyone else (which won't solve your problem).

At some point, you need to realize you're an idiot.

We teachers have NO say in anything. People can protest all they want. They can quit. Nothing will change. We have NO power. So yes, I blame the powers that be. What have any of these PARCC protests earned for us? for the kids?

nothing

Observe a teacher for one day in a challenging environment and see if you don't learn a thing or two. Not even our own administrators step in when we're short staffed. not one - too afraid

Good God, PP - Are you THAT simple?

What fucking good is your union if you have no power? And don't you realize there's more than one way to skin a cat, anyways? When your administrators are incompetent, there ARE ways to get them fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Jayzus we've been through that one a dozen or more times already. The ed reps from various state Governors offices, via the National Governors Association, together with the state folks from CSSO selected the committees.

You just keep going in circles over and over again with this stuff, asking the same questions over and over again when they have already been answered so many times over, it just makes you look at best confused and/or immensely forgetful and at worst deliberately and willfully ignorant, which really doesn't help your cause in either event.

Sorry. I want names. There had to be someone who had the final say. Who?

Answer me this: What difference does it make what their names are?

You want names? Look up the NGA ed representatives. Look up the CSSO membership. That's who.

[Anonymous]

The question *WAS* answered, or were you looking for something hyperspecific specific, as though it would be supremely meaningful and earthshatteringly relevant to the discussion if one specific person from NGA's name was Joe and another's were Nancy?

You'd just move on to some other question anyways. And then a couple days later would go right back to "Who were they?" and we'd start all of this nonsense all over again.

Again, YOU LOOK FOOLISH doing this.

Wow! Touched a nerve. No, you did not answer the question. I suspect you do not know the answer. Why is it such a well kept secret?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

States hired qualified consultants with experience in test development and states oversaw the work with their own expert panels, states are still the ones with ultimate responsibility.

And this is a big part of the problem. They hired "qualified consultants with experience in test development" to develop the standards. Some important people got left behind.

You're confusing PARCC with CC for one. And for another, you're confusing the CC development process with the state standards development process that preceded it. Because, there were teachers involved in the state standards development process. CC merely inherited that prior work.

Why do you insist on constantly making so many uninformed and confused statements?

[Anonymous]

The question *WAS* answered, or were you looking for something hyperspecific specific, as though it would be supremely meaningful and earthshatteringly relevant to the discussion if one specific person from NGA's name was Joe and another's were Nancy?

That person selected the people who wrote the standards and decided which standards were important. We don't even know the criteria used for selection. That doesn't bother you at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Getting rid of testing won't magically make that money appear. Look, pp, you are trying WAY too hard to tie everything to testing and frankly a.) you are full of crap and b.) annoyingly obnoxious, obtuse and pedantic as hell. If someone's cat got stuck up a tree you would blame testing. If you ran out the door and forgot your keys, you would blame testing. That's sure how it seems anyways... one track mind with a serious obsession.

Thanks. That's a compliment. When I believe in something, I don't give up, especially if it's important.

And there is a poster on here who is obsessed with testing. The poster keeps repeating that "nobody said the tests would do this or that or solve this or that." "It's not the testing."

Then what ARE the tests good for? If they are not a solution and they only identify problems (that we already know about), what's the point?

I'm sorry if you find me annoying, obtuse, obnoxious, etc., but I work with "failing" kids every day and I am going to advocate for them no matter how annoying and obnoxious I may seem. This is my job. It means a lot to me.

Calling me "full of crap" is a very good rhetorical device. It's probably on the CC test for 8th grade. When all else fails, attack the messenger.

The question of what tests are good for has been answered MANY MANY MANY times over, for example, being able to compare performance across different schools, different demographics, et cetera. Can't do that without standardized tests. There were at least a dozen or more different examples given in these threads by various posters of why testing makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The question *WAS* answered, or were you looking for something hyperspecific specific, as though it would be supremely meaningful and earthshatteringly relevant to the discussion if one specific person from NGA's name was Joe and another's were Nancy?

That person selected the people who wrote the standards and decided which standards were important. We don't even know the criteria used for selection. That doesn't bother you at all?

No, because the standards make sense, they are logically sequential to each other, are foundational building blocks for learning, and are age appropriate. Whatever criteria were used seem to have used that type of common sense. As such, it doesn't bother me one iota. And whether the person's name were Joe or Nancy wouldn't make a difference either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The question *WAS* answered, or were you looking for something hyperspecific specific, as though it would be supremely meaningful and earthshatteringly relevant to the discussion if one specific person from NGA's name was Joe and another's were Nancy?

You'd just move on to some other question anyways. And then a couple days later would go right back to "Who were they?" and we'd start all of this nonsense all over again.

Again, YOU LOOK FOOLISH doing this.

Wow! Touched a nerve. No, you did not answer the question. I suspect you do not know the answer. Why is it such a well kept secret?

I'm sure it's not a secret. I just don't happen to give a shit whether the person's name were Joe or Nancy, and just because the posters here don't know what their names were doesn't make it a secret either - you're employing some really faulty logic there. I'm sure it's information that can be easily obtained. Why don't you pick up a phone and call the NGA tomorrow and ask them for the names, rather than being such an obtuse ass continually annoying us with this nonsense?

[Anonymous]

No, because the standards make sense, they are logically sequential to each other, are foundational building blocks for learning, and are age appropriate. Whatever criteria were used seem to have used that type of common sense. As such, it doesn't bother me one iota. And whether the person's name were Joe or Nancy wouldn't make a difference either.

Finally, you are honest. They are good because you say so. I'd like a little more evidence. You know real evidence.