Common Core PARCC tests for fourth grade math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Your circular logic is hilarious.

The standards ARE good. They were not written by Pearson. But even if they were, they're still good standards.

Please see a physician about your mental problems.

You've lost the battle when you can only attack personally.

I won the battle pages ago. I attack personally because I'm exasperated by the badgering by a muttering idiot who keeps repeating the same inanities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do understand that Pearson is the vendor for the ginormous PARCC contract?

And their tests look perfectly reasonable to me. Your obsession is bizarre.

It's like saying Lockheed Martin and Boeing shouldn't be involved in the development of blueprints for NASA spacecraft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Your circular logic is hilarious.

The standards ARE good. They were not written by Pearson. But even if they were, they're still good standards.

Please see a physician about your mental problems.


You've lost the battle when you can only attack personally.




I won the battle pages ago. I attack personally because I'm exasperated by the badgering by a muttering idiot who keeps repeating the same inanities.

LOL! You think there is only one person arguing with you on this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I won the battle pages ago. I attack personally because I'm exasperated by the badgering by a muttering idiot who keeps repeating the same inanities.

LOL! You think there is only one person arguing with you on this thread?




I think that there is one PP who keeps saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same format with exactly the same words.

(I'm not the PP you're responding to.)

[Anonymous]

It's like saying Lockheed Martin and Boeing shouldn't be involved in the development of blueprints for NASA spacecraft.

This is not a relevant analogy. In the case of NASA, NASA is a government agency and they are purchasing something. They go out and get bids for what they want (it's not what Lockheed or Boeing have decided upon) and try to get the lowest bid in order to safeguard taxpayer money. In the case of CC, private money was asking for and developed the standards (not a public agency like NASA). Then the state governments mandate that local governments test using the materials that the privately funded standards have decided upon (and this is all benefiting the private companies who were involved with writing the standards in the first place). NASA actually writes the standards for what they want and then, yes, Lockheed, etc. develops blueprints based on those standards as part of the bidding process. The government can accept or reject whatever Lockheed, etc. are proposing. But, the government remains in control of the process throughout---from beginning to end.

[Anonymous]

By the way, NASA is a great agency!

[Anonymous]

So, our Common Core supporter won the argument pages ago?

Other than personal attacks and assumptions about politics, here are the arguments on this thread in favor of Common Core.
The only answer to specific questions is to post the Common Core website which is written by the Common Core developers and about the Common Core developers. It gives almost no concrete information about how the standards were developed or by whom. Feedback data is particularly scant. There is not any information about the vetting and validation of the standards—except to say they did.
The fourth grade PARCC test is good.
We can compare states scores with Common Core.
Who cares who developed them?
No one has failed the test.
Kids always fail the test when it is new.
The tests have been revised.
Standards are good.
It doesn’t matter that the developers had close connections with Pearson.
Doesn’t matter that Pearson won the contract with PARCC.
Oh yes, and I guess the implication is that it is just fine for Pearson to be making buckets of money off of standards that it wrote.

So, these are the arguments in favor. Here’s a clue, when you argue you should have data to support your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's like saying Lockheed Martin and Boeing shouldn't be involved in the development of blueprints for NASA spacecraft.

This is not a relevant analogy. In the case of NASA, NASA is a government agency and they are purchasing something. They go out and get bids for what they want (it's not what Lockheed or Boeing have decided upon) and try to get the lowest bid in order to safeguard taxpayer money. In the case of CC, private money was asking for and developed the standards (not a public agency like NASA). Then the state governments mandate that local governments test using the materials that the privately funded standards have decided upon (and this is all benefiting the private companies who were involved with writing the standards in the first place). NASA actually writes the standards for what they want and then, yes, Lockheed, etc. develops blueprints based on those standards as part of the bidding process. The government can accept or reject whatever Lockheed, etc. are proposing. But, the government remains in control of the process throughout---from beginning to end.

No, you're begging the question. The analogy is only irrelevant IF you assume from the outset that private money asked for and developed the Common Core standards.

In which case you can also assume from the outset that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are behind the development of NASA programs. Which actually seems like a more realistic assumption, given the long history of the military-industrial complex, including the fact that we are currently funding F-35 fighter jets and M-1 Abrams tanks that the Department of Defense doesn't even want.

[Anonymous]

". The analogy is only irrelevant IF you assume from the outset that private money asked for and developed the Common Core standards."

It did so it's relevant.

[Anonymous]

In which case you can also assume from the outset that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are behind the development of NASA programs. Which actually seems like a more realistic assumption, given the long history of the military-industrial complex, including the fact that we are currently funding F-35 fighter jets and M-1 Abrams tanks that the Department of Defense doesn't even want.

You don't let facts get in your way when you argue, do you?

And why would you even bring the military into a discussion of CC anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In which case you can also assume from the outset that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are behind the development of NASA programs. Which actually seems like a more realistic assumption, given the long history of the military-industrial complex, including the fact that we are currently funding F-35 fighter jets and M-1 Abrams tanks that the Department of Defense doesn't even want.

You don't let facts get in your way when you argue, do you?

And why would you even bring the military into a discussion of CC anyway?

What facts are wrong? Lockheed Martin and Boeing aren't part of the military-industrial complex? We're not currently funding F-35 fighter jets and M-1 Abrams tanks? The DOD did ask for the funding?

Why would the PP bring NASA into a discussion of the Common Core standards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:". The analogy is only irrelevant IF you assume from the outset that private money asked for and developed the Common Core standards."

It did so it's relevant.

Begging the question.

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's like saying Lockheed Martin and Boeing shouldn't be involved in the development of blueprints for NASA spacecraft.

This is not a relevant analogy. In the case of NASA, NASA is a government agency and they are purchasing something. They go out and get bids for what they want (it's not what Lockheed or Boeing have decided upon) and try to get the lowest bid in order to safeguard taxpayer money. In the case of CC, private money was asking for and developed the standards (not a public agency like NASA). Then the state governments mandate that local governments test using the materials that the privately funded standards have decided upon (and this is all benefiting the private companies who were involved with writing the standards in the first place). NASA actually writes the standards for what they want and then, yes, Lockheed, etc. develops blueprints based on those standards as part of the bidding process. The government can accept or reject whatever Lockheed, etc. are proposing. But, the government remains in control of the process throughout---from beginning to end.

Can you IMAGINE the UPROAR if the US Department of Education (a government agency) decided to develop Common Standards and then got bids for a private company to create them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's like saying Lockheed Martin and Boeing shouldn't be involved in the development of blueprints for NASA spacecraft.

This is not a relevant analogy. In the case of NASA, NASA is a government agency and they are purchasing something. They go out and get bids for what they want (it's not what Lockheed or Boeing have decided upon) and try to get the lowest bid in order to safeguard taxpayer money. In the case of CC, private money was asking for and developed the standards (not a public agency like NASA). Then the state governments mandate that local governments test using the materials that the privately funded standards have decided upon (and this is all benefiting the private companies who were involved with writing the standards in the first place). NASA actually writes the standards for what they want and then, yes, Lockheed, etc. develops blueprints based on those standards as part of the bidding process. The government can accept or reject whatever Lockheed, etc. are proposing. But, the government remains in control of the process throughout---from beginning to end.

Can you IMAGINE the UPROAR if the US Department of Education (a government agency) decided to develop Common Standards and then got bids for a private company to create them?

It would have been an intolerable, black-helicopter takeover by the federal government of state and local rights over education and parents' rights over their children.

Although actually people are saying exactly those things about the Common Core standards the way they were actually developed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, our Common Core supporter won the argument pages ago?

Other than personal attacks and assumptions about politics, here are the arguments on this thread in favor of Common Core.

The only answer to specific questions is to post the Common Core website which is written by the Common Core developers and about the Common Core developers. It gives almost no concrete information about how the standards were developed or by whom. Feedback data is particularly scant. There is not any information about the vetting and validation of the standards—except to say they did.

The fourth grade PARCC test is good.

We can compare states scores with Common Core.

Who cares who developed them?

No one has failed the test.

Kids always fail the test when it is new.

The tests have been revised.

Standards are good.

It doesn’t matter that the developers had close connections with Pearson.

Doesn’t matter that Pearson won the contract with PARCC.

Oh yes, and I guess the implication is that it is just fine for Pearson to be making buckets of money off of standards that it wrote.

So, these are the arguments in favor. Here’s a clue, when you argue you should have data to support your argument.

Other arguments in favor are personal.

I'm a teacher, and I have been working under the old state standards (in VA and MD). I find that the new, Common Core standards are either equal to, or in many cases, vastly superior, to the old MD state standards.

Most teachers I am working with (in elementary school) say the same thing. We are having some transition issues (like kids in 5th grade having not totally mastered the skills expected by the end of 4th grade) where kids are having to play catch up) but we expect things will improve a great deal in a few years.

We greatly approve of the writing standards. They are vastly better than the old MD writing standards.

I don't have a lot of data to "prove" that teachers think these standards are "better" because we have only been working under them for one year.

As a parent, though, I am seeing much better instruction in writing (and higher expectations) for my 2 children, under Common Core.

It will be hard to prove that kids are getting better instruction in writing, though, because the old Maryland tests (MSAs) really didn't test writing in paragraph form. So I'm not sure that there will ever be objective evidence that the Common Core standards do a better job of requiring students to learn writing.

As for being concerned about who write the standards and who is benefiting from them -- honestly I don't care. If the standards are better, I'm all for them.