"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

First please tell me exactly what you mean by "vetted". Otherwise I will provide evidence, and then you will say, "No, that is not evidence," and there's no point to that.

Schools and systems that piloted the use of the standards would be a start.

Questionnaires, surveys, etc. with responses from teachers.

So you don't think that standards were "vetted" unless they were piloted. Which schools piloted the Maryland standards that the Common Core standards replaced?

Also, are you saying that you want the actual data sheets? Or will this suffice? http://www.aft.org/position/common-core-state-standards/aft-teacher-involvement-development-and

[Anonymous]

Also, are you saying that you want the actual data sheets? Or will this suffice? http://www.aft.org/position/common-core-state-stan...er-involvement-development-and

So, AFT gathered 30 teachers and you call that vetting? Who selected the teachers? Were they actually classroom teachers? What were their responses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And, it is quite likely that this will not help get rid of those teachers. For one thing, nobody knows if the tests are valid or reliable. The standards have never been vetted or undergone serious analysis.

And around, and around, and around...

(I'm still wondering what, specifically, "vetting" the standards would entail, and whether any other standards have been "vetted" like that.)

Vetting the standards would be: We rolled them out, we tweaked them as we saw how children learned, we measured year to year growth in the classroom, the majority of the children could hit the standards, children learned to read, write, do math.

And the testing would be a couple of hours, and you'd get the results within 30 days, if not a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also, are you saying that you want the actual data sheets? Or will this suffice? http://www.aft.org/position/common-core-state-stan...er-involvement-development-and

So, AFT gathered 30 teachers and you call that vetting? Who selected the teachers? Were they actually classroom teachers? What were their responses?

As I predicted: I provide evidence, then you say it's not evidence. I'm not playing that game.

[Anonymous]

As I predicted: I provide evidence, then you say it's not evidence. I'm not playing that game.

Evidence? 30 teachers handpicked by the union--and we don't even know who they are or what they said? That's evidence?

Where's the data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, are you saying that you want the actual data sheets? Or will this suffice? http://www.aft.org/position/common-core-state-stan...er-involvement-development-and

So, AFT gathered 30 teachers and you call that vetting? Who selected the teachers? Were they actually classroom teachers? What were their responses?

As I predicted: I provide evidence, then you say it's not evidence. I'm not playing that game.

Well how about this: Five on the validation committee refused to sign off on the standards they thought they were so horrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The PP evidently seems to think that simply repeating that old canard of "they weren't vetted" often enough will retroactively change history and make the claim become true.

You still have provided no data. If they were vetted, there would be data.

Do you also demand to see Galileo's evidence of gravitational acceleration before stepping off of a curb?

</sarcasm>

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The PP evidently seems to think that simply repeating that old canard of "they weren't vetted" often enough will retroactively change history and make the claim become true.

You still have provided no data. If they were vetted, there would be data.

Do you also demand to see Galileo's evidence of gravitational acceleration before stepping off of a curb?

</sarcasm>

Newton's field notes from his observations and measurements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The PP evidently seems to think that simply repeating that old canard of "they weren't vetted" often enough will retroactively change history and make the claim become true.

You still have provided no data. If they were vetted, there would be data.

Do you also demand to see Galileo's evidence of gravitational acceleration before stepping off of a curb?

</sarcasm>

Newton's field notes from his observations and measurements?

Einstein's calculations of how spacetime bends?

[Anonymous]

Einstein's calculations of how spacetime bends?

Too cute for words. I guess you have no data or evidence that the standards are appropriate and good. Now you resort to "funny"...........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Einstein's calculations of how spacetime bends?

Too cute for words. I guess you have no data or evidence that the standards are appropriate and good. Now you resort to "funny"...........

I thought it was funny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“Compose and decompose numbers from 11 to 19 into ten ones and some further ones, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record each composition or decomposition by a drawing or equation (such as 18 = 10 + 8); understand that these numbers are composed of ten ones and one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine ones.”

When a kid comes to school and cannot count to ten consistently, that standard is quite a reach. There are more kids like this than you think.

Yes, you're right. That standard is quite a reach for a kid who comes to school and cannot count to ten consistently. That doesn't mean that the standard is bad or developmentally appropriate. It means that we need to devote more resources to kids who come to school unable to count to ten consistently -- both in and out of school.

My child was in Montessori and all in one pre-k year learned numbers 1-10, teens, hundreds, thousands, counting and skip counting with chains, and what's called the "bank game" and "exchange game" where kids take those base 10 blocks and exchange hundreds for 10's and so forth to add and subtract numbers. This is actually a very common occurrence for a pre-k child in Montessori. It would make sense that kindergarten could teach these things to kids one year older but they often don't have the materials to do so well. The Montessori materials for learning place value look like this http://www.montessorioutlet.com/cgi-bin/item/510500950BOM/5105/Montessori-Outlet-Golden-Bead-Material

[Anonymous]

My child was in Montessori and all in one pre-k year learned numbers 1-10, teens, hundreds, thousands, counting and skip counting with chains, and what's called the "bank game" and "exchange game" where kids take those base 10 blocks and exchange hundreds for 10's and so forth to add and subtract numbers. This is actually a very common occurrence for a pre-k child in Montessori. It would make sense that kindergarten could teach these things to kids one year older but they often don't have the materials to do so well. The Montessori materials for learning place value look like this http://www.montessorioutlet.com/cgi-bin/item/51050...ri-Outlet-Golden-Bead-Material

Given the fact that you are writing on DCUM, I would imagine that your child started pre-K with a fairly decent vocabulary along with other skills that many, many kids do not have before K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My child was in Montessori and all in one pre-k year learned numbers 1-10, teens, hundreds, thousands, counting and skip counting with chains, and what's called the "bank game" and "exchange game" where kids take those base 10 blocks and exchange hundreds for 10's and so forth to add and subtract numbers. This is actually a very common occurrence for a pre-k child in Montessori. It would make sense that kindergarten could teach these things to kids one year older but they often don't have the materials to do so well. The Montessori materials for learning place value look like this http://www.montessorioutlet.com/cgi-bin/item/51050...ri-Outlet-Golden-Bead-Material

Given the fact that you are writing on DCUM, I would imagine that your child started pre-K with a fairly decent vocabulary along with other skills that many, many kids do not have before K.

It is invalid to argue that the kindergarten standards are developmentally inappropriate when there are many kindergarteners (and indeed pre-kindergarteners) who are able to meet the standards.

I'm certain that there are many kindergarteners who are not able to meet the standards, but that is not an issue of child development.

[Anonymous]

http://m.ky3.com/missouri-judge-rules-pact-with-common-core-testing-illegal/21050392_31458122


More unraveling?