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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I also don't understand how the Common Core standards are making us less flexible. Is there something particularly rigid about, for example,

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.5.1
Engage effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grade 5 topics and texts, building on others' ideas and expressing their own clearly.

So, for starters:
What is "effectively"? Is it measurable? Is it "clear"?

range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grade 5 topics and texts

A one-on-one "collaborative" discussion? Really? Diverse partners, I guess, means that you mix up the kids--no problem with that--but, I suspect that what it really means is that you mix the high achievers with the low achievers. Teachers have been doing that for years. Sounds to me like this is encouraging those group projects that teachers give--you know the ones where one or two of the kids do all the work? It usually has to be done out of school and the teacher is always sure to match your kid with the one who lives way, way from you and whose mother cannot provide transportation because she is on a business trip.

How in the world is this to be tested by PARCC?

You're galloping from argument to argument. The argument at the top was, "The Common Core standard limits our flexibility!" The question was, "How does this standard limit our flexibility?" Please answer that question.

Also, once again, an opponent of the Common Core standards is conflating the Common Core standards with the PARCC tests.

[Anonymous]

One problem I see with Zacharia's argument is that a lot of the experts that make the U.S. a great place for innovation, research, science, and technology are from foreign countries--either coming for university, grad school, post-docs, or work. So it's a mistake to fully credit our education system for these succeses.

LOL! I think you'll find that a great many of them were already here. Don't know how much of our education system we can credit, but Gates, Jobs, Zuckerburg, and many, many other Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not to mention -- how much money is "buckets of money"? And why the fixation on the PARCC tests?)

Did you read the WAPO article? 2 Billion dollars. For starters.

That's less than the annual operating budget of Montgomery County Public Schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

One problem I see with Zacharia's argument is that a lot of the experts that make the U.S. a great place for innovation, research, science, and technology are from foreign countries--either coming for university, grad school, post-docs, or work. So it's a mistake to fully credit our education system for these succeses.

LOL! I think you'll find that a great many of them were already here. Don't know how much of our education system we can credit, but Gates, Jobs, Zuckerburg, and many, many other Americans.

Yeah but who's working for them? It's the same in Academia. I'm just pointing out that many many people in the workforce who make this country a great place for progress were not educated here. Probably not the majority, but some significant number for sure.

[Anonymous]

You're galloping from argument to argument. The argument at the top was, "The Common Core standard limits our flexibility!" The question was, "How does this standard limit our flexibility?" Please answer that question.

Also, once again, an opponent of the Common Core standards is conflating the Common Core standards with the PARCC tests.

Okay, I will say it slowly......Why were the PARCC tests developed? Answer: to test Common Core standards. The states would not have needed all those new tests if they had not adopted Common Core? Do you understand? Yes, I know NCLB requires tests--but these tests would not have been needed and this consortium would not have been developed, and the taxpayers would hardly be paying an additional 2 Billion dollars, were it not for Common Core. Sadly, the overall standards are inflexible, but occasionally we run across a standard like the one you posted. A standard that is vague, imprecise, and stupid.

And, okay, that "standard" is not inflexible. Actually, it is not even what I consider a standard. It is not well written and does not meet the criteria that Common Core has on its own website. It is just very poorly written and unprofessional. That makes me question the knowledge and ability of the people who wrote the standards. Why anyone would call these standards "good" is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

My ranking for most potential for harm, with #1 being the worst:

1. NCLB
2. PARCC
3. CC

People are mixing these up or associating them in their arguments because they are all linked to each other.

The more we get away from the abstract ideal of an individualized approach to education with teacher having a 1-1 relationship with each student and teaching to their strengths and weaknesses with authenticity and care the worse it gets. Obviously the abstract ideal is not fully attainable in practice but we can try to come as close to that as possible. NCLB goes in the opposite direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're galloping from argument to argument. The argument at the top was, "The Common Core standard limits our flexibility!" The question was, "How does this standard limit our flexibility?" Please answer that question.

Also, once again, an opponent of the Common Core standards is conflating the Common Core standards with the PARCC tests.

Okay, I will say it slowly......Why were the PARCC tests developed? Answer: to test Common Core standards. The states would not have needed all those new tests if they had not adopted Common Core? Do you understand? Yes, I know NCLB requires tests--but these tests would not have been needed and this consortium would not have been developed, and the taxpayers would hardly be paying an additional 2 Billion dollars, were it not for Common Core. Sadly, the overall standards are inflexible, but occasionally we run across a standard like the one you posted. A standard that is vague, imprecise, and stupid.

And, okay, that "standard" is not inflexible. Actually, it is not even what I consider a standard. It is not well written and does not meet the criteria that Common Core has on its own website. It is just very poorly written and unprofessional. That makes me question the knowledge and ability of the people who wrote the standards. Why anyone would call these standards "good" is beyond me.

Did you think that all of the states would all develop their standards one time, and their tests one time, and then never change any standards or tests, ever again, after that? And do you think that the states would do all of this, individually, at a cost of less than $40 per student?

Also, why are you fixating on the PARCC tests, specifically?

And finally, here is the question I have asked all of the people with copy-editing objections to the Common Core standards: how would you rewrite that standard so that it meets your definition of a standard? Nobody has answered that question yet.

[Anonymous]

One problem I see with Zacharia's argument is that a lot of the experts that make the U.S. a great place for innovation, research, science, and technology are from foreign countries--either coming for university, grad school, post-docs, or work. So it's a mistake to fully credit our education system for these succeses.

Yeah, and one of those was Zakaria and he prefers the way our education system is. He does not think it is inferior to the one he was raised with. Lots of these people stay here and have kids here and put them into our educational systems. They like our system all the way through university. Our universities are an extension of our K-12 you know.

[Anonymous]

And finally, here is the question I have asked all of the people with copy-editing objections to the Common Core standards: how would you rewrite that standard so that it meets your definition of a standard? Nobody has answered that question yet.

I would not have it as a standard. That is a teaching technique. And, the way it is written, a very poor one.

[Anonymous]

Did you read the WAPO article? 2 Billion dollars. For starters.

For starters. There's more to be made---lots more.

[Anonymous]

There are about 50 million students in the US. $2 billion dollars divided by 50 million students is $40 per student.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

Get your facts straight. It does not include testing for those states that did not adopt Common Core. And, as PP said, it is for "starters". That ups the ante quite a bit. Also, it is an ongoing expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Did you read the WAPO article? 2 Billion dollars. For starters.

For starters. There's more to be made---lots more.

Yes, the for-profit educational publishing companies try to make a profit by selling educational materials. That is what they do. That is what they did before the Common Core standards, that is what they would have done if the Common Core standards had never been developed, that is what they will do long after the Common Core standards have gone the way of all other educational reforms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And finally, here is the question I have asked all of the people with copy-editing objections to the Common Core standards: how would you rewrite that standard so that it meets your definition of a standard? Nobody has answered that question yet.

I would not have it as a standard. That is a teaching technique. And, the way it is written, a very poor one.

That doesn't answer the question. You say it's bad. How would you rewrite it to make it good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, and one of those was Zakaria and he prefers the way our education system is. He does not think it is inferior to the one he was raised with. Lots of these people stay here and have kids here and put them into our educational systems. They like our system all the way through university. Our universities are an extension of our K-12 you know.

No, they are not.

[Anonymous]

The money wasted is just the tip of the iceberg on all of this. The waste for students cannot be calculated. We are treating the students like cogs in a machine. Students are people and people in America are great because they have freedom. As you said before, how can they escape CC? Just opting out of the tests does not give them an option to escape CC because it is in the schools and they have no voice in its implementation. This is what is turning people off to education being managed by the feds. It has to stop. I believe that many teachers will quietly close their doors and do what they know is the right thing. And parents will cheer. Once you get parents on the anti CC side, you're doomed. Good luck with the next educational reform effort. I don't think it will come for a while. And hopefully, when it does, it will come from the people. People create change in a democracy. The arrogance of this kind of stuff is appalling (and I'm no Tea Party person).