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

[Anonymous]

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?

I would not have it as a standard at all. It should not be a standard. I cannot figure out why the writers included it. Maybe, there was a skill they were trying to include, but it beats me. Perhaps, everyone on the committee was responsible for writing 2 standards or something and some dummy included this one. We have no idea how they worked, how they put these together, or how they chose the standards. Did they vote on them? We have no clue, because nothing about the groups has been shared. We do not know when they met, who picked them, or anything about the process they used to write the standards. Don't you find that even a little bit troubling? The people who wrote them were not in the classroom and those who had been in the past, were long out of the classroom. Go look at the list of committee members. Then, go look up their bios. Very disturbing and concerning.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes, their motive is profit. They are not educators. They have millions of dollars to put into lobbying (and they are doing it). If they want to really make money, maybe they should lobby the educators and students and parents. Because, hopefully, this is a democracy and money doesn't determine everything. If something is not right for students, it should be their voices that are heard. People first, money second, things third. (Thank you Suze Orman).

[Anonymous]

maybe they should lobby the educators

They do! You are really naïve if you think they don't. Publishing companies have always done that and I would bet that the people on the consortiums and CC work groups had lots of free dinners at very nice places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I would not have it as a standard at all. It should not be a standard. I cannot figure out why the writers included it. Maybe, there was a skill they were trying to include, but it beats me. Perhaps, everyone on the committee was responsible for writing 2 standards or something and some dummy included this one. We have no idea how they worked, how they put these together, or how they chose the standards. Did they vote on them? We have no clue, because nothing about the groups has been shared. We do not know when they met, who picked them, or anything about the process they used to write the standards. Don't you find that even a little bit troubling? The people who wrote them were not in the classroom and those who had been in the past, were long out of the classroom. Go look at the list of committee members. Then, go look up their bios. Very disturbing and concerning.

Find. How would you rewrite it to make it a good teaching technique? You said that it should be a teaching technique, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, their motive is profit. They are not educators. They have millions of dollars to put into lobbying (and they are doing it). If they want to really make money, maybe they should lobby the educators and students and parents. Because, hopefully, this is a democracy and money doesn't determine everything. If something is not right for students, it should be their voices that are heard. People first, money second, things third. (Thank you Suze Orman).

They seem to be doing just fine in the making-money department -- or, anyway, that's what I read here.

[Anonymous]

They do! You are really naïve if you think they don't. Publishing companies have always done that and I would bet that the people on the consortiums and CC work groups had lots of free dinners at very nice places.

Hmmm. Interesting. Money greasing the rails everywhere. I guess Suze Orman got it wrong---it's money first. Education last.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Education is not being managed by the feds.

[Anonymous]

Find. How would you rewrite it to make it a good teaching technique? You said that it should be a teaching technique, right?

Why are you asking the other poster to do this? Are you going to hire her to write a teaching techniques manual for the CC?

[Anonymous]

Education is not being managed by the feds.

It is much more than it used to be. But, thankfully, the Race to the Top was defunded. Next up, NCLB mandated testing. There were unintended consequences. The feds did have "sanctions" for schools that were not meeting AYP. Maybe you don't call that management, but those caused serious incentives to game tests. They corrupted education in many schools. How is the PARCC going to change that (seeing as PARCC is the topic of this thread)? It seems the cheating and sabotage has now reached the student level (and parents are wanting to opt out). We're at a whole new level now. It's not getting better my friend.

[Anonymous]

Education is not being managed by the feds.

For starters:
NCLB
funding for PARCC
Title I
Race to the Top
Pell Grants
student loans
research grants to colleges
School lunches

these are just quick things that come to mind. There are certainly many more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Education is not being managed by the feds.

For starters:
NCLB
funding for PARCC
Title I
Race to the Top
Pell Grants
student loans
research grants to colleges
School lunches

these are just quick things that come to mind. There are certainly many more.

There are certainly things in education that the federal government does. However, that is very, very, very different from "education is managed by the feds".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Education is not being managed by the feds.

For starters:
NCLB
funding for PARCC
Title I
Race to the Top
Pell Grants
student loans
research grants to colleges
School lunches

these are just quick things that come to mind. There are certainly many more.

Why the fixation on PARCC? The great majority of states are not using PARCC.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm. Interesting. Money greasing the rails everywhere.

I was stunned (as a young teacher) when I went to a convention of teachers. The book salesmen were out in force. One of my colleagues was on the state text selection committee. She got us all a very nice free dinner. She knew it was against the rules and told us (at the end of the evening) not to tell anyone. It was not against the rules for those of us who were not on the committee--but it was against the rules for her. Of course, had she not been with us, we would not have been treated to dinner.

Today, I would have understood more clearly what was going on. I did not understand so much then--at least, not until later in the evening. It really bothered me when I did find out and I have looked on selection committees with different eyes since then.
I would love to know how much these committee members (the standard developers) were paid. I'd also love to know who paid them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Find. How would you rewrite it to make it a good teaching technique? You said that it should be a teaching technique, right?

Why are you asking the other poster to do this? Are you going to hire her to write a teaching techniques manual for the CC?

Because I'm tired of reading "LOL! So badly written."

I want to read what these PPs think a good standard (or teaching technique, or whatever) should look like. (And then I can say, "LOL! So badly written!" )

[Anonymous]

Why the fixation on PARCC? The great majority of states are not using PARCC.

Which makes all the money the feds gave in a grant much more problematic. Doesn't that bother you at all?