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

[Anonymous]

How about this definition, though?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant

Nice. You can't defend the standards so you mock the critics. Good job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OH 19:56:

You forgot the full definition:

from MW

Full Definition of ONE-ON-ONE

1: playing directly against a single opposing player

2: involving a direct encounter between one person and another

Nothing "collaborative" about this. (You may need to also look up "encounter" if you don't understand.)

The point is that the standards are not clearly written. Sure, it may be picky, but it is significant.

Encounter:

1a : to meet as an adversary or enemy
b : to engage in conflict with
2: to come upon face-to-face
3: to come upon or experience especially unexpectedly <encounter difficulties>

The point is that somebody is looking to criticize will always find something to criticize.

(Surely there is some analogy to Godwin's Law about when people resort to dictionary definitions?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How about this definition, though?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant

Nice. You can't defend the standards so you mock the critics. Good job.

Who's mocking? I'm just describing.

[Anonymous]

Who's mocking? I'm just describing.

Well, at least one pro Common Core poster claims that the standards are good. The standards do not even meet the criteria on its own website. I have yet to see anything to support that the standards are good.

At least two who are teachers have posted standards that they consider developmentally inappropriate. I have posted standards that are vague, unclear, and poorly written. It's hard to tell if they are appropriate since their meaning is in dispute. There has been at least one standard posted that is not measurable.
This calls into question the whole set of standards.
My questions:
How were they vetted?
Who vetted them?
Where and when were they written?
What were the procedures used by the committees to write the standards?

What evidence is there that these standards are good?

Vague language and misspelled words are just indicators that the whole process was not professional. If the Language committee could not be bothered to proof the standards for clear writing, what makes you think that the foundation of the standards is good?

A Common Core supporter mocks me for being "picky" and critical. Others who criticize the standards are accused of being political wingbats. I would be happy to consider a well thought out and valid argument in favor of the standards. An earlier poster in favor of CC said that was what he/she wanted. Yet, I have yet to see a strong defense of the standards and the process.

[Anonymous]

Vague language and misspelled words are just indicators that the whole process was not professional. If the Language committee could not be bothered to proof the standards for clear writing, what makes you think that the foundation of the standards is good?

This reminds me of a few years ago when my district "leaders" trotted out the "best practices". It was basically a list of all kinds of things that were considered the "right things" to do in a classroom (and many of them were pretty vague like "having a welcoming environment"). Anyway, my boss told me that "thousands of people" had reviewed them. I found several grammar and spelling errors right away. Big joke. It's hard to be a very big believer when stuff like that happens.

The "best practices" were printed on pretty paper and sent all over, but now they seem to have drifted away. I think most of those pretty papers went into the circular file. The jokes about them are still recalled by many. The money spent on this nonsense is out of control. If people want robots in front of their kids, just say so. But I don't think that's what parents want. They will be voting one way or another.

[Anonymous]

Vague language and misspelled words are just indicators that the whole process was not professional. If the Language committee could not be bothered to proof the standards for clear writing, what makes you think that the foundation of the standards is good?

It's evidence that the people on the committee were probably paid enough so that money was the motivator (and not any real stake in the outcome of the standards). Some of them (quite a few actually) were clearly stockholders and/or closely associated with for profit publishers, not stakeholders. They certainly did not have classroom experience. The passionate people who understand what goes on in a classroom were sidelined. And the federal government gave money to these for profits for test development (and did not mandate that teachers be involved---even though they could have since they were giving out big money---they could have asked for lots of things).

The operating principle is to get to a point where teachers no longer learn or know how to teach. That has already been happening. Then feed them directives, standards, and mostly computerized curriculum (which costs $$). If needed, take money away from teachers and make class sizes bigger in order to accomplish this. Make sure it is all necessary through the use of mandated tests. Use tests to make sure things are "on track" and to show that the curricular materials need to be purchased. When students fail, it is the fault of the teacher and/or lack of the correct materials. This is a local problem and funds should be spent from the local pots (and of course many locals don't have the money). This causes the locals to get upset about how money is spent, but oh well, the locals are dumber than rocks and just don't understand how useful the testing is. It helps them compare themselves to other states and this is very valuable.

Okay, I'm sure this is my conspiracy mind at work, but this is what it looks like to many people.

And, these companies want to branch out to the university level with this stuff. That's the next big plan . . . starting with community colleges. Once the government pays for those two years, there will have to be accountability and big government spending on "tests" and "materials" to make sure students are learning. Because everyone must go to college and pass. If they don't, it's somebody's fault. Apparently.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, the government should be looking at open sourcing most educational materials for classes. If we really believe that education is so important, why are we charging kids tons of money for books in colleges? Ridiculous. But the tests will be obscure enough that the materials related to them will be necessary in order to pass the tests (thereby making the companies plenty of money). This is the wrong way to "educate" people!

[Anonymous]

It's evidence that the people on the committee were probably paid enough so that money was the motivator (and not any real stake in the outcome of the standards). Some of them (quite a few actually) were clearly stockholders and/or closely associated with for profit publishers, not stakeholders

It sure would be interesting to know how much they were paid. Bet it was plenty. Of course, we will never know. This whole process has been so secretive. We don't even know where, when , or how long they met.

Now, some of these same people are being paid by PARCC, and, probably Smarter Balanced, as well. They didn't write decent standards, and, now they are being paid to write test questions. Sad. Being paid so much to do so much damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's evidence that the people on the committee were probably paid enough so that money was the motivator (and not any real stake in the outcome of the standards). Some of them (quite a few actually) were clearly stockholders and/or closely associated with for profit publishers, not stakeholders

It sure would be interesting to know how much they were paid. Bet it was plenty. Of course, we will never know. This whole process has been so secretive. We don't even know where, when , or how long they met.

Now, some of these same people are being paid by PARCC, and, probably Smarter Balanced, as well. They didn't write decent standards, and, now they are being paid to write test questions. Sad. Being paid so much to do so much damage.

How much are you being paid to oppose PARCC and NCLB? The same kind of paranoid delusional thinking that it had to be all about money as a motivator could be applied to you as well...

And, it *IS* a fact that the Koch brothers are pumping millions of dollars into the campaign to oppose Common Core and NCLB, so maybe you're one of them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, the government should be looking at open sourcing most educational materials for classes. If we really believe that education is so important, why are we charging kids tons of money for books in colleges? Ridiculous. But the tests will be obscure enough that the materials related to them will be necessary in order to pass the tests (thereby making the companies plenty of money). This is the wrong way to "educate" people!

The government doesn't have to be involved in order for that to happen. Educators can and should start doing that *NOW* - and on their own. If people are so concerned about the future of education, then there's no reason why they can't start writing and open sourcing better content *NOW* with no need for government intervention. But I guess it's much easier to just keep buying the same old stuff while sitting around complaining that you think it's awful.

As for the tests being "obscure" - that isn't true, either. The tests should be covering material in the standard. If not, if there are bad questions, then those questions should be retired from the item bank. Most testing systems have revolving item banks with questions that are continually being revised or retired and replaced, with panels of subject matter experts who are involved in item development. If there's a vague question, it's likely to get replaced anyhow.

[Anonymous]

As for the tests being "obscure" - that isn't true, either. The tests should be covering material in the standard. If not, if there are bad questions, then those questions should be retired from the item bank. Most testing systems have revolving item banks with questions that are continually being revised or retired and replaced, with panels of subject matter experts who are involved in item development. If there's a vague question, it's likely to get replaced anyhow.

I have experience in validation of tests for adult education. The bolded statement leaves out another issue: the standard may be poorly written--vague and imprecise. Certainly, there has been evidence of that on this thread. When standards are not clear, the test developer is left with gaps to fill.
I worked once with a colleague who was quick to throw out questions that everyone failed. That is lazy and unprofessional. The validator needs to research and figure out the problem--not just toss the question.

My experience was different, as I was working on tests that were also testing to see if students met specific standards. I was responsible for also checking them against the materials used to teach them. Our standards were well vetted. My job was to check the tests for problems. Sometimes, the problem can be the curriculum or materials. However, Common core standards were not properly vetted-which is obvious from the information on this thread and the lack of documentation from the developers. Test questions are dependent on clarity of standard.

This does not even address the fact that some of the standards may be inappropriate. That is an entirely different issue that should have been addressed before these standards ever went to test development.

Of course, it is obvious from reading this thread that the standards were not properly vetted.

[Anonymous]

If there's a vague question, it's likely to get replaced anyhow.

Vague standards result in vague questions.

[Anonymous]

How much are you being paid to oppose PARCC and NCLB? The same kind of paranoid delusional thinking that it had to be all about money as a motivator could be applied to you as well...

And, it *IS* a fact that the Koch brothers are pumping millions of dollars into the campaign to oppose Common Core and NCLB, so maybe you're one of them

How about you post some data supporting Common Core. There has been plenty on here to attack it.

[Anonymous]

^ There's also no reason why test item banks couldn't be handled in the same way - with peer-vetted volunteer SMEs contributing and validating test items in a secure online environment. An algorithm could ensure that each contributed item is vetted and validated by a minimum number of SMEs with relevant and appropriate qualifications, and no one SME would have access to all of the questions to minimize the risk of a major breach. Though, the larger the item bank (through a sufficiently large volunteer SME group contributing items) the smaller the impact of breach becomes, as leaked questions can then be quickly retired and replaced. Testing companies usually use statistical analysis and algorithms to analyze responses to help find problematic questions, where there appear to be more than one right answer, where there doesn't appear to be any right answer, et cetera - they can also determine if cheating or other issues exist (test questions are too easy) based on the data - that can also be used for vetting and validation. All of that could be put into an online platform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If there's a vague question, it's likely to get replaced anyhow.

Vague standards result in vague questions.

You present 2 or 3 items, and then come up with the most obtuse and pedantic interpretation of them possible to try and show them as "vague" and then, based on that, you go on to characterize the entire body of standards as "vague" - evidently, wherever you went to school, they never taught you about invalid analyses like what the limits of extrapolation are and how cherry picking of data is invalid.