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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

After three years progress has been made including:

• More than 62 percent of middle and high school students are on track to be ready for college or career, up from 54 percent in 2013 and 47 percent in 2012.
• Four-year graduation rate up to 87.4 percent compared to 86.1 percent in 2013.
• Fewer schools in the state's "needs improvement" category (636 compared to 779 in 2013) and more in the "distinguished" category (289 compared to 179 in 2013).

Are those things the direct result of CC? Proof of that?

What's your alternative explanation? Do you think that these things happened despite the Common Core standards? Or that they just coincidentally happened at the same time as the Common Core standards? What is your evidence for your alternative explanation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:



you might first at least take a look at some of the comparative analyses that were done. Again, in some cases the language that was used in Common Core came directly from state standards. They were not developed from scratch, in a vacuum. The status quo that you want to waste hundreds of millions of dollars through getting rid of Common Core and going back to is really not what you have it cracked up to be.


So, your premise is that we just spent hundreds of millions of dollars on something that already existed? That is your defense of Common Core?



I am not the PP, but I believe that the PP's post addresses the "they weren't vetted!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" argument.

You can't argue simultaneously that the standards were made up from scratch AND that standards are merely restatements of existing standards -- or rather, you can, but it's not a logical argument.

You don't see the problem? It was the pro-Common Core person who said that they were already in existence and doesn't want us to throw away all the money we spent. I wasn't using it as justification, she was. That was her defense --that they were already in existence. Please explain why we spent so much money if they were already in existence. Makes no sense. Critical thnking skills.

[Anonymous]

Ah yes, because *suddenly* Pearson can sell textbooks and materials and make money doing that.

Except, Pearson was already making textbooks and materials long prior to Common Core.

And, all the non-Pearson companies making money selling textbooks and materials long before Common Core and after too.

And if you get rid of Common Core Pearson will make more money selling new textbooks for whatever comes after Common Core.

So if you have some notion that getting rid of Common Core will somehow change anything about that, you are stupefyingly naive.

Let's go with another analogy. Say, you like to wear leather belts everyday. You buy leather belts from time to time, and rotate by color, etc. so that you don't wear them all out at once. But, all of a sudden you gain lots and lots of weight. So, you still want to wear leather belts--but, guess what. None of your old ones fit. So, you have to go buy lots of new ones all at once. You want to buy one in every color because you also had to buy all new skirts and pants--after all, you are clothing a much larger body. And, you spend lots and lots of money on your new clothes and belts and Lane Bryant is your new go to shop. Oh, yes, please don't forget the underwear to fit and everything else.

[Anonymous]

We have no idea how they came up with the standards because there was no explanation put out to the public.


To rephrase that statement more accurately, "I was too lazy to google so therefore I came up with a bogus, made-up statement that there was no reason or explanation put out to the public."

No. You just believe everything on the Common Core website. There is no documentation anywhere else--and their documentation is pretty scanty. Like the standards were developed by teachers and vetted. Please show me where that is. And, no, you won't find it on google. Since you are so sure, and I am too dumb to find it, please post it. There's plenty to say otherwise.
In fact, if you even bothered to read the bios of the people on the committees, you would know that there were less than a handful of teachers on all the committees together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You don't see the problem? It was the pro-Common Core person who said that they were already in existence and doesn't want us to throw away all the money we spent. I wasn't using it as justification, she was. That was her defense --that they were already in existence. Please explain why we spent so much money if they were already in existence. Makes no sense. Critical thnking skills.

Either they were made up out of nowhere, or they are based on already-existing standards. Pick one, please.

Also, how much money is "so much money"?

[Anonymous]

Either they were made up out of nowhere, or they are based on already-existing standards. Pick one, please.

Well, Common Core supporters claim that they were written by these terrific committee members--but then, they also argue that these were existing standards. The PP who supports Common Core (and claims these were existing standards) said we would be throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars if we don't keep Common Core.

So, you tell me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ah yes, because *suddenly* Pearson can sell textbooks and materials and make money doing that.

Except, Pearson was already making textbooks and materials long prior to Common Core.

And, all the non-Pearson companies making money selling textbooks and materials long before Common Core and after too.

And if you get rid of Common Core Pearson will make more money selling new textbooks for whatever comes after Common Core.

So if you have some notion that getting rid of Common Core will somehow change anything about that, you are stupefyingly naive.

Let's go with another analogy. Say, you like to wear leather belts everyday. You buy leather belts from time to time, and rotate by color, etc. so that you don't wear them all out at once. But, all of a sudden you gain lots and lots of weight. So, you still want to wear leather belts--but, guess what. None of your old ones fit. So, you have to go buy lots of new ones all at once. You want to buy one in every color because you also had to buy all new skirts and pants--after all, you are clothing a much larger body. And, you spend lots and lots of money on your new clothes and belts and Lane Bryant is your new go to shop. Oh, yes, please don't forget the underwear to fit and everything else.

Failed analogy because you were already going to have to buy clothes ANYHOW regardless of your weight.

[Anonymous]

Failed analogy because you were already going to have to buy clothes ANYHOW regardless of your weight.

But, you already had clothes. You didn't have to buy ALL new clothes until you gained the weight. You really don't understand that schools don't buy new books every year. They usually do it on a replacement cycle. Common Core requires new books, new workbooks, new tests, new technology, new training, etc.etc. etc. It is a massive purchase that far exceeds the normal cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Either they were made up out of nowhere, or they are based on already-existing standards. Pick one, please.

Well, Common Core supporters claim that they were written by these terrific committee members--but then, they also argue that these were existing standards. The PP who supports Common Core (and claims these were existing standards) said we would be throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars if we don't keep Common Core.

So, you tell me.

No, you pick one, please. Were they made up out of nowhere, or are they based on already-existing standards?

Also, there is no "PP who supports Common Core". There are multiple posters on this thread who do not oppose the Common Core standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Failed analogy because you were already going to have to buy clothes ANYHOW regardless of your weight.

But, you already had clothes. You didn't have to buy ALL new clothes until you gained the weight. You really don't understand that schools don't buy new books every year. They usually do it on a replacement cycle. Common Core requires new books, new workbooks, new tests, new technology, new training, etc.etc. etc. It is a massive purchase that far exceeds the normal cycle.

What's the practical effect of the difference of buying your new clothes all at once and buying your new clothes over time? Either way, you have to buy your new clothes.

[Anonymous]

Also, there is no "PP who supports Common Core". There are multiple posters on this thread who do not oppose the Common Core standards.

I was referring to the poster that I was quoting. The one who asked if we wanted to throw away the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Common Core while saying that they were the same as existing standards. Pretty flawed argument: we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on something we already had (according to PP). But she doesn't want us to throw away all the money we've spent on Common Core.
My response was that her argument made no sense: Why did we spend hundreds of millions of dollars for something she said we already had?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We have no idea how they came up with the standards because there was no explanation put out to the public.


To rephrase that statement more accurately, "I was too lazy to google so therefore I came up with a bogus, made-up statement that there was no reason or explanation put out to the public."

No. You just believe everything on the Common Core website. There is no documentation anywhere else--and their documentation is pretty scanty. Like the standards were developed by teachers and vetted. Please show me where that is. And, no, you won't find it on google. Since you are so sure, and I am too dumb to find it, please post it. There's plenty to say otherwise.
In fact, if you even bothered to read the bios of the people on the committees, you would know that there were less than a handful of teachers on all the committees together.

You have no idea and no explanation? You really must live under a rock.

You quite obviously have absolutely no clue about the history of changes to US education over the last couple of decades, for example the "A Nation At Risk" report that came out during the Reagan administration, then "Outcomes Based Education" standards that were being developed and adopted by many districts and states in the 1990s, then "Goals 2000" and NCLB in 2001 and then the Curriculum Frameworks and everything else that followed, then discussions among the state Ed agencies and Governor's association in 2007 and 2008, leading to establishment of the multi-state Common Core consortium in 2009. You really ought to do a bit more research before going around pretending this stuff was just randomly beamed down from the Alien mothership and you have no idea why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was referring to the poster that I was quoting. The one who asked if we wanted to throw away the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Common Core while saying that they were the same as existing standards. Pretty flawed argument: we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on something we already had (according to PP). But she doesn't want us to throw away all the money we've spent on Common Core.
My response was that her argument made no sense: Why did we spend hundreds of millions of dollars for something she said we already had?

No, that's not what that PP said. Here is what that PP actually said:

If you're going to trot around pretending to be an expert you might first at least take a look at some of the comparative analyses that were done. Again, in some cases the language that was used in Common Core came directly from state standards. They were not developed from scratch, in a vacuum. The status quo that you want to waste hundreds of millions of dollars through getting rid of Common Core and going back to is really not what you have it cracked up to be.

[Anonymous]

you might first at least take a look at some of the comparative analyses that were done. Again, in some cases the language that was used in Common Core came directly from state standards. They were not developed from scratch, in a vacuum. The status quo that you want to waste hundreds of millions of dollars through getting rid of Common Core and going back to is really not what you have it cracked up to be.

Pro CC poster was the one who said they were coming directly from state standards and then said that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Common Core. Crazy argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

you might first at least take a look at some of the comparative analyses that were done. Again, in some cases the language that was used in Common Core came directly from state standards. They were not developed from scratch, in a vacuum. The status quo that you want to waste hundreds of millions of dollars through getting rid of Common Core and going back to is really not what you have it cracked up to be.

Pro CC poster was the one who said they were coming directly from state standards and then said that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Common Core. Crazy argument.

I don't understand. Did we, or did we not, spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the Common Core standards? And if we did, what's your argument? That the developers of the Common Core standards should have been able to do this more cheaply, given that some of the language came directly from the previous state standards? OK, maybe they could have. But that money is spent. It's water under the bridge. The question is, now what?