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

Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]Anonymous wrote:
Who in the hell are YOU, to be questioning ANY of their credentials? Numerous members of the committees are nationally recognized, are proven experts, are folks who have risen through the ranks of education, are published, hold multiple degrees, have decades of experience.

And you? Some nameless, anonymous nobody on the Internet, with delusions of grandeur and a serious narcissism complex, to be thinking [b]you are so much better and know so much better than everyone else. [/b]

This is really an interesting quote. Irony? Anonymous poster condemning another anonymous poster for being anonymous. DCUM at its finest.

Sorry, no - irony doesn't work that way. [b]I'm not the one going around claiming I know more[/b] than any of the committee members. There is no equivalence there.[/quote]

No, you're just the one going around claiming that you know the committee members, but you don't want to share your knowledge and we should trust you in your "faith" in these committee members.  But you are an anonymous poster and think you don't have to share your knowledge.

We have one person asking for information and saying they have not been able to find it.  The other person says, "well, it's not my job to find it.  Go find it yourself because I know it's there."  Other person says, "I can't find it.  Please help."  Other person says, "It's not for me to find.  It's just for me to tell you it's there."

Finally second person says, "Well the committee members are great and have all the experience they need to have."  Second person says, "No, this is not the experience that would help to make the committee work well."  Now that is a truly debatable point.  That is a valid argument.  Were the committee members in positions where they could truly understand the children for whom the standards were being written?  This can be argued.

Another argument that I see is valid is the one about the vetting.  One thing that is concerning is the lack of publishing of certain opinions---which have now come to light.  That is a problem that needs to be addressed, but has not.  The CC website is a promotional website so it is really not a good source.

I am not either PP.  [/quote]

1.)  The poster claiming there was insufficient expertise on the committees is the one expecting all of us to take it on faith that she knows better than all of the rest of us, knows better than anyone involved in the committees or development process.

2.)  The person asking for information has already been repeatedly provided the information, but then just denies it and ignores it.  I should also point out that the person requesting the information is the one making accusations and burden of proof is on the accuser.  If you want to make accusations, then you have to bring evidence.

3.) As for committee member expertise see 1.) - Who is the poster, to be saying she knows better than anyone else, and in particular, the folks actually involved in standards development, to be making determinations of whether the committee members were qualified or not?  For all we know the poster making accusations could be someone only claiming to be a teacher, but who who has zero education background and has never taught a day in her life.  We have know way of knowing, and no way to assess the veracity of any statements or claims made.

4.) As for the vetting - again, it has repeatedly been shown that a.) the standards were *not* developed in a vacuum - the vast majority of them were adapted from pre-existing state SOLs which were developed by prior panels of experts and which were already previously vetted and which have already been in production and in classrooms for years and b.) the standards compiled by the CC development committee did *not* just go straight from a closed room of development committee members into classrooms, that there were several rounds of review and comment during the development phase, and then there was a separate validation phase involving a separate set of experts, and then additional rounds of review and comment.  To say there was "no" vetting is absolutely, undisputably false.  [/quote]

Spot-on summary[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics