Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Uh, some actual evidence that something sinister is going on? Your anecdotes aren't convincing me of anything. In fact I still can't figure out what you're trying to convince us of.




I am trying to convince you that this is big government. We don't even know if the tests will test what they are supposed to test. We are relying on a publishing company to determine the future of our kids.

Who's "we", and how are "we" doing this?

"We" are the supporters of Common Core and those affected by it. Led by the Dept of Ed.

That's who "we" is? That's odd, because I think the Common Core standards are a big improvement, and I'm not relying on a publishing company to determine my kids' future.

Anonymous wrote:
Uh, some actual evidence that something sinister is going on? Your anecdotes aren't convincing me of anything. In fact I still can't figure out what you're trying to convince us of.




I am trying to convince you that this is big government. We don't even know if the tests will test what they are supposed to test. We are relying on a publishing company to determine the future of our kids.

Who's "we", and how are "we" doing this?

"We" are the supporters of Common Core and those affected by it. Led by the Dept of Ed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You (or somebody) keep saying that. But as a statement just out there, all by itself, it's about as meaningful as "Martin Luther King Jr. was a subspecies of avocado."

Dept of Ed is tying money to requirement for teacher evaluation being tied to testing of standards. Pearson just got huge contract. Duncan has relationship with Pearson. What else do you want?

Does Pearson have ties to Andrew Cuomo too?

How about the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, Agenda 21, and the Elders of Zion? Does Pearson have ties to any of them?

If you think the Obamacare rollout was bad--just wait until you see the tests. We've already seen a sample in NY. Do you want your kids to be the guinea pigs? I don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, some actual evidence that something sinister is going on? Your anecdotes aren't convincing me of anything. In fact I still can't figure out what you're trying to convince us of.

I am trying to convince you that this is big government. We don't even know if the tests will test what they are supposed to test. We are relying on a publishing company to determine the future of our kids.

Who's "we", and how are "we" doing this?

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, some actual evidence that something sinister is going on? Your anecdotes aren't convincing me of anything. In fact I still can't figure out what you're trying to convince us of.

I am trying to convince you that this is big government. We don't even know if the tests will test what they are supposed to test. We are relying on a publishing company to determine the future of our kids.

But you keep saying follow the money like its supposed to lead us to a smoking gun.

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, some actual evidence that something sinister is going on? Your anecdotes aren't convincing me of anything. In fact I still can't figure out what you're trying to convince us of.
[Report Post]

It does not have to be sinister to be misguided. I really think that Duncan is so clueless that he doesn't understand what is going on.

No, you're really going to have to decide one way or the other. Because the man can't simultaneously be so stupid that he can't figure out when he's tripping over his own shoelaces, and so clever that he's engineering a massive cover-up in order to funnel money to his buddies at Pearson.

Uh, some actual evidence that something sinister is going on? Your anecdotes aren't convincing me of anything. In fact I still can't figure out what you're trying to convince us of.

I am trying to convince you that this is big government. We don't even know if the tests will test what they are supposed to test. We are relying on a publishing company to determine the future of our kids.

Anonymous wrote:

You (or somebody) keep saying that. But as a statement just out there, all by itself, it's about as meaningful as "Martin Luther King Jr. was a subspecies of avocado."

Dept of Ed is tying money to requirement for teacher evaluation being tied to testing of standards. Pearson just got huge contract. Duncan has relationship with Pearson. What else do you want?

Does Pearson have ties to Andrew Cuomo too?

Uh, some actual evidence that something sinister is going on? Your anecdotes aren't convincing me of anything. In fact I still can't figure out what you're trying to convince us of.
[Report Post]

It does not have to be sinister to be misguided. I really think that Duncan is so clueless that he doesn't understand what is going on.

Consider the data collection on the kids alone.

Anonymous wrote:

You (or somebody) keep saying that. But as a statement just out there, all by itself, it's about as meaningful as "Martin Luther King Jr. was a subspecies of avocado."

Dept of Ed is tying money to requirement for teacher evaluation being tied to testing of standards. Pearson just got huge contract. Duncan has relationship with Pearson. What else do you want?

Uh, some actual evidence that something sinister is going on? Your anecdotes aren't convincing me of anything. In fact I still can't figure out what you're trying to convince us of.

http://educationalchemy.com/2013/07/01/the-pearson-follies-an-ongoing-saga/

Here's another opinion. There are some additional links at the bottom of the article.

Or are you saying that he decided that states that want federal grant money to help implement curricula aligned to the Common Core standards should have to include test results as a component of their teacher evaluation systems, in order to make his buddies at Pearson happy? That doesn't even make any sense. The states have to use the tests regardless, because of NCLB.

NCLB does not require the same standards. And, the schools are evaluated by the tests--not the teachers.

I am saying that the "unintended consequences" of this program result in BIG money being spent.

Anonymous wrote:

You (or somebody) keep saying that. But as a statement just out there, all by itself, it's about as meaningful as "Martin Luther King Jr. was a subspecies of avocado."

Dept of Ed is tying money to requirement for teacher evaluation being tied to testing of standards. Pearson just got huge contract. Duncan has relationship with Pearson. What else do you want?

No, I still don't get it. Are you saying that Arne Duncan, the U.S Secretary of Education, steered a contract to Pearson? That's a serious allegation.

Or are you saying that he decided that states that want federal grant money to help implement curricula aligned to the Common Core standards should have to include test results as a component of their teacher evaluation systems, in order to make his buddies at Pearson happy? That doesn't even make any sense. The states have to use the tests regardless, because of NCLB.