Anonymous wrote:The teachers will have to concentrate on those who can't pass the test. It will encourage all sorts of cheating. Teachers will only want to teach in "good" schools. They will only teach what will be tested/

Something this important should also have more oversight. I would like to see a board of practicing classroom teachers -- not "education experts" or "test developers" -- but actual, bonafide, current, full time working teachers (with at least 5 years' experience at their grade level) sit on a final "supervisory board" to evaluate whether the test questions being given on these PARCC tests are actually reasonable questions to be asking a child at each grade level. Just the interjection of some common sense by people who are currently working in the field.

Anonymous wrote:

EVERYTHING what, specifically?

Teachers will be hired and fired based on tests. If you don't think that will change what and how they teach you are sadly mistaken.

EVERYTHING what, specifically?

Anonymous wrote:

PP with all the vaguely ominous one-liners has a point here (even though I think he or she is nutty/paranoid, mostly).

EVERYTHING is going to be determined by the PARCC and SMART tests. The standards can be great (and, I think they are fine and support them) but what success will boil down to is how well these tests are written and how meaningful they are.

And my fear is that Pearson will screw them up. It doesn't have a great track record in test development, apparently.

Something this important should also have more oversight. I would like to see a board of practicing classroom teachers -- not "education experts" or "test developers" -- but actual, bonafide, current, full time working teachers (with at least 5 years' experience at their grade level) sit on a final "supervisory board" to evaluate whether the test questions being given on these PARCC tests are actually reasonable questions to be asking a child at each grade level. Just the interjection of some common sense by people who are currently working in the field.

Anonymous wrote:

If we don't want to have a national curriculum, with readings chosen for everyone, and the same topics assigned at each grade level, there are going to be questionable activities and assignments. This is what "local control over curriculum" means.

You will note that the locals complained and have put a stop to it. Lots harder if it were a national curriculum. That's why all of this needs to be kept at the local level.

Anonymous wrote:

If we don't want to have a national curriculum, with readings chosen for everyone, and the same topics assigned at each grade level, there are going to be questionable activities and assignments. This is what "local control over curriculum" means.

You will note that the locals complained and have put a stop to it. Lots harder if it were a national curriculum. That's why all of this needs to be kept at the local level.

Anonymous wrote:

PP with all the vaguely ominous one-liners has a point here (even though I think he or she is nutty/paranoid, mostly).

EVERYTHING is going to be determined by the PARCC and SMART tests. The standards can be great (and, I think they are fine and support them) but what success will boil down to is how well these tests are written and how meaningful they are.

And my fear is that Pearson will screw them up. It doesn't have a great track record in test development, apparently.

Something this important should also have more oversight. I would like to see a board of practicing classroom teachers -- not "education experts" or "test developers" -- but actual, bonafide, current, full time working teachers (with at least 5 years' experience at their grade level) sit on a final "supervisory board" to evaluate whether the test questions being given on these PARCC tests are actually reasonable questions to be asking a child at each grade level. Just the interjection of some common sense by people who are currently working in the field.
[Report Post]

First, there is more than one poster on this thread complaining about CC. Next, we do not need a national review board. We need local oversight.

Anonymous wrote:

If we don't want to have a national curriculum, with readings chosen for everyone, and the same topics assigned at each grade level, there are going to be questionable activities and assignments. This is what "local control over curriculum" means.

You will note that the locals complained and have put a stop to it. Lots harder if it were a national curriculum. That's why all of this needs to be kept at the local level.

PP with all the vaguely ominous one-liners has a point here (even though I think he or she is nutty/paranoid, mostly).

EVERYTHING is going to be determined by the PARCC and SMART tests. The standards can be great (and, I think they are fine and support them) but what success will boil down to is how well these tests are written and how meaningful they are.

And my fear is that Pearson will screw them up. It doesn't have a great track record in test development, apparently.

Something this important should also have more oversight. I would like to see a board of practicing classroom teachers -- not "education experts" or "test developers" -- but actual, bonafide, current, full time working teachers (with at least 5 years' experience at their grade level) sit on a final "supervisory board" to evaluate whether the test questions being given on these PARCC tests are actually reasonable questions to be asking a child at each grade level. Just the interjection of some common sense by people who are currently working in the field.
[Report Post]

Anonymous wrote:I guess this school district was confused about Common Core as well...

www.sbsun.com/social-affairs/20140504/exclusive-rialto-unified-defends-writing-assignment-on-confirming-or-denying-holocaust

If we don't want to have a national curriculum, with readings chosen for everyone, and the same topics assigned at each grade level, there are going to be questionable activities and assignments. This is what "local control over curriculum" means.

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.