Anonymous
01/09/2015 15:54
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
So, how do you know that they're not appropriate?
Years of experience teaching children. Advanced degrees.
Anonymous
01/09/2015 15:53
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:How do you know that they're not appropriate? Because you don't like them?
No. And, if you think they are appropriate, please tell me why.
OK, not because you don't like them. So, how do you know that they're not appropriate?
Anonymous
01/09/2015 15:52
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:I wish somebody would provide some specific information about how the standards do not follow the criteria, besides that they are "too vague" or "not measurable" or "too wordy". If you were writing the standards, what standards would you write? What are some examples of good standards?
Have you read the criteria?
Yes, I have read the criteria. Please provide some specific information about how the standards do not follow the criteria. For example, this fourth-grade math standard:
CCSS.Math.Content.4.OA.A.1
Interpret a multiplication equation as a comparison, e.g., interpret 35 = 5 × 7 as a statement that 35 is 5 times as many as 7 and 7 times as many as 5. Represent verbal statements of multiplicative comparisons as multiplication equations.
Anonymous
01/09/2015 15:46
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
How do you know that they're not appropriate? Because you don't like them?
No. And, if you think they are appropriate, please tell me why.
Anonymous
01/09/2015 15:43
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
I wish somebody would provide some specific information about how the standards do not follow the criteria, besides that they are "too vague" or "not measurable" or "too wordy". If you were writing the standards, what standards would you write? What are some examples of good standards?
Have you read the criteria?
Anonymous
01/09/2015 15:40
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
You know, I actually agree with this part:
Policy elites see school reform as a form of theater. Blaming schools for serious national problems, saying the right emotionally-loaded words, and giving the appearance of doing mighty things to solve the “school” problem matter far more than hard evidence or past experiences with similar reforms.
But it's as true for the opponents of the Common Core (Bobby Jindal, for example) as for the proponents.
And many of the political opponents of the Common Core are no friends at all to the public education system. If Larry Cuban thinks that the real problems are the "fiscal and tax policies and economic structures that not only deepen and sustain poverty in society but also reinforce privilege of the top two percent of wealthy Americans", I hope he's not looking to the political opponents of the Common Core for solutions.
So, you think all the opponents are against it because of politics? Wrong.
Anonymous
01/09/2015 14:02
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/08/21/how-common-core-standards-will-succeed-even-if-they-dont/
Nice summary of how Common Core will improve education..............
You know, I actually agree with this part:
Policy elites see school reform as a form of theater. Blaming schools for serious national problems, saying the right emotionally-loaded words, and giving the appearance of doing mighty things to solve the “school” problem matter far more than hard evidence or past experiences with similar reforms.
But it's as true for the opponents of the Common Core (Bobby Jindal, for example) as for the proponents.
And many of the political opponents of the Common Core are no friends at all to the public education system. If Larry Cuban thinks that the real problems are the "fiscal and tax policies and economic structures that not only deepen and sustain poverty in society but also reinforce privilege of the top two percent of wealthy Americans", I hope he's not looking to the political opponents of the Common Core for solutions.
Anonymous
01/09/2015 13:56
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry. How do you know they are appropriate? Because you like them?
They were not vetted and many of the writers were not qualified. So, why do you think they are good?
How do you know that they're not appropriate? Because you don't like them?
And the repeated assertions of "they were not vetted" and "the writers were not qualified" are not evidence showing that the standards are inappropriate. To the extent that the assertions are true, they are merely evidence that the process had problems.
Anonymous
01/09/2015 13:38
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/08/21/how-common-core-standards-will-succeed-even-if-they-dont/
Nice summary of how Common Core will improve education..............
Nice summary of how Common Core will improve education..............
Anonymous
01/09/2015 13:33
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
I'm sorry. How do you know they are appropriate? Because you like them?
They were not vetted and many of the writers were not qualified. So, why do you think they are good?
They were not vetted and many of the writers were not qualified. So, why do you think they are good?
Anonymous
01/09/2015 13:27
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
These are objections to the process:
We don’t know how the committees to write the standards were selected.
The writers had little or no classroom experience.
Some of the writers weren’t even subject matter experts.
the standards were not vetted.
No feedback or miniscule feedback from classroom teachers.
This is an objection to implementation (which I think is incorrect; since people are already using the standards, we actually do know how the standards are being used):
We don’t know how the standards are to be used.
This is an objection to the standards:
The “standards” do not follow the criteria outlined for them.
I wish somebody would provide some specific information about how the standards do not follow the criteria, besides that they are "too vague" or "not measurable" or "too wordy". If you were writing the standards, what standards would you write? What are some examples of good standards?
And actually, there have been plenty of explanations about how the standards will help. The standards will help solve the problems caused by heterogeneous and/or low standards among the various states. They are not a panacea, and they may not solve the problems you consider most important. But that doesn't mean they're useless.
We don’t know how the committees to write the standards were selected.
The writers had little or no classroom experience.
Some of the writers weren’t even subject matter experts.
the standards were not vetted.
No feedback or miniscule feedback from classroom teachers.
This is an objection to implementation (which I think is incorrect; since people are already using the standards, we actually do know how the standards are being used):
We don’t know how the standards are to be used.
This is an objection to the standards:
The “standards” do not follow the criteria outlined for them.
I wish somebody would provide some specific information about how the standards do not follow the criteria, besides that they are "too vague" or "not measurable" or "too wordy". If you were writing the standards, what standards would you write? What are some examples of good standards?
And actually, there have been plenty of explanations about how the standards will help. The standards will help solve the problems caused by heterogeneous and/or low standards among the various states. They are not a panacea, and they may not solve the problems you consider most important. But that doesn't mean they're useless.
Anonymous
01/09/2015 13:00
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Common Core supporters think the standards are great even though:
We don’t know how the committees to write the standards were selected.
The writers had little or no classroom experience.
Some of the writers weren’t even subject matter experts.
The “standards” do not follow the criteria outlined for them.
We don’t know how the standards are to be used.
But, hey, as one writer said to explain his/her support for Common Core: They are “common” and they are “good.”
And, this is supposed to help our education system? I thought critical thinking was one of the goals. The supporters have yet to explain why they will help.
Forgot:
the standards were not vetted.
No feedback or miniscule feedback from classroom teachers.
Anonymous
01/09/2015 12:59
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Common Core supporters think the standards are great even though:
We don’t know how the committees to write the standards were selected.
The writers had little or no classroom experience.
Some of the writers weren’t even subject matter experts.
The “standards” do not follow the criteria outlined for them.
We don’t know how the standards are to be used.
But, hey, as one writer said to explain his/her support for Common Core: They are “common” and they are “good.”
And, this is supposed to help our education system? I thought critical thinking was one of the goals. The supporters have yet to explain why they will help.
We don’t know how the committees to write the standards were selected.
The writers had little or no classroom experience.
Some of the writers weren’t even subject matter experts.
The “standards” do not follow the criteria outlined for them.
We don’t know how the standards are to be used.
But, hey, as one writer said to explain his/her support for Common Core: They are “common” and they are “good.”
And, this is supposed to help our education system? I thought critical thinking was one of the goals. The supporters have yet to explain why they will help.
Anonymous
01/09/2015 12:44
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
Anonymous wrote:What does it matter if a publishing company is benefiting from new standards? Would you argue this point if the standards were great?
Oh, so you admit that they are not great! Then, why do you like them?
I think it's clear from the PP's whole (not selectively edited) post, here:
So because publishing companies are benefiting from CC standards, therefore we shouldn't have such standards? What does it matter if a publishing company is benefiting from new standards? Would you argue this point if the standards were great? Probably not. You are just arguing it because you don't like the standards. That's not a good reason to argue against standards.
that this is not actually what the PP was saying.
I'm certain that publishing companies benefit from things that you like. Do you therefore oppose those things that you like, on grounds that publishing companies benefit from them?
Anonymous
01/09/2015 12:36
Subject: Re:Common Core's epic fail: Special Education
What does it matter if a publishing company is benefiting from new standards? Would you argue this point if the standards were great?
Oh, so you admit that they are not great! Then, why do you like them?