This reauthorization is very important. Watch the video (very short) and sign the petition:


http://educationvotes.nea.org/eseapetition/?utm_source=NEA-email-3115&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ESEA%202015

But the problem is that employers, colleges, et cetera are becoming more and more aware that a high school diploma is now worth about the same as an eight grade dropout's education. The diploma becomes devalued when schools are just handing them out rather than expecting kids to actually learn the material. Which means, more and employers will insist on more substantial hiring criteria, whether that's seeing an associates' or a bachelors' degree instead - and voila, you've just shut a lot of kids, even the ones who did work hard and did master the high school material in order to get their diplomas, out of jobs that they might otherwise have gotten, while families struggle to pump money into a college system that's rapidly becoming just as bad as secondary education - though far more expensive. The whole thing is like trying to build a house on quicksand. Build whatever you like, but since the foundation isn't solid, everything that's built on it is just going to sink anyways.

That's why we need to shore up the foundations. Everything else hangs on that.

Shoring up the foundations has to be a grass roots effort.

The college system is still good. Plenty of people fail out of that system. The college system is very competitive. They still have high standards. But it could be ruined by doing things like dumbing down the SAT and ACT (which are now based on the K-12 system instead of on what colleges want to see). Gee, wonder why that happened?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they used to do is have kids repeat a grade if they were struggling to master the material. Then it was decided that this was somehow too cruel to kids. Though, nobody seems to have figured out that it's even more cruel to kids to set them up for lifelong failure by not giving them a second chance to catch up, than it is to have them suffer the great indignity or whateverthefuck of having a second chance. The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.

Actually it was decided (based on actual research) that retention did not improve academic performance but did increase the likelihood that the student would drop out of school.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar08/vol65/num06/Grade-Retention.aspx

Look, you're really not winning either way.

Given academics already went by the wayside when you started doing social promotion, what's the fucking difference whether a kid drops out of school in 10th grade versus stays through 12th and graduates, but really only got an 8th grade education because he fell behind, was lost/gave up long prior and was only carried along by the inertia of social promotion? It's mostly already a sham at that point. The only point seems to be to keep them off the street. Used to be that if they dropped out early, at least they might find a job somewhere but even that's screwed at this point.

With the high school diploma, you can get hired. As an eight-grade dropout, you are likely going to end up on the streets. But that seems to be what you prefer.

But the problem is that employers, colleges, et cetera are becoming more and more aware that a high school diploma is now worth about the same as an eight grade dropout's education. The diploma becomes devalued when schools are just handing them out rather than expecting kids to actually learn the material. Which means, more and employers will insist on more substantial hiring criteria, whether that's seeing an associates' or a bachelors' degree instead - and voila, you've just shut a lot of kids, even the ones who did work hard and did master the high school material in order to get their diplomas, out of jobs that they might otherwise have gotten, while families struggle to pump money into a college system that's rapidly becoming just as bad as secondary education - though far more expensive. The whole thing is like trying to build a house on quicksand. Build whatever you like, but since the foundation isn't solid, everything that's built on it is just going to sink anyways.

That's why we need to shore up the foundations. Everything else hangs on that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they used to do is have kids repeat a grade if they were struggling to master the material. Then it was decided that this was somehow too cruel to kids. Though, nobody seems to have figured out that it's even more cruel to kids to set them up for lifelong failure by not giving them a second chance to catch up, than it is to have them suffer the great indignity or whateverthefuck of having a second chance. The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.

Actually it was decided (based on actual research) that retention did not improve academic performance but did increase the likelihood that the student would drop out of school.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar08/vol65/num06/Grade-Retention.aspx

Look, you're really not winning either way.

Given academics already went by the wayside when you started doing social promotion, what's the fucking difference whether a kid drops out of school in 10th grade versus stays through 12th and graduates, but really only got an 8th grade education because he fell behind, was lost/gave up long prior and was only carried along by the inertia of social promotion? It's mostly already a sham at that point. The only point seems to be to keep them off the street. Used to be that if they dropped out early, at least they might find a job somewhere but even that's screwed at this point.

With the high school diploma, you can get hired. As an eight-grade dropout, you are likely going to end up on the streets. But that seems to be what you prefer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Common Core standards do not require children to be taught at grade level, regardless of where the children actually are, and rational administrators will not require it either.

But, there are tests. And, I know that is NCLB, but CC was designed with tests in mind.

I have read this assertion several times here, but there has not been any evidence to support it. There was one PP who provided links, but the links did not say what the PP said they said.

Regardless, if a child is below grade level,

1. the Common Core standards do not require the child to be taught at grade level, and
2. teaching the child at grade level will not improve the child's test results.

Yes, but this child will be required to take the end of year standardized test (whichever one) regardless because it is mandated by federal law. The teacher will know that the child is going to fail and that the test is an exercise in futility, yet they have to do it. It's more than just heartless; it's absurd.

Well, that depends on the purpose of the test. The purpose of the tests required by NCLB is to assess how the students in the school are doing. I guess there could be an option for "we know that the test results for this student will be bad, so let's just skip the test and mark "bad" for the student", but I'm not sure how that would work.

NCLB testing could also provide some diagnostic feedback and be more useful in other ways, there's nothing in the law that says it can't - however, for whatever reason, states and local school officials have not seen fit to pursue that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Common Core standards do not require children to be taught at grade level, regardless of where the children actually are, and rational administrators will not require it either.

But, there are tests. And, I know that is NCLB, but CC was designed with tests in mind.

I have read this assertion several times here, but there has not been any evidence to support it. There was one PP who provided links, but the links did not say what the PP said they said.

Regardless, if a child is below grade level,

1. the Common Core standards do not require the child to be taught at grade level, and
2. teaching the child at grade level will not improve the child's test results.

Yes, but this child will be required to take the end of year standardized test (whichever one) regardless because it is mandated by federal law. The teacher will know that the child is going to fail and that the test is an exercise in futility, yet they have to do it. It's more than just heartless; it's absurd.

Well, that depends on the purpose of the test. The purpose of the tests required by NCLB is to assess how the students in the school are doing. I guess there could be an option for "we know that the test results for this student will be bad, so let's just skip the test and mark "bad" for the student", but I'm not sure how that would work.

Anonymous wrote:

No, not every kid will meet the benchmarks and especially so if the school's pre-existing curriculum has been so lax that the kid won't have any pre-requisites. But, you know what? You FIX that. You fix the curriculum to make sure the pre-requisites are in place, and you give the kids that are "too far behind" the remediation they need to succeed.

Instead you seem to want to just bitch and whine about change and just let the kids who are behind slide and the only thing you're upset about is that someone's rocking that boat. You certainly aren't doing kids any favors.

You're awfully good at telling people to do something, but not very good at telling them exactly what or actually helping. Of course, we know that your job is just to point out other people's failures. You seem to know a lot about why people fail---it's because they are just lazy and don't want to work, right? But you, you're working like a dog to help out. Great job.

Here's something exact and helpful: You could start by actually thoroughly reading the standards and seeing how they fit together and how one standard in grade x is the foundation for the next in grade y and how that one is the foundation for the next in grade z rather than just looking at it piecemeal and then saying "I don't understand it" and "it's developmentally inappropriate" because if you actually look at the standards as a whole, they make a whole lot more sense and the how and why actually starts to make a lot more sense then. I've also suggested that teachers can collaborate on curriculum and materials and discussion around the standards to make sure they do understand, and are prepared, there's a whole great big Internet full of free and cheap tools like wikis available for doing exactly that, and in fact, that's exactly what some teachers are already doing, as opposed to the bunker mentality that's being exhibited around here.

No, not every kid will meet the benchmarks and especially so if the school's pre-existing curriculum has been so lax that the kid won't have any pre-requisites. But, you know what? You FIX that. You fix the curriculum to make sure the pre-requisites are in place, and you give the kids that are "too far behind" the remediation they need to succeed.

Instead you seem to want to just bitch and whine about change and just let the kids who are behind slide and the only thing you're upset about is that someone's rocking that boat. You certainly aren't doing kids any favors.

You're awfully good at telling people to do something, but not very good at telling them exactly what or actually helping. Of course, we know that your job is just to point out other people's failures. You seem to know a lot about why people fail---it's because they are just lazy and don't want to work, right? But you, you're working like a dog to help out. Great job.

Anonymous wrote:

Look, you're really not winning either way.

Given academics already went by the wayside when you started doing social promotion, what's the fucking difference whether a kid drops out of school in 10th grade versus stays through 12th and graduates, but really only got an 8th grade education because he fell behind, was lost/gave up long prior and was only carried along by the inertia of social promotion? It's mostly already a sham at that point. The only point seems to be to keep them off the street. Used to be that if they dropped out early, at least they might find a job somewhere but even that's screwed at this point.

Well, you do know that the feds are also requiring the districts to report graduation rates, right? The districts are under pressure to increase their high school graduation rates. What do you think was going to happen?

I think that they really do need to give these kinds of students a different type of diploma and acknowledge that Keep them off the streets, yes. But keep them in a program that is productive for them---one that will lead to a job that's not "do you want fries with that?" We used to do this in this country (with tech type classes). The state of Texas seems to have this figured out (they have 3 different levels of diplomas). Why can't we do that? Other industrialized countries do that with great success (Germany as exhibit A).

Right - we don't seem to do things like vo-tech robustly anymore - let alone as robustly as they do it in Germany as you mention, where trades also in some cases have practicing apprenticeships. We seem to have undervalued things like these - yet by the same token, there still needs to be recognition that even the trades need a certain level of functionality - kids will still need a robust level of math and basic algebra for cost estimating, et cetera, trigonometry is needed in many construction/manufacturing fields, et cetera - not to mention solid literacy skills for reading complex technical instruction, contracts, et cetera.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have taught students who are going through 9th grade for the third time (failed twice) AMA---Ask Me Anything.


I finally lost a senior this semester who was in my 9th grade inclusion class.

He felt no shame either . . .

I've lost two this year. Both are making a living . . . in the gangs.

ahh
the Common Core Criminal Pathway

Riiiiiiiiiight. Blame Common Core for the dropouts THAT WERE ALREADY HAPPENING FOR DECADES.

You are so full of shit it's not even funny.

another fucking moron

It was a joke.

No, the Common Core isn't for everyone b/c of the rigor embedded into EACH standard, which can be broken down into MULTIPLE student objectives.

But am I against STANDARDS? no! I've written entire frameworks using the 9-12 ELA standards.

Get over your BIG BAD CCSS self!

Standards are good, but not everyone understands them and not every kid will meet the benchmarks b/c some are too far behind.

So maybe there is a bit of truth to the Common Core Criminal Pathway after all.

Piss off.

No, not every kid will meet the benchmarks and especially so if the school's pre-existing curriculum has been so lax that the kid won't have any pre-requisites. But, you know what? You FIX that. You fix the curriculum to make sure the pre-requisites are in place, and you give the kids that are "too far behind" the remediation they need to succeed.

Instead you seem to want to just bitch and whine about change and just let the kids who are behind slide and the only thing you're upset about is that someone's rocking that boat. You certainly aren't doing kids any favors.

Look, you're really not winning either way.

Given academics already went by the wayside when you started doing social promotion, what's the fucking difference whether a kid drops out of school in 10th grade versus stays through 12th and graduates, but really only got an 8th grade education because he fell behind, was lost/gave up long prior and was only carried along by the inertia of social promotion? It's mostly already a sham at that point. The only point seems to be to keep them off the street. Used to be that if they dropped out early, at least they might find a job somewhere but even that's screwed at this point.

Well, you do know that the feds are also requiring the districts to report graduation rates, right? The districts are under pressure to increase their high school graduation rates. What do you think was going to happen?

I think that they really do need to give these kinds of students a different type of diploma and acknowledge that Keep them off the streets, yes. But keep them in a program that is productive for them---one that will lead to a job that's not "do you want fries with that?" We used to do this in this country (with tech type classes). The state of Texas seems to have this figured out (they have 3 different levels of diplomas). Why can't we do that? Other industrialized countries do that with great success (Germany as exhibit A).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have taught students who are going through 9th grade for the third time (failed twice) AMA---Ask Me Anything.


I finally lost a senior this semester who was in my 9th grade inclusion class.

He felt no shame either . . .

I've lost two this year. Both are making a living . . . in the gangs.

ahh
the Common Core Criminal Pathway

Riiiiiiiiiight. Blame Common Core for the dropouts THAT WERE ALREADY HAPPENING FOR DECADES.

You are so full of shit it's not even funny.

another fucking moron

It was a joke.

No, the Common Core isn't for everyone b/c of the rigor embedded into EACH standard, which can be broken down into MULTIPLE student objectives.

But am I against STANDARDS? no! I've written entire frameworks using the 9-12 ELA standards.

Get over your BIG BAD CCSS self!

Standards are good, but not everyone understands them and not every kid will meet the benchmarks b/c some are too far behind.

So maybe there is a bit of truth to the Common Core Criminal Pathway after all.

Piss off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have taught students who are going through 9th grade for the third time (failed twice) AMA---Ask Me Anything.


I finally lost a senior this semester who was in my 9th grade inclusion class.

He felt no shame either . . .

I've lost two this year. Both are making a living . . . in the gangs.

ahh
the Common Core Criminal Pathway

Riiiiiiiiiight. Blame Common Core for the dropouts THAT WERE ALREADY HAPPENING FOR DECADES.

You are so full of shit it's not even funny.

Anonymous wrote:

I have taught students who are going through 9th grade for the third time (failed twice) AMA---Ask Me Anything.


I finally lost a senior this semester who was in my 9th grade inclusion class.

He felt no shame either . . .

I've lost two this year. Both are making a living . . . in the gangs.

ahh
the Common Core Criminal Pathway

I have taught students who are going through 9th grade for the third time (failed twice) AMA---Ask Me Anything.


I finally lost a senior this semester who was in my 9th grade inclusion class.

He felt no shame either . . .

I've lost two this year. Both are making a living . . . in the gangs.