Anonymous wrote:This is great. The Huffington Post pokes fun at national standardized testing fever (in a way they've never done for the anti vax movement).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-greene/a-field-guide-to-standard_b_9724552.html
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No equivalency with vaxers. Science supports vaccines -- not extensive testing.
I'm sorry but you missed the point. You would have failed that question on a standardized test
The anology is irrational hysteria and the fact that most of the students WILL take the test, and only the actual test takers will impact teachers and the school (fairly or not). I'd hate to see my child's favorite teacher dinged or worse over imcomplete scores - not even poor results. The herd immunity is the way the teachers are assessed on tests taken even when the snowflakes opt out.
Of course the act of testing is not scientifically proven to have educational benefits but that's hardly the point. It's a means of gathering and assessing data. How that data is determined and ultimately used is another point altogether.
Both you and your spell-checker would have failed two questions on a standardized test.
(You have to be skillful and experienced, when you choose to ride the HIGH horse.)
wow -- that's your take away . Bravo![]()
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No equivalency with vaxers. Science supports vaccines -- not extensive testing.
I'm sorry but you missed the point. You would have failed that question on a standardized test
The anology is irrational hysteria and the fact that most of the students WILL take the test, and only the actual test takers will impact teachers and the school (fairly or not). I'd hate to see my child's favorite teacher dinged or worse over imcomplete scores - not even poor results. The herd immunity is the way the teachers are assessed on tests taken even when the snowflakes opt out.
Of course the act of testing is not scientifically proven to have educational benefits but that's hardly the point. It's a means of gathering and assessing data. How that data is determined and ultimately used is another point altogether.
Both you and your spell-checker would have failed two questions on a standardized test.
(You have to be skillful and experienced, when you choose to ride the HIGH horse.)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No equivalency with vaxers. Science supports vaccines -- not extensive testing.
I'm sorry but you missed the point. You would have failed that question on a standardized test
The anology is irrational hysteria and the fact that most of the students WILL take the test, and only the actual test takers will impact teachers and the school (fairly or not). I'd hate to see my child's favorite teacher dinged or worse over imcomplete scores - not even poor results. The herd immunity is the way the teachers are assessed on tests taken even when the snowflakes opt out.
Of course the act of testing is not scientifically proven to have educational benefits but that's hardly the point. It's a means of gathering and assessing data. How that data is determined and ultimately used is another point altogether.
Anonymous wrote:This is great. The Huffington Post pokes fun at national standardized testing fever (in a way they've never done for the anti vax movement).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-greene/a-field-guide-to-standard_b_9724552.html
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What's bizarre to me is the determination shown on threads relating to opting out of the DC-CAS, and now the PARCC, to motivate other parents to embrace one's views on mandatory standardized testing in public schools. I'm reminded of my grandparents' view on reproductive rights and gay unions, that of "good Catholics," when I was a kid. We're right, you're wrong; we're good, thoughtful, upstanding and civic-minded, those who disagree are strange, bad, shrill and obsessive. We deserve a voice, while you should shut up and do as we, and the federal and state governments, say. Ours is not to question why. The Pope, the cardinals, the bishops etc. know best of course.
+1,000
Either get in line with the prevailing opinion or keep your head down.
Anonymous wrote:What's bizarre to me is the determination shown on threads relating to opting out of the DC-CAS, and now the PARCC, to motivate other parents to embrace one's views on mandatory standardized testing in public schools. I'm reminded of my grandparents' view on reproductive rights and gay unions, that of "good Catholics," when I was a kid. We're right, you're wrong; we're good, thoughtful, upstanding and civic-minded, those who disagree are strange, bad, shrill and obsessive. We deserve a voice, while you should shut up and do as we, and the federal and state governments, say. Ours is not to question why. The Pope, the cardinals, the bishops etc. know best of course.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We opted out for a child with emotional disorder and school supported us.
This is why there is a target of 95%. So that students for whom testing would be truly harmful can opt out.
I think most opt out is lame but totally support for genuine exceptions.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No equivalency with vaxers. Science supports vaccines -- not extensive testing.
I'm sorry but you missed the point. You would have failed that question on a standardized test
The anology is irrational hysteria and the fact that most of the students WILL take the test, and only the actual test takers will impact teachers and the school (fairly or not). I'd hate to see my child's favorite teacher dinged or worse over imcomplete scores - not even poor results. The herd immunity is the way the teachers are assessed on tests taken even when the snowflakes opt out.
Of course the act of testing is not scientifically proven to have educational benefits but that's hardly the point. It's a means of gathering and assessing data. How that data is determined and ultimately used is another point altogether.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We opted out for a child with emotional disorder and school supported us.
This is why there is a target of 95%. So that students for whom testing would be truly harmful can opt out.
Anonymous wrote:We opted out for a child with emotional disorder and school supported us.
Anonymous wrote:No equivalency with vaxers. Science supports vaccines -- not extensive testing.