Oh, so the mere fact of comparing anything is a problem. Your diagnosis is asinine.

It's the *STATES* that decided how to implement the tests. That's why there is PARCC, Smarter Balanced, and a whole menagerie of other tests from state to state. It's the *STATE* that decided not to implement diagnostics. If you want to say otherwise, you are welcome to cite for me the language from NCLB that says it is prohibited.

Anonymous wrote:

As I see it, there is plenty of flexibility in CC. It doesn't tell you how to teach, it doesn't tell you what materials to use, it doesn't tell you what not to teach, it doesn't prohibit you from being creative.

But the tests will tell you what to teach and what materials to use.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a PERFECT example of the kind of pedantic myopia and utter and complete lack of understanding of the big picture of educational objectives and how they all fit together as building blocks that the anti-CC folks seem to be suffering from.



Actually this is the kind of thinking that standardized testing promotes. Sadly. I am glad to see that you are against this type of thinking. Start working toward making the standards less rigid and more flexible (which it sounds like you are in favor of). The biggest help would be to get rid of the totally inflexible testing regime (NCLB). The high stakes nature of the tests (and the tests themselves) have crippled the teacher's ability to be flexible and creative. Are you in favor of the NCLB testing mandates?



I strongly disagree. It doesn't "promote" that kind of thinking. As I said, if you actually take the time to read the SEQUENCE in CC, you will see that it DOES NOT promote that kind of thinking. Rather than just "this box is about attaching widget x" when you read them as a whole, it builds up an entire educational program from foundational building blocks in a way that makes sense. If some only choose to look at "this box is about widget x" and choose to implement it by putting in a minimal effort and checking the box [b]then that's their own problem, not the problem of CC - and those people would be a problem in the school system regardless of whether CC or NCLB existed.
[/b]
As I see it, there is plenty of flexibility in CC. It doesn't tell you how to teach, it doesn't tell you what materials to use, it doesn't tell you what not to teach, it doesn't prohibit you from being creative.

It is the problem of the standardized testing. And as long as you have it and you use it to compare people, schools, states, whatever, you have the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

As I see it, there is plenty of flexibility in CC. It doesn't tell you how to teach, it doesn't tell you what materials to use, it doesn't tell you what not to teach, it doesn't prohibit you from being creative.

Do you believe that there should be tests (which are approved as part of NCLB by the federal government) where the resulting data (namely test scores) is used as part of a teacher's evaluation?

Do you believe that the federal government should be allowed to use testing results or even the fact that they are testing using certain tests to hold back money from some states and schools while "rewarding" other states and schools who are making higher scores or who are acting in ways that the federal government has decreed are "good"?

Do you believe there should be tests where the federal government monitors schools and states and compares them for purposes that the general public has not heard about (and that they don't seem to be able to articulate very well)?

Do you believe that states and local districts should not be allowed to write their own educational standards for their students?

Do you believe that if the states and localities do not adopt CC that they should be "punished" in the form of less Title 1 or ELL monies?

What is the role of the federal government in education?

What are your thoughts on the above questions?

Anonymous wrote:

I strongly disagree. It doesn't "promote" that kind of thinking. As I said, if you actually take the time to read the SEQUENCE in CC, you will see that it DOES NOT promote that kind of thinking. Rather than just "this box is about attaching widget x" when you read them as a whole, it builds up an entire educational program from foundational building blocks in a way that makes sense. If some only choose to look at "this box is about widget x" and choose to implement it by putting in a minimal effort and checking the box then that's their own problem, not the problem of CC - and those people would be a problem in the school system regardless of whether CC or NCLB existed.

As I see it, there is plenty of flexibility in CC. It doesn't tell you how to teach, it doesn't tell you what materials to use, it doesn't tell you what not to teach, it doesn't prohibit you from being creative.

Again, it's just a minimum standard, not a proscriptive "not-to-exceed" standard.

Sequence? are you serious. They are all over the place.

As I see it, there is plenty of flexibility in CC. It doesn't tell you how to teach, it doesn't tell you what materials to use, it doesn't tell you what not to teach, it doesn't prohibit you from being creative.

As I see it, there is plenty of flexibility in CC. It doesn't tell you how to teach, it doesn't tell you what materials to use, it doesn't tell you what not to teach, it doesn't prohibit you from being creative.