Anonymous wrote:Go read about how Common Core was developed and the rationale behind it. Tests are very important to this program.

Please be more specific than "go read". I have read plenty. The testing is the result of, and is required by, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Go read about how Common Core was developed and the rationale behind it. Tests are very important to this program.

The CC is probably fine, but can we get rid of all the testing? Can we have standards and curriculum, without so many tests? The standards should drive the curriculum, not the tests! If it's about evaluating teachers, there are other more valid ways to do that. If it's about making sure the kids are learning, this much testing is unnecessary. If it's about comparing ourselves to other nations, there are already other measures out there. If it's about trying to make all the states the same, well, hello, that ain't gonna happen by federal decree. We are wasting lots of money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/01/26/school-superintendent-writes-warning-letter-on-parcc-common-core-test/

I lived in Europe for 10 years. Yes, European countries generally have multiple tracks - the more academically-focused students typically do end up going on to free college in many countries, and there are also general education tracks (but with college still as an option). But your assertion that they don't have students finish high school is ridiculous, let alone getting short schrift, as even the trade track leads to high school graduation with robust technical and vocational content, and often also comes with technical apprenticeships and other programs following graduation. Here in the US we don't even give the non-academically minded students that much.

I am willing to bet that those who are going in trades do not have their scores compared to those in the US.

I believe that the students on the trade track in Germany only go through 10th grade. Education is only mandatory through age 15. Here it is age 18. I wonder if the students on the trade track are being compared to our students (I doubt it). The international comparisons are fraught with inconsistencies. I wouldn't put a lot of credence in them.

Anonymous wrote:

LOLWUT? Other countries do send their kids to high school, and in fact, in Europe many countries send their kids to college for free as well. Also, look at places like Singapore, which are kicking our asses.

We in the US are definitely not at the top of the pack, where it comes to educating kids.

Are you clueless? Most European countries have a trade track. They may pay for college, but it is certainly not open to all. Have you ever lived in Europe?

I lived in Europe for 10 years. Yes, European countries generally have multiple tracks - the more academically-focused students typically do end up going on to free college in many countries, and there are also general education tracks (but with college still as an option). But your assertion that they don't have students finish high school is ridiculous, let alone getting short schrift, as even the trade track leads to high school graduation with robust technical and vocational content, and often also comes with technical apprenticeships and other programs following graduation. Here in the US we don't even give the non-academically minded students that much.

We in the US are definitely not at the top of the pack, where it comes to educating kids.

We are at the top of the pack in doing lots of things that are not measured by the comparative international tests. For example, socializing immigrants. All you have to do is look at what just happened in France to get a sense of this. And the Asians have no clue about what it means to integrate people of different backgrounds into one society. We do this every day in public schools. They don't. We are doing so much that nobody else in the world does and no test measures it. On every measure of success as a country, we are way ahead. We've got to stop beating ourselves up. We need to focus on what we see as our needs and address them. And, we have to let our teachers do this. We cannot bombard them with idiotic minutiae and picking apart data. The teachers have a much bigger mission and, unfortunately, the bureaucratic bean counters are clueless.

LOLWUT? Other countries do send their kids to high school, and in fact, in Europe many countries send their kids to college for free as well. Also, look at places like Singapore, which are kicking our asses.

We in the US are definitely not at the top of the pack, where it comes to educating kids.

Are you clueless? Most European countries have a trade track. They may pay for college, but it is certainly not open to all. Have you ever lived in Europe?

Anonymous wrote:

Start here: http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/

Just skimmed through the 2008 rationale. They compared us to other countries. Don't they know that all of those countries don't send their kids to high school?

LOLWUT? Other countries do send their kids to high school, and in fact, in Europe many countries send their kids to college for free as well. Also, look at places like Singapore, which are kicking our asses.

We in the US are definitely not at the top of the pack, where it comes to educating kids.

I don't have personal experiences with MA schools, but I believe they have implemented CC back in 2012/2013, and their schools are still rated pretty high. Maybe look into how MA implemented it.


This is true and teachers in those schools are being grabbed up to help implement the CC in schools in other states. My sister is one of them and, although she is well supported by her new principal, she is having a very hard time convincing the other teachers (that teach the same grade) to throw out their 20 year old lesson plans and start over, without text books.


The same thing happened with many textbook companies, they didn't want to revise their decades-old content...

It really takes a thorough look at what's new, and discarding/genuinely updating what's old.

Why don't we just get rid of all those old, bad teachers since they won't change and let's also buy a lot of new materials that are up to date? I'm sure these two changes would save a lot of money (those older teachers cost too much and aren't worth it). We could use the money saved to buy new materials.

I'd like to research some places where the CC proponent can say: See? This is where it's working and this place can be a model for the others who are struggling with implementation.

You have a predetermined outcome in mind. I don't know if that is research. You are already biased in favor of CC. Maybe you should also research places where CC is not working and try to figure out why it's not working. That might actually get you to some solutions. If you only look at where CC is working, you may be looking at places where lots of standards would work (not just CC) so you won't be able to extrapolate that it is the CC set of standards that is making the difference.

I'd like to research some places where the CC proponent can say: See? This is where it's working and this place can be a model for the others who are struggling with implementation.

This is the kind of thinking that follows from the whole "best practices" philosophy. It's the idea that one place can be a "model" for another place. Can McLean High School be a model for an inner city high school? The CC might work fine at McLean HS, but does that mean they are a model for an inner city high school that is struggling with implementation of the Common Core? Do you think that the people who are able to implement it in one place can do so in another entirely different place? Do you think the same strategies that work in one school will work in every school (this is the idea behind "best practices"---that there is a perfect way to do things or a "best way")?

Those schools in New England were probably doing fine before CC was implemented.

Just skimmed through the 2008 rationale. They compared us to other countries. Don't they know that all of those countries don't send their kids to high school?




I think that you'll have to be more specific than that.

They compare math scores to European countries. Which European kids are they testing--the ones in all tracks or just those in the academic tracks?

Anonymous wrote:

I would also add that most, if not all the New England states have adopted CC, and a lot of those states have a reputation for good schools.

I think some website came out with a list of top 10 ranking of states with best schools, and most if not all had adopted CC. I'm sure there are people in those states that complain about their schools and CC, but in general, those states seem to be doing well enough with CC, better than those states that haven't adopted CC. It may or may not be due to CC, but it shows that adopting CC hasn't hurt them in the rankings or reputation.

How did they determine the standards? How did they decide to change the math? Who decided?

I'm not sure if you are asking how CC math standards were developed, or if these questions are pointed at those states that are mentioned in the previous posts.

Anonymous wrote:

Start here: http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/

Just skimmed through the 2008 rationale. They compared us to other countries. Don't they know that all of those countries don't send their kids to high school?

I think that you'll have to be more specific than that.