Anonymous wrote:

You have conveniently left students out of your discussion. Students should be the drivers of what goes on in the classroom. When you put in high stakes testing, you have the test being the "driver". And you have the administrators enforcing that system because they are being held to it as well. The dysfunction can be traced back to the high stakes testing and the whole idea that instruction should be "data driven". There are great schools out here and they have been made to waste time with the testing. There are not so great schools and their kids have had to spend more time on test prep and less time in classes that would be much more interesting and broadening for them (which is so sad). I'm not sure who is gaining with this federal oversight.

High stakes testing is a No Child Left Behind Act issue, not a Common Core standards issue.

If you are telling me that the teaching corps doesn't know anything other than to teach to the test then you are admitting that they don't know how to teach, period. And that's something that's at the root of many of our problems in teaching - that education schools and our system really isn't doing a good job in preparing teachers.

If you believe that the education schools are the ones who prepare teachers, good luck with that. You seem to want to blame somebody for everything (it's the teachers, no the administrators, no the education schools).

It takes years to become a great teacher and most of the learning is "on the job" and by talking to other teachers A LOT. Great teachers have had a lot of support AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. Now the locals are so wrapped up in testing and tests that they have little time to support the teachers in a way that is not "data driven". Looking at spreadsheets and numbers is not the number one concern of teachers. Most new teachers don't need to focus on that. Many need help with classroom management or developing lessons that work. Keep them away from data!!! What a waste of time.

If you are telling me that the teaching corps doesn't know anything other than to teach to the test then you are admitting that they don't know how to teach, period. And that's something that's at the root of many of our problems in teaching - that education schools and our system really isn't doing a good job in preparing teachers. A good teacher would be able to work with standards and provide robust content without having to teach to the test. A good teacher doesn't need rewards in order to be creative. A good teacher doesn't have to teach to the test, that teacher will get the results if the content, curriculum and delivery is solid.

What you are saying is also once again telling me that administrators don't know what they are doing, and that's the even bigger part of the problem.

Basically there is a huge amount of dysfunction in our educational system - and getting rid of testing and standards really isn't going to fix any of that.

You have conveniently left students out of your discussion. Students should be the drivers of what goes on in the classroom. When you put in high stakes testing, you have the test being the "driver". And you have the administrators enforcing that system because they are being held to it as well. The dysfunction can be traced back to the high stakes testing and the whole idea that instruction should be "data driven". There are great schools out here and they have been made to waste time with the testing. There are not so great schools and their kids have had to spend more time on test prep and less time in classes that would be much more interesting and broadening for them (which is so sad). I'm not sure who is gaining with this federal oversight.

Anonymous wrote:

If the standards and the tests are "good", you will have students and parents who want their kids to take the tests. Otherwise, they will view it all as a waste of time (which it is).

We keep being told the standards and tests are "bad" yet when pressed for details and specifics on what exactly is so bad, all one ever gets are fearmongering, vague generalities, handwaving, misinformation and misdirection - so how is one to ever trust the people calling them bad?

Anonymous wrote:
As long as the government is evaluating schools and teachers on test scores--and that is the plan--schools will be training kids to pass tests rather than educating them. It's the "fear" factor.


Then that's a failing of that particular school, not of testing. If you teach the kids with a solid curriculum that also happens to meet the learning objectives laid out in the test then you don't need to teach to the test. The test isn't asking kids to learn anything weird, obscure or non-relevant.

Your premise assumes that the students are at a level where you can use the curriculum. A "solid curriculum" would be one that is relevant to the students in the school. That may not be the curriculum that has been adopted from "on high" (which could be the one that is called Common Core).

The teacher will be forced to use the adopted curriculum if no other curriculum has been adopted. The curriculum that isn't "solid" for them. If they don't, they will be told that their students failed because they did not prepare them for the test. If they do use it, they might have a chance by "gaming" the test preparation.

Anonymous wrote:

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

You didn't answer my previous set of questions so I am assuming that you support the yearly standardized testing that is mandated by NCLB.

My diagnosis is spot on. I have watched the teaching corps deteriorate as the new teachers do not know how to "not teach to the test". When you don't have tenure and nobody rewards you for being creative and you are only rewarded for getting the test scores, what do you think happens?

Sadly, I have been in this business for decades and have watched it all up close and personal. Have you?

You don't have to believe me, but the truth will out (it already has actually, but some people have to have their head banged against the wall more than a few times to get it).

If you are telling me that the teaching corps doesn't know anything other than to teach to the test then you are admitting that they don't know how to teach, period. And that's something that's at the root of many of our problems in teaching - that education schools and our system really isn't doing a good job in preparing teachers. A good teacher would be able to work with standards and provide robust content without having to teach to the test. A good teacher doesn't need rewards in order to be creative. A good teacher doesn't have to teach to the test, that teacher will get the results if the content, curriculum and delivery is solid.

What you are saying is also once again telling me that administrators don't know what they are doing, and that's the even bigger part of the problem.

Basically there is a huge amount of dysfunction in our educational system - and getting rid of testing and standards really isn't going to fix any of that.

Anonymous wrote:Myth #3:Common Core is a state initiative. Maybe started there, but was quickly hijacked. Follow the money. States were paid to support it.

No, not "quickly" - The feds didn't get involved until the end, when it was being rolled out. Again, not the makings of a mythbuster. To call these things "myths" you actually have to disprove them. But you haven't even remotely done that.

Anonymous wrote:Myth #2: Common Core will improve education.

There is no proof of this. No one has yet provided data to support this.

At least they are trying, as opposed to the status quo, wherein education was declining. And no one has yet provided data to support that Common Core does not improve education. Again, not the makings of a mythbuster.

Anonymous wrote:Myth #1:These tests measure how much the kids learn.

No. They measure how well the kid does on the test. Those may not be the same thing.

"May" - that is not the making of a mythbuster

Anonymous wrote:As long as the government is evaluating schools and teachers on test scores--and that is the plan--schools will be training kids to pass tests rather than educating them. It's the "fear" factor.

Then that's a failing of that particular school, not of testing. If you teach the kids with a solid curriculum that also happens to meet the learning objectives laid out in the test then you don't need to teach to the test. The test isn't asking kids to learn anything weird, obscure or non-relevant.

At some point, you have to trust the teachers. If you don't have that, the system is unworkable.

You won't get qualified teachers (which has already become a big problem) and you won't get the best teaching without a pretty healthy dose of trust. It's like a marriage---no trust and the thing doesn't work. Teaching is just as much about relationships as it is about anything else. The parents have to trust the teacher, as do the students and the community. When that dissolves, you've got really, really big problems. Education is very much local. The feds cannot manage it.

If the standards and the tests are "good", you will have students and parents who want their kids to take the tests. Otherwise, they will view it all as a waste of time (which it is).

Here's a compromise that might work and help schools, teachers, and students.

The new ESEA bill could support CC as long as CC is put in with an "experimental" timeline where there is discussion and option for changing the standards to be more appropriate and valuable for individual states.

Secondly, the ESEA could acknowledge that standardized testing during the "experimental phase" is not entirely appropriate as the standards have not been solidified nor have teachers had time to adjust to them. There could be a two year moratorium and during that time states could opt in or not (for the testing).

Third, parents could always have the opt out choice in schools.


Good compromise I think. It makes more sense that what has been done.

The problem is that it is hard to measure creativity and it is easy to measure using a standardized test.

America was built on its creative minds and now those ways of thinking are being destroyed so that we can "compete" with China (or whoever).

Now we want the states to compete against each other as well. Really? We are not all the same and that's a GOOD THING. Diversity is a positive. Having teachers that are different from each other is super positive. People can't feed off of each other if they have not learned different things or if they don't have different strengths.

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

You didn't answer my previous set of questions so I am assuming that you support the yearly standardized testing that is mandated by NCLB.

My diagnosis is spot on. I have watched the teaching corps deteriorate as the new teachers do not know how to "not teach to the test". When you don't have tenure and nobody rewards you for being creative and you are only rewarded for getting the test scores, what do you think happens?

Sadly, I have been in this business for decades and have watched it all up close and personal. Have you?

You don't have to believe me, but the truth will out (it already has actually, but some people have to have their head banged against the wall more than a few times to get it).