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

Anonymous wrote:https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/those-24-common-core-2009-work-group-members/

bios of Common Core developers. Amazing: almost NO elementary experience on either group. Most of those who had teaching experience had not taught in years and years. Some had no teaching experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Also, if teachers are required to teach only the grade-level curriculum and nothing but the grade-level curriculum, regardless of where the actual students are, that's a real problem. But it's a problem with the school administrators. The Common Core standards do not require this.

So, are you going to give the fifth grade test to a child in the seventh grade--who is doing fifth grade work?

Also, if teachers are required to teach only the grade-level curriculum and nothing but the grade-level curriculum, regardless of where the actual students are, that's a real problem. But it's a problem with the school administrators. The Common Core standards do not require this.

Anonymous wrote:

can't answer that question unless you first tell me what you mean by "most of the Common Core standard writers" and "come from the testing industry".

Sorry was responding to the comment that said CC wasn't tied to testing. You can find the list of writers on the Common Core website. Bios and affiliations are on there as well.

can't answer that question unless you first tell me what you mean by "most of the Common Core standard writers" and "come from the testing industry".

Anonymous wrote:

Also, if teachers are required to teach only the grade-level curriculum and nothing but the grade-level curriculum, regardless of where the actual students are, that's a real problem. But it's a problem with the school administrators. The Common Core standards do not require this.

Interesting, though, that most of the Common Core standard writers come from the testing industry. Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Also, if teachers are required to teach only the grade-level curriculum and nothing but the grade-level curriculum, regardless of where the actual students are, that's a real problem. But it's a problem with the school administrators. The Common Core standards do not require this.

Then, why are they written per grade level?

Also, if teachers are required to teach only the grade-level curriculum and nothing but the grade-level curriculum, regardless of where the actual students are, that's a real problem. But it's a problem with the school administrators. The Common Core standards do not require this.

Also, if teachers are required to teach only the grade-level curriculum and nothing but the grade-level curriculum, regardless of where the actual students are, that's a real problem. But it's a problem with the school administrators. The Common Core standards do not require this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I find it very difficult to believe that if a student is way below grade level, it is possible to game the test prep so that the student does well on the test anyway. Which is to say -- I don't doubt that people might try to game the test prep. I just don't think that the effort would be successful.

Also, if teachers are required to teach only the grade-level curriculum and nothing but the grade-level curriculum, regardless of where the actual students are, that's a real problem. But it's a problem with the school administrators. The Common Core standards do not require this.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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:

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.