If NEA and AFT had truly turned their backs on CC in betrayal of the Gates Foundation as you claim, then why would the Gates Foundation continue to support NEA and AFT? Your claim just doesn't make sense.

Gates needs the NEA and the AFT. Without them, he will have a much harder time. You cannot do something this big without all kinds of buy in.

At this point it's already questionable whether the buy in is enough. If you've got people arguing, states dropping tests, parents opting out, teachers quitting, etc., then you need to put the horse out of its misery.

Anonymous wrote:

+100 the person looking for it should just go and ask for it!! Also, the person making the accusations (that being the anti-CCer) has the burden of proof to meet in the accusations - yet keeps failing to do so!

Wrong. Any professional organization who had that information would have published it. Unless, the results were not positive.

I'm certain that the dog didn't bark in the night, because if the dog had barked, somebody would have told me without my asking.

+100 the person looking for it should just go and ask for it!! Also, the person making the accusations (that being the anti-CCer) has the burden of proof to meet in the accusations - yet keeps failing to do so!

Wrong. Any professional organization who had that information would have published it. Unless, the results were not positive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You've already been provided the contact info for CSSO and NGA. Why don't you contact them already rather than being obtuse and playing these games?

You get it and post it. You are the one who says it exists.

Have you done any educational research? Results are usually published with data, documentation, and comments.

You're the one who wants it. So ask for it!

(I'm not the PP you're responding to.)

+100 the person looking for it should just go and ask for it!! Also, the person making the accusations (that being the anti-CCer) has the burden of proof to meet in the accusations - yet keeps failing to do so!

Anonymous wrote:

You've already been provided the contact info for CSSO and NGA. Why don't you contact them already rather than being obtuse and playing these games?

You get it and post it. You are the one who says it exists.

Have you done any educational research? Results are usually published with data, documentation, and comments.

You're the one who wants it. So ask for it!

(I'm not the PP you're responding to.)

You've already been provided the contact info for CSSO and NGA. Why don't you contact them already rather than being obtuse and playing these games?

You get it and post it. You are the one who says it exists.

Have you done any educational research? Results are usually published with data, documentation, and comments.

Anonymous wrote:The tests and standards will not help the kids who are not achieving. What a waste of money on Common Core. The kids who are currently achieving are being harmed by all the testing. Too much time spent not learning.

Testing takes out hardly any of my DC's time. If your school is spending huge amounts of time on testing, then it's your school and how they've chosen to implement it that's the problem, not the testing.

Anonymous wrote:

That's just the first 24 names from a cast of hundreds. Missing from that discussion are all of the members of the Math and English Feedback Groups, the Validation Committee, the National Policy Forum members, and then all of the external stakeholder groups like NEA, AFT and yet another cast of hundreds of professional educators and experts who reviewed the standard, modified the standard, and provided input and vetting. Again, for the 98th time, Common Core was *not* "developed behind closed doors by a secretive handful of people from the testing industry who have no teaching experience" and it is disingenuous and dishonest to keep repeating that myth.

Please post the results and the comments from the "cast of hundreds". And, remember, NEA and AFT received grants from Gates very close to the time that they came out in favor.

You've already been provided the contact info for CSSO and NGA. Why don't you contact them already rather than being obtuse and playing these games?

And you also failed to demonstrate any direct connection with the Gates grants to NEA and AFT foundations with their acceptance of Common Core. The Gates Foundation has been giving out millions in education grants each year since at least 1999. And, they continue giving out grants despite what you claim is waning support. If NEA and AFT had truly turned their backs on CC in betrayal of the Gates Foundation as you claim, then why would the Gates Foundation continue to support NEA and AFT? Your claim just doesn't make sense.

The tests and standards will not help the kids who are not achieving. What a waste of money on Common Core. The kids who are currently achieving are being harmed by all the testing. Too much time spent not learning.

Many teachers will only have their own classroom as a gauge. If there are systemic problems across the whole school system, and it is the norm to have kids below grade level, without standards or testing, those involved didn't have a basis for comparison to know any better, other than the subjective and anecdotal - which is why an external, objective yardstick is needed to provide broader perspective on where students should be.

That's just the first 24 names from a cast of hundreds. Missing from that discussion are all of the members of the Math and English Feedback Groups, the Validation Committee, the National Policy Forum members, and then all of the external stakeholder groups like NEA, AFT and yet another cast of hundreds of professional educators and experts who reviewed the standard, modified the standard, and provided input and vetting. Again, for the 98th time, Common Core was *not* "developed behind closed doors by a secretive handful of people from the testing industry who have no teaching experience" and it is disingenuous and dishonest to keep repeating that myth.

Please post the results and the comments from the "cast of hundreds". And, remember, NEA and AFT received grants from Gates very close to the time that they came out in favor.

Prior to standardized testing, and when they had tracking, do you know how many times kids got tracked into the wrong tracks, just because of teacher assumptions about student abilities? A WHOLE LOT. So, it's not so much of a "waste of time" - if teachers just marked students according to their own perspective of where they thought students are at with regard to grade level, I have very little confidence in how accurate or reliable that would be.

Wow. Teachers are not able to figure out anything about students' abilities? They need a test to do that? Why the heck do we have teachers at all? They sound worthless honestly. The test sounds incredibly wonderful.

Wait. You mean the tests never tracked kids into the wrong tracks? Geez, get rid of the teachers NOW.

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.

That's just the first 24 names from a cast of hundreds. Missing from that discussion are all of the members of the Math and English Feedback Groups, the Validation Committee, the National Policy Forum members, and then all of the external stakeholder groups like NEA, AFT and yet another cast of hundreds of professional educators and experts who reviewed the standard, modified the standard, and provided input and vetting. Again, for the 98th time, Common Core was *not* "developed behind closed doors by a secretive handful of people from the testing industry who have no teaching experience" and it is disingenuous and dishonest to keep repeating that myth.

Anonymous wrote:

Why? The purpose of the test is to determine what proportion of the students are at grade level. They are not at grade level. Do you think that there should be an option such that students who are below grade level can just get marked below grade level without having to take the test?



That's actually a good idea. Why put a kid through a demoralizing activity?


What, kids should never be tested, because it's "demoralizing?" That's idiotic.

I didn't say that kids should "never be tested". They should never be tested using a test that is a waste of time.

Prior to standardized testing, and when they had tracking, do you know how many times kids got tracked into the wrong tracks, just because of teacher assumptions about student abilities? A WHOLE LOT. So, it's not so much of a "waste of time" - if teachers just marked students according to their own perspective of where they thought students are at with regard to grade level, I have very little confidence in how accurate or reliable that would be.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they are grade-level standards. Grade-level standards mean -- this is what students at this grade should be able to do, to be at grade-level.

Would the critics care to cite for us anything from the official and authoritative Common Core language that prohibits schools from providing remedial math and english coursework, i.e. extra math and english labs to bring up the kids who are behind grade level? Because I certainly have not seen any such prohibition. And given there isn't, you can't legitimately go around saying schools are locked in with no options. And, in fact, many schools do exactly that, so the anti-CCers are just plain wrong on that one.