Answer: get rid of both Common Core and NCLB testing requirement.
Problem solved.

Spend the buckets of money on extra help for underachieving schools.


If you got rid of Common Core and NCLB, the first thing that would go away along with it would be the money.

Didn't say get rid of NCLB--just the testing requirement.

Money on a bad program like Common Core is a waste.

Anonymous wrote:

Answer: get rid of both Common Core and NCLB testing requirement.
Problem solved.

Spend the buckets of money on extra help for underachieving schools.

+1000 The whole thing is a big mess.

*yawn* so you keep saying, yet haven't been able to provide any meaningful or solid specifics to support it...

Anonymous wrote:Answer: get rid of both Common Core and NCLB testing requirement.
Problem solved.

Spend the buckets of money on extra help for underachieving schools.

If you got rid of Common Core and NCLB, the first thing that would go away along with it would be the money. Congress would sweep the funding that was going to help states with standards and testing. You'd have to get a new, separate appropriation for underachieving schools... and the reason that hasn't already happened is because I don't think it would go anywhere in this environment in Congress.

But then again, if you got rid of Common Core and NCLB, most states would replace them with their own state standard and testing - but this time without federal funding. So, you really wouldn't be "solving" anything, you'd only be making things worse.

Answer: get rid of both Common Core and NCLB testing requirement.
Problem solved.

Spend the buckets of money on extra help for underachieving schools.

+1000 The whole thing is a big mess.

Answer: get rid of both Common Core and NCLB testing requirement.
Problem solved.

Spend the buckets of money on extra help for underachieving schools.

Not a joke at all, that's how it works.

The testing requirement process and rules come from NCLB - and NCLB puts the core requirements in place, but leaves it up to the states to work out the remainder along with the finer details of implementation.

The tests existed before Common Core. The states that adopted Common Core aligned their state exams to Common Core, and that's where PARCC, Smarter Balanced and other tests come in.

If states get rid of Common Core, the testing requirement still exists via NCLB. The tests would have to be modified to whatever the new state standard is.

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core doesn't make rules or process for testing. Common Core is just a minimum content standard for math and English.

You are joking, right?

Why do you ask that question? I'm not the PP, but I would say that, too, and I wouldn't be joking.

Common Core doesn't make rules or process for testing. Common Core is just a minimum content standard for math and English.

You are joking, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Second of all, that's the local school administration, not "common core" rules or process.

Do you have a source for the CC rules or process for testing?

Common Core doesn't make rules or process for testing. Common Core is just a minimum content standard for math and English.

Rules and process for testing are set by the states following NCLB.

Second of all, that's the local school administration, not "common core" rules or process.

Do you have a source for the CC rules or process for testing?

First of all, that's not Common Core, it's NCLB testing. Second of all, that's the local school administration, not "common core" rules or process. Third of all, their cockamamie plan as stated was to have their kids enter the testing room, break the seal of the testing packet, and log into the computer, but then not actually take the test. So they planned to show up for the test, but then leave in the midst of it, and then show up unannounced to pick their kids up in the midst of it. How did they ever think that WOULDN'T be a problem?

Not to mention, that they aren't actually "boycotting" the test, by breaking the seal and logging into the computer but not completing the test, they are basically taking the test and failing it.

Great googley moogley. These anti-testing folks really don't seem all that bright.

Anonymous wrote:
This is the kind of publicity that the CC needs. One of the "bad administrators":

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/08/common-core-kidnapping-parent-calls-911-after-public-school-wont-release-kid-from-test/

You're linking to the Daily Caller.

This is the kind of publicity that the CC needs. One of the "bad administrators":

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/08/common-core-kidnapping-parent-calls-911-after-public-school-wont-release-kid-from-test/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, I guess that's interesting about this one guy, if you happen to be interested in this one guy. Why are you interested in this one guy? Also, why do you know so much about this private school in New Hampshire?

Google is your friend. Demographics were not on school website. Had to google to find that........

Google will tell me why you're interested in this one guy and this one school?

And why do we care only about this one guy when it's already been shown that there were dozens of other teachers involved in development of the standards? Darn those pesky facts, I guess we aren't supposed to pay attention to any of that.

Anonymous wrote:
No, Bill Gates does not own Pearson.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/07/12/how-microsoft-will-make-money-from-common-core-despite-what-bill-gates-said/

What's the point with all of this "waaah, waaah, Pearson, Microsoft, private sector!" hysteria anyways? School districts and states have already demonstrated time and time again that they either a.) don't have the wherewithal to do it on their own or b.) make an even worse mess of things when left to their own devices. This is why they contract things out to the private sector. Otherwise, where is this grand solution that these "rebelling teachers" would be proposing as an alternative? There isn't one - just whining and complaining. That it's Pearson or Microsoft isn't particularly relevant - if it weren't, some other company would be doing it.