Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, here we go again.

But ok, I'll play. How has it made it worse?

Asked and answered.

Sorry, but no it hasn't, for the 529th time. NO tangible facts, NO data, NO criteria for evaluation, NO studies, NOTHING with any detail or specificity demonstrating that things are "worse" or how, specifically and exactly, Common Core is "bad" or "developmentally inappropriate" has ever been presented here despite page after page of people calling you out and asking for it repeatedly.

You are once again just engaging in empty handwaving with this "asked and answered" bullshit.

PP is correct. This has been answered many times over -- you just don't like the answers.

What's your tie-in to the standards? You must be making a boatload of cash off them the way you desperately defend them.

Citations, please. Where is the data, where are the objective criteria, where are the studies? If it's been answered then you should have no problem providing URLs below.

Anonymous wrote:

PP is correct. This has been answered many times over -- you just don't like the answers.

What's your tie-in to the standards? You must be making a boatload of cash off them the way you desperately defend them.

You're right, I don't like the answers I've read so far. I have found them (depending on the particular answer) illogical, non-specific, conspiratorial, and factually incorrect. Nonetheless, every so often asking the question produces a new answer, for example the thalidomide thing, so I think it's worthwhile to continue asking.

Speaking of conspiratorial, I have no tie-in whatsoever to the Common Core State Standards. In fact, I didn't really have any particular opinion about the Common Core State Standards until I started reading people's illogical, non-specific, conspiratorial, and factually incorrect explanations for why they dislike the Common Core State Standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, here we go again.

But ok, I'll play. How has it made it worse?

Asked and answered.

Sorry, but no it hasn't, for the 529th time. NO tangible facts, NO data, NO criteria for evaluation, NO studies, NOTHING with any detail or specificity demonstrating that things are "worse" or how, specifically and exactly, Common Core is "bad" or "developmentally inappropriate" has ever been presented here despite page after page of people calling you out and asking for it repeatedly.

You are once again just engaging in empty handwaving with this "asked and answered" bullshit.

PP is correct. This has been answered many times over -- you just don't like the answers.

What's your tie-in to the standards? You must be making a boatload of cash off them the way you desperately defend them.

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, here we go again.

But ok, I'll play. How has it made it worse?

Asked and answered.

Sorry, but no it hasn't, for the 529th time. NO tangible facts, NO data, NO criteria for evaluation, NO studies, NOTHING with any detail or specificity demonstrating that things are "worse" or how, specifically and exactly, Common Core is "bad" or "developmentally inappropriate" has ever been presented here despite page after page of people calling you out and asking for it repeatedly.

You are once again just engaging in empty handwaving with this "asked and answered" bullshit.

Oh, here we go again.

But ok, I'll play. How has it made it worse?

Asked and answered.

Anonymous wrote:

I think he spent all that money because he thought they would fix some things. Not everything. Just some things.

Sadly, he was mistaken. He made it worse.

Oh, here we go again.

But ok, I'll play. How has it made it worse?

I think he spent all that money because he thought they would fix some things. Not everything. Just some things.

Sadly, he was mistaken. He made it worse.

Anonymous wrote:

When has Bill Gates said that the standards will fix everything? Links, please.

You think he spent all that money because he didn't think they would fix things?

I think he spent all that money because he thought they would fix some things. Not everything. Just some things.

When has Bill Gates said that the standards will fix everything? Links, please.

You think he spent all that money because he didn't think they would fix things?

Anonymous wrote:Funny that a man with little, if any, public school experience is so sure that "standards" will fix everything. He may be brilliant, but he does not understand kids or public schools.

When has Bill Gates said that the standards will fix everything? Links, please.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/03/11/five-reasons-standardized-testing-isnt-likely-to-let-up/

Gates loves data. Standardized tests=data. I know standardized testing is NCLB, but Common Core supporters are naïve if they don't think testing is part of the deal with Gates.

Gates spent all of that money on the Common Core standards because he loves test data? Wow. He must really, really, really, really, really love test data.

I guess that next he'll have to buy enough members of Congress to make sure that Congress doesn't take the testing requirement out of the No Child Left Behind Act. That will cost him even more money, especially since he'll have to outbid the Koch Brothers.

Funny that a man with little, if any, public school experience is so sure that "standards" will fix everything. He may be brilliant, but he does not understand kids or public schools.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/03/11/five-reasons-standardized-testing-isnt-likely-to-let-up/

Gates loves data. Standardized tests=data. I know standardized testing is NCLB, but Common Core supporters are naïve if they don't think testing is part of the deal with Gates.

Anonymous wrote:

It's pretty clear what went down on this. If the states were hell bent on these standards, why didn't they provide the money?

And $4 billion from Race to the Top was not divided equally among the states. It was a competitive program so some got a lot and some got none. But all had a chance if they applied for it and ticked off the "right" boxes.

How much was "a lot"?

And it seems contradictory to argue, at the same time, that the states should have provided the money and that the states were so hard up for money that they were willing to do anything for federal grants.

It's pretty clear what went down on this. If the states were hell bent on these standards, why didn't they provide the money?

And $4 billion from Race to the Top was not divided equally among the states. It was a competitive program so some got a lot and some got none. But all had a chance if they applied for it and ticked off the "right" boxes.