Seriously, 17:00? That's your answer? You think they are vague and hard and so we should pitch them because you don't get them? This is such a lazy response I have a hard time believing you are an actual teacher.

But hey, let's pretend you are.

So what do you think we should do?

In answer to the original question about why people are so upset about Common Core? Because they are uninformed about the issues and feel helpless about how to advocate for their children and schools. Period.

Just maybe, the PP whom you say is "dense" is astute. Just maybe, she knows what she is talking about. I am also a teacher and find them vague and inappropriate. Give it a rest.

There is a difference between standards (good ideas) and implementation (not good if standards are not met) and test quality (bad if tests are not valid or reliable).

Some posters inability to differentiate between the three is surprising.

Yes, follow-the-money poster, I'm looking at you.


Sorry. It is about the money. How are good ideas going to work if they are just ideas?

Wow, you are dense. The testing structure is about the money; the standards are not. You want good ideas to work? You challenge the curriculum delivery system and the test developers.

What you don't do is throw up your hands and suggest the standards are the problem. The standards are not the problem. If you think they are, I suggest you cite a more effective set of standards. Bonus points if you can find a set of valid, reliable standards that are independent from the testing companies and immune to your 'all about the money' mantra.

I doubt you can accept the challenge, which makes you another complainer with no real ideas on how to improve education. If that's your deal, then step aside and leave the real work to the adults.

Oh, and if you are one of those people who thinks we need no standards at all, no articulated learning goals, and no way to assess whether learning goals are met...good luck with that because that's a non starter in today's educational climate. Even at the post secondary level, accreditation agencies and DOE are requiring colleges to assess and publish outcomes data. Standards are here to stay, which is exactly why the fight isn't about the standards. The fight is about how the standards are addressed and assessed.

This is likely to be my last post to you because you are a one note, ignorant and shockingly unthoughtful complainer.

In answer to the original question about why people are so upset about Common Core? Because they are uninformed about the issues and feel helpless about how to advocate for their children and schools. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

The Feds weren't involved in the development of CCSS. It was Gates Foundation money, the National Governors Association, and some consultants who were not educators.

The FEDS are huge cheerleaders for them. The FEDS tie grant money from Race to the Top with paraphrased Common Core requirements.

This is true. Obama/Duncan turned out to as bad or worse than Bush/Spellings.

Politicians from both sides of the aisle seem to think that testing is the key to everything. If the tests accurately measured what the kids should be learning, that might be true. But, the tests don't--and it's not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But real-life dictates implementation and that's where things usually go awry. Involve the Feds, which is too far separated from the needs of the people in individual states, and you will see one huge mess. It's inevitable. You can't effectively govern from a distance, which is why the Constitution is "A charter of negative liberties". It's supposed to be.

+10000

The Feds weren't involved in the development of CCSS. It was Gates Foundation money, the National Governors Association, and some consultants who were not educators.

Yes, this seems to be the misconception many people have, that the Federal government was involved in Cc. They were not, but the Race to the Top money is tied to Cc.

To the pp that stated universal healthcare was a good idea in theory... yes it is, even if the implementation was bad. Like ACA, fix CC. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Teacher here. If you compare the Common Core standards with those they replace, (pick any state standards) what you will find is the Common Core standards are incredibly wordy, vague, and poorly written. Every state that has implemented Common Core has had to develop its own interpretation of what these standards actually mean. That's an indication of how badly they are written. Standards should be specific and easy to understand in order to be implemented.

What is also unclear from the standards is how they should be assessed. It's just not clear from the standards themselves. And if you don't have agreement on how to assess standards, they are useless.

Another problem with CCSS is that they have pushed down skills and content from higher grades to lower grades without any rationale. Many of the standards are developmentally inappropriate, especially in the early childhood grades. In the higher grades, the shift from higher grades to lower grades is simply arbitrary.

If you ask the authors of these standards what they mean or why they were written, they are unable to provide answers. I attended a meeting in DC sponsored by the consultant that wrote the ELA standards. She couldn't address my questions and was clearly quite flummoxed to have to deal with an actual teacher at her event.

+1000
Thanks for summing up some of the problems with Common Core. (There are more.) As a teacher, I wholeheartedly agree.

The Feds weren't involved in the development of CCSS. It was Gates Foundation money, the National Governors Association, and some consultants who were not educators.

The FEDS are huge cheerleaders for them. The FEDS tie grant money from Race to the Top with paraphrased Common Core requirements.

Anonymous wrote:

But real-life dictates implementation and that's where things usually go awry. Involve the Feds, which is too far separated from the needs of the people in individual states, and you will see one huge mess. It's inevitable. You can't effectively govern from a distance, which is why the Constitution is "A charter of negative liberties". It's supposed to be.

+10000

The Feds weren't involved in the development of CCSS. It was Gates Foundation money, the National Governors Association, and some consultants who were not educators.

Teacher here. If you compare the Common Core standards with those they replace, (pick any state standards) what you will find is the Common Core standards are incredibly wordy, vague, and poorly written. Every state that has implemented Common Core has had to develop its own interpretation of what these standards actually mean. That's an indication of how badly they are written. Standards should be specific and easy to understand in order to be implemented.

What is also unclear from the standards is how they should be assessed. It's just not clear from the standards themselves. And if you don't have agreement on how to assess standards, they are useless.

Another problem with CCSS is that they have pushed down skills and content from higher grades to lower grades without any rationale. Many of the standards are developmentally inappropriate, especially in the early childhood grades. In the higher grades, the shift from higher grades to lower grades is simply arbitrary.

If you ask the authors of these standards what they mean or why they were written, they are unable to provide answers. I attended a meeting in DC sponsored by the consultant that wrote the ELA standards. She couldn't address my questions and was clearly quite flummoxed to have to deal with an actual teacher at her event.

But real-life dictates implementation and that's where things usually go awry. Involve the Feds, which is too far separated from the needs of the people in individual states, and you will see one huge mess. It's inevitable. You can't effectively govern from a distance, which is why the Constitution is "A charter of negative liberties". It's supposed to be.

+10000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry to bring up this old thread but thought this article was interesting regarding cc.

Consensus I think is that the implementation of cc has been terrible, but the idea behind it is good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/201I...hat-you-need-to-know-about-it/

What good are ideas if they don't work?

I think a lot of good ideas, like inventions, don't work right out of the gate. I think CC was rushed. It needs to be tweaked. But the idea of having common, higher standards across this country is a great idea that should be implemented in some way.

So is the "everyone should have insurance and access to healthcare idea" . Everyone can agree with these feel-goods in theory, right?

But real-life dictates implementation and that's where things usually go awry. Involve the Feds, which is too far separated from the needs of the people in individual states, and you will see one huge mess. It's inevitable. You can't effectively govern from a distance, which is why the Constitution is "A charter of negative liberties". It's supposed to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry to bring up this old thread but thought this article was interesting regarding cc.

Consensus I think is that the implementation of cc has been terrible, but the idea behind it is good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/201I...hat-you-need-to-know-about-it/

What good are ideas if they don't work?

I think a lot of good ideas, like inventions, don't work right out of the gate. I think CC was rushed. It needs to be tweaked. But the idea of having common, higher standards across this country is a great idea that should be implemented in some way.

There is a difference between standards (good ideas) and implementation (not good if standards are not met) and test quality (bad if tests are not valid or reliable).

Some posters inability to differentiate between the three is surprising.

Yes, follow-the-money poster, I'm looking at you.

Sorry. It is about the money. How are good ideas going to work if they are just ideas?

Sorry to bring up this old thread but thought this article was interesting regarding cc.

Consensus I think is that the implementation of cc has been terrible, but the idea behind it is good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/201...hat-you-need-to-know-about-it/






What good are ideas if they don't work?

There is a difference between standards (good ideas) and implementation (not good if standards are not met) and test quality (bad if tests are not valid or reliable).

Some posters inability to differentiate between the three is surprising.

Yes, follow-the-money poster, I'm looking at you.