Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopeless. We've given lots of examples of poor standards.

If these standards are so good: please document.

Actually, I've posted almost all of the standards that have posted. The discussion has mostly gone like this.

Me: *posts standard* Is this a bad standard?
anti-CCSS poster: LOL yes.
Me: Why?
anti-CCSS poster: Well, duh.

Sometimes there is more detail in the response. For example,

-"It's not measurable" (except that it is; I think that these anti-CCSS posters don't necessarily understand measurement)
-"It's developmentally inappropriate" (which begs the question; specifically what about it is developmentally inappropriate?)
-"It's badly written" (the copy-editor issue; unfortunately the copy-editors so far have not provided any editing suggestions)

And no, I don't need to document that the standards are good. You're the one saying that they're not good; it's on you to support what you're saying.

Well, there's some great Common Core critical thinking for you.

No, it really is on you and the rest of the establishment to prove these standards are good. Otherwise, we won't continue jumping through hoops.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. You haven't brought any meaningful, objective proof to bear with your accusations that the standards are "bad" or "developmentally inappropriate" and you are now saying you aren't willing to do so.

In a court of law, if you accuse someone of something bad, there has to be robust evidence. Otherwise, the accused walks free with the presumption that there was nothing bad. Basically you have conceded the argument.

Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, we are disassembling the Common Core around the country. It's slow now, but once the test results hit like a jackhammer next fall, Common Core will be dead standards walking as politicians run for cover and start axing them state by state.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopeless. We've given lots of examples of poor standards.

If these standards are so good: please document.

Actually, I've posted almost all of the standards that have posted. The discussion has mostly gone like this.

Me: *posts standard* Is this a bad standard?
anti-CCSS poster: LOL yes.
Me: Why?
anti-CCSS poster: Well, duh.

Sometimes there is more detail in the response. For example,

-"It's not measurable" (except that it is; I think that these anti-CCSS posters don't necessarily understand measurement)
-"It's developmentally inappropriate" (which begs the question; specifically what about it is developmentally inappropriate?)
-"It's badly written" (the copy-editor issue; unfortunately the copy-editors so far have not provided any editing suggestions)

And no, I don't need to document that the standards are good. You're the one saying that they're not good; it's on you to support what you're saying.

Well, there's some great Common Core critical thinking for you.

No, it really is on you and the rest of the establishment to prove these standards are good. Otherwise, we won't continue jumping through hoops.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. You haven't brought any meaningful, objective proof to bear with your accusations that the standards are "bad" or "developmentally inappropriate" and you are now saying you aren't willing to do so.

In a court of law, if you accuse someone of something bad, there has to be robust evidence. Otherwise, the accused walks free with the presumption that there was nothing bad. Basically you have conceded the argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopeless. We've given lots of examples of poor standards.

If these standards are so good: please document.

Actually, I've posted almost all of the standards that have posted. The discussion has mostly gone like this.

Me: *posts standard* Is this a bad standard?
anti-CCSS poster: LOL yes.
Me: Why?
anti-CCSS poster: Well, duh.

Sometimes there is more detail in the response. For example,

-"It's not measurable" (except that it is; I think that these anti-CCSS posters don't necessarily understand measurement)
-"It's developmentally inappropriate" (which begs the question; specifically what about it is developmentally inappropriate?)
-"It's badly written" (the copy-editor issue; unfortunately the copy-editors so far have not provided any editing suggestions)

And no, I don't need to document that the standards are good. You're the one saying that they're not good; it's on you to support what you're saying.

Well, there's some great Common Core critical thinking for you.

No, it really is on you and the rest of the establishment to prove these standards are good. Otherwise, we won't continue jumping through hoops.

I guess that will show me?

Actually the idea that you have to support what you're saying is explicitly in the Common Core State Standards, for example here in this fourth-grade standard:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.4.1
Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text.

I don't think it's a radical, unprecedented, way-out-there idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopeless. We've given lots of examples of poor standards.

If these standards are so good: please document.

Actually, I've posted almost all of the standards that have posted. The discussion has mostly gone like this.

Me: *posts standard* Is this a bad standard?
anti-CCSS poster: LOL yes.
Me: Why?
anti-CCSS poster: Well, duh.

Sometimes there is more detail in the response. For example,

-"It's not measurable" (except that it is; I think that these anti-CCSS posters don't necessarily understand measurement)
-"It's developmentally inappropriate" (which begs the question; specifically what about it is developmentally inappropriate?)
-"It's badly written" (the copy-editor issue; unfortunately the copy-editors so far have not provided any editing suggestions)

And no, I don't need to document that the standards are good. You're the one saying that they're not good; it's on you to support what you're saying.

Well, there's some great Common Core critical thinking for you.

No, it really is on you and the rest of the establishment to prove these standards are good. Otherwise, we won't continue jumping through hoops.

Anonymous wrote:Hopeless. We've given lots of examples of poor standards.

If these standards are so good: please document.

Actually, I've posted almost all of the standards that have posted. The discussion has mostly gone like this.

Me: *posts standard* Is this a bad standard?
anti-CCSS poster: LOL yes.
Me: Why?
anti-CCSS poster: Well, duh.

Sometimes there is more detail in the response. For example,

-"It's not measurable" (except that it is; I think that these anti-CCSS posters don't necessarily understand measurement)
-"It's developmentally inappropriate" (which begs the question; specifically what about it is developmentally inappropriate?)
-"It's badly written" (the copy-editor issue; unfortunately the copy-editors so far have not provided any editing suggestions)

And no, I don't need to document that the standards are good. You're the one saying that they're not good; it's on you to support what you're saying.

Anonymous wrote:
The bottom line is that people are really sick of paying for tests instead of for instruction.

What does that have to do with the Common Core State Standards? The Common Core State Standards have nothing to do with the testing requirement. The testing requirement comes from the No Child Left Behind Act.

Anonymous wrote:
The bottom line is that people are really sick of paying for tests instead of for instruction.

Here's what the public sees:

Schools that are overcrowded. Classrooms that are overcrowded. A total lack of money for hands on and vocationally oriented courses (because everyone is going to college now). More "testing" that is supposed to make students better how? By forcing the teachers to be pressured to teach to "standards". By creating an atmosphere where teachers are to blame for the students' lack of success. Parents and students are beginning to figure it out and so finally they are pushing back (opt outs for starters).

I would not discount the power of the teachers, students, and parents. They know that they are being snookered. Tests will never drive instruction. People are not motivated by tests and "data". Without buy in from teachers and parents, the whole thing is a sham. The pro CC people want to believe that teachers support them, but the truth is far different.

And, instead of paring back the tests, there are now more. More hours of testing because if it wasn't working, it must be because there was not enough of it or it wasn't "implemented" correctly. NO. The pro CC people can't see the forest for the trees.

The people are speaking. The people get this. It's becoming loud and clear.

Getting rid of testing wouldn't solve any of that. NCLB has a federal mandate, so that's why money is being allocated. If NCLB goes away, so does the money. It doesn't magically keep flowing and simply get reprogrammed. There are lots of schools that rock standardized testing WITHOUT teaching to the test and WITHOUT spending inordinate amounts of time on test prep - because they pay attention to curriculum and content. If schools are having to spend large amounts of time on test prep that's probably a big indicator that they have a lot of problems elsewhere - with curriculum and content in particular, which simply getting rid of tests is not going to solve.

I agree that we need more vocational training but that doesn't mean there's no need for standards, either. Even in vocational programs, you still need core language and math skills. Even in vocational programs, people still need to be able to read and write effectively, they need to be able to write things like proposals and reports, they need to be able to read and comprehend contracts and installation instructions, and they need enough math and things like basic algebra and geometry to figure out cost estimates, work out angles and measurements for fabrication, et cetera. Common Core isn't pushing for anything that esoteric, they aren't demanding proficiency in eigenvectors and multivariate statistics, what Common Core is striving for is still very much relevant and appropriate to vocational training.

If the people are "being snookered" then where's the actual evidence for that? Where is the data? Where are the studies?

The bottom line is that people are really sick of paying for tests instead of for instruction.

Here's what the public sees:

Schools that are overcrowded. Classrooms that are overcrowded. A total lack of money for hands on and vocationally oriented courses (because everyone is going to college now). More "testing" that is supposed to make students better how? By forcing the teachers to be pressured to teach to "standards". By creating an atmosphere where teachers are to blame for the students' lack of success. Parents and students are beginning to figure it out and so finally they are pushing back (opt outs for starters).

I would not discount the power of the teachers, students, and parents. They know that they are being snookered. Tests will never drive instruction. People are not motivated by tests and "data". Without buy in from teachers and parents, the whole thing is a sham. The pro CC people want to believe that teachers support them, but the truth is far different.

And, instead of paring back the tests, there are now more. More hours of testing because if it wasn't working, it must be because there was not enough of it or it wasn't "implemented" correctly. NO. The pro CC people can't see the forest for the trees.

The people are speaking. The people get this. It's becoming loud and clear.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone on here have any results from the testing and piloting of the Common Core standards? Were they really just thrown out to the public without full vetting and testing? Anyone?

No, they weren't just thrown out there without vetting and testing. For one, they were for the most part based on existing, tested state standards that were already in existence and being implemented in various states. For another, they were put out for large scale teacher review and comment by state teacher groups, by NEA, AFT, NCTM, et cetera as well as for full public review and comment several times before being finalized.

As for results of rollout, that's still ongoing and I don't think anyone here has any data. Not even the critics, who despite not having any data, are going around pretending they do.

Does anyone on here have any results from the testing and piloting of the Common Core standards? Were they really just thrown out to the public without full vetting and testing? Anyone?

Anonymous wrote:Hopeless. We've given lots of examples of poor standards.

If these standards are so good: please document.

You posted maybe 2 or 3 examples and then simply opined that they were "bad" and/or "developmentally inappropriate", without any objective criteria, without any data to support their appropriateness, without any comparison to other relevant non-CC state standards, nor for that matter even considering them in the proper context of the adjacent, complementary CC standards that they go together with. You said "poorly written" and "can't understand it" only to then immediately have 3 or 4 posters then easily explain it to you since they understood it perfectly. You said "can't be implemented, can't be measured" only to then have 3 or 4 posters immediately give cogent examples of how they can be implemented and measured.

Sorry, but you really haven't proven anything whatsoever yet. No data, no objective criteria, no nothing. You are the one lacking in documentation. You are the one who has not made the case.

^ You realize that it's not even 1% opting out?

Come back when you at least hit single digit percentages.

Students are catching on: They can CRUSH these standards if they stick together. IF MOST refuse the test, it falls apart.


From PBS:

Why some students are refusing to take the Common Core test

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/students-refusing-take-common-core-test/

JUDY WOODRUFF: Testing for the Common Core learning standards in U.S. public schools began earlier this month. And just as a rebellion is brewing against the Common Core, there are now protests building against the national tests associated with them.

Reports of students refusing to take the tests are coming in daily, and if those numbers keep building, it could endanger the goals of the standards themselves.

JOHN MERROW: In Newark, high school students occupied the superintendent’s office for three days, one of their issues, the Common Core test.

STUDENT: This is a pretty big deal. We’re taking back our district.

TANAISA BROWN, Newark Students Union: Politicians actually get very nervous when they see how many people are against one thing. They have money power. They have political power, but we have people power.


WOMAN: We’re fighting back.

STUDENT: I’m trying to push back against the test because I’m not just a number and I’m not a dollar sign.

MAN: We are refusing the test. Refuse the test.

JOHN MERROW: And it’s happening in the state capital.

RAISA RUBIN-STANKIEWICZ, Student: In conclusion, the PARCC high-stakes standardized tests will hurt our students, teachers, and schools. That is why I am refusing the PARCC test.

When I heard about what happened in New York, how like 60,000 people opted out, and I thought, wow, that’s something we can do about it.

Hopeless. We've given lots of examples of poor standards.

If these standards are so good: please document.

^ Sure doesn't sound like "desperately defending" to me. Sounds a lot more like "confident, have the anti-CC'ers nailed on their BS claims and accusations, and they need to either put up or shut up."