Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Like, they really think someone on an anonymous message board is going to spend days scanning thousands of pages of documentation and posting it here just because some other irrational anonymous crank is too lazy to do so?

No. Like if it existed, it would already be available. You know that.

There's a circular argument. I haven't seen it, therefore it doesn't exist, because if it did exist, I would have seen it.

+1000

Well, you claim the standards are good. I'd like to see some research that supports that. You claim it will make things better. I'd like to know how.

Being caught up in data is what got us into this ridiculousness. Nobody seems to be credible anymore without "data".

I know someone who is evaluated based on the data of how long people stay in her unit in the hospital. She is compared to a unit in a community 50 miles away where most of the patients are much younger. Well, of course her statistics are not as good. The result is that her employees will get a 1.5% wage increase this year while the employees in the unit 50 miles away will get a 3.5% increase.

Yes, data are always fair in telling us what is going on and in making decisions. Best thing is that you can always blame the "data" instead of people for making the bad decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where's the data? Where's the documentation?

If you really want to know the answers to these questions, then the NGA and the CCSSO are good places to start looking.

If you just like typing "Where's the data? Where's the documentation?", then DCUM is a good place to do that.

^^^or could e-mail Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Institute at mpetrilli@edexcellence.net , or tweet at him at @MichaelPetrilli #wheresthedatawheresthedocumentation

Anonymous wrote:Where's the data? Where's the documentation?

If you really want to know the answers to these questions, then the NGA and the CCSSO are good places to start looking.

If you just like typing "Where's the data? Where's the documentation?", then DCUM is a good place to do that.

Where's the data? Where's the documentation?

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/17/four-common-core-flimflams/

Someone else asked for data. Some one with lots more clout than an anonymous poster. Read to find what she received.

So the principal of a New York high school asked somebody from the Fordham Institute for evidence of the research on Common Core reading methods (meaning: close reading, increased Lexile levels, and the use of informational texts in the primary grades), and apparently he said he'd get back to her but hasn't yet.

A damning indictment of the Common Core State Standards? I don't think so.

I'm also astonished to learn that using informational texts in the primary grades is "a questionable practice". Not to mention that the reading level at the end of K in the Maryland standards before the Common Core State Standards was actually higher than the CCSS reading level at the end of K.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/17/four-common-core-flimflams/

Someone else asked for data. Some one with lots more clout than an anonymous poster. Read to find what she received.

Anonymous wrote:

Like, they really think someone on an anonymous message board is going to spend days scanning thousands of pages of documentation and posting it here just because some other irrational anonymous crank is too lazy to do so?

No. Like if it existed, it would already be available. You know that.

There's a circular argument. I haven't seen it, therefore it doesn't exist, because if it did exist, I would have seen it.

Anonymous wrote:It is a silly conversation because you cannot prove your argument. You want to support your argument--you give us the data.

But I don't want you to support my argument. You're the one saying there are no data. This is the conversation:

You: THERE ARE NO DATA!
Other people: Actually there are data.
You: Prove it!
Other people: You're the one who said there are no data; you prove it.
You: No, you prove it!

I honestly don't care what you think about the Common Core State Standards. It just bugs me when people are wrong on the Internet.

http://xkcd.com/386/

Like, they really think someone on an anonymous message board is going to spend days scanning thousands of pages of documentation and posting it here just because some other irrational anonymous crank is too lazy to do so?

No. Like if it existed, it would already be available. You know that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You've already REPEATEDLY been given contact info, email, phone number, mailing address for CSSO and NGA several times so that you can get more detailed info.

Great. You are the one who claims they have it. You get it and post it.

No, you're the one who wants it -- you ask for it.

Really, this is a very silly conversation.

Like, they really think someone on an anonymous message board is going to spend days scanning thousands of pages of documentation and posting it here just because some other irrational anonymous crank is too lazy to do so?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It could.

Pigs could fly.

I apologize for being rude, but really, have you been paying attention to Congress, lately? Have you noticed Congress accomplishing much? I haven't.

That and you have to be nuts to think money wouldn't be swept when a mandate is repealed.

It is a silly conversation because you cannot prove your argument. You want to support your argument--you give us the data.

Anonymous wrote:

You've already REPEATEDLY been given contact info, email, phone number, mailing address for CSSO and NGA several times so that you can get more detailed info.

Great. You are the one who claims they have it. You get it and post it.

No, you're the one who wants it -- you ask for it.

Really, this is a very silly conversation.