Anonymous wrote:
Complete nonsense - fact is, the vast majority of the standards were compiled through a process of researching and comparing numerous existing "best-of-breed" standards that already existed in various states. It WAS NOT developed "in isolation" and it was vetted at numerous levels.
No.
Complete nonsense - fact is, the vast majority of the standards were compiled through a process of researching and comparing numerous existing "best-of-breed" standards that already existed in various states. It WAS NOT developed "in isolation" and it was vetted at numerous levels.
Anonymous wrote:They were not vetted by the people who would use them: classroom teachers. They were written in isolation by "experts" who were hired by the Gates Foundation.
Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see any really good defense of the standards. My problem: it fosters the belief that kids come to the teacher on a plane. They don't.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Zimba sounds incredibly naive, totally clueless about writing standards and the actual follow-through that requires.
Why should our children be subject to what he says they should be learning at every grade? He has little classroom experience; he's an academic in a little glass bubble.
And yet somehow the standards he and the others came up with are good standards. They are in fact much better than what we used to have in Maryland, and there's an advantage in that they are common now to many states. The require mastery of basic facts by a certain age, and fluency with STANDARD ALGORITHMS (Carry the 1) by certain grades. Without use of calculators, which is different from what was expected/ allowed in many states.
The biggest problem with the standards is simply that they are set a bit too high for the lowest performing 2-3% of our student population, who will only be able to minimally achieve them. I agree that this is a problem, and those students shouldn't be sacrificed just because they are unable to ever meet these standards.
There is no consensus that these are appropriate standards, even by other professionals.
Anonymous wrote:They were not vetted by the people who would use them: classroom teachers. They were written in isolation by "experts" who were hired by the Gates Foundation.
Anonymous wrote:What, exactly, does "the standards were not vetted" mean?
Vetted? You don't know what that means? Look it up.
What, exactly, does "the standards were not vetted" mean?
Anonymous wrote:
Correct. Some of the professionals believe that the standards are too easy. And some of the professionals believe that the standards are too difficult. Which suggests that the standards are probably just right.
LOL! The standards were not vetted. The tests and materials developed to go with them are a mess. Why?
Correct. Some of the professionals believe that the standards are too easy. And some of the professionals believe that the standards are too difficult. Which suggests that the standards are probably just right.