Most of the money spent on the Common Core standards has already been spent. That's water under the bridge.

And again -- the point is that the Common Core standards are NOT going to lead to doom and disaster.

typical mediocrity thinking

Anonymous wrote:

The standards can translate into curricula that is not meaningful.

If your argument is that some teachers will be unable to translate the Common Core standards into meaningful curricula then you've effectively unwittingly made the argument that those teachers are quite likely unable to turn state or local standards and learning objectives into meaningful curricula as well. That doesn't help your anti-CC cause.

Many districts only allow teachers to use "approved materials". Guess what that means?

That means that you should make sure that your school district's approved materials are good, and/or that you should persuade your school district to allow teachers to develop and use their own materials. Or at least, that's what I think it means. What do you think it means?

Anonymous wrote:

And, yes, we have a problem getting good teachers. But, the problem will become worse as you fire people and try to get people who know they will have less control over their actual classroom (and live with the threat of being thrown out by the "tests"). And the pay is so high anyway.

But, of course, you could believe that all the kids will be on computers learning anyway so who cares what the teacher is like. Just get a warm body. The "learning" can be controlled by materials and tests that are designed by people at Education Central, Inc.

The teachers who are against this are the smart, brave ones. The ones who like CC are more likely to be younger and afraid of speaking out against it.

If you want to attract more good people into teaching -- which I agree with completely -- then I think that you should work on that. Not on fighting the Common Core standards. Especially because the Common Core standards do not call for firing teachers based on the test results of their students. That idea (which is a bad idea) existed before the Common Core standards, and it's up to the state and local administrators to implement or not.

As for teachers, actually my child's teachers in first, second, and third grade (so far), who have all been good, experienced teachers, think that the Common Core standards are pretty good. Their doubts come from the fact that they have seen plenty of educational reforms come and go, which is enough to make any reasonable person cynical about any educational reforms.

Anonymous wrote:

The standards can translate into curricula that is not meaningful.


If your argument is that some teachers will be unable to translate the Common Core standards into meaningful curricula then you've effectively unwittingly made the argument that those teachers are quite likely unable to turn state or local standards and learning objectives into meaningful curricula as well. That doesn't help your anti-CC cause.

Many districts only allow teachers to use "approved materials". Guess what that means?

That's a local school district administration problem, not a standards problem. That's something you fix via your school board.

Anonymous wrote:

But in fact one of the points the Brookings report makes is that some teachers create meaningful curricula that are useful for the students in front of them, and other teachers don't.

Basically, the takeaway, in my opinion, is that the Common Core standards are not going to solve every problem, and they are also not going to lead to doom and disaster. They will have very little effect at all. If I wanted to make education my cause, I wouldn't waste my time and efforts fighting the Common Core standards when there are many problems that are much, much more significant.

Actually, fighting the CC is getting us to talk about those other problems. Many people are discussing why the CC will have very little effect and that honestly is helping us to get somewhere else. So, maybe, in some backhanded kind of way, we can get to a better place. Churchill said that you can count on Americans to do the right thing after they have exhausted all the other possibilities. For me, I thought that we had already exhausted this road of "massive high stakes testing". And it didn't work.

There's nothing like putting 3rd graders on computers with national tests that last hours and require ridiculous preparation and that really have little meaning to get parents pissed off. Tea Party of not (and mostly not). What were they thinking????

"Require ridiculous preparation?" That's what has people thinking you've missed the mark on curriculum, if the test is apparently at such a massive disjoint from your curriculum that it requires "ridiculous" amounts of prep. Want to know how many hours my 7th grade DS has spent on preparation for PARCC? Apart from a brief walkthrough of test format they had one day, it's been ZERO. So obviously many teachers and schools aren't having an issue with this. That indicates it's not a universal problem with the standards, it indicates it's likely more a problem with how certain schools and certain teachers implement curriculum. Which isn't a surprise, given some of the lousy choices they make on particular textbooks, et cetera.

The standards can translate into curricula that is not meaningful.


If your argument is that some teachers will be unable to translate the Common Core standards into meaningful curricula then you've effectively unwittingly made the argument that those teachers are quite likely unable to turn state or local standards and learning objectives into meaningful curricula as well. That doesn't help your anti-CC cause.

Many districts only allow teachers to use "approved materials". Guess what that means?

And, yes, we have a problem getting good teachers. But, the problem will become worse as you fire people and try to get people who know they will have less control over their actual classroom (and live with the threat of being thrown out by the "tests"). And the pay is so high anyway.

But, of course, you could believe that all the kids will be on computers learning anyway so who cares what the teacher is like. Just get a warm body. The "learning" can be controlled by materials and tests that are designed by people at Education Central, Inc.

The teachers who are against this are the smart, brave ones. The ones who like CC are more likely to be younger and afraid of speaking out against it.

Anonymous wrote:

The standards can translate into curricula that are not meaningful.

Yes, of course they can. And they probably will. So what? It is also possible -- probably common, in fact -- to have non-meaningful curricula that are completely unrelated to standards in general or the Common Core standards in particular. That's not an argument against standards; it's an argument in favor of meaningful curricula.

Anonymous wrote:

There's nothing like putting 3rd graders on computers with national tests that last hours and require ridiculous preparation and that really have little meaning to get parents pissed off. Tea Party of not (and mostly not). What were they thinking????

They are not national tests. They don't require ridiculous preparation. And third-graders were ALREADY taking tests that lasted hours and had very little meaning to them personally. The only difference is that the tests (or rather, some of the tests) are on computers, instead of pencil and paper. I don't think that's a meaningful difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Basically, the takeaway, in my opinion, is that the Common Core standards are not going to solve every problem, and they are also not going to lead to doom and disaster. They will have very little effect at all. If I wanted to make education my cause, I wouldn't waste my time and efforts fighting the Common Core standards when there are many problems that are much, much more significant.

Why waste more money on it? And, it is going to do harm as it is pushed more and more.

Most of the money spent on the Common Core standards has already been spent. That's water under the bridge.

And again -- the point is that the Common Core standards are NOT going to lead to doom and disaster.

Anonymous wrote:

The standards can translate into curricula that is not meaningful.

If your argument is that some teachers will be unable to translate the Common Core standards into meaningful curricula then you've effectively unwittingly made the argument that those teachers are quite likely unable to turn state or local standards and learning objectives into meaningful curricula as well. That doesn't help your anti-CC cause.

But in fact one of the points the Brookings report makes is that some teachers create meaningful curricula that are useful for the students in front of them, and other teachers don't.

Basically, the takeaway, in my opinion, is that the Common Core standards are not going to solve every problem, and they are also not going to lead to doom and disaster. They will have very little effect at all. If I wanted to make education my cause, I wouldn't waste my time and efforts fighting the Common Core standards when there are many problems that are much, much more significant.

Actually, fighting the CC is getting us to talk about those other problems. Many people are discussing why the CC will have very little effect and that honestly is helping us to get somewhere else. So, maybe, in some backhanded kind of way, we can get to a better place. Churchill said that you can count on Americans to do the right thing after they have exhausted all the other possibilities. For me, I thought that we had already exhausted this road of "massive high stakes testing". And it didn't work.

There's nothing like putting 3rd graders on computers with national tests that last hours and require ridiculous preparation and that really have little meaning to get parents pissed off. Tea Party of not (and mostly not). What were they thinking????

Basically, the takeaway, in my opinion, is that the Common Core standards are not going to solve every problem, and they are also not going to lead to doom and disaster. They will have very little effect at all. If I wanted to make education my cause, I wouldn't waste my time and efforts fighting the Common Core standards when there are many problems that are much, much more significant.

Why waste more money on it? And, it is going to do harm as it is pushed more and more.

Anonymous wrote:

1. Do not expect much from the Common Core. (By the way, speaking of copy editing, somebody mixed up "infer" and imply" in that paragraph.) Why? Because standards do not necessarily translate into curricula and teaching. I actually agree with this; the Common Core is not a panacea, and anybody who said that it was is a fool.

And anyone who supports it wholesale is also a fool. The real education comes at the curricula and teaching level. That has to happen at the state and local level. National standards with high stakes testing will only hamstring the teachers' ability to create meaningful curricula that is useful for the students in front of him/her.

But in fact one of the points the Brookings report makes is that some teachers create meaningful curricula that are useful for the students in front of them, and other teachers don't.

Basically, the takeaway, in my opinion, is that the Common Core standards are not going to solve every problem, and they are also not going to lead to doom and disaster. They will have very little effect at all. If I wanted to make education my cause, I wouldn't waste my time and efforts fighting the Common Core standards when there are many problems that are much, much more significant.

The standards can translate into curricula that is not meaningful.