Anonymous wrote:

Because the last couple of times Pearson came up in these threads, it was in connection with grand conspiracy theories, which is pretty nutty.

Nutty to be suspicious of a company that wrote the standards and benefits more than anyone else? Pretty much sole source.

Nutty to assert that "Pearson wrote the standards".

They didn't "write the standards" - Common Core standards were compiled from various pre-existing state standards.

Because the last couple of times Pearson came up in these threads, it was in connection with grand conspiracy theories, which is pretty nutty.

Nutty to be suspicious of a company that wrote the standards and benefits more than anyone else? Pretty much sole source.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the PP to whom you're responding, and I'm also a NP - never posted on this thread or about this topic before. So it seems you're conveniently (and lazily) lumping all people who disagree with you into one poster, so as to discredit all of us? Pearson Math has made my DC's life miserable. There's no conspiracy theory going on, simply opinions presented by talking with other parents from school. The kids are having a terrible time with Pearson math. Period. Your snark isn't doing you any favors in the credibility department.

What is Pearson math?

Whether or not the PP is actually only posting about Pearson for the first time, this is definitely not the first time there has been some nutty rant about Pearson on DCUM. Most of the rest of us don't use Pearson Math materials and don't particularly care.

So, if you "don't use Pearson Math materials and don't particularly care," why is it that you're calling complaints about it a "nutty rant"?

Because the last couple of times Pearson came up in these threads, it was in connection with grand conspiracy theories, which is pretty nutty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the PP to whom you're responding, and I'm also a NP - never posted on this thread or about this topic before. So it seems you're conveniently (and lazily) lumping all people who disagree with you into one poster, so as to discredit all of us? Pearson Math has made my DC's life miserable. There's no conspiracy theory going on, simply opinions presented by talking with other parents from school. The kids are having a terrible time with Pearson math. Period. Your snark isn't doing you any favors in the credibility department.

What is Pearson math?

Whether or not the PP is actually only posting about Pearson for the first time, this is definitely not the first time there has been some nutty rant about Pearson on DCUM. Most of the rest of us don't use Pearson Math materials and don't particularly care.

So, if you "don't use Pearson Math materials and don't particularly care," why is it that you're calling complaints about it a "nutty rant"?

Any established, robust math curriculum that aligns with Common Core standards will dominate on the PARCC tests.

Anonymous wrote:

The last laugh will probably come from the Pearson math students. Pearson math is what will dominate the PARCC tests.

What is Pearson math? And how is it different from non-Pearson math?

The last laugh will probably come from the Pearson math students. Pearson math is what will dominate the PARCC tests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the PP to whom you're responding, and I'm also a NP - never posted on this thread or about this topic before. So it seems you're conveniently (and lazily) lumping all people who disagree with you into one poster, so as to discredit all of us? Pearson Math has made my DC's life miserable. There's no conspiracy theory going on, simply opinions presented by talking with other parents from school. The kids are having a terrible time with Pearson math. Period. Your snark isn't doing you any favors in the credibility department.

What is Pearson math?

Whether or not the PP is actually only posting about Pearson for the first time, this is definitely not the first time there has been some nutty rant about Pearson on DCUM. Most of the rest of us don't use Pearson Math materials and don't particularly care.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the PP to whom you're responding, and I'm also a NP - never posted on this thread or about this topic before. So it seems you're conveniently (and lazily) lumping all people who disagree with you into one poster, so as to discredit all of us? Pearson Math has made my DC's life miserable. There's no conspiracy theory going on, simply opinions presented by talking with other parents from school. The kids are having a terrible time with Pearson math. Period. Your snark isn't doing you any favors in the credibility department.

What is Pearson math?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ooooh, nice one-liner, former journalist. Except for I'm a current journalist, and I know what you are saying to be completely off-base.

I suppose the middle school teacher's opinion is without merit also.

The middle-school teacher is entitled to her opinion. But I'm not going to conclude that the PARCC tests are impossible and should be gotten rid of, based on this one middle-school teacher who took the third-grade test and reports that she found it difficult.

(I'm not the former-journalist PP.)

If you do any type of homework, you will see this types of reports all over, particularly from teachers who say the tests are far above the students' level and seemed designed to have the students fail.

But I supposed it's easier to just sing "Everything is Awesome" and continue linking to the bogus but official Common Core Standards happy talk site.

Ha! That's laughable. The CC info is a lot more robust, authoritative and legitimate than anything you've ever presented or linked to... Unless you can link to some authoritative, legitimate, bonafide studies, research, analysis, and info to refute anything that's been presented on the CC site (and thus far you've consistently failed to do so), you're going to have to grin and bear it because your own sources are far more bogus. http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/

Those have all been posted many times. Your common core site regurgitates nonsense with nothing behind it. You are embarrassing yourself.

Where is YOUR info? You keep regurgitating the same empty commentary over and over again, "developmentally inappropriate" yadda yadda yadda without even a site of ANY kind to point to, let alone Common Core. Again YOU HAVE EVEN LESS BEHIND YOU than the people you presume to be criticizing. And if you presume to be saying others are "embarrassing" themselves by pointing to an authoritative website, when you can't even manage to do that much yourself.

Do you not understand that? Take a look in the mirror. You are on far more shaky and tenuous ground than anyone you are criticizing here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Plenty of people with far greater credentials and standing than you have or ever will have already reviewed the research. You're just barking into the wind with no case and no evidence of your own, you have hardly made any compelling argument here whatsoever.

Yes. Their credentials are that they work for Achieve or Pearson.

Pearson math = EVIL and nonsensical.

Yes, yes, you've already told us about your obsession with Pearson. And they are, after all, also the same folks who are spraying us with mind-control chemtrails, they also faked the moon landings and were responsible for Bigfoot kidnapping Elvis.

I'm the PP to whom you're responding, and I'm also a NP - never posted on this thread or about this topic before. So it seems you're conveniently (and lazily) lumping all people who disagree with you into one poster, so as to discredit all of us? Pearson Math has made my DC's life miserable. There's no conspiracy theory going on, simply opinions presented by talking with other parents from school. The kids are having a terrible time with Pearson math. Period. Your snark isn't doing you any favors in the credibility department.

Not the PP, but I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with Pearson Math, or why you'd think the rest of us would be, since most of us aren't using Pearson Math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RI.3.10 By the end of the year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, at the high end of the grades 2-3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

This standard is pretty silly. It assumes that every student comes to a class at the same level. Real teachers who work in real schools know that this is very rare. It's a pointless standard.

No, it doesn't. All it says is that you have to be able to do this by the end of the year to meet the standard. If you can't do it, then you don't meet the standard. I find it very difficult to argue with a standard that basically says that by the end of third grade, third-graders should be able to read informational texts written at the third-grade level.

So if a student comes to a teacher reading 2 or 3 years below grade level, I am supposed to meet that standard by March or April? I have had one or two students, language learners, who were able to jump several reading levels in one year, but it's very rare. It's reasonable to expect growth, but it's not reasonable to think all students will read at the same level by the end (or middle) of the year.

Therefore, it's a meaningless standard.

No, you have it backward. If the standard for a 3rd grader said that every third grader must read at a first grade level by the end of third grade such that nearly everyone could meet the standard, that would be a meaningless standard. But it would allow you to crow that all your students are meeting the standards!

I think what you are trying to say is that you want the standard to be something like "every child should improve by x reading levels by the end of the year," but that seems too vague to be meaningful, no? Perhaps as a corollary to a standard that says "for students entering the grade significantly below grade level, it is expected that they at a minimum improve by ____"? But again, that doesn't make the existing standards meaningless, but it does allow recognition for improvement of kids who are severely behind.

BTW -- the student is being measured against the standard, not you. So I think your beef is with IMPACT and the like. Not the standards, but the way the standards are being used to measure teachers instead of the students they teach. In which case you are correct and for the purposes of evaluating teachers, there should be a measurement of growth, not gross achievement. And BTW, that should include growth of those students who far exceed the standards already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Plenty of people with far greater credentials and standing than you have or ever will have already reviewed the research. You're just barking into the wind with no case and no evidence of your own, you have hardly made any compelling argument here whatsoever.

Yes. Their credentials are that they work for Achieve or Pearson.

Pearson math = EVIL and nonsensical.

Yes, yes, you've already told us about your obsession with Pearson. And they are, after all, also the same folks who are spraying us with mind-control chemtrails, they also faked the moon landings and were responsible for Bigfoot kidnapping Elvis.

I'm the PP to whom you're responding, and I'm also a NP - never posted on this thread or about this topic before. So it seems you're conveniently (and lazily) lumping all people who disagree with you into one poster, so as to discredit all of us? Pearson Math has made my DC's life miserable. There's no conspiracy theory going on, simply opinions presented by talking with other parents from school. The kids are having a terrible time with Pearson math. Period. Your snark isn't doing you any favors in the credibility department.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ooooh, nice one-liner, former journalist. Except for I'm a current journalist, and I know what you are saying to be completely off-base.

I suppose the middle school teacher's opinion is without merit also.

The middle-school teacher is entitled to her opinion. But I'm not going to conclude that the PARCC tests are impossible and should be gotten rid of, based on this one middle-school teacher who took the third-grade test and reports that she found it difficult.

(I'm not the former-journalist PP.)

If you do any type of homework, you will see this types of reports all over, particularly from teachers who say the tests are far above the students' level and seemed designed to have the students fail.

But I supposed it's easier to just sing "Everything is Awesome" and continue linking to the bogus but official Common Core Standards happy talk site.

Ha! That's laughable. The CC info is a lot more robust, authoritative and legitimate than anything you've ever presented or linked to... Unless you can link to some authoritative, legitimate, bonafide studies, research, analysis, and info to refute anything that's been presented on the CC site (and thus far you've consistently failed to do so), you're going to have to grin and bear it because your own sources are far more bogus. http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/

Those have all been posted many times. Your common core site regurgitates nonsense with nothing behind it. You are embarrassing yourself.