Anonymous wrote:

So you think it would be better if the states kept testing based on curricula they no longer use?

I thought that CC was not a curricula---that it is standards. Does CC provide a curricula as well?

Anonymous wrote:

Testing is tied to NCLB, which is entirely separate from Common Core. Take Common Core away, and it does nothing about NCLB. Take NCLB away, and it does nothing about Common Core.

Take NCLB away and you have solved a lot of the problem. Then CC can be used as standards without standardized testing that penalizes schools and teachers.

So you think it would be better if the states kept testing based on curricula they no longer use?

So you think it would be better if the states kept testing based on curricula they no longer use?

Anonymous wrote:

If NCLB is the problem, why are you wasting your time attacking the Common Core standards, instead of fighting to get NCLB changed? (Assuming that you are attacking the Common Core standards; but maybe you're not.)

I am attacking the rush to test based on these CC standards. The standards could be okay if districts had time to work with them and figure out how to align the curriculum with the standards. This takes time when any new standards are put in. The standardized testing is premature. The standards may also need to be refined after piloting by the districts. Some states have had no time to do that. Doing this from the top down with no consideration of the implementation glitches (and there are always those) is just shortsighted.

Here is what would have made the Common Core standards more readily accepted: if the Obama administration hadn't supported them.

If NCLB is the problem, why are you wasting your time attacking the Common Core standards, instead of fighting to get NCLB changed? (Assuming that you are attacking the Common Core standards; but maybe you're not.)

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core just happens to be the standard to which NCLB is supposed to align.

NCLB does not have to align to CC. There is no law that says it has to be CC standards. The states can decide on their own standards (as evidenced by many of them dropping out of the CC). If NCLB mandated testing had been dropped, I have a feeling that CC would have been more readily accepted. Since the kinks have not been worked out of CC yet, testing based on CC is causing a lot of angst so states would rather just drop it.

Common Core just happens to be the standard to which NCLB is supposed to align.

Anonymous wrote:

Testing is tied to NCLB, which is entirely separate from Common Core. Take Common Core away, and it does nothing about NCLB. Take NCLB away, and it does nothing about Common Core.

Take NCLB away and you have solved a lot of the problem. Then CC can be used as standards without standardized testing that penalizes schools and teachers.

Testing is tied to NCLB, which is entirely separate from Common Core. Take Common Core away, and it does nothing about NCLB. Take NCLB away, and it does nothing about Common Core.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are many, many posters here against the Common Core. We've posted endless links and news stories, quotes from teachers across the country, and yet you think there's no opposition. In fact, the opposition is huge, and it will grow to tidal wave force once the testing hits -- and the dismal results come in.

Nobody has said that there is no opposition. If they did, it would be an absurd thing to say. What multiple posters have said is that opponents of the Common Core have provided argument after argument about why the Common Core standards are bad, and the discussion has gone like this:

Opponent: The standards are developmentally inappropriate.
Non-opponent: Which standard, and how do you know?
O: Well, no teachers were involved.
Non-O: Yes, they were.
O: Not REAL teachers. Anyway, the writers worked for Pearson.
Non-O: No, they didn't.
O: Well, Pearson is writing all the tests.
Non-O: No, they aren't.
O: Well, the standards aren't going to solve the problems of poverty.
Non-O: Nobody said they would.
O: Well, everybody has failed the tests every year.
Non-O: No, nobody has even taken the tests yet.
O: Well, everybody will fail the tests, because the standards are developmentally inappropriate.

And around, and around, and around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If lots of students fail the standardized tests, will the standards be changed or will the tests be changed?

Chicken or egg?

Good question. Most likely, political heads will roll. Common Core has already been defunded, and once they can get rid of Duncan who is wielding his NCLB waivers as threats to force the Common Core and testing, people will likely pull back from the core.

It's too bad -- it was a good idea. But the standards are written in a way to micromanage learning and the testing boxes in teachers to teach to the test.

Anonymous wrote:

ACT, College Board, et cetera. Looks like people who have a shitload of background and experience in developing standardized testing.

Apparently your preference would have been to hire people who don't know a fucking thing about standardized testing.

So, the ends justify the means?

You've got the "teaching to the test" people writing the standards. Instead of thinking about what kids should learn, they may very well be thinking about standards that are easy to test. That could be a problem. At the very least there should be more perspective.

Anonymous wrote:

There are many, many posters here against the Common Core. We've posted endless links and news stories, quotes from teachers across the country, and yet you think there's no opposition. In fact, the opposition is huge, and it will grow to tidal wave force once the testing hits -- and the dismal results come in.