Anonymous wrote:

One of the teachers that you anti-CCers didn't want to count has 30 years of teaching experience. That's far more experience and qualification than you ever had or ever will.

One? Out of 135? Excuse me, I guess I was wrong. Which ONE? What grade level?

Who in the hell are YOU, to be questioning ANY of their credentials? Numerous members of the committees are nationally recognized, are proven experts, are folks who have risen through the ranks of education, are published, hold multiple degrees, have decades of experience.

And you? Some nameless, anonymous nobody on the Internet, with delusions of grandeur and a serious narcissism complex, to be thinking you are so much better and know so much better than everyone else.

Unreal.

Anonymous wrote:

It's already been shown in these threads that there were indeed several elementary school teachers and other experts with early childhood development expertise involved in development and validation. You wanted to discount them for various confabulated reasons. Who made you queen of DCUM to make the rules about who can or can't be accepted for their early childhood development expertise?

No. It has not. There have been some that claimed it. Go read the article posted above at WAPO by Edward Miller.

Edward Miller is a communications and development consultant who has never taught in the classroom. Therefore he is not qualified to offer an opinion -- right?

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/edward-miller/8/3a9/649

This was already disproven here last week.

Actually, no.

Anonymous wrote:

Wrong. Several were named previously in this thread, there were elementary school teachers as well as professors with expertise in early childhood development. But the anti-CCers pooh-poohed them because of several contrived reasons, i.e. they published for companies that were owned by Pearson, or they weren't teaching when they were involved in standards development (never mind the fact that one of the teachers had 30 years of experience).

135 members total on Math and ELA development and feedback groups.

3 (maybe) elementary classroom teachers

NO classroom teachers from primary (Early Childhood) grades

Far more people on the committee with NO classroom experience than current or recent teachers.

This was already disproven here last week.

Disgraceful and disgusting that you would try and throw a seasoned teacher with 30 years experience under the bus by trying to claim she didn't have any relevant expertise.

Who made you queen of DCUM? You don't get to pick and choose which CC contributors' experience and expertise you are willing recognize. You don't get to try and claim they aren't teachers or don't have early childhood expertise when in fact they do.

One of the teachers that you anti-CCers didn't want to count has 30 years of teaching experience. That's far more experience and qualification than you ever had or ever will.

One? Out of 135? Excuse me, I guess I was wrong. Which ONE? What grade level?

Anonymous wrote:

Nonsense. We have already been through this. That count only arrives by refusing to recognize anyone who's published, anyone who wasn't teaching at the time they were working on CC, anyone who taught in college, anyone who later on changed jobs, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

You don't get to throw away relevant experience just to try and make your point.

So, because you say so, they have experience? LOL.

One of the teachers that you anti-CCers didn't want to count has 30 years of teaching experience. That's far more experience and qualification than you ever had or ever will.

Nonsense. We have already been through this. That count only arrives by refusing to recognize anyone who's published, anyone who wasn't teaching at the time they were working on CC, anyone who taught in college, anyone who later on changed jobs, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

You don't get to throw away relevant experience just to try and make your point.

So, because you say so, they have experience? LOL.

Anonymous wrote:

Wrong. Several were named previously in this thread, there were elementary school teachers as well as professors with expertise in early childhood development. But the anti-CCers pooh-poohed them because of several contrived reasons, i.e. they published for companies that were owned by Pearson, or they weren't teaching when they were involved in standards development (never mind the fact that one of the teachers had 30 years of experience).

135 members total on Math and ELA development and feedback groups.

3 (maybe) elementary classroom teachers

NO classroom teachers from primary (Early Childhood) grades

Far more people on the committee with NO classroom experience than current or recent teachers.

Nonsense. We have already been through this. That count only arrives by refusing to recognize anyone who's published, anyone who wasn't teaching at the time they were working on CC, anyone who taught in college, anyone who later on changed jobs, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

You don't get to throw away relevant experience just to try and make your point.

Wrong. Several were named previously in this thread, there were elementary school teachers as well as professors with expertise in early childhood development. But the anti-CCers pooh-poohed them because of several contrived reasons, i.e. they published for companies that were owned by Pearson, or they weren't teaching when they were involved in standards development (never mind the fact that one of the teachers had 30 years of experience).

135 members total on Math and ELA development and feedback groups.

3 (maybe) elementary classroom teachers

NO classroom teachers from primary (Early Childhood) grades

Far more people on the committee with NO classroom experience than current or recent teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Clearly you do not understand the difference between logic and rhetoric. You constantly try to resort to rhetorical devices such as appeals to emotion and red herrings. But these are logical fallacies. Just because you believe something does not mean you are right. You have to actually PROVE it, logically, and with evidence. And that is something that you have consistently failed to do.

If you cannot make any posts with actual hard PROOF then you are just wasting your time here.

Look in the mirror. You will not accept anything that contradicts your website.

Again, you need to provide EVIDENCE. All you have done is present accusations and opinions WITHOUT evidence.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/29/a-tough-critique-of-common-core-on-early-childhood-education/

Once more. NO early childhood people. If you know that they were there, then you should be able to name them.

They also refused to make public the comments.

Wrong. Several were named previously in this thread, there were elementary school teachers as well as professors with expertise in early childhood development. But the anti-CCers pooh-poohed them because of several contrived reasons, i.e. they published for companies that were owned by Pearson, or they weren't teaching when they were involved in standards development (never mind the fact that one of the teachers had 30 years of experience).

There were definitely several on the committees and it's a blatant lie to suggest otherwise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/29/a-tough-critique-of-common-core-on-early-childhood-education/

Once more. NO early childhood people. If you know that they were there, then you should be able to name them.

They also refused to make public the comments.

Clearly you do not understand the difference between logic and rhetoric. You constantly try to resort to rhetorical devices such as appeals to emotion and red herrings. But these are logical fallacies. Just because you believe something does not mean you are right. You have to actually PROVE it, logically, and with evidence. And that is something that you have consistently failed to do.

If you cannot make any posts with actual hard PROOF then you are just wasting your time here.

Look in the mirror. You will not accept anything that contradicts your website.

It's already been shown in these threads that there were indeed several elementary school teachers and other experts with early childhood development expertise involved in development and validation. You wanted to discount them for various confabulated reasons. Who made you queen of DCUM to make the rules about who can or can't be accepted for their early childhood development expertise?

No. It has not. There have been some that claimed it. Go read the article posted above at WAPO by Edward Miller.