Anonymous wrote:

No, you're just the one going around claiming that you know the committee members, but you don't want to share your knowledge and we should trust you in your "faith" in these committee members. But you are an anonymous poster and think you don't have to share your knowledge.

We have one person asking for information and saying they have not been able to find it. The other person says, "well, it's not my job to find it. Go find it yourself because I know it's there." Other person says, "I can't find it. Please help." Other person says, "It's not for me to find. It's just for me to tell you it's there."

Finally second person says, "Well the committee members are great and have all the experience they need to have." Second person says, "No, this is not the experience that would help to make the committee work well." Now that is a truly debatable point. That is a valid argument. Were the committee members in positions where they could truly understand the children for whom the standards were being written? This can be argued.

Another argument that I see is valid is the one about the vetting. One thing that is concerning is the lack of publishing of certain opinions---which have now come to light. That is a problem that needs to be addressed, but has not. The CC website is a promotional website so it is really not a good source.

I am not either PP.

Thank you for that post. That is exactly the problem: we do not have the information about how the standards were written. We do not have the information even about the bios of the committee members. There really are not any bios--just the current job. This leaves finding the information to internet surfing. It would have been a good thing if the CC website had given us more information about the people writing the standards--and how the standards were developed and vetted--other than that they were.

An example given by the poster about the teacher with thirty years experience is a challenge. The bio just lists her as an "educational consultant". CC supporter found that she had thirty years experience. Further research by anti-common core poster confirms that. However, the experience teaching was in a "selective admissions" public high school-- a TJ type school. That is not insignificant experience--however, it does beg the question of her understanding of elementary students--particularly those in the early grades. It also begs the question of her understanding of the challenges of the average high school student and their teachers.

"Experts" do not necessarily have actual classroom experience. That is disturbing when there are more of them than there are people with hands on classroom experience. Particularly disturbing to me is the lack of people with experience in the early grades. After all, that is where all of this starts.

That wasn't the only teacher there. Again, there were several more who had plenty of classroom experience, likely at least as much as any critic. But in the overzealous drive to try and nitpick and trash, the critics for example saw "Achieve" on the one and chose to ignore that the person working for Achieve had in fact been a classroom teacher. Or, they saw that another classroom teacher had published several works, some of which were published by a company with a connection to Pearson and then tried to ignore that person's experience as well. Just because you are desperate to try and paint a picture of "conflict of interest" in some contorted attempt to bash and discredit does not make that person's experience and expertise somehow magically go away no matter how much you want it to seem that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.


This is really an interesting quote. Irony? Anonymous poster condemning another anonymous poster for being anonymous. DCUM at its finest.


Sorry, no - irony doesn't work that way. I'm not the one going around claiming I know more than any of the committee members. There is no equivalence there.

No, you're just the one going around claiming that you know the committee members, but you don't want to share your knowledge and we should trust you in your "faith" in these committee members. But you are an anonymous poster and think you don't have to share your knowledge.

We have one person asking for information and saying they have not been able to find it. The other person says, "well, it's not my job to find it. Go find it yourself because I know it's there." Other person says, "I can't find it. Please help." Other person says, "It's not for me to find. It's just for me to tell you it's there."

Finally second person says, "Well the committee members are great and have all the experience they need to have." Second person says, "No, this is not the experience that would help to make the committee work well." Now that is a truly debatable point. That is a valid argument. Were the committee members in positions where they could truly understand the children for whom the standards were being written? This can be argued.

Another argument that I see is valid is the one about the vetting. One thing that is concerning is the lack of publishing of certain opinions---which have now come to light. That is a problem that needs to be addressed, but has not. The CC website is a promotional website so it is really not a good source.

I am not either PP.

1.) The poster claiming there was insufficient expertise on the committees is the one expecting all of us to take it on faith that she knows better than all of the rest of us, knows better than anyone involved in the committees or development process.

2.) The person asking for information has already been repeatedly provided the information, but then just denies it and ignores it. I should also point out that the person requesting the information is the one making accusations and burden of proof is on the accuser. If you want to make accusations, then you have to bring evidence.

3.) As for committee member expertise see 1.) - Who is the poster, to be saying she knows better than anyone else, and in particular, the folks actually involved in standards development, to be making determinations of whether the committee members were qualified or not? For all we know the poster making accusations could be someone only claiming to be a teacher, but who who has zero education background and has never taught a day in her life. We have know way of knowing, and no way to assess the veracity of any statements or claims made.

4.) As for the vetting - again, it has repeatedly been shown that a.) the standards were *not* developed in a vacuum - the vast majority of them were adapted from pre-existing state SOLs which were developed by prior panels of experts and which were already previously vetted and which have already been in production and in classrooms for years and b.) the standards compiled by the CC development committee did *not* just go straight from a closed room of development committee members into classrooms, that there were several rounds of review and comment during the development phase, and then there was a separate validation phase involving a separate set of experts, and then additional rounds of review and comment. To say there was "no" vetting is absolutely, undisputably false.

No, you're just the one going around claiming that you know the committee members, but you don't want to share your knowledge and we should trust you in your "faith" in these committee members. But you are an anonymous poster and think you don't have to share your knowledge.

We have one person asking for information and saying they have not been able to find it. The other person says, "well, it's not my job to find it. Go find it yourself because I know it's there." Other person says, "I can't find it. Please help." Other person says, "It's not for me to find. It's just for me to tell you it's there."

Finally second person says, "Well the committee members are great and have all the experience they need to have." Second person says, "No, this is not the experience that would help to make the committee work well." Now that is a truly debatable point. That is a valid argument. Were the committee members in positions where they could truly understand the children for whom the standards were being written? This can be argued.

Another argument that I see is valid is the one about the vetting. One thing that is concerning is the lack of publishing of certain opinions---which have now come to light. That is a problem that needs to be addressed, but has not. The CC website is a promotional website so it is really not a good source.

I am not either PP.

Thank you for that post. That is exactly the problem: we do not have the information about how the standards were written. We do not have the information even about the bios of the committee members. There really are not any bios--just the current job. This leaves finding the information to internet surfing. It would have been a good thing if the CC website had given us more information about the people writing the standards--and how the standards were developed and vetted--other than that they were.

An example given by the poster about the teacher with thirty years experience is a challenge. The bio just lists her as an "educational consultant". CC supporter found that she had thirty years experience. Further research by anti-common core poster confirms that. However, the experience teaching was in a "selective admissions" public high school-- a TJ type school. That is not insignificant experience--however, it does beg the question of her understanding of elementary students--particularly those in the early grades. It also begs the question of her understanding of the challenges of the average high school student and their teachers.

"Experts" do not necessarily have actual classroom experience. That is disturbing when there are more of them than there are people with hands on classroom experience. Particularly disturbing to me is the lack of people with experience in the early grades. After all, that is where all of this starts.

Anonymous wrote:
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.


This is really an interesting quote. Irony? Anonymous poster condemning another anonymous poster for being anonymous. DCUM at its finest.


Sorry, no - irony doesn't work that way. I'm not the one going around claiming I know more than any of the committee members. There is no equivalence there.

No, you're just the one going around claiming that you know the committee members, but you don't want to share your knowledge and we should trust you in your "faith" in these committee members. But you are an anonymous poster and think you don't have to share your knowledge.

We have one person asking for information and saying they have not been able to find it. The other person says, "well, it's not my job to find it. Go find it yourself because I know it's there." Other person says, "I can't find it. Please help." Other person says, "It's not for me to find. It's just for me to tell you it's there."

Finally second person says, "Well the committee members are great and have all the experience they need to have." Second person says, "No, this is not the experience that would help to make the committee work well." Now that is a truly debatable point. That is a valid argument. Were the committee members in positions where they could truly understand the children for whom the standards were being written? This can be argued.

Another argument that I see is valid is the one about the vetting. One thing that is concerning is the lack of publishing of certain opinions---which have now come to light. That is a problem that needs to be addressed, but has not. The CC website is a promotional website so it is really not a good source.

I am not either PP.

Anonymous wrote:

You are truly hopeless. You seem to be suffering from memory loss, as we already went through this. A week from now you'll be denying it and asking the same questions and making the same accusations yet again, just as you have been doing for the last 200 pages of these threads.

So. You admit there were no early childhood teachers on the committees. Thank you.

WRONG. You are either more delusional than I thought, or you completely lack any reading comprehension. No such admission was made. What was said is that this has already been addressed, and several examples of committee members with relevant experience were discussed.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is really an interesting quote. Irony? Anonymous poster condemning another anonymous poster for being anonymous. DCUM at its finest.

Sorry, no - irony doesn't work that way. I'm not the one going around claiming I know more than any of the committee members. There is no equivalence there.

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.

This is really an interesting quote. Irony? Anonymous poster condemning another anonymous poster for being anonymous. DCUM at its finest.

You are truly hopeless. You seem to be suffering from memory loss, as we already went through this. A week from now you'll be denying it and asking the same questions and making the same accusations yet again, just as you have been doing for the last 200 pages of these threads.

So. You admit there were no early childhood teachers on the committees. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:Once more:

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.

Please list the early childhood teachers. They don't have to be K teachers, first or second will count.

You are truly hopeless. You seem to be suffering from memory loss, as we already went through this. A week from now you'll be denying it and asking the same questions and making the same accusations yet again, just as you have been doing for the last 200 pages of these threads.

Once more:

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.

Please list the early childhood teachers. They don't have to be K teachers, first or second will count.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not the PP. But, reading this, I can see how much respect is given to the experience of actual teachers in the classroom. Apparently not much. A person must rise through the "ranks of education", be published and hold multiple degrees in order to have their voice heard. The actual teachers are not supposed to think about nor have any opinions about what they are doing.

Oh, puh-leeze. You have it seriously backwards.

The poster who keeps claiming there weren't experienced people on the committee is disrespecting seasoned teachers with 30 years of classroom experience, disrespecting published educators, disrespecting recognized experts on education, by disrespecting the committee members.

The only person I am disrespecting here is the other poster who keeps lying about committee members supposed inexperience and lack of qualifications, who keeps deliberately ignoring or trying to deny the facts here. And for all I know, the PP who keeps claiming this may never have stepped foot inside a classroom herself. I have no way of verifying the other PP's claimed expertise, whereas it's already been shown via various links and citations that the committee members that she trashed DO in fact have experience and qualifications.

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.

I am not the PP. But, reading this, I can see how much respect is given to the experience of actual teachers in the classroom. Apparently not much. A person must rise through the "ranks of education", be published and hold multiple degrees in order to have their voice heard. The actual teachers are not supposed to think about nor have any opinions about what they are doing.

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.

Many have NEVER taught in a public school classroom. Several taught two or three years and then went into administration. Some have taught only in colleges. And, a handful have no degrees in education and have never taught anything.

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.

Who am I?

Someone who is qualified to know what goes on in a classroom. Unlike most of the people on the committee. Sorry, if you go through the bios, you will find that many have NEVER taught in a classroom--much less a Kindergarten or first grade. A college professor teaching others how to teach math--yet has hardly been in a classroom is not a proven expert. She may be very good and have something to offer-but to not include the people who actually have to implement the new standards is just wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

This was already disproven here last week.

Actually, no.

Liar. It was. Several examples were given.