Anonymous wrote:

Who made you queen of DCUM that you get to discount and discredit peoples' experience?

Stating a fact is discrediting?

Once more: where are the early childhood names?

Anonymous wrote:

Who made you queen of DCUM that you get to discount and discredit peoples' experience?

This kind of a comment is really not useful to the argument. You have continually attacked this other poster in personal and unprofessional ways just because you do not like what she is saying. Thou doth protesteth too much I'm afraid.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And, how do we know this? It is from the Common Core website. When did the committees meet? How did they operate? Did all math members work on all math standards? Were the members paid? If so, how much?

Where are the published comments? Did the committees meet again to rewrite the standards after the comment period? How did they vet the standards?

If it is "indisputable" that they were vetted, why don't the developers share the results?

Who made you queen of DCUM that you get to discount and discredit peoples' experience?

Who made you queen of DCUM that you get to discount and discredit peoples' experience?

Who made you queen of DCUM that you get to discount and discredit peoples' experience?

Anonymous wrote:

It's not healthy to arrive at a conclusion and then ignore evidence and facts. That's precisely what climate deniers do. They arrive at a conclusion ahead of the facts, and then ignore or try to deny any evidence and facts that contradict their conclusion - while refusing to provide any evidence of their own position.

What we are dealing with is an anti-Common-Core poster who keeps resorting to fallacious rhetorical devices rather than presenting actual facts and logic.

No. I think I am the poster you are referring to. You refuse to see the truth.

You have only to look at the numbers.

How many committee members? 135 total math and ELA work and feedback groups
How many classroom teachers? A handful--and they are almost all high school teachers. 3 elementary --at most.
How many people with no classroom experience? More of them than those with current classroom experience.

Now, once more, that teacher with 30 years of experience (the one you said I demeaned or something)was teaching in a "select admission" high school. Hardly someone who can relate to the teacher in an average high school. Nevertheless, it is okay for her to be on the committee--if it were balanced by other teachers. It was not.

You mention the man from ACHIEVE as being an experienced classroom teacher. After a little research, it was easy to determine that the experience was for a few years many years ago. Then he went into administration and a lengthy career as a consultant. Perhaps, he brings something to the table--but he brings limited experience from the classroom. He certainly does not understand the day to day challenge of current teachers.

I am still waiting for you to post the teachers from the early years.

And, how do we know this? It is from the Common Core website. When did the committees meet? How did they operate? Did all math members work on all math standards? Were the members paid? If so, how much?

Where are the published comments? Did the committees meet again to rewrite the standards after the comment period? How did they vet the standards?

If it is "indisputable" that they were vetted, why don't the developers share the results?

It's one thing to be a skeptic, but there is a difference between asking for information and not getting a response vs. asking for information and then denying and ignoring the answers received because you didn't like them and then going on pretending there was no response. By denying the other side's information you aren't engaging in anything "healthy."

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.

It's not healthy to arrive at a conclusion and then ignore evidence and facts. That's precisely what climate deniers do. They arrive at a conclusion ahead of the facts, and then ignore or try to deny any evidence and facts that contradict their conclusion - while refusing to provide any evidence of their own position.

What we are dealing with is an anti-Common-Core poster who keeps resorting to fallacious rhetorical devices rather than presenting actual facts and logic.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think she wants anyone to take anything on faith. I think that's why she keeps asking for information . . . so that people can come to their own conclusions. This is called "healthy skepticism". I think that when this much power and money is involved in making public policy, all parts of it must be public (as it affects the public greatly). Wouldn't you agree?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.