Anonymous wrote:And, according to criteria on CC website, the standards should be "Measurable" and clearly written--so that general public can understand them.

This member of the general public has not had any problems understanding them.

Anonymous wrote:
^ How do you measure that standard? Is it just "done" or "not done"?

Yes, that would be measuring.

And, according to criteria on CC website, the standards should be "Measurable" and clearly written--so that general public can understand them.

For example, how do you test this 5th grade language arts standard?

Come to discussions prepared, having read or studied required material; explicitly draw on that preparation and other information known about the topic to explore ideas under discussion.

LOL. Remember, these standards were written by "experts" in writing standards...........
What a joke.

^ How do you measure that standard? Is it just "done" or "not done"?

The evidence would be that the standards are not useful in practice. They could be great in theory, but practice is where they become useful or not. Practitioners are weighing in as they use them, but are finding resistance to changing the standards. The standards will remain theoretical. The tests, if based on the standards, will not be useful in practice either.

Why were these standards created?

Are they all being tested via the standardized tests or are just some of them tested (the ones that are easily tested?)? How does that affect implementation?

For example, how do you test this 5th grade language arts standard?

Come to discussions prepared, having read or studied required material; explicitly draw on that preparation and other information known about the topic to explore ideas under discussion.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
1 It demonstrates the bottom-of-the-barrel tactics of someone who is grasping at straws. Given they have no real evidence to support the claims of flaws in the end product, they think that chipping away at the periphery will somehow get them somewhere. But again, it's fallacious. Typical FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt) sowing tactics.

The evidence would be that the standards are not useful in practice. They could be great in theory, but practice is where they become useful or not. Practitioners are weighing in as they use them, but are finding resistance to changing the standards. The standards will remain theoretical. The tests, if based on the standards, will not be useful in practice either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1 It demonstrates the bottom-of-the-barrel tactics of someone who is grasping at straws. Given they have no real evidence to support the claims of flaws in the end product, they think that chipping away at the periphery will somehow get them somewhere. But again, it's fallacious. Typical FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt) sowing tactics.

Also people have to sign nondisclosure agreements. There's no way to see the end product. They can release things selectively. There is no way to use the end product as evidence.

Here is the end product:

http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

I thought this thread was about PARCC.

It started out being about PARCC, but for the last 20 pages or so, at least, it's been about the Common Core standards.

Here is the end product:

http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

Aren't the standards only a means to an end . . ? Or are the standards an end in themselves? Do the standards stand alone or do they only mean something in the context of being used by teachers? If they are an end in themselves, then what's the point of having them? Are they to be used or just "looked at"? No wonder "opt out" is happening. The standards are meaningless if the end is the standards.

Anonymous wrote:
1 It demonstrates the bottom-of-the-barrel tactics of someone who is grasping at straws. Given they have no real evidence to support the claims of flaws in the end product, they think that chipping away at the periphery will somehow get them somewhere. But again, it's fallacious. Typical FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt) sowing tactics.


Also people have to sign nondisclosure agreements. There's no way to see the end product. They can release things selectively. There is no way to use the end product as evidence.


Here is the end product:

http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

I thought this thread was about PARCC.

Anonymous wrote:

1 It demonstrates the bottom-of-the-barrel tactics of someone who is grasping at straws. Given they have no real evidence to support the claims of flaws in the end product, they think that chipping away at the periphery will somehow get them somewhere. But again, it's fallacious. Typical FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt) sowing tactics.

Also people have to sign nondisclosure agreements. There's no way to see the end product. They can release things selectively. There is no way to use the end product as evidence.

Here is the end product:

http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

1 It demonstrates the bottom-of-the-barrel tactics of someone who is grasping at straws. Given they have no real evidence to support the claims of flaws in the end product, they think that chipping away at the periphery will somehow get them somewhere. But again, it's fallacious. Typical FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt) sowing tactics.

Also people have to sign nondisclosure agreements. There's no way to see the end product. They can release things selectively. There is no way to use the end product as evidence.

I'm surprised, really. I'd think it would be easier to demonstrate the flaws of the end product -- especially if the flaws are so manifest and so flawed, as the opponents keep saying.

There are flaws in the end product. People are looking at the process because the process may have led to those flaws in the end product.

As for me, I just think that the premise that the standards were the problem in the whole matter of student achievement is a false premise. And if student achievement was not the objective in putting the standards out, what was the objective? Was it something like getting rid of "bad" teachers or "bad schools" or ??? Was it just having an "objective" measure by which to cover the butts of the people making those decisions? What is this all about? The whole explanation that we can compare states just doesn't cut it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, you keep trying to disqualify and discredit the people that did participate on the committee.

And all of it is an attempt to try and discredit the process and imply it was flawed - and that therefore the end product is flawed.

That is fallacious reasoning - and, even so, not even particularly relevant as you have not been able to produce any data or evidence that the end product is flawed.

The assumption here is that, if the process was flawed, then the end product cannot be anything other than flawed, and therefore it is unnecessary to demonstrate the flaws of the end product.

I'm surprised, really. I'd think it would be easier to demonstrate the flaws of the end product -- especially if the flaws are so manifest and so flawed, as the opponents keep saying.

+1 It demonstrates the bottom-of-the-barrel tactics of someone who is grasping at straws. Given they have no real evidence to support the claims of flaws in the end product, they think that chipping away at the periphery will somehow get them somewhere. But again, it's fallacious. Typical FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt) sowing tactics.

Anonymous wrote:Again, you keep trying to disqualify and discredit the people that did participate on the committee.

And all of it is an attempt to try and discredit the process and imply it was flawed - and that therefore the end product is flawed.

That is fallacious reasoning - and, even so, not even particularly relevant as you have not been able to produce any data or evidence that the end product is flawed.

The assumption here is that, if the process was flawed, then the end product cannot be anything other than flawed, and therefore it is unnecessary to demonstrate the flaws of the end product.

I'm surprised, really. I'd think it would be easier to demonstrate the flaws of the end product -- especially if the flaws are so manifest and so flawed, as the opponents keep saying.