Oh gosh, not Carol Burris again. Everything she writes sounds really great, until you start thinking about the specifics, and then you notice that there aren't any. If she wants to quit her job, goodbye and good luck.

Does anyone know if there are agents of change working on getting rid of CC and PARCC for educational reasons, not political?

I think so. Unfortunately, it requires the politicians to change it. However, there are plenty of educators working on getting rid of it for educational reasons. It was the politicians who created this mess, they will have to be the ones to change it. It started with NCLB. If they roll back the requirement for all this testing, the blocks will start falling.

This woman has written a lot about CC. Sounds like she intends to rattle the cages:


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/05/11/high-school-principal-quits-common-core/

Anonymous wrote:Are you sure? The MCPS school board is considering using PARCC subject tests in HS as substitutes for final exams. That terrifies me and sure doesn't seem like it's on its way out. Does anyone know if there are agents of change working on getting rid of CC and PARCC for educational reasons, not political?

That is because the state of Maryland requires those tests (previously the state required the Maryland HSAs), so the only way to reduce the amount of testing is to get rid of the class final exams. This has nothing to do with the Common Core standards.

Are you sure? The MCPS school board is considering using PARCC subject tests in HS as substitutes for final exams. That terrifies me and sure doesn't seem like it's on its way out. Does anyone know if there are agents of change working on getting rid of CC and PARCC for educational reasons, not political?

No, you are missing the point.

You want to change the status quo. To do this, you need to persuade people that the status quo is bad. And to do that, you need to have reasons for why the status quo is bad.

Nobody ever said, "We're changing the status quo for the hell of it, unless you can persuade us not to!"

It will change. There are lots of people who are upset with it. And, there is research to support it. CC is on the way out, as well. It will take a few years. But, it is toast. It was already sick, but PARCC is finishing it off.

No, you are missing the point.

You want to change the status quo. To do this, you need to persuade people that the status quo is bad. And to do that, you need to have reasons for why the status quo is bad.

Nobody ever said, "We're changing the status quo for the hell of it, unless you can persuade us not to!"

There is one PP who demands people cite research for every claim and who apparently believes the status quo needs no defending because it is the status quo. I do believe it is the same person who is the apologist for CC but who knows, maybe there are a few of them in the 200+ pages of this thread.


Nobody has said this.

However, if you want to change the status quo, it's good to have reasons for why the status quo is bad.

Now, let's see.
Research suggests the status quo is not the best.
But it is the status quo!
Please give research to support the status quo.
Don't need to, because it is the status quo.
The status quo is a fairly recent change. Where is the research to support it?
Don't need it because it is the status quo!

However, a poster(I suspect the one who loves the status quo) has said that her DC did fine with the K standards, therefore the standards are developmentally appropriate. So, I guess that's the new research model. If PP's DC do fine with standards, then they are good.

Anonymous wrote:There is one PP who demands people cite research for every claim and who apparently believes the status quo needs no defending because it is the status quo. I do believe it is the same person who is the apologist for CC but who knows, maybe there are a few of them in the 200+ pages of this thread.

Nobody has said this.

However, if you want to change the status quo, it's good to have reasons for why the status quo is bad.

There is one PP who demands people cite research for every claim and who apparently believes the status quo needs no defending because it is the status quo. I do believe it is the same person who is the apologist for CC but who knows, maybe there are a few of them in the 200+ pages of this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Are you a lobbyist for the that NGO named Support the Status Quo? If not, you should consider applying. I hear they have an endless number of initiatives in many areas.

LOL!

The PP demands research from everyone who challenges her--yet she provides none that does not come from the Common Core website. Oh, yes, and that 2008 article from WAPO that says that 90%+ K's are reading emergent texts. Common Core is wonderful because the website says so. It's just the teachers' fault. And, don't forget, PARCC is the fault of the states that purchased it!

However, because she likes CC better than the prior standards in MCPS, it's great.

I really do think she is some kind of lobbyist or employee.

I do not understand who or what you are referring to. There is no one single PP. There are multiple posters on this thread.

To identify myself: I am the PP who has children in MCPS. I am indeed an employee -- are you? -- but my employer has nothing whatsoever to do with education or lobbying.

Are you a lobbyist for the that NGO named Support the Status Quo? If not, you should consider applying. I hear they have an endless number of initiatives in many areas.

LOL!

The PP demands research from everyone who challenges her--yet she provides none that does not come from the Common Core website. Oh, yes, and that 2008 article from WAPO that says that 90%+ K's are reading emergent texts. Common Core is wonderful because the website says so. It's just the teachers' fault. And, don't forget, PARCC is the fault of the states that purchased it!

However, because she likes CC better than the prior standards in MCPS, it's great.

I really do think she is some kind of lobbyist or employee.