Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Seems to me that many public school critics wanted to see more rigor in the curriculum but now that schools have adopted a more rigorous curriculum parents are freaking out.
I think most of the outrage comes from two distinct camps:
1.) teachers union folks who don't want to have to change anything or be held accountable to any new standard and/or befuddled concern about "privatization of schools"
2.) befuddled conservatives who have been misled into believing this is "ObamaSchools"
Ironic that they are now working together. Though I don't think they realize it.
I don't think that this is an accurate description. The outrage from the left doesn't come specifically from the teachers' unions; it comes from people who oppose corporations getting involved in public education (which includes standardized testing, for-profit charter schools, value-added evaluation systems, and so on), as well as people who believe that there shouldn't be any standards or requirements or homework or testing. And, really, the corporatization of public education preceded the Common Core, and making the Common Core go away won't make the corporatization go away.
)Why not addition? Because you're not adding, you're taking away
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Seems to me that many public school critics wanted to see more rigor in the curriculum but now that schools have adopted a more rigorous curriculum parents are freaking out.
I think most of the outrage comes from two distinct camps:
1.) teachers union folks who don't want to have to change anything or be held accountable to any new standard and/or befuddled concern about "privatization of schools"
2.) befuddled conservatives who have been misled into believing this is "ObamaSchools"
Ironic that they are now working together. Though I don't think they realize it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Seems to me that many public school critics wanted to see more rigor in the curriculum but now that schools have adopted a more rigorous curriculum parents are freaking out.
I think most of the outrage comes from two distinct camps:
1.) teachers union folks who don't want to have to change anything or be held accountable to any new standard and/or befuddled concern about "privatization of schools"
2.) befuddled conservatives who have been misled into believing this is "ObamaSchools"
Ironic that they are now working together. Though I don't think they realize it.
Anonymous wrote:Seems to me that many public school critics wanted to see more rigor in the curriculum but now that schools have adopted a more rigorous curriculum parents are freaking out.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Ok, I went to "Math Practices". This is what it says:
Mathematical Practices
1)Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
2)Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3)Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
4)Model with mathematics.
5)Use appropriate tools strategically.
6)Attend to precision.
7)Look for and make use of structure.
8)Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.
Which parts of this illustrate explaining in detail in abstract terms...
2, 3, and 8.
Just ask my eight year old.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Which math standards, specifically, require "explaining in great detail in abstract terms at young ages"? Please link to at least one or two specific math standards.
(And as for the PARCC tests -- you seem to think you have a crystal ball. I think you have a Magic 8 Ball.)
Different poster, but on the issue of explaining in detail in abstrict terms, scroll down to "Math Practices".
http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/3/introduction/
Since you probably work for some core-related entity, no doubt ths language will be expunged/revised by noon.
Ok, I went to "Math Practices". This is what it says:
Mathematical Practices
1)Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
2)Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3)Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
4)Model with mathematics.
5)Use appropriate tools strategically.
6)Attend to precision.
7)Look for and make use of structure.
8)Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.
Which parts of this illustrate explaining in detail in abstract terms...
2, 3, and 8.
Just ask my eight year old.
Anonymous wrote:If you object to tying teacher evaluations to student achievement, then that's what you should be objecting to.
[Report Post]
I object to judging teacher by standardized tests. That is what the grants from Race to the Top will lead to. It won't work.
If you object to tying teacher evaluations to student achievement, then that's what you should be objecting to.
[Report Post]
Anonymous wrote:Nobody is disputing that Arne Duncan said that teacher evaluations should be tied to student achievement, or that one of the ways of measuring student achievement will be performance on standardized tests. The question is HOW this will happen. Your claim is that the standard will be: "If your students pass the test, you pass. If your students fail the test, you fail." Please find me one actual, sincere proposal for a teacher evaluation system like that.
I never said that, but when 50% of your evaluation is based on achievement, you could make that assumption. I haven't taught in years, but I see the pitfalls. Teachers don't deserve this.
Nobody is disputing that Arne Duncan said that teacher evaluations should be tied to student achievement, or that one of the ways of measuring student achievement will be performance on standardized tests. The question is HOW this will happen. Your claim is that the standard will be: "If your students pass the test, you pass. If your students fail the test, you fail." Please find me one actual, sincere proposal for a teacher evaluation system like that.
[Report Post]
Anonymous wrote:Suggest you read the booklet. Pay particular attention to pages 6 and 7. Look at the pie chart. 50% based on student achievement.