Oh, then, you need to explain that to the other CC supporter on here. She seems to think that teachers in lower achieving schools don't have to meet Common Core standards if the kids are not ready.

That is my own, actual experience, and what I see with my own eyes, and nothing you can ever say will *ever* change that. If your experience is different from mine, then it's purely a function of how your school is doing things and the poor choices that they are making, and the fact that my experience is different from yours PROVES that. And that is why I am solidly convinced that your assessment and diagnosis is just plain wrong - because my own experience shows otherwise, whereas you do not have that same experience and perspective that I do, for you to be able to make that assessment more robustly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apologists for Pearson and CC? One could flip that silly question on its head and ask why are anti-CCers shilling for the Koch brothers?

And don't they realize that there are also actual, real people with genuine problems and frustrations with the anti-CC agenda?

That Koch brothers comment is a red herring. You claim that the anti Common Core people are all right wing nuts--yet there are plenty of people on here who have given good arguments against Common core. I have yet to see any reasons to support it. Why do you have problems with the people who are pointing out the issues with Common Core. You have yet to substantiate your support of it. What is it going to accomplish? How is it going to make things better? It sounds to me like your support of it is purely political. Ironic, since Jeb Bush is one of its biggest supporters.

It's not a red herring at all. The Koch Brothers pumped millions of dollars into their front organizations like the Heartland Institute to come up with a set of talking points, which have been echoed and repeated all over this thread over and over again - despite not having any actual data or evidence to support them. Red herrings? Throwing Jeb Bush out there is a red herring, because he's a moderate, not a hardline conservative like the Koch's and their Tea Party agenda.

What does it accomplish? It creates consistent frameworks for content and curriculum, it enables portability and interoperability of curriculum and content for teachers, students, and content providers, it establishes baselines and assessments for comparative and longitudinal analysis, and it has certainly renewed a lot of dialogue around what education should be and what our expectations should be - it does quite a few things, none of which are by any stretch a "waste." Meanwhile, where is the evidence that getting rid of standards and testing will accomplish anything, let alone improve things? 100+ pages have already shown there isn't any evidence that it will, unless all you are looking at is cost and you really don't care about education.

I'm the Democrat who came to her own conclusions well before I heard the Koch idiot Ayn Rand worshippers were in on this. I moved here from a very liberal country, Canada, where there is no national high-stakes testing or national standards, just good authentic creative fun teaching. Kids do better on high school achievement there by the way. I think it's early days to be so passionately expounding the virtues of the PARCC testing and CC, especially if you are basing it on the fact that your kid didn't find it to be a big deal. Why do you care so much? Did you write the PARCC? Your spouse? Your mother? Your neighbor? Why??

Um, your very liberal Canada does in fact have national education standards and a standardized curriculum going back to 1988.

consistent frameworks for content and curriculum

Anonymous wrote:
What does it accomplish? It creates consistent frameworks for content and curriculum, it enables portability and interoperability of curriculum and content for teachers, students, and content providers, it establishes baselines and assessments for comparative and longitudinal analysis,



Um, no thanks. Don't spend my tax dollars on that please.


You aren't a liberal.

Again, CC is a *minimum* standard, meaning schools have total freedom to go beyond however they like.

Anonymous wrote:
What does it accomplish? It creates consistent frameworks for content and curriculum, it enables portability and interoperability of curriculum and content for teachers, students, and content providers, it establishes baselines and assessments for comparative and longitudinal analysis,



Um, no thanks. Don't spend my tax dollars on that please.


You aren't a liberal.

claiming they are teachers but then getting confused about CC vs NCLB testing

Anonymous wrote:

What does it accomplish? It creates consistent frameworks for content and curriculum, it enables portability and interoperability of curriculum and content for teachers, students, and content providers, it establishes baselines and assessments for comparative and longitudinal analysis,

Um, no thanks. Don't spend my tax dollars on that please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While you may not be apologists for this Pearson, CC, and NCLB, you *sound* like you are apologists (not apologizing--different word). No evidence is needed except to see with one's own eyes how children are being treated and how learning time is being wasted. I believe many of us are parents, not necessarily teachers, though some are teachers. I am ultimately responsible for my child's education, not the school. So that's why I am a card carrying liberal who is against PARCC, CC, and NCLB.

Here's my evidence and what I see with my own eyes:

I happen to be a liberal parent who has seen with my own eyes how the process works for my kid (who just took the PARCC this week) and I have *NO* problems with it. My kid's school spent ZERO prep on it, other than part of a study hall session going over test process and format, and my kid spent a few hours earlier this week doing the English PARCC, and then a few hours on the Math PARCC yesterday, and that was it. There was only one question that he thought was confusing on the Math test because of terminology differences but he was able to work it out. My kid thought the test was a piece of cake. As for his coursework, his Math and English textbooks are *NOT* from Pearson but integrate CC content just fine, and his teachers likewise do just fine with it. No, they *DON'T* spend an inordinate amount of time over-explaining things and no, they *DON'T* waste any time, and no, they *DON'T* divert away from anything to focus specifically on CC - in fact they pack quite a bit of very solid content in, it's in many ways better content than what I had as a student growing up.

That is my own, actual experience, and what I see with my own eyes, and nothing you can ever say will *ever* change that. If your experience is different from mine, then it's purely a function of how your school is doing things and the poor choices that they are making, and the fact that my experience is different from yours PROVES that. And that is why I am solidly convinced that your assessment and diagnosis is just plain wrong - because my own experience shows otherwise, whereas you do not have that same experience and perspective that I do, for you to be able to make that assessment more robustly.

Goodness gracious you are full of yourself.

First, I'd be wary of crowing about how easy it all is until you get the PARCC test results. You and your kid could be in for a big surprise. Second, even if your child did well, it doesn't make them good standards for everyone else. The standards were written with the top 30 percent of students in mind. And it is those 30 percent who are doing well. What about the other 70 percent? Those experiences aren't valid because they are not yours?

I have a child who suffers under Common Core expectations daily. It's been a NIGHTMARE. Some of its the district's expectations, but the rest if the narrow definition of the standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apologists for Pearson and CC? One could flip that silly question on its head and ask why are anti-CCers shilling for the Koch brothers?

And don't they realize that there are also actual, real people with genuine problems and frustrations with the anti-CC agenda?

That Koch brothers comment is a red herring. You claim that the anti Common Core people are all right wing nuts--yet there are plenty of people on here who have given good arguments against Common core. I have yet to see any reasons to support it. Why do you have problems with the people who are pointing out the issues with Common Core. You have yet to substantiate your support of it. What is it going to accomplish? How is it going to make things better? It sounds to me like your support of it is purely political. Ironic, since Jeb Bush is one of its biggest supporters.

It's not a red herring at all. The Koch Brothers pumped millions of dollars into their front organizations like the Heartland Institute to come up with a set of talking points, which have been echoed and repeated all over this thread over and over again - despite not having any actual data or evidence to support them. Red herrings? Throwing Jeb Bush out there is a red herring, because he's a moderate, not a hardline conservative like the Koch's and their Tea Party agenda.

What does it accomplish? It creates consistent frameworks for content and curriculum, it enables portability and interoperability of curriculum and content for teachers, students, and content providers, it establishes baselines and assessments for comparative and longitudinal analysis, and it has certainly renewed a lot of dialogue around what education should be and what our expectations should be - it does quite a few things, none of which are by any stretch a "waste." Meanwhile, where is the evidence that getting rid of standards and testing will accomplish anything, let alone improve things? 100+ pages have already shown there isn't any evidence that it will, unless all you are looking at is cost and you really don't care about education.

I'm the Democrat who came to her own conclusions well before I heard the Koch idiot Ayn Rand worshippers were in on this. I moved here from a very liberal country, Canada, where there is no national high-stakes testing or national standards, just good authentic creative fun teaching. Kids do better on high school achievement there by the way. I think it's early days to be so passionately expounding the virtues of the PARCC testing and CC, especially if you are basing it on the fact that your kid didn't find it to be a big deal. Why do you care so much? Did you write the PARCC? Your spouse? Your mother? Your neighbor? Why??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While you may not be apologists for this Pearson, CC, and NCLB, you *sound* like you are apologists (not apologizing--different word). No evidence is needed except to see with one's own eyes how children are being treated and how learning time is being wasted. I believe many of us are parents, not necessarily teachers, though some are teachers. I am ultimately responsible for my child's education, not the school. So that's why I am a card carrying liberal who is against PARCC, CC, and NCLB.

Here's my evidence and what I see with my own eyes:

I happen to be a liberal parent who has seen with my own eyes how the process works for my kid (who just took the PARCC this week) and I have *NO* problems with it. My kid's school spent ZERO prep on it, other than part of a study hall session going over test process and format, and my kid spent a few hours earlier this week doing the English PARCC, and then a few hours on the Math PARCC yesterday, and that was it. There was only one question that he thought was confusing on the Math test because of terminology differences but he was able to work it out. My kid thought the test was a piece of cake. As for his coursework, his Math and English textbooks are *NOT* from Pearson but integrate CC content just fine, and his teachers likewise do just fine with it. No, they *DON'T* spend an inordinate amount of time over-explaining things and no, they *DON'T* waste any time, and no, they *DON'T* divert away from anything to focus specifically on CC - in fact they pack quite a bit of very solid content in, it's in many ways better content than what I had as a student growing up.

That is my own, actual experience, and what I see with my own eyes, and nothing you can ever say will *ever* change that. If your experience is different from mine, then it's purely a function of how your school is doing things and the poor choices that they are making, and the fact that my experience is different from yours PROVES that. And that is why I am solidly convinced that your assessment and diagnosis is just plain wrong - because my own experience shows otherwise, whereas you do not have that same experience and perspective that I do, for you to be able to make that assessment more robustly.

Why??

Anonymous wrote:

It creates consistent frameworks for content and curriculum,

Shouldn't content and curriculum be dynamic? Shouldn't we celebrate diversity of schools? Shouldn't we diversify based on our strengths?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apologists for Pearson and CC? One could flip that silly question on its head and ask why are anti-CCers shilling for the Koch brothers?

And don't they realize that there are also actual, real people with genuine problems and frustrations with the anti-CC agenda?

That Koch brothers comment is a red herring. You claim that the anti Common Core people are all right wing nuts--yet there are plenty of people on here who have given good arguments against Common core. I have yet to see any reasons to support it. Why do you have problems with the people who are pointing out the issues with Common Core. You have yet to substantiate your support of it. What is it going to accomplish? How is it going to make things better? It sounds to me like your support of it is purely political. Ironic, since Jeb Bush is one of its biggest supporters.

It's not a red herring at all. The Koch Brothers pumped millions of dollars into their front organizations like the Heartland Institute to come up with a set of talking points, which have been echoed and repeated all over this thread over and over again - despite not having any actual data or evidence to support them. Red herrings? Throwing Jeb Bush out there is a red herring, because he's a moderate, not a hardline conservative like the Koch's and their Tea Party agenda.

What does it accomplish? It creates consistent frameworks for content and curriculum, it enables portability and interoperability of curriculum and content for teachers, students, and content providers, it establishes baselines and assessments for comparative and longitudinal analysis, and it has certainly renewed a lot of dialogue around what education should be and what our expectations should be - it does quite a few things, none of which are by any stretch a "waste." Meanwhile, where is the evidence that getting rid of standards and testing will accomplish anything, let alone improve things? 100+ pages have already shown there isn't any evidence that it will, unless all you are looking at is cost and you really don't care about education.

What does it accomplish? It creates consistent frameworks for content and curriculum, it enables portability and interoperability of curriculum and content for teachers, students, and content providers, it establishes baselines and assessments for comparative and longitudinal analysis,