No. The local builder is working hands on. He knows how fast he can build that house. He also knows if the foundation can support the frame.

Oh, please. I don't at all have it wrong. You aren't doing any "soil testing" - by rejecting standards and testing you are just completely winging it all the way

LMAO! Sorry, anti-CCer but YOU are the one who WANTS NO TESTING and you are the one WHO DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A BLUEPRINT.

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core standards try to establish not only a blueprint, but establish a more solid foundation and planned sequence of building to reduce the likelihood of that happening.

No. You have that all wrong. They forgot to test the soil first. You must do different prep work before you build a foundation on sand than you do on clay. I'm glad you carried this analogy further--because that is such a clear problem with Common Core. They forgot to test the soil! Thank you for pointing that out. Common Core requires that everyone use the same blueprint and the same foundation--even if it means the foundation may slide down the hill.

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core standards try to establish not only a blueprint, but establish a more solid foundation and planned sequence of building to reduce the likelihood of that happening.

No. You have that all wrong. They forgot to test the soil first. You must do different prep work before you build a foundation on sand than you do on clay. I'm glad you carried this analogy further--because that is such a clear problem with Common Core. They forgot to test the soil! Thank you for pointing that out. Common Core requires that everyone use the same blueprint and the same foundation--even if it means the foundation may slide down the hill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If standards don't reach a level where prospective college students need to be upon graduation then you have slammed the door on students ever being able to get into college.

Sure, let's just dumb kids down, they don't need to go to college anyhow. Let them get a job digging ditches or stocking shelves, we don't need any engineers or scientists, heck, maybe we don't even need teachers to have degrees if we dumb it down enough.

Do you put the roof on the house before you pour the foundation?

You have that analogy backasswards and that's not at all how the standards actually work. By "top down" in the Common Core literature, that's about the framework, developing the blueprint BEFORE you even start building, and then figuring out what needs to be built when, where and how.

You on the other hand want to just wing it and build a house that a.) has no blueprint and b.) is built on quicksand. Aside from your complete lack of vision or strategy (no blueprint), your bottom-up approach has such low expectations that by the time you're ready to try and put the roof on, it's sunk into that quicksand.

Common Core standards try to establish not only a blueprint, but establish a more solid foundation and planned sequence of building to reduce the likelihood of that happening.

Common Core standards try to establish not only a blueprint, but establish a more solid foundation and planned sequence of building to reduce the likelihood of that happening.

Anonymous wrote:

If standards don't reach a level where prospective college students need to be upon graduation then you have slammed the door on students ever being able to get into college.

Sure, let's just dumb kids down, they don't need to go to college anyhow. Let them get a job digging ditches or stocking shelves, we don't need any engineers or scientists, heck, maybe we don't even need teachers to have degrees if we dumb it down enough.

Do you put the roof on the house before you pour the foundation?

Income level has been tied to test scores in a pretty direct way.


They don't allocate funding to improve outcomes that way and typically never have.

Anonymous wrote:

They don't allocate funding to improve outcomes that way and typically never have.

Ever heard of Title I?

If standards don't reach a level where prospective college students need to be upon graduation then you have slammed the door on students ever being able to get into college.

Sure, let's just dumb kids down, they don't need to go to college anyhow. Let them get a job digging ditches or stocking shelves, we don't need any engineers or scientists, heck, maybe we don't even need teachers to have degrees if we dumb it down enough.

Anonymous wrote:

You clearly haven't actually READ the standards. They build step by step, with foundational building blocks at each step.

No. Actually, they were written from the top down. They started with the standards they wanted for college students and worked backwards. That is pretty well documented in the literature.

They don't allocate funding to improve outcomes that way and typically never have.

During the development process, the standards were divided into two categories:
•First, the college- and career-readiness standards, which address what students are expected to know and understand by the time they graduate from high school
•Second, the K-12 standards, which address expectations for elementary school through high school

The college- and career-readiness standards were developed first and then incorporated into the K-12 standards in the final version of the Common Core we have today.

Anonymous wrote:

The issues of low-income parenting is a totally separate and different one that was never and has never been tied programmatically to academic standards or testing let alone funding for those, whether Common Core or EVER prior to that.

Income level has been tied to test scores in a pretty direct way.