And the farmer already knew the weight of the pigs. And he is trying to do the best he can given the resources he has (and the mandates he has been given). Now what?

And, the farmer's boss demands that he lines the pigs up at least once a week to determine if the pig is gaining- Instead of feeding the pigs.

Weighing the pigs will never get at the root of the problem (whatever the problem is) and is not intended to get at the root of the problem (whatever the problem is). The purpose of weighing the pigs is to find out how much the pigs weigh. Do you know everything once you know how much the pigs weigh? No. But you know more about how much the pigs weigh than if you didn't weigh the pigs.

And the farmer already knew the weight of the pigs. And he is trying to do the best he can given the resources he has (and the mandates he has been given). Now what?

Finally honest?" I've been honest and have been saying the exact same thing all along. I, unlike you, have actually read the standards and I've actually carefully read the CC site and the supporting links and info they provide, which is why I believe they make sense and why I am comfortable with the standards. I believe that you have been nothing but intellectually dishonest from the start, spouting disinformation and fearmongering. And when confronted with information that refutes what you say, you just double down, with your fingers in your ears and tin foil beanie strapped on tight, unwilling to hear facts. I seriously believe you still wouldn't be satisfied even if you were given every last scrap of documentation on the planet as evidence.

You still have not answered the question. And, why are you the expert? By the way, I have read the standards. They don't even meet the criteria stated by the organization.

If the livestock is underweight, it's the farmer's responsibility to look at the whole picture,

And he probably has and he is trying to tell the scale weigher what the "whole picture" problems are, but the scale weigher is saying, hey, my only job is to provide the golden scale and we need this to compare you to other farmers (even if your soil is different in Kalamazoo, you will be compared and punished for what you cannot control).

Anonymous wrote:

To return to that farm analogy above, that's actually a pretty good analogy. If the livestock is underweight, it's the farmer's responsibility to look at the whole picture, rather than either blaming the scale and throwing it away or rushing to just fire the farmhands. Do you have enough feed and is it the right kind? Do you have enough farmhands? Lots more questions need to be asked by the farmer, rather than just firing and punishing. If the farmer isn't doing that, it's a sign that he's incompetent and there needs to be accountability.

One thing that may be wrong on the farm could be the soil composition. Maybe that is what is causing the feed grass to be bad (let's say it's cows). Maybe the problem is with the feed manufacturer and not with the farmer. Maybe the farmer has been forced to buy feed from a certain manufacturer and some of the pigs require different feed and maybe even the slop that comes from the farmer's own kitchen has been more productive for the pigs in the past. Maybe the whole scale idea is not getting at the real root of the problems. Maybe the whole operation is a bit more complex.

Weighing the pigs will never get at the root of the problem (whatever the problem is) and is not intended to get at the root of the problem (whatever the problem is). The purpose of weighing the pigs is to find out how much the pigs weigh. Do you know everything once you know how much the pigs weigh? No. But you know more about how much the pigs weigh than if you didn't weigh the pigs.

To return to that farm analogy above, that's actually a pretty good analogy. If the livestock is underweight, it's the farmer's responsibility to look at the whole picture, rather than either blaming the scale and throwing it away or rushing to just fire the farmhands. Do you have enough feed and is it the right kind? Do you have enough farmhands? Lots more questions need to be asked by the farmer, rather than just firing and punishing. If the farmer isn't doing that, it's a sign that he's incompetent and there needs to be accountability.

One thing that may be wrong on the farm could be the soil composition. Maybe that is what is causing the feed grass to be bad (let's say it's cows). Maybe the problem is with the feed manufacturer and not with the farmer. Maybe the farmer has been forced to buy feed from a certain manufacturer and some of the pigs require different feed and maybe even the slop that comes from the farmer's own kitchen has been more productive for the pigs in the past. Maybe the whole scale idea is not getting at the real root of the problems. Maybe the whole operation is a bit more complex.

^It's all part of the dance called federalism.

To return to that farm analogy above, that's actually a pretty good analogy. If the livestock is underweight, it's the farmer's responsibility to look at the whole picture, rather than either blaming the scale and throwing it away or rushing to just fire the farmhands. Do you have enough feed and is it the right kind? Do you have enough farmhands? Lots more questions need to be asked by the farmer, rather than just firing and punishing. If the farmer isn't doing that, it's a sign that he's incompetent and there needs to be accountability.

And if you don't, what are the weighers going to do about it? Who is going to pay for the food and extra farmhands? We have an aging population and the funds are going into Social Security, Medicare, etc. Do the feds have some extra money sloshing around? We know this is a problem, but just testing is not going to solve it. Just pointing it out and saying, hey teachers, get rid of your bad admins and hey, admins get some more help and hey school board tax your locals more is not working. What will happen if the feds force more unreimbursed mandates on the states is that the states will start to say take your scales away. They are not helping us.

What fucking good is your union if you have no power? And don't you realize there's more than one way to skin a cat, anyways? When your administrators are incompetent, there ARE ways to get them fired.

You are right. The unions have no power. Many states don't recognize them at all and where they do exist, they have been weakened. So there's no going to the union for help anymore. And if the administrator is incompetent, a lowly teacher is not going to get them fired. More likely the administrator will make the teacher's life living hell first. You are very naive. And the feds can't fire the administrator either. If you're in the "good old boys" district, good luck.

"Finally honest?" I've been honest and have been saying the exact same thing all along. I, unlike you, have actually read the standards and I've actually carefully read the CC site and the supporting links and info they provide, which is why I believe they make sense and why I am comfortable with the standards. I believe that you have been nothing but intellectually dishonest from the start, spouting disinformation and fearmongering. And when confronted with information that refutes what you say, you just double down, with your fingers in your ears and tin foil beanie strapped on tight, unwilling to hear facts. I seriously believe you still wouldn't be satisfied even if you were given every last scrap of documentation on the planet as evidence.

But even you should agree that reading the standards is not enough. Have you used them in working with students? That's the real test of whether they are "good" or not. As they say, the proof is in the pudding.

To return to that farm analogy above, that's actually a pretty good analogy. If the livestock is underweight, it's the farmer's responsibility to look at the whole picture, rather than either blaming the scale and throwing it away or rushing to just fire the farmhands. Do you have enough feed and is it the right kind? Do you have enough farmhands? Lots more questions need to be asked by the farmer, rather than just firing and punishing. If the farmer isn't doing that, it's a sign that he's incompetent and there needs to be accountability.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sure it's not a secret. I just don't happen to give a shit whether the person's name were Joe or Nancy, and just because the posters here don't know what their names were doesn't make it a secret either - you're employing some really faulty logic there. I'm sure it's information that can be easily obtained. Why don't you pick up a phone and call the NGA tomorrow and ask them for the names, rather than being such an obtuse ass continually annoying us with this nonsense?

I think that's a terrific idea. PP with the constant "who was in charge of the committees? we need names!" comments, please pick up the phone and call the NGA and ask them those questions. Or you can go to the NGA offices in person and ask. Their offices are a block from Union Station in DC, very centrally-located and easy to get to. Here is the phone number: (202) 624-5300 Here is the address: 444 North Capitol Street NW #267, Washington, DC 20001

Anonymous wrote:

Here is an interesting article that shows what can happen when teachers are given some administrative control of a school (plus more money). But, I think the control factor is big in this. People want a voice in their workplace.

http://qz.com/290912/this-is-what-happens-to-test-scores-when-you-pay-teachers-125000-a-year/

Interesting indeed, especially the high turnover rate as a result of the school firing or requesting resignation of underperforming teachers. There are many great teachers out there, but lots of mediocre and bad teachers as well. If they were paid more, perhaps we could attract a higher overall standard. This would go a long way in improving the education that children receive.

Also of interest are the moderate gains in reading achievement compared to the huge gains in math.

Anonymous wrote:

No, because the standards make sense, they are logically sequential to each other, are foundational building blocks for learning, and are age appropriate. Whatever criteria were used seem to have used that type of common sense. As such, it doesn't bother me one iota. And whether the person's name were Joe or Nancy wouldn't make a difference either.

Finally, you are honest. They are good because you say so. I'd like a little more evidence. You know real evidence.

"Finally honest?" I've been honest and have been saying the exact same thing all along. I, unlike you, have actually read the standards and I've actually carefully read the CC site and the supporting links and info they provide, which is why I believe they make sense and why I am comfortable with the standards. I believe that you have been nothing but intellectually dishonest from the start, spouting disinformation and fearmongering. And when confronted with information that refutes what you say, you just double down, with your fingers in your ears and tin foil beanie strapped on tight, unwilling to hear facts. I seriously believe you still wouldn't be satisfied even if you were given every last scrap of documentation on the planet as evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can't fatten a pig by weighing it.

No, but if you want to know how much a pig weighs, it helps to weigh the pig.

If you can see the pig's ribs sticking out, you don't need to weigh it to know that you should give it more food. However, if those who buy the golden scales are unwilling to pay for food, the pig will continue to have a weight problem. But they will insist on the purchase of the scales (that relay the weights electronically) so that they can keep compiling data.

I agree with all of that. But first you need to weigh the pig. The problem is when the first AND LAST thing anybody does is weigh the pig.

If you know your pig's underweight, it's the farmer's job to make sure there's enough feed, it's not the job of the maker of the "golden scale" to feed your pigs. If administrators know their schools are underperforming, then it's on them to make sure they have the resources they need. If they are failing at that then administrators need to be held accountable, rather than just blaming the scale maker and throwing the scale away.

Blaming testing and looking to get rid of testing just sweeps the problems under the rug. It makes things worse to ignore the problems rather than actually deal with them.