Also, "measurable" doesn't mean what people seem to think it means. If the standard is that a student should be able to do x, and you can answer the question "Is the student able to do x?", then it's measurable.

Sure, if the standard is clear. Many of these standards are not.

Anonymous wrote:

Measureable: Student attainment of the standards should be observable and verifiable and the standards can be used to develop broader assessment frameworks

Please note: this quote came from the list of criteria for Common Core standards on the Common Core website. Sadly, "measurable" is not spelled correctly, which, to me is an indication of the lack of professionalism in the whole process.

Is this what the copy editors are doing these days, now that the newspapers have (unfortunately) fired them all?

Anonymous wrote:

On the contrary. There has been thread after thread after thread on DCUM about how the Common Core standards are bad. It's up to the people who post on those threads about how the Common Core standards (and all of the other stuff that people lump into the Common Core standards, inaccurately) are bad to support their assertions

Okay. Someone posted a standard that was poorly written. How do you defend that standard?

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me how it was poorly written.

Measureable: Student attainment of the standards should be observable and verifiable and the standards can be used to develop broader assessment frameworks

Please note: this quote came from the list of criteria for Common Core standards on the Common Core website. Sadly, "measurable" is not spelled correctly, which, to me is an indication of the lack of professionalism in the whole process.

On the contrary. There has been thread after thread after thread on DCUM about how the Common Core standards are bad. It's up to the people who post on those threads about how the Common Core standards (and all of the other stuff that people lump into the Common Core standards, inaccurately) are bad to support their assertions

Okay. Someone posted a standard that was poorly written. How do you defend that standard?

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Now defend it. People have attacked Common Core standards on several levels. You like it, obviously, so it is up to you to defend it. You posted a standard because you thought it showed "flexibility". You ignored the fact that it was vague and not measurable. (Criteria for the standards shows that standards should me "clear" and "measurable". It is neither. Please tell us why that standard is there.

Please cite the pilot groups for these standards and the results.

Please also explain how the work committees were selected, what was the criteria for the selection of the so-called "experts"? What process did the committees use to select these standards?

Then, please explain how Common Core can be divided from NCLB when so much time is spent on the tests? How is Common Core going to improve on that when it is apparent that people are quite upset with these new tests. Was there as much rebellion over the former tests?

That's a start. I have not seen the answer to any of these questions. I still do not see how new standards will improve education.

On the contrary. There has been thread after thread after thread on DCUM about how the Common Core standards are bad. It's up to the people who post on those threads about how the Common Core standards (and all of the other stuff that people lump into the Common Core standards, inaccurately) are bad to support their assertions.

Also, "measurable" doesn't mean what people seem to think it means. If the standard is that a student should be able to do x, and you can answer the question "Is the student able to do x?", then it's measurable.

And no, I'm not here to discredit anybody. I'm here to discuss the Common Core standards, testing, the No Child Left Behind Act, and all that other stuff on an anonymous internet message board, just as (I assume) you are.

Good. Now defend it. People have attacked Common Core standards on several levels. You like it, obviously, so it is up to you to defend it. You posted a standard because you thought it showed "flexibility". You ignored the fact that it was vague and not measurable. (Criteria for the standards shows that standards should me "clear" and "measurable". It is neither. Please tell us why that standard is there.

Please cite the pilot groups for these standards and the results.

Please also explain how the work committees were selected, what was the criteria for the selection of the so-called "experts"? What process did the committees use to select these standards?

Then, please explain how Common Core can be divided from NCLB when so much time is spent on the tests? How is Common Core going to improve on that when it is apparent that people are quite upset with these new tests. Was there as much rebellion over the former tests?

That's a start. I have not seen the answer to any of these questions. I still do not see how new standards will improve education.

It's pretty easy to be an armchair critic and say "so badly written" - it's pretty intellectually lazy, too. I note that none of the critics seem to have any solutions other than "repeal" - shades of ACA - where the Republicans had no solution other than "repeal" and where they prefer to just pretend the problem didn't really exist. Yeah, so what if medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy. Yeah, so what if millions of kids are only marginally employable.

Those kids are marginally employed because of the economy. It has nothing to do with their educations. Half of the kids coming out of college are marginally employed. Half. They know where the Pacific Ocean is and they can write a coherent sentence. If we are suffering it is because the rest of the world is coming up to our standard and we now have to compete with them. The students are no less smart or prepared than they were in the past. The world is changing around them. The jobs that do exist do not pay as well. Don't blame all of this on schools.

Comparing this to the ACA is ridiculous. I was in favor of ACA. I love ACA. I don't love CC and NCLB mandated testing. They are the wrong solutions to trumped up problems. For the benefit of corporations.

Complete red herring. The textbook companies would make at at a minimum the same amount of money regardless of whether we had Common Core or not. The Common Core opponent PP evidently is living in some naive and bizarre fantasy land where apparently she thinks textbook ordering only started with Common Core and if only we get rid of Common Core, those companies will stop making all that money because somehow we apparently stop ordering textbooks or something. It is indeed truly bizarre thinking and seriously warped desperation trying to claim that money is being wasted on companies like Pearson citing those figures. And in fact, I would argue that in the grand scheme of things, the textbook companies likely make *less* with Common Core, as a.) there are greater economies of scale b.) they can no longer charge one-off premiums as they might given 50 separate, stand-alone state standards and c.) no one textbook company can market itself as having a proprietary competetive advantage since they are all using Common Core as their baseline, and those standards are all published and freely accessible to all publishers.

Textbooks are not the future and all those companies know it. At least not textbooks as they were known in the past (paper).

This is why the tests are now very, very important. And, the tests being online is very important because that is where the "textbooks" will be. And, they will be associated with tests more than before. And they will be interactive in the same way that the tests are (or are becoming) so that they can market them as directly related to the testing procedures and say that they do the test prep and cover the standards all at once. There are many things coming that will cost money. Many of those things will be needed in order to get high scores on the tests. The schools that can afford them will get better scores. It's how they make money. And, these things will be continually changing as the computer platforms change (more kaching). It's a never ending money pit. And the kids will not necessarily learn more, but they will need to have these devices and programs in order to do well on the tests that are created by the very same companies that make all the materials. It sucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Find. How would you rewrite it to make it a good teaching technique? You said that it should be a teaching technique, right?


Why are you asking the other poster to do this? Are you going to hire her to write a teaching techniques manual for the CC?


Because I'm tired of reading "LOL! So badly written."

I want to read what these PPs think a good standard (or teaching technique, or whatever) should look like. (And then I can say, "LOL! So badly written!" )

Which really makes me wonder if you are here to tell us about how glorious PARCC and the associated CC standards are or if you are here to discredit people? It's clear that you can't defend PARCC or by taking the high road. So you take the low road. You feel gleeful in this, don't you?

And you are clearly associated with PARCC and the testing end of things.

Not the PP you are responding to, but that's yet another lazy dodge. The point was that the PP was putting you on the spot to deliver on specifics, if you think it's so bad, how specifically is it bad and how specifically would you do it better? And unsurprisingly you failed to deliver, really little more than the same old stale and nonspecific "meh, it's bad, just get rid of it altogether" repeated yet again.

Anonymous wrote:

Why the fixation on PARCC? The great majority of states are not using PARCC.

Which makes all the money the feds gave in a grant much more problematic. Doesn't that bother you at all?

Why aren't you worrying about "all the money the feds gave in a grant" to Smarter Balanced? Why only PARCC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Find. How would you rewrite it to make it a good teaching technique? You said that it should be a teaching technique, right?


Why are you asking the other poster to do this? Are you going to hire her to write a teaching techniques manual for the CC?


Because I'm tired of reading "LOL! So badly written."

I want to read what these PPs think a good standard (or teaching technique, or whatever) should look like. (And then I can say, "LOL! So badly written!" )

Which really makes me wonder if you are here to tell us about how glorious PARCC and the associated CC standards are or if you are here to discredit people? It's clear that you can't defend PARCC or by taking the high road. So you take the low road. You feel gleeful in this, don't you?

And you are clearly associated with PARCC and the testing end of things.

If I am associated with PARCC and the testing end of things, that's news to me.

And no, I'm not here to discredit anybody. I'm here to discuss the Common Core standards, testing, the No Child Left Behind Act, and all that other stuff on an anonymous internet message board, just as (I assume) you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Find. How would you rewrite it to make it a good teaching technique? You said that it should be a teaching technique, right?

Why are you asking the other poster to do this? Are you going to hire her to write a teaching techniques manual for the CC?

Because I'm tired of reading "LOL! So badly written."

I want to read what these PPs think a good standard (or teaching technique, or whatever) should look like. (And then I can say, "LOL! So badly written!" )

It's pretty easy to be an armchair critic and say "so badly written" - it's pretty intellectually lazy, too. I note that none of the critics seem to have any solutions other than "repeal" - shades of ACA - where the Republicans had no solution other than "repeal" and where they prefer to just pretend the problem didn't really exist. Yeah, so what if medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy. Yeah, so what if millions of kids are only marginally employable.

Anonymous wrote:
Find. How would you rewrite it to make it a good teaching technique? You said that it should be a teaching technique, right?


Why are you asking the other poster to do this? Are you going to hire her to write a teaching techniques manual for the CC?


Because I'm tired of reading "LOL! So badly written."

I want to read what these PPs think a good standard (or teaching technique, or whatever) should look like. (And then I can say, "LOL! So badly written!" )

Which really makes me wonder if you are here to tell us about how glorious PARCC and the associated CC standards are or if you are here to discredit people? It's clear that you can't defend PARCC or by taking the high road. So you take the low road. You feel gleeful in this, don't you?

And you are clearly associated with PARCC and the testing end of things.

Anonymous wrote:

There are about 50 million students in the US. $2 billion dollars divided by 50 million students is $40 per student.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

Get your facts straight. It does not include testing for those states that did not adopt Common Core. And, as PP said, it is for "starters". That ups the ante quite a bit. Also, it is an ongoing expense.

Complete red herring. The textbook companies would make at at a minimum the same amount of money regardless of whether we had Common Core or not. The Common Core opponent PP evidently is living in some naive and bizarre fantasy land where apparently she thinks textbook ordering only started with Common Core and if only we get rid of Common Core, those companies will stop making all that money because somehow we apparently stop ordering textbooks or something. It is indeed truly bizarre thinking and seriously warped desperation trying to claim that money is being wasted on companies like Pearson citing those figures. And in fact, I would argue that in the grand scheme of things, the textbook companies likely make *less* with Common Core, as a.) there are greater economies of scale b.) they can no longer charge one-off premiums as they might given 50 separate, stand-alone state standards and c.) no one textbook company can market itself as having a proprietary competetive advantage since they are all using Common Core as their baseline, and those standards are all published and freely accessible to all publishers.