Anonymous wrote:

However given existing historical data relating to the cost of developing standards, it's already known and documented fact that the costs of each state and district doing their own thing is vastly more expensive than the cost of developing and maintaining one standard.

Ah ha! There's the problem. The hypothesis is that higher standards will improve performance. Now, prove it.

Actually, the hypotheses are that the Common Core standards are

1. a disaster
2. a Pearson conspiracy
3. a Bill Gates conspiracy
4. "developmentally inappropriate"
5. un-American
6. a federal takeover
7. a straitjacket
8. made up out of thin air
9. something something standardized tests
10. dumbed-down (oh, whoops, that's only on the Maryland Public Schools forum)

Now, prove them -- please.

Anonymous wrote:

However given existing historical data relating to the cost of developing standards, it's already known and documented fact that the costs of each state and district doing their own thing is vastly more expensive than the cost of developing and maintaining one standard.

Ah ha! There's the problem. The hypothesis is that higher standards will improve performance. Now, prove it.

False premise.

You've repeatedly tried insisting that the standards are "raising them higher" - in fact you claim they are impossibly high but that's not really the case.

Worse yet, you gave absolutely ludicrous examples of what you felt were acceleration - for example that for kids who can already count to 10, that it would take them an additional year and a half more to get from counting to 10 to counting to 20 and beyond.

The reality is that Common Core is a more consistent, gap-filling and harmonized version of existing state standards. In fact, if you visit this very message board and listen to what they say even from neighboring Montgomery County you will find they consider Common Core to be cake, lower than what they had previously. California and a few other states had areas where parts of their state standard were higher than Common Core. And as "vague" as you think Common Core standards are, many of the prior state standards were far worse (and oh, by the way, the state standards have plenty of misspellings too). If you're going to trot around pretending to be an expert you might first at least take a look at some of the comparative analyses that were done. Again, in some cases the language that was used in Common Core came directly from state standards. They were not developed from scratch, in a vacuum. The status quo that you want to waste hundreds of millions of dollars through getting rid of Common Core and going back to is really not what you have it cracked up to be.

Ah ha! There's the problem. The hypothesis is that higher standards will improve performance. Now, prove it.

Let's go with a different hypothesis. Some of these standards are not higher.

The hypothesis is that different standards will raise performance. Or, to get real: They hypothesis is that Common Core Standards will improve performance.

Where's the studies? Where's the pilot program? Where's the test? Where's the results? You've made the conclusion without conducting the experiment. And, you want to perform the experiment on young children across the United States.

However given existing historical data relating to the cost of developing standards, it's already known and documented fact that the costs of each state and district doing their own thing is vastly more expensive than the cost of developing and maintaining one standard.

Ah ha! There's the problem. The hypothesis is that higher standards will improve performance. Now, prove it.

But you are the one who can't seem to figure out that the bump that you felt came from the pothole instead of the car itself.

Trouble is: the people who built the road poured the asphalt at the wrong temp and with the wrong specs. Problem is, the asphalt people already have their money. The rest of us have to pay to fix it.

Everyone else is driving the car too.

No, they aren't. Are you a teacher?

Anonymous wrote:

LMAO! You have a problem with grotesque exaggeration and deliberate mischaracterizations.

A typo in the owners' manual isn't a "major defect" which merits taking the car directly to the junkyard to be crushed. Not even remotely

Here's the difference between you and me:

I've driven the car.

Everyone else is driving the car too.

But you are the one who can't seem to figure out that the bump that you felt came from the pothole instead of the car itself.

^ And, so far, there's not. It has not helped students, teachers, parents or society in general.

I will give you some kudos though. You use some great adjectives like grotesque, deliberate, pedantic, obtuse, etc. You have great marketing skills and those served you well in getting the standards and tests out there. But it will take more than marketing skills to keep this stuff out there. There has to be a real and positive outcome to all of it.

^ And you didn't even give it a test drive.

LMAO! You have a problem with grotesque exaggeration and deliberate mischaracterizations.

A typo in the owners' manual isn't a "major defect" which merits taking the car directly to the junkyard to be crushed. Not even remotely

Here's the difference between you and me:

I've driven the car.

Anonymous wrote:

And no, we are NOT talking major mechanical defects that affect safety or operation.

The standards do affect operation. And there are major defects.

If you're going to ignore the defects and then test the car and expect a high rating on it, that's a problem.

If you're just going to use duct tape to fix the defects and then expect the car not to fall apart when you take it up to 80 mph, that's a problem.

You've got a problem.

LMAO! You have a problem with grotesque exaggeration and deliberate mischaracterizations.

A typo in the owners' manual isn't a "major defect" which merits taking the car directly to the junkyard to be crushed. Not even remotely.

Anonymous wrote:

pedantic and obtuse

These are such interesting words that you use again and again. What do you really mean when you say them? Do you really believe the anti CC people are being narrow and stupid? Is this your fancy way of saying that?

+100 I think you've nailed it.

And no, we are NOT talking major mechanical defects that affect safety or operation.

The standards do affect operation. And there are major defects.

If you're going to ignore the defects and then test the car and expect a high rating on it, that's a problem.

If you're just going to use duct tape to fix the defects and then expect the car not to fall apart when you take it up to 80 mph, that's a problem.

You've got a problem.

pedantic and obtuse

These are such interesting words that you use again and again. What do you really mean when you say them? Do you really believe the anti CC people are being narrow and stupid? Is this your fancy way of saying that?