Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If there had been an actual national discussion about standards, they might have had a prayer of a successful rollout. But the CCSS people were afraid of doing this, because they saw a rare opportunity of states desperate for cash -- so they rolled out Race to the Top, and states took the bribe without fully processing what the standards would mean.

This does not make sense. The Common Core standards were developed by the states. Race to the Top was a federal grant program.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you think Common Core was "developed by the states."

You have presented *NO* evidence that Common Core was not developed by the states, whereas there has been *PLENTY* of evidence shown that it was.

You don't have a leg to stand on and your beliefs are not backed up by facts or rational logic.

Anonymous wrote:Also, please tell us WHO made the selection of those people and why--what were the criteria for their selection?

Read the articles - solicitations for participation and input were WIDELY circulated throughout the public school community, and they received a HUGE amount of input and feedback.

And you have presented NOTHING to the contrary to back up your insinuation that there was no such engagement or that the selection or criteria were in any way problematic.

Where is YOUR data? Where is YOUR evidence? You have NONE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If there had been an actual national discussion about standards, they might have had a prayer of a successful rollout. But the CCSS people were afraid of doing this, because they saw a rare opportunity of states desperate for cash -- so they rolled out Race to the Top, and states took the bribe without fully processing what the standards would mean.

This does not make sense. The Common Core standards were developed by the states. Race to the Top was a federal grant program.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you think Common Core was "developed by the states."

The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers say that the Common Core standards were developed by the states. Are they lying? How do you know? If the states did not develop them, who did develop them? How do you know?

Anonymous wrote:

I absolutely do not understand this fixation on process.

Most math standards (for years) have required that kids show their work when doing division or multiplication. That is "process". You support that, don't you?

The process is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Your contention is that if the process was bad, then the standards are bad -- right? So: which standards are bad, and how do you know this? Or is your contention that the process was bad but the standards are fine?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If there had been an actual national discussion about standards, they might have had a prayer of a successful rollout. But the CCSS people were afraid of doing this, because they saw a rare opportunity of states desperate for cash -- so they rolled out Race to the Top, and states took the bribe without fully processing what the standards would mean.

This does not make sense. The Common Core standards were developed by the states. Race to the Top was a federal grant program.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you think Common Core was "developed by the states."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely do not understand this fixation on process.

If you knew the answers to all of your questions -- exactly who selected the teachers, and for what, and whether the selection was made by e-mail or paper letter or phone call, and the names of the teachers and their cvs, and the exact verbatim input of each teacher about everything, and the names of the teachers' pets and what the teachers' hobbies are and whether they prefer their oatmeal cookies with or without raisins -- then what?

Then they could get in front of the process. They could explain their choices and offer the documentation that led to them picking standards, and why standards are so elevated for reading and math starting in K, even when a majority of students is unlikely to meet them.

It's the worst sort of management to meet behind closed doors, then present the CCSS as though they are carved in stone on tablets from on high -- never to be questioned, only to be bowed to in servitude.

If there had been an actual national discussion about standards, they might have had a prayer of a successful rollout. But the CCSS people were afraid of doing this, because they saw a rare opportunity of states desperate for cash -- so they rolled out Race to the Top, and states took the bribe without fully processing what the standards would mean.

That doesn't answer the question. If you had ever last little tiny item of "data and documentation" that you are (or somebody is) demanding, what difference would that make?

Anonymous wrote:

If there had been an actual national discussion about standards, they might have had a prayer of a successful rollout. But the CCSS people were afraid of doing this, because they saw a rare opportunity of states desperate for cash -- so they rolled out Race to the Top, and states took the bribe without fully processing what the standards would mean.

This does not make sense. The Common Core standards were developed by the states. Race to the Top was a federal grant program.

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely do not understand this fixation on process.

If you knew the answers to all of your questions -- exactly who selected the teachers, and for what, and whether the selection was made by e-mail or paper letter or phone call, and the names of the teachers and their cvs, and the exact verbatim input of each teacher about everything, and the names of the teachers' pets and what the teachers' hobbies are and whether they prefer their oatmeal cookies with or without raisins -- then what?

Then they could get in front of the process. They could explain their choices and offer the documentation that led to them picking standards, and why standards are so elevated for reading and math starting in K, even when a majority of students is unlikely to meet them.

It's the worst sort of management to meet behind closed doors, then present the CCSS as though they are carved in stone on tablets from on high -- never to be questioned, only to be bowed to in servitude.

If there had been an actual national discussion about standards, they might have had a prayer of a successful rollout. But the CCSS people were afraid of doing this, because they saw a rare opportunity of states desperate for cash -- so they rolled out Race to the Top, and states took the bribe without fully processing what the standards would mean.

I absolutely do not understand this fixation on process.

Most math standards (for years) have required that kids show their work when doing division or multiplication. That is "process". You support that, don't you?

I absolutely do not understand this fixation on process.

If you knew the answers to all of your questions -- exactly who selected the teachers, and for what, and whether the selection was made by e-mail or paper letter or phone call, and the names of the teachers and their cvs, and the exact verbatim input of each teacher about everything, and the names of the teachers' pets and what the teachers' hobbies are and whether they prefer their oatmeal cookies with or without raisins -- then what?

Also, please tell us WHO made the selection of those people and why--what were the criteria for their selection?

There is no debate on those points. CC DID have involvement from teachers, it DID have the right people at the table, it IS developmentally appropriate and it HAS been vetted.

None of those are true. Start with the bolded. We know the "who"--they were listed. The question is were they the right ones. Please tell us why.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, the Politifact article is anecdotal. One teacher and no data.

What would you consider "data and documentation"? And could you please provide some "data and documentation" to support your assertion that teachers were not involved?

Sorry, the Politifact article is anecdotal. One teacher and no data.

^ Right - anyone who has actually done any fact checking finds that the claims that the standards "didn't have any front line teachers involved," "weren't vetted," "weren't written by people who understand students," "are developmentally inappropriate" have no merit whatsoever. The Politifact article debunks all of that. As have so many other things that have been posted.

The fact that those anti-CC claims can so easily be disproven - along with the fact that the anti-CC folks are consistently unable to provide anything factual on their end, and only throw around unsubstantiated claims and opinions without data or unbiased analysis pretty much puts the anti-CC crowd on a similar par to folks who would try to argue that the Earth is flat.

There is no debate on those points. CC DID have involvement from teachers, it DID have the right people at the table, it IS developmentally appropriate and it HAS been vetted.

Those are proven facts at this point. All else is empty nonsense - and given the preponderance of evidence that already supports the facts, the anti-CC people are going to have to back up any of their own claims from here on out.

Dodging, deflecting, changing the subject, asking for more, more, and more and constantly trying to move the goalposts when you've provided nothing to support your own arguments simply does not cut it anymore.