Anonymous wrote:
You're already forgotten this? That was fast.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/...olved-developing-common-core-/
As Florida surges toward full implementation of the Common Core State Standards, the din is rising from some fronts to pull back.
Politifact has thrown in a little anecdotal information. That does not count as documentation. Why don't you start with posting the minutes from the committee meetings?
You're already forgotten this? That was fast.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/...olved-developing-common-core-/
As Florida surges toward full implementation of the Common Core State Standards, the din is rising from some fronts to pull back.
Anonymous wrote:
Sorry. You have never given any evidence that does not come from the Common Core or NGA website. Your opinion is not enough.
Poster: Here is documentation
anti-Common Core poster: No, that's not documentation.
Poster: Here is some more evidence
anti-Common Core poster: No, that's not documentation.
Poster: Here is some more evidence
anti-Common Core poster: No, that's not documentation.
Anonymous wrote:
Where is the data and documentation. On the CC website? No--except to say they did it.
Poster: Here is documentation
anti-Common Core poster: No, that's not documentation.
Poster: Here is some more evidence
anti-Common Core poster: No, that's not documentation.
Poster: Here is some more evidence
anti-Common Core poster: No, that's not documentation.
Anonymous wrote:You still have posted no DATA or real EVIDENCE to support the repeated claims that the standards were developed in a vacuum behind closed doors, that they did not have input from teachers, child psychologists, education experts, et cetera, or that they are developmentally inappropriate or that the standards are bad.
The lack of data and documentation IS the data and evidence. Don't be dense. You cannot prove your argument.
Anonymous wrote:
They *WEREN'T* developed behind closed doors, there *WAS* a national discussion and you need to STOP LYING about this.
Then, please show us the documentation.
You still have posted no DATA or real EVIDENCE to support the repeated claims that the standards were developed in a vacuum behind closed doors, that they did not have input from teachers, child psychologists, education experts, et cetera, or that they are developmentally inappropriate or that the standards are bad.
They *WEREN'T* developed behind closed doors, there *WAS* a national discussion and you need to STOP LYING about this.
Anonymous wrote:
Again, multiple posters are claiming this -- as it is the truth. Where is the Common Core office, where are the people tending to these standards? There is none -- except the sham NGA.
Your precious standards are hated and are doomed.
Kids are organizing against it now:
LBUQUERQUE, N.M. —Albuquerque Public Schools has posted a letter on its website in response to more planned PARCC protests.
Related
PARCC protest: 250 high school students walk out
Students are threatening to continue walkouts and protests when the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers standardized testing begins. In an interview Thursday, Superintendent Brad Winter addressed concerns from parents, teachers and students.
“It's the first time that PARCC has been given and there's going to be some anxiety and I know that parents are looking to opt their students out,” said Winter.
APS said 894 students have opted out of PARCC testing as of Thursday.
The school district said students who walk out and protest during school hours will be counted as an unexcused absence. APS will consider it ditching and discipline for those students will follow, and could include suspension.
Anonymous wrote:
Again, multiple posters are claiming this -- as it is the truth. Where is the Common Core office, where are the people tending to these standards? There is none -- except the sham NGA.
Anonymous wrote: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: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.