Largely appears to the conservative side concerns regarding Common Core, 'though we're hearing some of the question regarding why Massachusetts would have adopted this despite our place in national standards
engineer by training married to a teacher: "always put something in the context of the problem being solved"
Massachusetts at the top or near the top
"what problem are we trying to solve by adopting the Common Core standards...how do we get better if we're going to share this with the whole rest of the country?"
"local control only accounts for 15% under Common Core unlike now when you have 100%"
(I guess that depends on what you mean by 'local'...we have to follow the state now)
Stotsky one of five on review committee that did not sign, names not mentioned and not included
"not coming for free...despite the fed has given waiver on Race to the Top money for a certain period of time"
I'm not sure what that means
has put together a package for each of us
can only conclude that "when the school committee voted in favor of the Common Core that they did so with incomplete information"
we didn't vote for the Common Core; that decision was made at the state level
former MCAS tutor now speaking: about LA Unified adding Ebonics being taught in the schools
"don't think parents know what's coming"
Bonnie Johnson, Activate Worcester, from Boylston
no ability to refine program
replace with national mandated standards
comparison with whole language learning
"not give up local control of our education"
Ron Matta, lives in Worcester
two grandchildren at Abby Kelley Foster charter
"one word why, why do we have to adopt this...why do we have to gravitate downward rather than spiraling upward"
"once this thing gets rolling, it's over"
parent from Grafton Hill: presentation at Worcester State failed to include some problems
"if teachers weren't included in the national level, let alone the state level, have some problems"
not internationally benchmarked
not benchmarked for our children and where they are developmentally