It's like saying you prefer limited nuclear war to Genghis Khan's armies on the pillage.

How about neither, nor?!

Come on, Hitler or Stalin? Malaria or diphteria? Cancer or AIDS?

YOU MUST CHOOSE.

Some choice. Does anybody give a damn about education?

on the left. Very sad development

Nikki Haley's real first name is Nimrata.

I've had multiple Abisheks and Priyankas, Pranahithas, and Aishwaryas. Not to mention many other Indian names.

BJ for short!

No, Bobby is pandering to his base of nut jobs. Most of those on the right hate CC because they're against having any federal government role in education.

They're not allies in this movement as I've already seen some posts on this forum imply.

The fight against Common Core is a fight against solving one of the fundamental flaws in our public school system - a lack of a national curriculum.
Democrats who are against the Common Core are unwittingly carrying water for anti-science conservatives who want to keep us dumb.

Please-please-please do some research from unbiased sources.
Smithsonian on Common Core

with his general education peers. I will never support Common Core.

My son is also on the autism spectrum, but mainly for social reasons.
The thing is, when public schools first began, there was little support for special needs students. Should we have dumped that program for that reason? Of course not.
The issue of adapting the CC to students with special needs is a problem with application and not one of fundamental flaws. You and me and all the other parents out there with special kids will be fighting to make this work for our kids as well, just as we have always done. Common Core isn't the problem; it's the lack of guidance from the developers of CC and their rigid application of the standards. I think it will resolve itself to our satisfaction (though I am never satisfied when it comes to helping my youngest son).

It's not an assumption I would make.

Local control of schools induces parental involvement. Bureacratizing control off to Washington leads to indifference, and enforced uniformity to a lowest common denominator. It leads, in other words, to sheep-hood. The idea that there is one correct interpretation about what should be taught to all children across a huge swath of cultures and sensibilities is a hard slap to the value of diversity.

Nothing is more important to the success of a kid in school than having a home environment supportive of education, and having parent(s) who do not completely cede their primary role in the growth and development of their children to paid strangers.

A national curriculum keeps local school districts from adopting anti-science practices and standards, maintains a set of common cultural referents upon which the entire nation can communicate, creates a usable standard metric by which people can evaluate their education.
As far as your fear of "indifference, and enforced uniformity to a lowest common denominator". other free countries that adopt a national curriculum, such as the UK, Japan, Finland, Australia and such, have not become "sheep". That sort of problem originates from elsewhere in the society, usually through messianic revolution (i.e. pre ww2 Germany, North Korea or China).

That's a rhetorical bridge too far.

The biggest problem with the one-size-fits-all approach is the lack of understanding that in education, one size fits almost no one. Step back for a moment and think about it. Some committee two time zones away knows what's better for your kids than you and the parents in your community? Who decides what every child should be force-fed? It's subject to the most Orwellian abuse if the "wrong" people are in charge of it.

My view is that the more parents are part of such decisions, the more we will raise a broad spectrum of independent thinkers, instead of a monoculture of ideology-repeaters.

I'm not sure I would cite Japan or UK as examples of the benefits of national curriculum, by the way. Lots of baaa-ing going on in those countries these days.

And they use creationism to avoid education issues. I will not avoid any issues.

We've already got a "national curriculum," but it's set in Austin - see http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/.

I'm sorry, but I do not and will not support Common Core. It treats kids like robots. Kids learn at different paces and have different talents and interests.

Why not present it along with evolutionary theory? Evolutionary theory has some problems, as the distinguished evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould pointed out (e.g, punctuated equilibrium), but evolution is so much more elegant as a theory and so well founded in the evidence that it would make creationism look ridiculous by comparison. Instead of suppressing an idea, why not open it up for a debate? In that way, students will better understand the justification for the theory of evolution, and how to refute its opponents.

This is just a simple application of John Stuart Mill's doctrine of freedom of speech in his famous book, On Liberty, that it is better to refute an idea than suppress it.

creation stories from all religions are discussed. It does not belong in the science class.

It's ok in the classroom, but not in a science class? You may be right. Just so long as students can compare the two and see the superiority of the evolutionist view.

years. You know what I hear from Christians when I suggest it? Silence, because they don't want their kids to be taught creation stories from other religions. They only want the Christian creation story taught.

I took that to mean that you didn't want creationism taught in the schools at all, in any classroom.

We'll give that the thought it deserves.
Moving on...

However, it got damp at some point and is pretty much decomposed.

ID isn't a big threat. In most places where it's mentioned, either the teacher plays it up himself or it gets scant mention. Texas has typical "anti-evolutionary" language in its standards, and really, ID might get mentioned at some point, then it's off to point mutations and homologies. Why?

Because to teach everything required would take a year, not 9 months with weeks off for Xmas, T-day, spring break.

To teach everything at the cognitive level specified isn't going to happen.

The result is that CC = what's on the test. If it's not on the test, it's not going to get taught. Unless all the states give the same test--not a test aligned with a certain part of the standards--there is no CC except on paper.

All that matters is the test. All hail the test.

Jindal's ditching CC doesn't matter. They'll still have a test.

In all fairness, I'm on a team that was under the gun. The Test was approaching for our topic under the new, beefed up guidelines. We worked our butts off. Got so-so results, but learned a lot about what didn't work and some things about what did work. Then The Test was vanquished, and the next year half the teachers on the team ditched 1/3 of the fall content, skipped a few units in the spring, and dropped out harder content or stuff they personally had trouble with. Some teachers refused to fail anybody. "Hey, it makes my number look good. You fail 20 kids if you want, but you'll be in trouble and told to observe me next year to get your fail rate down." Another said he was tired of fighting and was saving for his retirement--keep them busy, entertained, and pass them to pay off the new car.

I understand why some teachers need The Test. No test, no motivation. All that matters is the grade and passing the evaluation. (Crap, that sounds like my low-performing students. All that matters is passing the test, not the "job" of learning.)

Which is unfortunate--they should use their own creativity.

Last edited Wed Jun 18, 2014, 08:25 PM - Edit history (2)

A test is a useful tool. It doesn't have to be standardized, written, verbal or otherwise. But any good teacher knows that you tell the kids exactly what they need to know to do well on the evaluation. Teach them what they need to know, tell them what you taught them, and then check to see if they know it. Rinse and repeat as needed.

I've been dealing with EOCs (end of course exams) for decades. I've prepped kids in science and math on both borders of this country.

My students learned 60-90 percent of the material in a given textbook (the stuff they didn't learn from the text was because I ignored it), plus whatever additional content I decided I wanted to teach them. I taught them to learn, taught them to teach each other, guided them through the rough patches, and when it came time for the test, they were prepared for it. That is, except when the administrators or the parents pressured me to dumb down the curriculum.

If a teacher bows to the pressure to teach to the government test, then he or she either doesn't know their content, or is just lazy, because my tests are a lot harder than that.

You behave as if a teacher can function without knowing if their students are progressing. That is an error.

One of the reasons we have such an ignorant population is because of 50 years of low expectations. We have multi-generational ignorance brought on because 50 years of teachers are afraid to give honest assessments of their students.

You do bring up an interesting point. We need year-round schooling.

Just because it is a good idea to have some national standard does not mean Common Core fully meets the challenge. As a teacher who has seen some of the curricular resources for Common Core, I can tell you it is extremely flawed and will not lead to an improvement in educational quality in this country. The fact that people oppose it for their own reasons on the right, and for others on the left, is irrelevant.

That is an impossible bar to meet for any endeavor.

We should never aspire for racial equality unless the attempt eliminates all inequality in one fell swoop.
We should never attempt to treat drug addiction unless everyone will be sober at the end of a program.

I have also been a teacher, grades 7-college. The fact is, teachers have never seen flawless curricular resources.

Ever.

As far as whether it will lead to an improvement in education, you don't know. However, the data from other countries indicates that it could improve education. If we approach it with commitment and if we ignore the conservatives who are just trying to keep the population stupid, it has a much better chance.

The system as it is, has certainly failed.

that put it together and make it easier for textbook, testing, and curriculum companies to sell a higher volume of fewer products.

If it was really meant to help students, it would have been designed by educators and academics in a cooperative process that had an open-source, non-copyrighted result.

if a company intends to make a profit by providing a service or product for education, then the government should reject the service or product.

This is erroneous at all levels. The compnaies that provide textbooks, desks, library books, buses, computers, etc. are all attempting to make a profit. A desire to receive compensation for a product or service is how humans interact. All the textbooks we have been using for the past several decades (or 150 years) are copyrighted, as are all the ancillary materials (tests, worksheets, lesson plans, etc.) that come with the textbooks.

I'll make the assumption that you haven't done much research from unbiased sources on this topic.

Try This
Smithsonian on the Common Core

you're going to end up with a lot more surgery than doctors might think is necessary.

I'm supposing you are referring to the opposition's propaganda that education industry people were part of the variety of groups that came together to develop the standards, without consulting anyone else.

This is a myth.

The truth is the publishing companies were among many groups that worked together.

"Sixteen months later, with the financial backing of several prominent philanthropies, the Common Core standards were born. Though crafted by a small group of academics tapped by groups representing the nation’s governors and state schools chiefs, educators from every state gave feedback on the drafts before they were finalized."

of for profit entities are hardly philanthropies. They are a continuation of business by other means.

'nuff said.

Pearson, sells Common Core materials, was fined millions by NY for using their non-profit to help their for profit business
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/educational-publishers-charity-accused-of-seeking-profits-will-pay-millions.html?_r=0

The fact that the Walton Family Foundation, no friend to working and middle class families in their labor practices, is one of the "philanthropies" behind the education "reform" movement, should make anyone skeptical of the real agenda.
http://wp.me/p2odLa-7MA

Bill Gates underwriting and pushing Common Core
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101694905

Charter school investors double their money in seven years because of tax credits, despite widespread evidence of waste, fraud, laxer accountability than regular public schools
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101693750


Elite prep schools are AREN'T adopting most of the "reforms" the wealthy are forcing on our kids.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101681892

Most folks typically use "proof" as a means to back up their claims. Specifically, you claimed that all the prominent philanthropies the Smithsonian article references engage in "attack pensions and collective bargaining for teachers", but none of your links have anything to do with the philanthropies attacking "pensions and collective bargaining of teachers".

Regarding Pearson - Has that company attacked teacher's pensions and collective bargaining? Your link mentions nothing about unions.

Regarding Walmart - have they attacked teacher's pensions and collective bargaining, and is Walmart one of the groups that helped fund the creation of CC? Your link doesn't mention anything about that.

Regarding Bill Gates - While a supporter of school reform, has he done anything to attack "teacher's pensions and collective bargaining"?

Regarding the Hedgefund link - Are hedgefunds among the philanthropies that backed the development of CC? Do hedgefunds attack pensions and collective bargaining? Your link doesn't say.

Regarding elite prep schools - Do they attack "pensions and collective bargaining" of teachers? Again, your link doesn't say.

This is known as a big scoop of fail. But please, feel free to try again.

Let's try to stay on topic this time.

Especially since you either don't seem to know who the players are on education reform and the range of related issues they are pushing or you do and you're just here to muddy the water.

As a former long-time teacher (who no longer teaches, because the current manifestation of public education was and is a soul crushing nightmare struggle), I have a cynical view about CC. Personally, I doubt it will change anything. Our teachers will continue to struggle to teach because of the 3-way conflict between a parent's desire to feel good about their kid, and administrators' drive to keep parents from complaining, and a good teacher's efforts to maintain high standards.
As any teacher knows, the state imposes a "fundamental change" every 5-10 years with changing standards, new methodologies, classroom management, etc.. As educators, we must struggle to complete our tasks while standing on a constantly shifting base as if education (something humans have been doing for a couple of hundred thousand years) is something we've been doing wrong up until the 1960s.
The criticisms of Common Core (issues of local control, propaganda, teaching to the test, companies making a profit, my child is unhappy, it's too hard, it's too easy, or whatever) are banal repetitions of the last umpteen years.
The only thing that I see that might, just might, change the current pathetic excuse we have for public education is the national curriculum.
The rest of it is just the same old same old.

It's not like the state can do much worse. It already ranks near the bottom when it comes to education.

Common Core doesn't sound like a panacea but the real reason red states hate it is because of anti-government paranoia and a fear that it may actually imply teaching actual science like evolution (and not as a "theory&quot and sex ed (but, my Susie couldn't get pregnant, she had "abstinence only" education).

...meet nail head.

apt description of what standing with Jindal will get you.

it's only when the little people get together across the aisle for their own reasons that the folks up in the big house notice that the dog has fleas.

It is coming from the right, people afraid CC will harm students with special needs, or from groups and persons that the right is manipulating in order to keep Americans ignorant.

Bipartisanship is bad when it hurts the big banks and corporations and good when it help create bailouts, rescue packages and subsidies for them. Its funny how that works.