Common Core lessons blasted for sneaking politics into elementary classrooms

Okay, I must stop talking about this. I get enough of it at work. I'll be attending another CCSS conference soon. I'll let you know what I learn.

Josie said:

Common Core (in it's full form) is a progressive's idea of how education should be in this country. Every single little aspect of each child's life is going to be documented. Your child won't just get reading, writing, math grades - your child will be graded on social and emotional areas as well. And each category has at least 6 subcategories for which the teacher must show at least 3 pieces of evidence for the "grade". Report cards won't be A, B, C, D, F.... they'll be 1, 2, 3, 4 ---- each subtopic will have a grade. And, as I said, each subtopic grade needs to have documentation to show why that grade was given. It's all about data-tracking. LOTS of paperwork. LOTS of documentation. Which is probably why the standards are dumbed down - teachers won't have time to actually teach.

"Your children don't belong to you - they belong to everyone" --- that's the foundation and philosophy behind Common Core. Common Core is a component of the Race to the Top program which was initiated by this administration and immediately accepted by blue states. The most conservative states in the country want no part of it. To say the CCSS is a conservative idea with conservative backing is ignorant.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the standards are viewed as being dumbed down when a third grader is expected to be able to read more than one piece of literature on a specific topic and then compare and contrast the differing viewpoints in composition format. I think that is a wonderful standard but not developmentally appropriate for the majority of third graders. Makes one wonder who was behind the development of these standards and if they ever taught third graders.

sangha said:

I understand that you do not support CC. I also understand that you do not support the left. But that doesn't mean that CC was a liberal/progressive idea.

Click to expand...

It depends on how far back we want to go. Standardization with education really became important with progressive education reformers, some of that was meant to be a political endgame, but much of it was just seen as a pedagogical advancement. With regard to CC specifically, it's basically a bi-partisan creation (or monster, depending on how you see it). Support and opposition to it transcends partisanship and it's often difficult to gauge where the ideas came from as to why people do not like it. I think what happens as well, is many times average conservatives and liberals just soak up some thoughts expressed by teachers and teacher union representatives, regardless if it may contradict their ideology. Professionals such as Josie are going to be more influenced by the perceived impact in the classroom rather than the politics (but as we have already seen, this too is part of the story).

Essentially, education is about one of the only areas where you can find a large chunk of bi-partisan support as well as bi-partisan opposition to the emerging status-quo. It's just messy at this point.

rabbitcaebannog said:

I'm not sure how the standards are viewed as being dumbed down when a third grader is expected to be able to read more than one piece of literature on a specific topic and then compare and contrast the differing viewpoints in composition format. I think that is a wonderful standard but not developmentally appropriate for the majority of third graders. Makes one wonder who was behind the development of these standards and if they ever taught third graders.

Click to expand...

You may be able to check our your state's department of public instruction. Mine measured the differences between the CC standards and previously-existing Standards. Per standard, there was a rating system. A large chunk of the time, you probably got 40-60% comparability, and the rest shuffled between CC being more rigorous or less rigorous to the existing standard. That being said, the emphasis in social studies education has been to simplify content to make it to the bare essentials. Sure, some of it encourages critical thinking, but it's pretty easy to make people think in terms of the standards rather than the academic subject matter itself.

Josie said:

Okay, I must stop talking about this. I get enough of it at work. I'll be attending another CCSS conference soon. I'll let you know what I learn.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would be nice is you learned something about the CC.

Redress said:

I dunno about you, but I consider ideas based on their merits, not on who proposes them...or what Glenn Beck tells me to think about them...

Click to expand...

"Merit" is for losers, as is thinking for yourself. It's just much wiser to let some political pundit do your thinking for you.

Josie said:

Common Core is another name for "Driving teachers who love their jobs out of schools".

Click to expand...

Sounds to me that it is another name for tracking the performance of students, and the effectiveness of their teachers. I can certainly understand why bad teachers, and students from families that don't value education, wouldn't want that.

Fiddytree said:

You may be able to check our your state's department of public instruction. Mine measured the differences between the CC standards and previously-existing Standards. Per standard, there was a rating system. A large chunk of the time, you probably got 40-60% comparability, and the rest shuffled between CC being more rigorous or less rigorous to the existing standard. That being said, the emphasis in social studies education has been to simplify content to make it to the bare essentials. Sure, some of it encourages critical thinking, but it's pretty easy to make people think in terms of the standards rather than the academic subject matter itself.

Click to expand...

Recommended reading: As neuroscience now delves into the neurobiology of reading, one thing is becoming clear: not all children’s brains are “wired” for reading in the same way. Ready to Read? Neuroscience Research Sheds Light on Brain Correlates of Reading - Dana Foundation

Again, there is a battle waging whether these standards are developmentally appropriate for young children specifically ages K-3. I'm really not sure how this can be ignored. Also, these standards were written by many academics and assessment experts with ties to testing companies. I find this disturbing to say the least.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Recommended reading: As neuroscience now delves into the neurobiology of reading, one thing is becoming clear: not all children’s brains are “wired” for reading in the same way. Ready to Read? Neuroscience Research Sheds Light on Brain Correlates of Reading - Dana Foundation

Again, there is a battle waging whether these standards are developmentally appropriate for young children specifically ages K-3. I'm really not sure how this can be ignored. Also, these standards were written by many academics and assessment experts with ties to testing companies. I find this disturbing to say the least.

Click to expand...

I am not versed in the slightest about reading instruction (that's also Josie's area), but skimming makes me think we are getting at what Howard Gardner discussed. I grew up with that model and are more familiar with it.

Fiddytree said:

It depends on how far back we want to go. Standardization with education really became important with progressive education reformers, some of that was meant to be a political endgame, but much of it was just seen as a pedagogical advancement. With regard to CC specifically, it's basically a bi-partisan creation (or monster, depending on how you see it). Support and opposition to it transcends partisanship and it's often difficult to gauge where the ideas came from as to why people do not like it. I think what happens as well, is many times average conservatives and liberals just soak up some thoughts expressed by teachers and teacher union representatives, regardless if it may contradict their ideology. Professionals such as Josie are going to be more influenced by the perceived impact in the classroom rather than the politics (but as we have already seen, this too is part of the story).

Essentially, education is about one of the only areas where you can find a large chunk of bi-partisan support as well as bi-partisan opposition to the emerging status-quo. It's just messy at this point.

Click to expand...

I agree that, when it comes to education, it is more difficult to identify the source. However, I was referring to efforts in the 18th and 19th century, as well as the 20th, to establish an educational canon, particularly with regards to literature.

But in looking into this, I know see that aside from a thing specific items (ex Shakespeare, america's foundational documents, etc) the CC doesn't establish a literary canon.

imagep said:

Sounds to me that it is another name for tracking the performance of students, and the effectiveness of their teachers. I can certainly understand why bad teachers, and students from families that don't value education, wouldn't want that.

Click to expand...

TBF to Josie, I don't think she was referring to using students performance to judge teachers, but rather the time she will have to spend on paperwork and other non-teaching tasks in order to comply with the new standards. I've gotten the impression that she would rather spend her time coming up with inventive ways of teaching the subjects she was trained to teach

sangha said:

TBF to Josie, I don't think she was referring to using students performance to judge teachers, but rather the time she will have to spend on paperwork and other non-teaching tasks in order to comply with the new standards. I've gotten the impression that she would rather spend her time coming up with inventive ways of teaching the subjects she was trained to teach

Click to expand...

Sure, I didn't really intend to direct that personally at Josie, just to teachers in general. She made it quite clear that she would rather be teaching than doing paperwork.

fortunately, she also pointed out that much of the testing/tracking is supposed to be done by computers, so assuming that we start properly equipping the classroom with computers and modern technology, the extra administrative requirments should be more or less automatically accomplished by technology, and hopefully will not become overburdensome to the classroom teacher.

Just a side note, but the school system where I live was one of the first adopters of the CC curriculum. It was also recently recognized as being the #1 school system in the state based upon test scores. The correlation is clear, whether or not there is causation, I dunno.

Fiddytree said:

I am not versed in the slightest about reading instruction (that's also Josie's area), but skimming makes me think we are getting at what Howard Gardner discussed. I grew up with that model and are more familiar with it.

Click to expand...

I wasn't really referring to multiple intelligence although I do enjoy Howard Gardner. My understanding of the brain and its development is that children's brains don't mature at the same pace and brains function differently. To have one "common" standard and one that aims to the highest end is setting many up for failure.

http://www.apa.org/education/k12/brain-function.aspx- snip

"Just because you have a classroom full of students who are about the same age doesn’t mean they are equally ready to learn a particular topic, concept, skill or idea. It is important for teachers and parents to understand that maturation of the brain influences learning readiness. For teachers, this is especially important when designing lessons and selecting which strategies to use.
All children need to be challenged and nurtured in order to profit from your instruction. Instruction that is above or below the maturity level of a child’s brain is not only inappropriate; it can lead to behavior problems in your classroom. Inappropriate behaviors — avoidance, challenging authority and aggression towards other students — can be explained by a failure to match instruction to the brain maturity of your students."

I always tells the parents of my students that the "correct" reading level their child should be reading at is very subjective. Just because they're in November of 1st grade, doesn't mean that every child is going to be reading a level E or F (guided reading level). Also, reading fluency scores are supposed to be at 19 wpm in the middle of the year. I have a kid who reads really slow (he does everything really slow), but the kid knows exactly what he reads and understands it. However, on paper it's going to look as though he's behind and needs lots of extra help.....but he doesn't. He just goes about things slightly different than the average kid. It's important to help him get a little faster at it, but he's probably always going to read slower than his peers. That's okay with me, but it's not okay with the "data Nazis".

I love my job. I love making learning fun and exciting and new. I love coming up with creative ways to keep kids engaged in what they're doing. And first grade is the best. A boy who was in first grade last year with a different teacher was sent back to first (into my class) this year. I called him over to the table for him to read a list of kindergarten words. He immediately had his defenses up. "I can't read" he said quietly. In two weeks, he was proudly reading a book all by himself. I said, "Oh my gosh!! You're reading!!" and he had the biggest smile on his face. <<< THAT is why I love my job.

Wait....what were we talking about again? I got sidetracked...

Josie said:

Wait....what were we talking about again? I got sidetracked...

Click to expand...

Something about the air velocity of a swallow. (come on Josie..better know that reference)

I find it ironic that China, the number one country for high test scores, wants to duplicate the US education system. Well, perhaps before we decided to follow their system.

Anyone every wonder why we have the most innovators, world class scientist? Why we have discovered much in the medical field, technology field??? Is it because in the past these outside the box thinkers were told they had to match what was in the rubric? Perhaps, they were not afraid to make mistakes. What was it Edison said?

Thomas Edison's teachers said he was "too stupid to learn anything." He was fired from his first two jobs for being "non-productive." As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."

What was Einstein was labeled in school?

On any account this is great food for thought:

In BriefWhen Shanghai, China, was awarded the number one spot for educational achievement by the Program for International Student Assessment, a number of Western countries began to ask what had sparked the country’s rise. One answer is five years of education reforms that began with the Chinese government’s recognition that it needs to improve its teaching system as the population ages and the country’s pool of cheap labor runs out. The plan, called the Outline of China’s National Plan for Medium- and Long-term Education Reform and Development, aims to significantly increase government investment in education, universalize access to early childhood education and high schools, develop world-class universities, and improve the overall quality of education. The aim is to quickly transform a low-level manufacturing economy into one based on knowledge. But a well-educated workforce does not mean simply more years in school, or more testing—as China’s history of training innovators shows. There is currently a surplus of college graduates unable to find work in innovative but elite private firms or oversubscribed government agencies. Meanwhile, the Chinese service industry, the mainstay of the U.S. economy, remains tiny. Unlocking the potential of that industry is going to take a radical overhaul of how the Chinese think about education. http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1077

My wife and I pulled our son from school due to, among other things, CC. Im not an educator, however, what I noticed with the CC is that teachers are hamstrung to having to teach to a number grade. There is no opportunity for a teacher to actually teach. It turns into the teacher being a worksheet distributor. Also, the burden of proof for a child to be moved to a gifted program is ridiculous. For instance, my son was 6 years old and reading at a 6th grade level. He was also doing division at that point. So, we met with the principal and his teacher in an attempt to move him into a gifted program. Now, my ignorance of the CC will show here. Idk if it was a state policy or if it had anything to do with the CC but we were told that he had to test in the 95th percentile of 3 standardized tests in a row before being considered for any sort of gifted student program. Those tests are only given twice a school year. He met the requirement at the end of 2nd grade. After that, we went to the principal and told her we were ready to discuss the gifted program again and were told that CC had changed the standardized tests and he had to take another test and score in the 95th percentile before moving to that class. However, he would have to wait until the test is given school wide. At that point, we were fed up and pulled him from public school. Home school is definitely better than public, but that's another thread.

Fiddytree said:

Something about the air velocity of a swallow. (come on Josie..better know that reference)

Click to expand...

African or European?

Samhain said:

African or European?

Click to expand...

I don't know that.....

AhhhhH!

Josie said:

Common Core is a progressive initiative, applauded by Obama, funded through the Race to the Top agenda and accepted whole-heartedly by blue states. Yet you still say it's a conservative idea. LOL!

If it is a conservative idea, why are the most conservative states rejecting it? Why are the most outspoken conservatives in our nation demanding a stop to it? Why are progressive states embracing it?

Click to expand...

Because for hyper partisans who aren't intereted in honest discussion but simply seek to stretch every little thing to the farthest extreme to score political points, the logic goes that if at any point in the past...regardless of context…the side opposite their own ever supported anything even mildly resembling something their side is pushing now, then it's the other sides "idea".

For example…let’s say at some point in the past just a HANDFUL of Republicans wanted to do a program where severely poor children could be given lunch for free at schools and would offset that increased cost through cutting funding to art programs in the state.

If the Democrats came back 20 years later and put forward a proposal for a program to feed ALL children breakfast and lunch at school and mandated kids had to participate in this lunch rather than bringing any from home and they were increasing taxes on the rich to pay for the program…..people like Sangha would proclaim that they’re just “doing a republican idea!” and criticize republicans for not jumping on board, because at one point Republicans wanted to have school lunch for some kids.

It’s the same BS that was pulled by many hyper partisan liberals attempting to say “obamacare” was a Republican idea. It’s the same here. Sangha is grasping decades back as to what two Conservatives wanted to do in a narrow and specific way and is then attempting to suggest that what’s being done with Common Core is the same thing (simply because it has a few similarities) and thus is a “conservative idea”.

It’s dishonest to the core, but a standard play in the arsenal of hyper partisans.


Because for hyper partisans who aren't intereted in honest discussion but simply seek to stretch every little thing to the farthest extreme to score political points, the logic goes that if at any point in the past...regardless of context..the side opposite their own ever supported anything even mildly resembling something their side is pushing now, then it's the other sides "idea".

To the point where if Republicans at one point wanted to paint.

I wasn't a fan of NCLB, and I'm not a fan of this either. The more and more you standardize things and force teachers to "teach to the test" the worse thinkers our children end up being imho.

sangha said:

I agree that, when it comes to education, it is more difficult to identify the source. However, I was referring to efforts in the 18th and 19th century, as well as the 20th, to establish an educational canon, particularly with regards to literature.

But in looking into this, I know see that aside from a thing specific items (ex Shakespeare, america's foundational documents, etc) the CC doesn't establish a literary canon.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. You're looking more at shifting culture reflecting curriculum, it seems. This was one of my little excursions at one point (I may publish something on it later), particularly with the late 80s through the mid 90s. That's why you mentioned Allan Bloom, eh?

Zyphlin said:

…..people like Sangha would proclaim that they’re just “doing a republican idea!” and criticize republicans for not jumping on board, because at one point Republicans wanted to have school lunch for some kids.

Click to expand...

He would be right in making that claim.

In my mind, providing means tested benefits to special folks isn't a conservative policy, it's robbing from the rich to give to the poor, and is thus quite liberal. Providing everyone equally with the same exact government service/benefit is a conservative policy, it's just providing a needed government service to everyone. but thats me, I'm whacked in the head, or so I am told.

Zyphlin said:

Because for hyper partisans who aren't intereted in honest discussion but simply seek to stretch every little thing to the farthest extreme to score political points, the logic goes that if at any point in the past...regardless of context…the side opposite their own ever supported anything even mildly resembling something their side is pushing now, then it's the other sides "idea".

For example…let’s say at some point in the past just a HANDFUL of Republicans wanted to do a program where severely poor children could be given lunch for free at schools and would offset that increased cost through cutting funding to art programs in the state.

If the Democrats came back 20 years later and put forward a proposal for a program to feed ALL children breakfast and lunch at school and mandated kids had to participate in this lunch rather than bringing any from home and they were increasing taxes on the rich to pay for the program…..people like Sangha would proclaim that they’re just “doing a republican idea!” and criticize republicans for not jumping on board, because at one point Republicans wanted to have school lunch for some kids.

It’s the same BS that was pulled by many hyper partisan liberals attempting to say “obamacare” was a Republican idea. It’s the same here. Sangha is grasping decades back as to what two Conservatives wanted to do in a narrow and specific way and is then attempting to suggest that what’s being done with Common Core is the same thing (simply because it has a few similarities) and thus is a “conservative idea”.

It’s dishonest to the core, but a standard play in the arsenal of hyper partisans.


Because for hyper partisans who aren't intereted in honest discussion but simply seek to stretch every little thing to the farthest extreme to score political points, the logic goes that if at any point in the past...regardless of context..the side opposite their own ever supported anything even mildly resembling something their side is pushing now, then it's the other sides "idea".

To the point where if Republicans at one point wanted to paint.

I wasn't a fan of NCLB, and I'm not a fan of this either. The more and more you standardize things and force teachers to "teach to the test" the worse thinkers our children end up being imho.

Click to expand...

But CC is a rather bi-partisan creation/monster in of itself. Now, on a side note to that, the ideas influencing the orientation of CC, do in fact go back decades, which once again, have a bi-partisan angle and cross into multiple ideological strands. You can't really divorce them, because education policy is extremely...how should I put this...... institutionalized and frequently defies common understanding of political ideology.

Fiddytree said:

But CC is a rather bi-partisan creation/monster in of itself.

Click to expand...

Tell me if you can tell the difference between these two claims:

CC is a Conservative idea!

CC is bi-partisan.

One of those two claims is what I was arguing against. The other claim I have no issue with.

I'm sure you can figure which is which.

I think, in a very general sense, that CC is a rather bi-partisan creation/monster. However, Sangha was not arguing that...Sangha was specifically saying that RTTT and CC are "conservaitve ideas". That's what I was arguing against.

I absolutely agree, over the years the various educational attempts in this country have bipartisan elements to them...in part because what's very common with almost any idea or policy, by nature of compromise, is that each side takes something and tries to mold it to work with their view point of how things should function. This leads to most ideas from either sides having various similarities in certain points, and where portions of any new idea can be traced to all different sides.

I know I come at it from a different angle, but when someone says CC is a conservative idea, I accept it. It is a conservative idea. It's also a progressive idea. I know where you are going with this, but when someone says that, I do in fact see conservative accountability movement spokespersons (especially those involved in the business community that advocate for educational change).

I wouldn't necessarily deny that Sangha's intentions may have been to flip the argument for the sake of flipping the argument.