• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Common Core lessons blasted for sneaking politics into elementary classrooms

Dittohead not! said:
They're basically the same sort of reforms you've suggested: More choices, less central control, dump the Department of Education. I don't know if you read what I've posted, but basically, that's what I said.

Schools definitely need improvement and updating, but to say that they're "failing" because of the dropout rate is over the top.
Click to expand...

I find it odd that when a kid drops out, some people say the school is failing. IMO, it's the kid who is failing.
 
Dittohead not! said:
They're basically the same sort of reforms you've suggested: More choices, less central control, dump the Department of Education. I don't know if you read what I've posted, but basically, that's what I said.
Click to expand...

Ok, my bad...I didn't read the entire 30 pages before I jumped in...I know you're an educator, and in the past we have found some agreement you and I, so my apologies for jumping before knowing exactly what your position is...

Schools definitely need improvement and updating, but to say that they're "failing" because of the dropout rate is over the top.
Click to expand...

The dropout rate is where it is because, IMHO, we have a culture among the education community that they are overwhelmed, pressured to pass kids through, and strict adherence to curriculums that don't challenge the kids, or get them involved. It's all very mechanical. Think about it, you get interested in things you think are cool, or capture your attention through wanting to know more about them, or reward...One of the best teachers I ever had was in the 8th grade algebra...She was an older woman, that when we started the class, she was made fun of, mocked, and disrupted. It was cruel. But she had this program of her own in class, she had pencils made up with her name on them in the school colors. At first everyone thought it was stupid, and laughable, but by the end of the semester, that pencil was coveted. And the kids, (including myself) wanted one, and I learned more in that class about math, then all of my previous teachers....I went back about to my home town about 20 years ago, and looked her up. she was retired, and very old, but still remembered me, and I thanked her for her hard work and dedication. It made a difference.

Those teachers today, are too few.
 
sangha said:
I find it odd that when a kid drops out, some people say the school is failing. IMO, it's the kid who is failing.
Click to expand...

Yes, the kid is failing, the parent is failing, but the school is failing too. Failing to make that education gripping enough to make it something the kid wants, failing to impress how important that education is, failing to go that extra step and not give up on the kid.

The shift of blame where the education community places all the blame of that kid not staying in school, failing to do much of anything other than create a culture of job protection, and drone like conveyor belt educating.

When you have school systems that have more Asst. Superintendents, than Science teachers in the 10th grade H.S. in their district...There is a problem. Draining resource so that those on the glide path to retirement can pad their pension with six digit, do nothing titles is a travesty, especially when the individual teacher is told they have to buy their own supplies.
 
j-mac said:
Yes, the kid is failing, the parent is failing, but the school is failing too. Failing to make that education gripping enough to make it something the kid wants, failing to impress how important that education is, failing to go that extra step and not give up on the kid.

The shift of blame where the education community places all the blame of that kid not staying in school, failing to do much of anything other than create a culture of job protection, and drone like conveyor belt educating.

When you have school systems that have more Asst. Superintendents, than Science teachers in the 10th grade H.S. in their district...There is a problem. Draining resource so that those on the glide path to retirement can pad their pension with six digit, do nothing titles is a travesty, especially when the individual teacher is told they have to buy their own supplies.
Click to expand...

Exactly right, and a lot of the failure to make education "gripping" is the push to get the test scores up, the teaching to the test, the test centered, one size fits all curriculum.

And that top heavy bureaucracy you mention is due to the top down management we have in the school system today. There needs to be more choice, more local control, more accountability of students, parents, teachers, and the school system.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Exactly right, and a lot of the failure to make education "gripping" is the push to get the test scores up, the teaching to the test, the test centered, one size fits all curriculum.

And that top heavy bureaucracy you mention is due to the top down management we have in the school system today. There needs to be more choice, more local control, more accountability of students, parents, teachers, and the school system.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think we are on the same page, now how do we do it?
 
j-mac said:
Ok, I think we are on the same page, now how do we do it?
Click to expand...



I'ts probably easier to re post than to find a particular post in this long, long thread.

Here's the Dittohead not! solution:

Dissolve all district boundaries and allow parents to choose their school the same way they choose their supermarket. This would be easier in California than most states, as the schools are funded statewide and not by local property taxes.

Next, have each school set standards for academic achievement and behavior. If the student can't meet the standards, then the parents will have to find another school with lower standards.

Next, scale back the role of the state to two functions: Accrediting schools, and credentialing teachers. To be accredited, the school would have to hire credentialed teachers and would have to be teaching the basic subjects: Reading, math, science, and history. Anything else would have to be up to the school to decide. For this service, the state would get to keep 1% of the funds, everything else would go directly to the school.

Schools would then be evaluated by parents in a free market system. Schools that didn't work would go out of business or else open under new management, just like the local supermarkets.

Parents would be accountable to see to it that their kids met the standards of the school they chose, and kids would be accountable to meet the expectations of their parents and the school.

Everyone would be accountable, and there would be far more choices than there are now. Some of the secondary schools could be purely college prep, others could be vocational, some could be on line. The top down management system would be gone.

Oh, and close down the Department of Education.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'ts probably easier to re post than to find a particular post in this long, long thread.

Here's the Dittohead not! solution:

Dissolve all district boundaries and allow parents to choose their school the same way they choose their supermarket. This would be easier in California than most states, as the schools are funded statewide and not by local property taxes.

Next, have each school set standards for academic achievement and behavior. If the student can't meet the standards, then the parents will have to find another school with lower standards.

Next, scale back the role of the state to two functions: Accrediting schools, and credentialing teachers. To be accredited, the school would have to hire credentialed teachers and would have to be teaching the basic subjects: Reading, math, science, and history. Anything else would have to be up to the school to decide. For this service, the state would get to keep 1% of the funds, everything else would go directly to the school.

Schools would then be evaluated by parents in a free market system. Schools that didn't work would go out of business or else open under new management, just like the local supermarkets.

Parents would be accountable to see to it that their kids met the standards of the school they chose, and kids would be accountable to meet the expectations of their parents and the school.

Everyone would be accountable, and there would be far more choices than there are now. Some of the secondary schools could be purely college prep, others could be vocational, some could be on line. The top down management system would be gone.

Oh, and close down the Department of Education.
Click to expand...


Thanks Ditto...That is what sounds like a lot of good things you have there...Any of it passed along to those that can effect these changes? And what are the road blocks?
 
j-mac said:
Yes, the kid is failing, the parent is failing, but the school is failing too. Failing to make that education gripping enough to make it something the kid wants, failing to impress how important that education is, failing to go that extra step and not give up on the kid.
Click to expand...

The school is also failing by giving some students courses which are not necessary to the child's future and in which they will probably become discouraged and fail.

We all enjoy things we are good at and everyone is good at something so why not consider education from that POV?. Why, for example, are we teaching algebra to children who will never use it and are better suited to blue collar work? Of course there are other examples.

We should know after six or eight years in school, after they have been taught the basics, where some students excel, where some fail, and then direct them to courses where they do well. That would seem to make more sense than having them fail, lose interest and then drop out.

There has to be a new way to look at education and 'streaming' as I believe its called, might be one of them.
 
Grant said:
The school is also failing by giving some students courses which are not necessary to the child's future and in which they will probably become discouraged and fail.

We all enjoy things we are good at and everyone is good at something so why not consider education from that POV?. Why, for example, are we teaching algebra to children who will never use it and are better suited to blue collar work? Of course there are other examples.

We should know after six or eight years in school, after they have been taught the basics, where some students excel, where some fail, and then direct them to courses where they do well. That would seem to make more sense than having them fail, lose interest and then drop out.

There has to be a new way to look at education and 'streaming' as I believe its called, might be one of them.
Click to expand...

Isn't algebra part of critical thinking? While it is true that not every student is cut out for college, it is also just as true that dumbing down curriculum to the lowest denominator is only going to continue the slide imho. Not that this is exactly what you are saying, but I think when schools started doing away with things like 'shop' or trades like 'auto body repair', yes, I am old enough to remember when these things were offered as electives, then at that point school became less interesting to young adults in High school that knew deep down that they were not going on to college. Another thing that is hurting imho, is the slow discontinuing of sports programs, music, clubs, and extra circular activities that build character for a more rounded, and better able to learn adult, prepared to work together, solve problems, and excel.
 
j-mac said:
Isn't algebra part of critical thinking? While it is true that not every student is cut out for college, it is also just as true that dumbing down curriculum to the lowest denominator is only going to continue the slide imho. Not that this is exactly what you are saying, but I think when schools started doing away with things like 'shop' or trades like 'auto body repair', yes, I am old enough to remember when these things were offered as electives, then at that point school became less interesting to young adults in High school that knew deep down that they were not going on to college. Another thing that is hurting imho, is the slow discontinuing of sports programs, music, clubs, and extra circular activities that build character for a more rounded, and better able to learn adult, prepared to work together, solve problems, and excel.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, algebra (which was just an example) is part of critical thinking and we want to encourage that but, at the same time, it is going to be of little value to some students who, despite an early introduction. lack the interest or initiative to work on their algebra skills. In fact, if students could spend double the time on things they are good at and less time on subjects where they are certain to fail, there might be a great many more skilled people entering society than there is now.

It seems that many teenagers struggle to see where they fit into things and allowing them to improve on areas where they already doing well may be one way to continue their education and maintain their pride until finally, if ever, get their act together.

Im not certain about all of this but it seems to be a possible alternative to what we have now. Or maybe not. Why streaming doesn't work - Independent.ie
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'ts probably easier to re post than to find a particular post in this long, long thread.

Here's the Dittohead not! solution:

Dissolve all district boundaries and allow parents to choose their school the same way they choose their supermarket. This would be easier in California than most states, as the schools are funded statewide and not by local property taxes.

Next, have each school set standards for academic achievement and behavior. If the student can't meet the standards, then the parents will have to find another school with lower standards.

Next, scale back the role of the state to two functions: Accrediting schools, and credentialing teachers. To be accredited, the school would have to hire credentialed teachers and would have to be teaching the basic subjects: Reading, math, science, and history. Anything else would have to be up to the school to decide. For this service, the state would get to keep 1% of the funds, everything else would go directly to the school.

Schools would then be evaluated by parents in a free market system. Schools that didn't work would go out of business or else open under new management, just like the local supermarkets.

Parents would be accountable to see to it that their kids met the standards of the school they chose, and kids would be accountable to meet the expectations of their parents and the school.

Everyone would be accountable, and there would be far more choices than there are now. Some of the secondary schools could be purely college prep, others could be vocational, some could be on line. The top down management system would be gone.

Oh, and close down the Department of Education.
Click to expand...

My red flags went off immediately at "scale back the role of the state" for my stakeholders. Most of the developments in curriculum, best practices, and so forth go far beyond accreditation and credentialing instructors. I also see significant value discussions surrounding what schools would do. My grouping would be pushed enormously into some of those vocational schools (should they even exist to a satisfactory degree, and provide services to them satisfactorily-which I can bet they won't due to your established priorities), while many of the standard class continues on with college prep, thus completely institutionalizing segregation once more.
 
j-mac said:
Thanks Ditto...That is what sounds like a lot of good things you have there...Any of it passed along to those that can effect these changes? And what are the road blocks?
Click to expand...

Road blocks? Entrenched bureaucracies, tradition, fear of change, people who would lose their cushy jobs, people who don't like public education and would rather ditch it than reform it, lots of things.

and oh, yes, check Fiddytree's post. I hadn't read it before responding to this one.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
My red flags went off immediately at "scale back the role of the state" for my stakeholders. Most of the developments in curriculum, best practices, and so forth go far beyond accreditation and credentialing instructors. I also see significant value discussions surrounding what schools would do. My grouping would be pushed enormously into some of those vocational schools (should they even exist to a satisfactory degree, and provide services to them satisfactorily-which I can bet they won't due to your established priorities), while many of the standard class continues on with college prep, thus completely institutionalizing segregation once more.
Click to expand...

My group? Who is that? My group is the American people, who are used to being able to choose, should be able to choose, and don't want Big Brother making those choices for them.

And best practices, and so forth are best left to people who actually teach kids, and not to ivory tower bureaucrats.
 
Dittohead not! said:
My group? Who is that? My group is the American people, who are used to being able to choose, should be able to choose, and don't want Big Brother making those choices for them.

And best practices, and so forth are best left to people who actually teach kids, and not to ivory tower bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

Students in special education, primarily. I'm saying that sometimes the existing structure ends up working better for the students than a decentralized and stripped down bureaucracy would. Sometimes best practices are left to the teachers, however, as you may recall, most of that work is researched and implemented by administrative staff above the individual school.
 
Gina said:
So you had an active role, at the local level, in choosing the curriculum. I don't know whether they picked your choice, but it was your district's choice to make.
Click to expand...

You're right - I had an active role of choosing a curriculum ---- Crap A or Crap B.
 
Fiddytree said:
Students in special education, primarily. I'm saying that sometimes the existing structure ends up working better for the students than a decentralized and stripped down bureaucracy would. Sometimes best practices are left to the teachers, however, as you may recall, most of that work is researched and implemented by administrative staff above the individual school.
Click to expand...

Of course there would have to be allowances made for special education. Student with special needs would have to generate more revenue than those without.

As for research, that's best conducted by the universities, then made available to principals and teachers.

That reminds me of yet another problem with the curriculum: Quite often, the "best practices" are based not on research, but on politics and fads.

As an example, I can remember having had the practice of writer's workshop promoted, then required. I later found out that the "research" conducted to find out how effective this method was was based on six subjects, all children of college professors.

Then, there were the fads: Robert's English, individualized instruction, whole language, new math, none of them actually vetted by research, all of them put into practice in schools.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Of course there would have to be allowances made for special education. Student with special needs would have to generate more revenue than those without.

As for research, that's best conducted by the universities, then made available to principals and teachers.
Click to expand...

Universities act in partnership with school districts and state departments, but they frequently are not the ones pumping out the materials. Individuals from the universities make up an incredibly small portion of policy evaluation and adjustments, and rightly so. State agencies not connected to the universities make up much to most of the research and implementation in a given area. Part of this is, ironically, because of the same complaint you had about the Ivory tower. I have an incredibly hard time believing that universities and individual schools or individual districts can make up for the gains we've been making with the traditional bureaucracy.

That reminds me of yet another problem with the curriculum: Quite often, the "best practices" are based not on research, but on politics and fads.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true, but that's the nature of the beast. Sometimes it is fads, other times it is not. Market-based solutions, also are subject to the fad problem, as Ravitch is mostly right in pointing out.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Universities act in partnership with school districts and state departments, but they frequently are not the ones pumping out the materials. Individuals from the universities make up an incredibly small portion of policy evaluation and adjustments, and rightly so. State agencies not connected to the universities make up much to most of the research and implementation in a given area. Part of this is, ironically, because of the same complaint you had about the Ivory tower. I have an incredibly hard time believing that universities and individual schools or individual districts can make up for the gains we've been making with the traditional bureaucracy.



Yes, that is true, but that's the nature of the beast. Sometimes it is fads, other times it is not. Market-based solutions, also are subject to the fad problem, as Ravitch is mostly right in pointing out.
Click to expand...

yes, market based solutions: Just get a fad started, then make the materials needed, and you can make a fortune. Of course, it helps to have allies in high places. Did you catch the part about the big test, McGraw Hill, and the Bushes? Follow the money.
 
Dittohead not! said:
yes, market based solutions: Just get a fad started, then make the materials needed, and you can make a fortune. Of course, it helps to have allies in high places. Did you catch the part about the big test, McGraw Hill, and the Bushes? Follow the money.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I have not expressed any opposition to that analysis, either.
 
Josie said:
You're right - I had an active role of choosing a curriculum ---- Crap A or Crap B.
Click to expand...
States and districts can add or subtract from the offered curriculums. Did your district or state do that?
 
trfjr said:
Common Core lessons blasted for sneaking politics into elementary classrooms | Fox News

And this is how liberalism gained a foot hold in todays politics. with them propagandizing our children over the generations. why do you think most teachers and college professor lean to the left

"Whoever controls youth, controls the future" was the slogan, given the German National club to the Communist thieves' den.
Click to expand...

And with the OP you went all Godwin so at least you got that out of the way already. :doh
 
sangha said:
Conservatives are about doing things in the traditional way. When it comes to education, the way was to rely on a specific set of knowledge that should be taught. They had a canon for literature, science, and philosophy. Two of the most well-known proponents of the canon for literature are Alan and Harold Bloom (no relation) both of whom are conservative.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, the public school system is controlled by conservatives. :roll:
 
So the OP started an anti-Common Core thread... looks like he's taking his right-wing marching orders seriously:

Fierce opposition to the standards looks like a grassroots movement, but a deeper look is revealing. In the Politico story, Stephanie Simon and Nirvi Shah write that Common Core opponents, "project an image of scrappy grassroots gumption: One rancher in Alabama said he would sell off a cow to cover the costs of an anti-Common Core town hall. But they’re backed by an array of organizations with multimillion dollar budgets of their own and much experience in mobilizing crowds and lobbying lawmakers, including The Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, the Pioneer Institute, Concerned Women for America and FreedomWorks."​

Well looky here... surprise surprise surprise.

Koch brother organizations say jump and all the sudden we have conservatives jump.

Actually its no surprise.
 
poweRob said:
So the OP started an anti-Common Core thread... looks like he's taking his right-wing marching orders seriously:

Fierce opposition to the standards looks like a grassroots movement, but a deeper look is revealing. In the Politico story, Stephanie Simon and Nirvi Shah write that Common Core opponents, "project an image of scrappy grassroots gumption: One rancher in Alabama said he would sell off a cow to cover the costs of an anti-Common Core town hall. But they’re backed by an array of organizations with multimillion dollar budgets of their own and much experience in mobilizing crowds and lobbying lawmakers, including The Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, the Pioneer Institute, Concerned Women for America and FreedomWorks."​

Well looky here... surprise surprise surprise.

Koch brother organizations say jump and all the sudden we have conservatives jump.

Actually its no surprise.
Click to expand...

Some of it is somewhat interesting as well, considering the Heritage Foundation was one of the driving forces behind the movement which intellectually informed the CC.
 
trfjr;1062514043 why do you think most teachers and college professor lean to the left [/QUOTE said:
Ahhhhhhh....probably because they are, I don't know....uh.....educated!!!! Doh!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom