• 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

That makes no sense. How does performance differ from outcomes?

Let me give you an example from medicine-A person with terminal stage 4 lung cancer might benefit from surgery to remove the mass effect (think of a bowling ball pushing on someones heart and great vessels), but have no increased survival or even length of remaining life-however the pt would be more comfortable in the mean time. Palliative care.

Likewise a student might do better on math in school (thanks to some hip new program, lets say), but as it turns out dropout rates, highschool exit exams, and overall highschool grad rates dont improve. This is an example of improved performance NOT leading to improved outcomes.

What matters, in the end is improved outcomes-because improved outcomes mean a better life for that kid-as seen through income, poverty rates, family success, etc.
 
Let me give you an example from medicine-A person with terminal stage 4 lung cancer might benefit from surgery to remove the mass effect (think of a bowling ball pushing on someones heart and great vessels), but have no increased survival or even length of remaining life-however the pt would be more comfortable in the mean time. Palliative care.

Likewise a student might do better on math in school (thanks to some hip new program, lets say), but as it turns out dropout rates, highschool exit exams, and overall highschool grad rates dont improve. This is an example of improved performance NOT leading to improved outcomes.

What matters, in the end is improved outcomes-because improved outcomes mean a better life for that kid-as seen through income, poverty rates, family success, etc.

And we're going about that all wrong. Watch the links I proved earlier.
 
To be fair, NCLB raised scores. Objective testing SHOULD be the standard, I dont know why college educated teachers would argue against this.

I've already told you why.

1. It has created a test centered curriculum as opposed to a student centered curriculum.
2. The test scores don't show what they purport to show.

and no, once again, that doesn't mean that we should not measure student achievement. It just means that we should use a accurate measures.
 
I've already told you why.

1. It has created a test centered curriculum as opposed to a student centered curriculum.
2. The test scores don't show what they purport to show.

and no, once again, that doesn't mean that we should not measure student achievement. It just means that we should use a accurate measures.

The status quo is no longer acceptable. Things are changin and teachers are on the wrong side of the argument.
No longer is mediocrity the standard. Its too important.
 
The status quo is no longer acceptable. Things are changin and teachers are on the wrong side of the argument.
No longer is mediocrity the standard. Its too important.

Why quote me, then not say anything about my post?

You're right, of course. mediocrity is no standard. Education is too important. The status quo is not acceptable. Yes, times are changing.

What makes you think that the federal government has the answer to improving education, and keeping up with the times? I thought you were supposed to be a conservative.

Local control is important. Competition is important. Holding teachers, parents, and students responsible is important. Accurate, usable data are important.

A big test that was originally mandated in order to put money into crony's pockets is not the answer, nor is the Department of Education the answer. Big government and top down management is not the answer.
 
Why quote me, then not say anything about my post?

You're right, of course. mediocrity is no standard. Education is too important. The status quo is not acceptable. Yes, times are changing.

What makes you think that the federal government has the answer to improving education, and keeping up with the times? I thought you were supposed to be a conservative.

Local control is important. Competition is important. Holding teachers, parents, and students responsible is important. Accurate, usable data are important.

A big test that was originally mandated in order to put money into crony's pockets is not the answer, nor is the Department of Education the answer. Big government and top down management is not the answer.

You certainly wont hear me saying that the federal govt is the answer-but the irony is the same liberals who now claim to want big govt out of life because its holding them accountable typically champion govt in our life.

Competition is actively opposed by teachers-and their unions. Local control is only good if it ends up with unions/school agencies controlling things.
I call BS.
 
Let me give you an example from medicine-A person with terminal stage 4 lung cancer might benefit from surgery to remove the mass effect (think of a bowling ball pushing on someones heart and great vessels), but have no increased survival or even length of remaining life-however the pt would be more comfortable in the mean time. Palliative care.

We're not talking about cancer here


Likewise a student might do better on math in school (thanks to some hip new program, lets say), but as it turns out dropout rates, highschool exit exams, and overall highschool grad rates dont improve. This is an example of improved performance NOT leading to improved outcomes.

That made no sense whatsoever. You start out talking about one student's performance/outcome, and then switch over to talking about a school's performance/outcome. You are using the terms in a way which is inappropriate.

What matters, in the end is improved outcomes-because improved outcomes mean a better life for that kid-as seen through income, poverty rates, family success, etc.

Again, that is not what educators mean when they speak of improved outcomes with respect to things like NCLB and CC.
 
You certainly wont hear me saying that the federal govt is the answer-but the irony is the same liberals who now claim to want big govt out of life because its holding them accountable typically champion govt in our life.

Competition is actively opposed by teachers-and their unions. Local control is only good if it ends up with unions/school agencies controlling things.
I call BS.

I am not a liberal, nor a union. If you will read what I've written and quite trying to classify the world according to "liberal" and "conservative", I think my position will come clear. If not, then I haven't done a very good job of explaining it, because you still don't understand it.

Have a nice Thanksgiving.
 
We're not talking about cancer here




That made no sense whatsoever. You start out talking about one student's performance/outcome, and then switch over to talking about a school's performance/outcome. You are using the terms in a way which is inappropriate.



Again, that is not what educators mean when they speak of improved outcomes with respect to things like NCLB and CC.

Take this opportunity to do some reading. Im not going to waste my time any further.
 
I've already told you why.

1. It has created a test centered curriculum as opposed to a student centered curriculum.
2. The test scores don't show what they purport to show.

and no, once again, that doesn't mean that we should not measure student achievement. It just means that we should use a accurate measures.

Well, it's a tough job for sure. I mean listening to entrenched union teachers, enjoying they tenure, and coasting through their careers, coupled with having the daunting task of convincing their parents that although they pay through the nose in taxes to support education, that it isn't enough and that we should not only not look at the teachers that are failing their students, but throw ever increasing amounts of money at the problem, because Lord knows the answer to every problem, every failure, every debacle is to throw more money at it.
 
The status quo is no longer acceptable. Things are changin and teachers are on the wrong side of the argument.
No longer is mediocrity the standard. Its too important.

I'm going to have to disagree because what I see is that mediocrity is the standard.
 
Well, it's a tough job for sure. I mean listening to entrenched union teachers, enjoying they tenure, and coasting through their careers, coupled with having the daunting task of convincing their parents that although they pay through the nose in taxes to support education, that it isn't enough and that we should not only not look at the teachers that are failing their students, but throw ever increasing amounts of money at the problem, because Lord knows the answer to every problem, every failure, every debacle is to throw more money at it.

and be sure to let the federal government control it as much as possible.
 
Well, it's a tough job for sure. I mean listening to entrenched union teachers, enjoying they tenure, and coasting through their careers, coupled with having the daunting task of convincing their parents that although they pay through the nose in taxes to support education, that it isn't enough and that we should not only not look at the teachers that are failing their students, but throw ever increasing amounts of money at the problem, because Lord knows the answer to every problem, every failure, every debacle is to throw more money at it.

Why are unfunded mandates the teachers fault???
 
Did I say they were the individual teachers fault?

Yes, you implied it when you stated,
Well, it's a tough job for sure. I mean listening to entrenched union teachers, enjoying they tenure, and coasting through their careers, coupled with having the daunting task of convincing their parents that although they pay through the nose in taxes to support education, that it isn't enough and that we should not only not look at the teachers that are failing their students, but throw ever increasing amounts of money at the problem, because Lord knows the answer to every problem, every failure, every debacle is to throw more money at it.
 
You may need to explain that one. I'm not sure that anyone outside of the education community knows what the phrase even means.

Well many states have caps on how much money can be provided for educational costs while at the same time these new mandates being passed down by Race to Top are costly and many of these costs either get passed down in the form of layoffs or local communities voting to fund them through taxes. Teachers never advocated for these costs.
 
Yes, you implied it when you stated,
Well, it's a tough job for sure. I mean listening to entrenched union teachers, enjoying they tenure, and coasting through their careers, coupled with having the daunting task of convincing their parents that although they pay through the nose in taxes to support education, that it isn't enough and that we should not only not look at the teachers that are failing their students, but throw ever increasing amounts of money at the problem, because Lord knows the answer to every problem, every failure, every debacle is to throw more money at it.

Much of what is translated to a board like this doesn't really capture the thoughts correctly. In any case, I don't think you are understanding the context, or maybe I don't understand what you mean. As Ditto said, you need to explain it further.
 
Well many states have caps on how much money can be provided for educational costs while at the same time these new mandates being passed down by Race to Top are costly and many of these costs either get passed down in the form of layoffs or local communities voting to fund them through taxes. Teachers never advocated for these costs.

But their unions do through support of the people that institute them.
 
Back
Top Bottom