Common Core lessons blasted for sneaking politics into elementary classrooms

MarineTpartier said:

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.

Click to expand...

There are more examples. High School Textbook Rewrites Second Amendment

Fiddytree said:

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?

Click to expand...

Exactly!

Conservatives have, as conservatives are wont to do, opposed educational reforms in favor of adhering to traditional norms when it comes to education. The traditional norm for education is reading (the classics, noted ancient philosophers, the foundational documents of american govt, etc), writing (basic composition, grammar, etc) and 'rithmetic (ie no new math, etc)

Guess what the CC focuses on?

At the university level of education, the traditional focus was on a limited # of subjects such as philosophy, political history, reading the classics (ie the Western Canon, which is why I mentioned the Blooms), and not on "liberal arts" or preparing people for a career. However, in looking more closely at the CC standards, I've learned that they do not promote the Western Canon, and in fact allow schools to choose for themselves which books the students read (with an exception for encouraging Shakespeare) so on that part I was wrong.

There's where we part. Suggesting a broad notion is a singular sides idea, when it's roots are found in both sides, is dishonest and not acceptable. Then attempting to use that dishonest assertion about the broad notion as a means of suggesting that a SPECIFIC instance is ALSO that singular sides idea is simply piling on the dishonesty and is also unacceptable.

Stating that CC as a broad notion was supported by some conservatives is reasonable. Suggesting that some of it's roots are founded on conservative ideas is reasonable. Both of those things suggest that it wasn't an idea singular to conservatives, or held amongst ALL conservatives. That's not what Sangha did in this thread though, Sangha repeatedly claimed it was a Conservative idea, giving no indication or suggestion it was anything BUT conservatives, to me is not a truthful representation.

As I read farther into the thread after posting my post, I'd agree as well that Josie's presentation of CC...broadly...being a singularly progressive idea is also off base as well.

Zyphlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

I note that you make no mention of the partisan claim that CC is a liberal progressive invention and that most of the conservative states have rejected it.

I just love your brand of non-partisanship!

sangha said:

Exactly!

Conservatives have, as conservatives are wont to do, opposed educational reforms in favor of adhering to traditional norms when it comes to education. The traditional norm for education is reading (the classics, noted ancient philosophers, the foundational documents of american govt, etc), writing (basic composition, grammar, etc) and 'rithmetic (ie no new math, etc)

Guess what the CC focuses on?

Click to expand...

Yeah, certainly. You're going to get a mashing of both concepts here, however. Bloom and others during that time, were increasingly wary of the brand of cultural pluralism that was being promoted which was vaguely named multiculturalism (the term has a lot of meanings). In that regard, Bloom, Kimball, and others lost out on the canon they wanted long before CC started significant development. Of course a canon isn't really a fixed thing, so we're essentially creating a new canon no matter whose view is more dominant.

However, in looking more closely at the CC standards, I've learned that they do not promote the Western Canon, and in fact allow schools to choose for themselves which books the students read (with an exception for encouraging Shakespeare) so on that part I was wrong.

Click to expand...

Yeah they lost that battle some time ago.

Zyphlin said:

There's where we part. Suggesting a broad notion is a singular sides idea, when it's roots are found in both sides, is dishonest and not acceptable. Then attempting to use that dishonest assertion about the broad notion as a means of suggesting that a SPECIFIC instance is ALSO that singular sides idea is simply piling on the dishonesty and is also unacceptable.

Stating that CC as a broad notion was supported by some conservatives is reasonable. Suggesting that some of it's roots are founded on conservative ideas is reasonable. Both of those things suggest that it wasn't an idea singular to conservatives, or held amongst ALL conservatives. That's not what Sangha did in this thread though, Sangha repeatedly claimed it was a Conservative idea, giving no indication or suggestion it was anything BUT conservatives, to me is not a truthful representation.

As I read farther into the thread after posting my post, I'd agree as well that Josie's presentation of CC...broadly...being a singularly progressive idea is also off base as well.

Click to expand...

I admit that I didn't read Sangha's exchanges that in-depth. I skimmed it and nodded and then moved on. I cannot vouch for his intentions.

sangha said:

I note that you make no mention of the partisan claim that CC is a liberal progressive invention and that most of the conservative states have rejected it.

I just love your brand of non-partisanship!

Click to expand...

Actually, I did mention that I disagree with the assertion of it being a liberal progressive invention, and have stated that it's came about due to an amalgamation of views from both sides. As mentioned, as I read farther on after originally making my first post I began to see more of that from Josie. However, it's an issue I've noted for more often, and in a broader fashion, from liberals recently which is why my post initially focused on that...especially since you made it a point, FAR more than Josie, to imply and suggest hypocrisy on part of Conservatrives for not actively supporting it because it was a conservative idea. An issue that went beyond Josei's simple claim that it was a progressive idea, as not only were you wrongly suggesting one side owned the claim but then proceeded to attack that side for not getting on board with any and every version of it. Additionally, you're the one that tried to expand it to a more widely held "issue" of the right where as Josie kept it narrowly focused. So yes, I had a larger problem with your statements because your statements took it to a far larger degree than Josie's did.

Fiddytree said:

You're going to get a mashing of both concepts here, however. Bloom and others during that time, were increasingly wary of the brand of cultural pluralism that was being promoted which was vaguely named multiculturalism (the term has a lot of meanings). In that regard, Bloom, Kimball, and others lost out on the canon they wanted long before CC started significant development. Of course a canon isn't really a fixed thing, so we're essentially creating a new canon no matter whose view is more dominant.

Click to expand...

true, but I never claimed that such things never received any support from the left. As you have said, the educational battles have not been as clear cut (wrt party or ideological lines) as many other issues have. Here's the first post I made which raised so much controversy.

sangha said:

And right wingers. At it's core (excuse the pun) Common Core is a conservative idea, promoted by conservatives. It harkens back to the educational model of the 18th century

Click to expand...

I don't deny that some of the left has supported similar efforts. However, the right has too and many of the basic concepts behind CC are based on conservative values and policies

Measuring students to judge performance

Holding teachers accountable for student performance (as measured by the above)

Emphasis on the basics (the three R's)

Standards for what is taught and what students should learn at each grade level, which assumes that every child learns (or is capable of learning) the same way at the same rate

The only thing that seems at all "progressive" is the semi-scientific notion that progress can be measured using objective measures.

Fiddytree said:

I admit that I didn't read Sangha's exchanges that in-depth. I skimmed it and nodded and then moved on. I cannot vouch for his intentions.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. My primary issue with Sangha can be incapsilated with this post of his...which also is the erason why his posts jumped out more than Josie's or others as he attempted to take this issue and broaden it out to a WIDE condemnation and attack against conservatives as a whole.

sangha said:

As I've explained, the core concept behind a Common Core is adherence to a canon (ie a body of knowledge every child should have) which is a conservative idea promoted by conservatives

As far as measuring students achievements, again that's a conservative idea as demonstrated by the current vogue in education - testing kids using standardized tests.

RTTP builds on bush*'s education program (if I remember correctly it was called Leave No Child Behind)

And it's no surprise that the right is rejecting their own ideas. It's not the first time. Conservatives also like to whine about zero-tolerance policies, individual mandates, state exchanges for insurance, and states rights (when it comes to health insurance - they want to eliminate the states powers to regulate insurance in order to enable insurers to sell across state lines)

Click to expand...

The first line is an attempt to backup his earlier assertion that CC is a conservative idea (not once prior to this did he assert in any way that it was a bi-partisan idea, or that it was in any way progressive influenced). He then moves forward with the broader conservative attack that by disliking SPECIFIC programs like RTTT or any form of "Common Core" they are being hypocritical because they are "their" ideas; an argument based singularly on the notion that a conservative at any time in the past putting forward an idea even mildly similar automatically makes any future idea that is even mildly related to it a "conservative" idea that MUST be supported by conservatives to be consistent. He then broadens it out, taking one of the very typical pot shots by mentioning the individual mandate, an oft repeated propoganda point that is typically presented in a dishonest fashion with no deference to context, supporting facts, or understanding that everyone of a particular ideology are not a hive mind like the borg.

It's one thing to misrepresent a particular idea as being one side or another's sole ownership. It's an entirely different thing to then utilize that misrepresentation to attack the side ain general, imply hypocrisy across their ranks, and then open it up to a broader condemnation on a multi-issue scale.

To give an analogy, it's similar to people pointing out a random racist Democrat in the south in the pre-civil rights era and using that to condemn all modern Democrats as racist and supporting of racist policies....without giving any honest respect to the changing political affiliations over the years in said areas, the shift in party policies over time, etc.

imagep said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, some of it also had roots in the old pedagogic debates of the 20th century, which became politically charged. Dewey and others of his flock were well aware of the political implications of their work (some taking it to higher levels as a result), but really they were reacting against the early-industrialized model of education and wanted to provide a new-industrialized model. The techniques would be different and the outcomes would were purported to be better and molded with the style of democracy they wanted. Now, that being said, Deweyites have not had anywhere near the success they had desired. So contemporary polemical education monographs seemed to just have this all-out-war on what the future of the country looked like.

Contemporary Deweyites suggest that the existing conservative and industrial model is too susceptible to business interests and conservative ideology because it likes to standardize everything, make it efficient, and make education function like more of a business. This is somewhat ironic, given that Dewey and the whole of early 20th century progressive reform frequently stressed standardization, efficiency, and effectiveness (while also being driven by big business).

Accountability conservatives suggested that radical Deweyites were these Constructivist hippies that gave children free reign, no rules, no expectations for output, and had no empirical evidence backing them up. Furthermore, somehow this meant that the economy was going to tank because these kids don't even know basic facts or foundations to a subject, but they know that critical thinking component.

Zyphlin said:

Actually, I did mention that I disagree with the assertion of it being a liberal progressive invention, and have stated that it's came about due to an amalgamation of views from both sides. As mentioned, as I read farther on after originally making my first post I began to see more of that from Josie. However, it's an issue I've noted for more often, and in a broader fashion, from liberals recently which is why my post initially focused on that...especially since you made it a point, FAR more than Josie, to imply and suggest hypocrisy on part of Conservatrives for not actively supporting it because it was a conservative idea. An issue that went beyond Josei's simple claim that it was a progressive idea, as not only were you wrongly suggesting one side owned the claim but then proceeded to attack that side for not getting on board with any and every version of it. Additionally, you're the one that tried to expand it to a more widely held "issue" of the right where as Josie kept it narrowly focused. So yes, I had a larger problem with your statements because your statements took it to a far larger degree than Josie's did.

Click to expand...

For one thing, the post I responded to did not make any mention of Josie's claim. You framed it as if there were two choices.

Secondly, I've never denied that this sort of thing has received support from the left (as well as opposition)

I also never claimed that the right wing "owned" CC, but merely noted that the concept has its' origins in conservative ideology nor do I believe I tried to "expand it as a more widely held issue of the right". However, I did note that the right has a history of promoting certain ideas and then abandoning them once implemented. I gave zero-tolerance policies as one example.

So no, I don't think my statements took it to a far larger degree than Josies did. The main difference I see is that I didn't misstate the facts, and I referred to the conservative tendency to prefer traditional methods in general and argued that CC is in many ways consistent with traditional methods of education.

sangha said:

true, but I never claimed that such things never received any support from the left. As you have said, the educational battles have not been as clear cut (wrt party or ideological lines) as many other issues have. Here's the first post I made which raised so much controversy.

Click to expand...

Your post was responding to someone stating ingroups who supporrted CC. You go out of your way to focus your post SINGULARLY on conservatives supporting it. You make no claim that the left never supported it, but you make absolutely zero mention of the left giving it support. The fact you go out of your way to make a post identifying an additional group that "supported it" and never once mention the left as another such group....and then proceeded to make post after post focusing on it being a "conservative idea" without mentioning the lefts support at all...highlights your intentions clearly.

Zyphlin said:

Gotcha. My primary issue with Sangha can be incapsilated with this post of his...which also is the erason why his posts jumped out more than Josie's or others as he attempted to take this issue and broaden it out to a WIDE condemnation and attack against conservatives as a whole.



The first line is an attempt to backup his earlier assertion that CC is a conservative idea (not once prior to this did he assert in any way that it was a bi-partisan idea, or that it was in any way progressive influenced).

Click to expand...

Again, I never denied that CC has received bi-partisan support nor did I claim that there is no aspect of CC which was influenced by progressives.. However, there is a difference between ideology and party. The fact that a proposal or policy receives support from both parties does not mean that the policies conceptual basis has no foundation in either party.

He then moves forward with the broader conservative attack that by disliking SPECIFIC programs like RTTT or any form of "Common Core" they are being hypocritical because they are "their" ideas; an argument based singularly on the notion that a conservative at any time in the past putting forward an idea even mildly similar automatically makes any future idea that is even mildly related to it a "conservative" idea that MUST be supported by conservatives to be consistent. He then broadens it out, taking one of the very typical pot shots by mentioning the individual mandate, an oft repeated propoganda point that is typically presented in a dishonest fashion with no deference to context, supporting facts, or understanding that everyone of a particular ideology are not a hive mind like the borg.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I used the word hypocrisy. The truth is, I don't blame conservatives for opposing right wing programs once they've been implemented because in general, those programs suck

It's one thing to misrepresent a particular idea as being one side or another's sole ownership. It's an entirely different thing to then utilize that misrepresentation to attack the side ain general, imply hypocrisy across their ranks, and then open it up to a broader condemnation on a multi-issue scale.

Click to expand...

Again, never claimed sole ownership, or ownership of any kind (just noted how the core concepts behind CC have a basis conservative thought) or mentioned the word hypocrisy.

And since you missed it, my point wasn't about right wing hypocrisy; It was about how right wing policies in general suck so bad that even the conservatives object to them when put into practice.

Zyphlin said:

Your post was responding to someone stating ingroups who supporrted CC. You go out of your way to focus your post SINGULARLY on conservatives supporting it.

Click to expand...

So what?

I am free to focus on what I choose to focus on. What I said was true.

You make no claim that the left never supported it, but you make absolutely zero mention of the left giving it support.

Click to expand...

That is bull. There have been several times where I acknowledge that people on the left (ex Obama) have supported CC.

Again, the fact that some individuals associated with the left support the program does not negate the fact that many of the core principles underlying the CC are soundly supported by conservative principles.

The fact you go out of your way to make a post identifying an additional group that "supported it" and never once mention the left as another such group....and then proceeded to make post after post focusing on it being a "conservative idea" without mentioning the lefts support at all...highlights your intentions clearly.

Click to expand...

Here's my first post again. Please note that I do not say "CC is a conservative program or conservative idea". I was speaking about the principles which support CC.

sangha said:

And right wingers. At it's core (excuse the pun) Common Core is a conservative idea, promoted by conservatives. It harkens back to the educational model of the 18th century

Click to expand...

Common Core is supported on the left and some on the right. That doesn't come as any surprise because there are big government lovers in both parties. I personally am against it. I see it as forcing all school systems to be under National guidelines teaching the very same thing throughout the country. In other words some bureaucrats in Washington will be determining everyone's curriculum. This is taking away the freedom/liberty of communities and parents' say in deciding what their children will be taught. I think that is a very dangerous precedent. With Common Core parents lose their voices to suggest changes to their local school’s standards or enroll their child in another public school with better standards because all public schools will be under the SAME standards. I think it is unfair to good teachers as well. They will be forced to comply with standards decided upon by federal bureaucrats. Good teachers who actually care about their students will be limited in the way to uniquely meet the needs of their students. The students are losers too under Common Core because it treats everyone the same when that is farthest from the truth. Not everyone learns the same or at the same pace. What I have gathered Common Core is the next step in the failed No Child Left Behind program that I don't know of one teacher (and I know many) who have not a damn good thing to say about No Child Left Behind. Common Core will allow bureaucrats to issue the national standardized testing that all students will be required to complete. And in doing so means the teacher ends up spending all her time preparing for these tests so the kids will be ready to answer the questions correctly rather than actually teaching and instilling in the little munchkins the ability of critical thinking. To me Common Core is just another stellar example why the Department of Education needs to be shut down and allow states to control their own. For the love of Pete, why do so many think the Federal government has to micro managel everything? Why do they insist on all these programs with a one size fits all mentality? It's insane! But then again I don't understand the mindset that thinks big government is better.

vesper said:

Common Core is supported on the left and some on the right. That doesn't come as any surprise because there are big government lovers in both parties. I personally am against it. I see it as forcing all school systems to be under National guidelines teaching the very same thing throughout the country.

Click to expand...

this sets a minimum standard. there is nothing preventing more material being offered
if a family now moves from new york to south carolina, there is a reasonable expectation that the same learning will happen after the move as before the move
that was not the situation previously. when my niece and nephews moved to south carolina, the schools were still teaching material the kids had been exposed to at least a year earlier. hell, one of their new SC classes was nothing more than watching 'andy griffith' tv programs under the guise of a civics class. while the material to be learned might be presented in different ways by different teachers in different locations, the basic material to be learned will be the same. whatever exceeded that standard would likely be different
fail to see what is so bad about that

In other words some bureaucrats in Washington will be determining everyone's curriculum. This is taking away the freedom/liberty of communities and parents' say in deciding what their children will be taught. I think that is a very dangerous precedent. With Common Core parents lose their voices to suggest changes to their local school’s standards or enroll their child in another public school with better standards because all public schools will be under the SAME standards.

Click to expand...

again, this is the basic minimum material. nothing prevents more and/or broader material to supplement the common core curriculum
the high school graduate in oregon will have been exposed to the same material as the graduare from florida
again, i fail to see the problem with a common standard of material to be learned

I think it is unfair to good teachers as well. They will be forced to comply with standards decided upon by federal bureaucrats. Good teachers who actually care about their students will be limited in the way to uniquely meet the needs of their students.

Click to expand...

you say that these exceptional teachers will be limited but you in no way tell us how or why that is expected to be the outcome. please share those insights with us

The students are losers too under Common Core because it treats everyone the same when that is farthest from the truth. Not everyone learns the same or at the same pace.

Click to expand...

do not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. common core was not intended to enable all students to learn at the same pace. some will learn faster and more deeply and more broadly - grasping material beyond that required under the common core
the slower students will all be exposed to the same material and will learn it - or not - at their own pace. common core does not impact their pace of learning

What I have gathered Common Core is the next step in the failed No Child Left Behind program that I don't know of one teacher (and I know many) who have not a damn good thing to say about No Child Left Behind.

Click to expand...

that you did not like NCLB should have no bearing upon your view of common core. if there should be found a nexus between the two, please share that observation

Common Core will allow bureaucrats to issue the national standardized testing that all students will be required to complete. And in doing so means the teacher ends up spending all her time preparing for these tests so the kids will be ready to answer the questions correctly rather than actually teaching and instilling in the little munchkins the ability of critical thinking.

Click to expand...

it is my understanding that critical thinking is a key component of common core. for example, previously, in geometry, the student would only be expected to provide the answer to the problem. under common core, the student will be expected to show the process used to come to an answer to the problem. to me, that is a better approach. in the second instance, even tho the student might offer the wrong answer, they might also demonstrate a fundamental knowledge less some properly executed function. that would never be demonstrated where only the answer was to be provided (and where a one in four chance of bubbling in the correct answer existed)

To me Common Core is just another stellar example why the Department of Education needs to be shut down and allow states to control their own. For the love of Pete, why do so many think the Federal government has to micro managel everything? Why do they insist on all these programs with a one size fits all mentality? It's insane! But then again I don't understand the mindset that thinks big government is better.

Click to expand...

yes, why not allow one state to impose a lesser safety standard for its food product than would be imposed nationally. it's not like that food could be transported across the border to another state for consumption [/sarcasm identifier for those who need it]
and gasoline. so what that one state wants to allows three quarts to be pumped as a gallon. why have standards
and i believe it was a sane process to involve teachers in the development of the common core academic criteria. they are the subject experts. gathering ideas and recommendations from those with expertise across the nation enabled the common core to collect the best insights available. that - to me - seems like good governance

justabubba said:

this sets a minimum standard. there is nothing preventing more material being offered
if a family now moves from new york to south carolina, there is a reasonable expectation that the same learning will happen after the move as before the move
that was not the situation previously. when my niece and nephews moved to south carolina, the schools were still teaching material the kids had been exposed to at least a year earlier. hell, one of their new SC classes was nothing more than watching 'andy griffith' tv programs under the guise of a civics class. while the material to be learned might be presented in different ways by different teachers in different locations, the basic material to be learned will be the same. whatever exceeded that standard would likely be different
fail to see what is so bad about that

again, this is the basic minimum material. nothing prevents more and/or broader material to supplement the common core curriculum
the high school graduate in oregon will have been exposed to the same material as the graduare from florida
again, i fail to see the problem with a common standard of material to be learned

you say that these exceptional teachers will be limited but you in no way tell us how or why that is expected to be the outcome. please share those insights with us

do not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. common core was not intended to enable all students to learn at the same pace. some will learn faster and more deeply and more broadly - grasping material beyond that required under the common core
the slower students will all be exposed to the same material and will learn it - or not - at their own pace. common core does not impact their pace of learning

that you did not like NCLB should have no bearing upon your view of common core. if there should be found a nexus between the two, please share that observation

it is my understanding that critical thinking is a key component of common core. for example, previously, in geometry, the student would only be expected to provide the answer to the problem. under common core, the student will be expected to show the process used to come to an answer to the problem. to me, that is a better approach. in the second instance, even tho the student might offer the wrong answer, they might also demonstrate a fundamental knowledge less some properly executed function. that would never be demonstrated where only the answer was to be provided (and where a one in four chance of bubbling in the correct answer existed)

yes, why not allow one state to impose a lesser safety standard for its food product than would be imposed nationally. it's not like that food could be transported across the border to another state for consumption [/sarcasm identifier for those who need it]
and gasoline. so what that one state wants to allows three quarts to be pumped as a gallon. why have standards
and i believe it was a sane process to involve teachers in the development of the common core academic criteria. they are the subject experts. gathering ideas and recommendations from those with expertise across the nation enabled the common core to collect the best insights available. that - to me - seems like good governance

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, I don't agree with you. In regard to mathematics under Common Core

The Common Core math standards fail to meet the content targets recommended by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, the standards of leading states, and our international competitors. They exclude certain Algebra 2 and Geometry content that is currently a prerequisite at almost every four-year state college, essentially re-defining “college readiness” to mean readiness for a non-selective community college. They abandon the expectation that students take Algebra 1 in eighth grade. (This expectation is based upon what high-performing countries expect of their students, and has pushed about half of America’s students to take Algebra 1 by eighth grade). The Common Core math standards also require that geometry be taught by an experimental method that had never been used successfully anywhere in the world. The Common Core math standards do not teach least common denominators; delay until sixth grade fluency in division; eliminate conversions between fractions, decimals and percents; adopt a new definition of algebra as “functional algebra” that de-emphasizes algebraic manipulation.

Click to expand...

Why the Common Core is Bad for America | Washington Policy Center

When you keep standards at state levels it encourages innovation. Each state is like a test kitchen and when one comes up with a successful tested model it gives others guidelines to follow. That gets lost when you allow a group of bureaucrats in Washington to set the standards.

When the Federal government used the carrot on the stick method to get the states to sign onto this program by offering them billions of dollars for their schools, many states signed on just to get the funding without reading what the program entailed. The more folks are discovering about it, the more they are pushing back. The standards for Science have been greatly criticized as being substandard and from Kindergarten indoctrination into man-made Global Warming begins. It is also being reported the Planned Parenthood has requested to write the curriculum for Sex Education.

There's also real concerns about student's privacy and personal data being shared without the knowledge or the permission of the child's parents.

Fight The Common Core | Heartland Institute

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...

So tell me the main philosophy difference between common core and the current teaching method.

justabubba said:

do not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. common core was not intended to enable all students to learn at the same pace. some will learn faster and more deeply and more broadly - grasping material beyond that required under the common core
the slower students will all be exposed to the same material and will learn it - or not - at their own pace. common core does not impact their pace of learning

Click to expand...

If the Common Core was a baseline that would be great, however, it is my understanding that the expectations are much higher. In my school, the standards are expected to be taught using a strict curriculum map and timeline. When teachers have brought up concerns about some students needing more practice or reinforcement, we've been told to stick with the curriculum map, which in effect "leaves some students behind". The very thing this Common Core claimed it was not suppose to do.

I thought about it and an alternative is to go back to grouping high, middle and low students together. That way those who grasp the material quickly and are ready to move on can. Those who need extra support and reinforcement will get it. The standards should be developed for what the mean is expected to reach if school performance is going to be judged by these standards and not the exception.

There will always be exceptions to the mean. We will always have high and low in a classroom. It is just the reality. Brains are not wired the same. The people who set up the standards failed to acknowledge this fact as far as I'm concerned. To say that all students should be proficient in x amount of time is setting some students up for failure at the gate and thus leaving them behind.

sangha said:

For one thing, the post I responded to did not make any mention of Josie's claim. You framed it as if there were two choices.

Secondly, I've never denied that this sort of thing has received support from the left (as well as opposition)

I also never claimed that the right wing "owned" CC, but merely noted that the concept has its' origins in conservative ideology nor do I believe I tried to "expand it as a more widely held issue of the right". However, I did note that the right has a history of promoting certain ideas and then abandoning them once implemented. I gave zero-tolerance policies as one example.

So no, I don't think my statements took it to a far larger degree than Josies did. The main difference I see is that I didn't misstate the facts, and I referred to the conservative tendency to prefer traditional methods in general and argued that CC is in many ways consistent with traditional methods of education.

Click to expand...

It is based on right wing ideology in the fact that businesses can have involvement in the development of the standards.

SMTA said:

So tell me the main philosophy difference between common core and the current teaching method.

Click to expand...

Best I can tell, there is little if any difference in teaching methodology. Only in tracking performance, and setting curriculum guidelines.

My school district was an early adopter of the CC, yet I don't believe that adopting it involved any changes is teaching methods, just some changes in the curriculum. However, our school system has been very innovative with experimenting with different teaching methodologies, such as experimenting with single gender classes, and teaching systems such as "math out of the box", but I don't believe those changes had anything to do with adopting CC.

rabbitcaebannog said:

It is based on right wing ideology in the fact that businesses can have involvement in the development of the standards.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. There certainly is a strain of thought amongst conservatives that is sympathetic to business interests and who think the business model is superior for many things (ex. cons who think the govt should be run like a business), as well as a preference for privatization. However, the more traditional model of education is one where the purpose of an education is to create a model citizen, and not prepare them for a career.

IOW, Fiddytree's description of education being an area where the ideological lines blur applies here.

rabbitcaebannog said:

If the Common Core was a baseline that would be great, however, it is my understanding that the expectations are much higher. In my school, the standards are expected to be taught using a strict curriculum map and timeline. When teachers have brought up concerns about some students needing more practice or reinforcement, we've been told to stick with the curriculum map, which in effect "leaves some students behind". The very thing this Common Core claimed it was not suppose to do.

I thought about it and an alternative is to go back to grouping high, middle and low students together. That way those who grasp the material quickly and are ready to move on can. Those who need extra support and reinforcement will get it. The standards should be developed for what the mean is expected to reach if school performance is going to be judged by these standards and not the exception.

There will always be exceptions to the mean. We will always have high and low in a classroom. It is just the reality. Brains are not wired the same. The people who set up the standards failed to acknowledge this fact as far as I'm concerned. To say that all students should be proficient in x amount of time is setting some students up for failure at the gate and thus leaving them behind.

Click to expand...

Do you really believe that the people who setup the standards expect every single child to meet the standards and don't realize that some will exceed and others won't quite make it? Surely these people aren't that dense.

rabbitcaebannog said:

If the Common Core was a baseline that would be great, however, it is my understanding that the expectations are much higher. In my school, the standards are expected to be taught using a strict curriculum map and timeline. When teachers have brought up concerns about some students needing more practice or reinforcement, we've been told to stick with the curriculum map, which in effect "leaves some students behind". The very thing this Common Core claimed it was not suppose to do.

Click to expand...

So then it's really not any difference than what we did before is it? It just sets a national guideline.

I thought about it and an alternative is to go back to grouping high, middle and low students together. That way those who grasp the material quickly and are ready to move on can. Those who need extra support and reinforcement will get it. The standards should be developed for what the mean is expected to reach if school performance is going to be judged by these standards and not the exception.

There will always be exceptions to the mean. We will always have high and low in a classroom. It is just the reality. Brains are not wired the same. The people who set up the standards failed to acknowledge this fact as far as I'm concerned. To say that all students should be proficient in x amount of time is setting some students up for failure at the gate and thus leaving them behind.

Click to expand...

So does the CC somehow prevent grouping like students together? Our local high school started implementing CC a few years ago, yet they still have a large variety of different class levels. The TP (technical school preparation) level, the CP (fake college prep) level, the Honors level (true college prep), AP (smart kids level) and duel college/high school classes (brilliant kids level), and vocational training classes are all options for every student. They even have a special class for "cookie bakers", as my son called it, because all they could do is learn to cook and cloth themselves.

imagep said:

Do you really believe that the people who setup the standards expect every single child to meet the standards and don't realize that some will exceed and others won't quite make it? Surely these people aren't that dense.

Click to expand...

I believe part of the battle was that under NCLB states must develop a single statewide accountability system that applies to all public schools and all students regardless of participation in the Title 1 program and schools that fail to make AYP for 2 consecutive years are identified for corrective action and if a school fails to make AYP for 5 years, the Lea must restructure the school and if the school fails to make AYP for a sixth year, alternative governance must be implemented. The big question then becomes what do you do with the subgroups that aren't meeting the bar (low income, learning disabled, ELL)? You simply punish the schools with large groups of these students. That is what is happening.