• 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

sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly and that is highly ideological based. People like Dewey were viewed as extreme leftist.
 
imagep said:
So then it's really not any difference than what we did before is it? It just sets a national guideline.




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.
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty much. It still expects all students to meet a standard but instead of a state standard it is a national standard. High school in general has always grouped students. You have AP courses for high end students and general courses for those who need extra help. That is not at all how it is handled in the lower grades. Basically, you stick about 25 students in a class with all abilities from the highest end to the lowest end and say here you go they must all meet the standard and the standard is set quite high. It's not necessarily a bad thing to set high expectations but to punish schools for certain populations not meeting that standard is wrong.

Edit to add: And it's equally wrong to punish those students.
 
Last edited:
One of John Dewey's beliefs: I believe that much of present education fails because it neglects this fundamental principle of the school as a form of community life. It conceives the school as a place where certain information is to be given, where certain lessons are to be learned, or where certain habits are to be formed. The value of these is conceived as lying largely in the remote future; the child must do these things for the sake of something else he is to do; they are mere preparation. As a result they do not become a part of the life experience of the child and so are not truly educative.

Seriously, how can anyone equate Dewey's belief's to the new business model of today? Just curious.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Yes, pretty much. It still expects all students to meet a standard but instead of a state standard it is a national standard. High school in general has always grouped students. You have AP courses for high end students and general courses for those who need extra help. That is not at all how it is handled in the lower grades. Basically, you stick about 25 students in a class with all abilities from the highest end to the lowest end and say here you go they must all meet the standard and the standard is set quite high. It's not necessarily a bad thing to set high expectations but to punish schools for certain populations not meeting that standard is wrong.

Edit to add: And it's equally wrong to punish those students.
Click to expand...

I have always felt like my school district gets financially punished, just for being what it is. I live in a suburb, with no big industry, yet my neighbors often work for big industry, just a few miles away. Since part of our school revenue comes from property taxes, and in my state, businesses pay four times the property rate that home owners do, my district has a fairly small percent of it's operating budget from prop taxes. We also get punished for being a top ranked school system - don't get all the extra money that poor performing schools do, or the extra money that districts who have a large percent of minorities do. Thus, out of 85 school districts, our funding is 84th.

On the otherhand, another school in our district recently had it's principle fired, for not meeting state standards year after year. Was it really the principles fault that it is an inner city school with nearly 100% poor minority students who don't give a rats arse about education? It will be interesting to see if the new principle can do any better.
 
imagep said:
I have always felt like my school district gets financially punished, just for being what it is. I live in a suburb, with no big industry, yet my neighbors often work for big industry, just a few miles away. Since part of our school revenue comes from property taxes, and in my state, businesses pay four times the property rate that home owners do, my district has a fairly small percent of it's operating budget from prop taxes. We also get punished for being a top ranked school system - don't get all the extra money that poor performing schools do, or the extra money that districts who have a large percent of minorities do. Thus, out of 85 school districts, our funding is 84th.

On the otherhand, another school in our district recently had it's principle fired, for not meeting state standards year after year. Was it really the principles fault that it is an inner city school with nearly 100% poor minority students who don't give a rats arse about education? It will be interesting to see if the new principle can do any better.
Click to expand...

All excellent points. As far as firing the principal, it sure will be interesting to see what happens. Basically, the philosophy behind that is that teachers only teach well if an iron fist is used. Most teachers I know rather be treated like professionals and have equal say in what is going on with students since they are in the trenches not so much administration. With that said, if the belief is teachers need to be intimidated in order to be great teachers my viewpoint means nothing.
 
... employers' and colleges' academic demands for high school graduates have converged, yet states' current high-school exit expectations fall well short of those demands.
Click to expand...
this is a key finding from Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts | Achieve

that 2004 assessment recognized that our nation's high school graduates were matriculating to the work force and institutions of higher learning under-prepared to be successful in those environments
in short, while they were graduating, they emerged without adequate knowledge to be successful for the next step in their young careers. that was the reality behind a core curriculum, where attempts are being made to assure high school graduates do emerge into colleges/universities and/or the working world prepared to be successful in those endeavors. sounds like good governance to me with this attempt to rectify the identified problem
 
By the way, I mispoke when I said ":another school in my district". I intend to say "in my county". It's in a different school district and even a different culture and is a totally different situation than where I live.
 
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...

Stick with the curriculum map and sequence, but also use interventions for those kids who aren't meeting their goals. Through RTI, we are required to give 30-60 minutes of literacy and math interventions to those kids who have been tagged as needing extra help in those areas. We have to document exactly what we're doing with them, when we're doing it, how long and if it worked after so many weeks. This is also the new way of referring students for testing for learning disabilities. They have to go through the "tiers" with interventions before a teacher can refer a child for testing. This I really do like. As a reading specialist, I was trained to work specifically with small groups and individuals who are behind in literacy so the implementation of RTI was very smooth and normal for me. I was already doing it.

Yes, we have to keep going with whole class curriculum, but those kids who need help aren't supposed to be left behind because they're supposed to be getting rigorous scaffolding support (was that redundant? :) ) every single day.
 
If you're interested in the criticisms of Common Core, this is a good place to start:



There are several parts to this series. Ya know, if you're not doing anything on a Saturday night. ;)
 
Josie said:
Stick with the curriculum map and sequence, but also use interventions for those kids who aren't meeting their goals. Through RTI, we are required to give 30-60 minutes of literacy and math interventions to those kids who have been tagged as needing extra help in those areas. We have to document exactly what we're doing with them, when we're doing it, how long and if it worked after so many weeks. This is also the new way of referring students for testing for learning disabilities. They have to go through the "tiers" with interventions before a teacher can refer a child for testing. This I really do like. As a reading specialist, I was trained to work specifically with small groups and individuals who are behind in literacy so the implementation of RTI was very smooth and normal for me. I was already doing it.

Yes, we have to keep going with whole class curriculum, but those kids who need help aren't supposed to be left behind because they're supposed to be getting rigorous scaffolding support (was that redundant? :) ) every single day.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do use the RTI model in my school and I love it, although it does not address the fact that a child being seen for delays in reading skills will not be at the same level as someone who is reading several venues and critiquing them in written form. Yes, I have students with varying skills in my class and they all will be assessed and expected to do it in 4 months.
 
Josie said:
If you're interested in the criticisms of Common Core, this is a good place to start:



There are several parts to this series. Ya know, if you're not doing anything on a Saturday night. ;)
Click to expand...


I have to admit, that video really changed my mind!!

But it didn't change my mind from being in support of CC to being opposed to it. I never supported CC and have these sorts of schemes since before CC became a policy.

But it sure changed my mind about why I thought you oppposed it. Up until now, I thought you opposed CC because it would take time away from you to teach to the children, and come up with new ideas for teaching. But after watching that video, which misportrays CC as a federal plot to seize power from the states, led by progressive radicals like Bill Ayers ("Yes! THAT Bill Ayers" they actually say that in this rant) and says nothing about how CC will affect students, I realize that your objections, like the videos lunatic ravings, have nothing to do with the students best interests.
 
sangha said:
I have to admit, that video really changed my mind!!

But it didn't change my mind from being in support of CC to being opposed to it. I never supported CC and have these sorts of schemes since before CC became a policy.

But it sure changed my mind about why I thought you oppposed it. Up until now, I thought you opposed CC because it would take time away from you to teach to the children, and come up with new ideas for teaching. But after watching that video, which misportrays CC as a federal plot to seize power from the states, led by progressive radicals like Bill Ayers ("Yes! THAT Bill Ayers" they actually say that in this rant) and says nothing about how CC will affect students, I realize that your objections, like the videos lunatic ravings, have nothing to do with the students best interests.
Click to expand...

Good effort, sangha. I hadn't even watched that video series until tonight. I don't need a youtube video to make a decision on a something that I've been living with every school day for the past 2 years. I have stated the reasons that I dislike Common Core and I will continue to do so. I posted the video to give everyone a background into the Stop Common Core movement and some of the history behind Common Core and it's origins. Since you're scoffing at it, perhaps you'd like to give the opposing viewpoint and tell us exactly what is incorrect in the video series and why CCSS is what's best for our students.
 
Josie said:
Good effort, sangha. I hadn't even watched that video series until tonight. I don't need a youtube video to make a decision on a something that I've been living with every school day for the past 2 years. I have stated the reasons that I dislike Common Core and I will continue to do so. I posted the video to give everyone a background into the Stop Common Core movement and some of the history behind Common Core and it's origins. Since you're scoffing at it, perhaps you'd like to give the opposing viewpoint and tell us exactly what is incorrect in the video series and why CCSS is what's best for our students.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with the assertion that the common core will narrow the curriculum and prepare our children to be cogs in a national industrial system rather than full citizens in a free republic? (Paraphrase but key terms are there starting at 1:17)

Or that common core will lead the economy away from free enterprise to a managed economy?

I'm on my phone so this is really difficult. I'll start with those two questions.
 
Gina said:
Do you agree with the assertion that the common core will narrow the curriculum and prepare our children to be cogs in a national industrial system rather than full citizens in a free republic? (Paraphrase but key terms are there starting at 1:17)

Or that common core will lead the economy away from free enterprise to a managed economy?

I'm on my phone so this is really difficult. I'll start with those two questions.
Click to expand...

I do agree that it narrows the curriculum. Common Core writers have stated just that. I don't know about the rest. She lost me in that last video. All I know is that I despise the removal of creativity and the emphasis on test scores, data points and graphs. I despise that I have to do TONS of paperwork when 90% of it is just a waste of time. I despise the fact that I'm being turned into a robotic tester and paper-keeper instead of what I signed up for.
 
Josie said:
I do agree that it narrows the curriculum. Common Core writers have stated just that. I don't know about the rest. She lost me in that last video. All I know is that I despise the removal of creativity and the emphasis on test scores, data points and graphs. I despise that I have to do TONS of paperwork when 90% of it is just a waste of time. I despise the fact that I'm being turned into a robotic tester and paper-keeper instead of what I signed up for.
Click to expand...

Then why not say that rather than posting that video? It derails from the point you just made so eloquently and with great passion. I had to stop watching at 2:37 so could ask those questions. That's a rather fringe opinion she is putting over as fact. It may narrow the curriculum, but not for the purpose of stripping our children of full citizenship in a free society.
 
Gina said:
Then why not say that rather than posting that video? It derails from the point you just made so eloquently and with great passion. I had to stop watching at 2:37 so could ask those questions. That's some rather fringe opinion she is putting over as fact. It may narrow the curriculum, but not for the purpose of stripping our children of full citizenship in a free society.
Click to expand...

Again, I posted the video for full context on why some people are against Common Core and the history behind the standards. I had already stated why I was against it.
 
Josie said:
Again, I posted the video for full context on why some people are against Common Core and the history behind the standards. I had already stated why I was against it.
Click to expand...

Ok. Then why choose such a fringe opinion? Surely there must be more mainstream and reasonable objections to it?
 
Gina said:
Ok. Then why choose such a fringe opinion? Surely there must be more mainstream and reasonable objections to it?
Click to expand...

Fringe opinion? That video series is loaded with information about CCSS that is far from fringe. As I said, she kinda lost me with the ultimate end-goal stuff she went in to, but I completely agree and applaud the rest.
 
Josie said:
Good effort, sangha. I hadn't even watched that video series until tonight. I don't need a youtube video to make a decision on a something that I've been living with every school day for the past 2 years. I have stated the reasons that I dislike Common Core and I will continue to do so. I posted the video to give everyone a background into the Stop Common Core movement and some of the history behind Common Core and it's origins. Since you're scoffing at it, perhaps you'd like to give the opposing viewpoint and tell us exactly what is incorrect in the video series and why CCSS is what's best for our students.
Click to expand...

I didn't watch the whole series but I watched the one you posted. Every second of it. I assume you did too

It is nothing but a political screed, designed to exploit the wing nuts fear of Big Nanny State Government. The worst part about it was that it did not discuss the actual standards and explain why those were wrong.
 
sangha said:
The worst part about it was that it did not discuss the actual standards and explain why those were wrong.
Click to expand...

Gee...perhaps that's because you didn't watch all the videos?
 
Josie said:
Fringe opinion? That video series is loaded with information about CCSS that is far from fringe. As I said, she kinda lost me with the ultimate end-goal stuff she went in to, but I completely agree and applaud the rest.
Click to expand...

Yes, fringe opinion. It repeats "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" as if it were a slur of some kind. Between that, its' reference to Bill Ayers, federal takeover of state power, it paranoid implications of conspiracy (when it talks about the timing of the proposals), and it's lack of reference to the actual standards, it becomes obvious that it's nothing more than a political screed.

The fact that she looks like a typical middle aged mom who speaks in a level tone does nothing to hide the content of what she's saying.
 
Josie said:
Gee...perhaps that's because you didn't watch all the videos?
Click to expand...

I watched the one *you* posted.

I also watched two others. None of them discussed the actual standard. The closest they came was when she mentioned national standards vs decentralized in relation to international test scores. But again, that wasn't focused on the actual standards but instead was focused on how it was a federal "takeover"
 
Josie said:
Fringe opinion? That video series is loaded with information about CCSS that is far from fringe. As I said, she kinda lost me with the ultimate end-goal stuff she went in to, but I completely agree and applaud the rest.
Click to expand...

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is subversive? They are part of the effort to take over the curriculum standards of all 50 states? They have given finds to Achieve Inc. She is also condemning the National Governors Association. This sounds like a conspiracy theory more than a history of CC. Prefacing the history with those two statements I asked you about two posts ago, raises red flags as to the veracity of the history that followed including the bit about Bill Ayers. That Bill Ayers who has received funding from the Annenbergs. Those Annenbergs, Walter and Lenore, who were great friends of President and Mrs. Reagan.
 
Okay, Gina. You're upset because she has strong opinions about the people who started and funded the Common Core movement.... okaaaaay... I can't say I really care about that so much.... you'll have to take that up with her.
 
I get the impression that the people who are most opposed to the Common Core are from the states with the lowest test scores. We know what the result would be if the education system of red states like Mississippi or Louisiana had to compete against Vermont or New Hampshire. It would be embarrassing. And that's really what it's all about. People in The South don't want to be further embarrassed.

For example, all this concern about the federal government taking power of the states. 40+ bills to repeal the ACA but not one to repeal NCLB. Yeah, these people really care about the federal usurpation of state power in Education.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom