• 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

I just did (parents, admins, school boards, teachers cannot change anything in CCSS even if they know it's not an appropriate standard). You didn't dispute it. I'm not going to go through the entire video series tonight and post all the facts for you. Maybe you could post one that you're unsure if it's true and we can research it.
I'm sorry I didn't glean that from the video. I didn't see any facts like that. Only her representation of the origins of CC according to her. I didn't see any facts about the actual program itself. The only statement I saw that resembles what you just said is as I posted before, CC is a conspiracy by Gates, Ayers and The Governors Association to prevent states,districts and parents from deciding how our children are educated. Not quite the same thing you said. Is it a conspiracy?
 
Ahhh, I see. So you're one of the hypocrites you were just chastising others for being. Gotcha.

I cared about NCLB, this not so much. Are you saying I need to contact congress about things I don't care about?
 
I cared about NCLB, this not so much. Are you saying I need to contact congress about things I don't care about?

Why did you care about NCLB?
 
I'm sorry I didn't glean that from the video. I didn't see any facts like that. Only her representation of the origins of CC according to her. I didn't see any facts about the actual program itself. The only statement I saw that resembles what you just said is as I posted before, CC is a conspiracy by Gates, Ayers and The Governors Association to prevent states,districts and parents from deciding how our children are educated. Not quite the same thing you said. Is it a conspiracy?

Okay. I'm not going to get into this anymore with you. You just want to talk about her opinions and not the actual facts about Common Core. So..... have a nice night.
 
Okay. I'm not going to get into this anymore with you. You just want to talk about her opinions and not the actual facts about Common Core. So..... have a nice night.

You posted her opinions. As such they are open for discussion. I asked you to present the facts from her video. Why is that a problem? I've explained that I don't see facts. You must have or you wouldn't have posted it.
 
You posted her opinions. As such they are open for discussion. I asked you to present the facts from her video. Why is that a problem? I've explained that I don't see facts. You must have or you wouldn't have posted it.

And I posted a fact from the video about Common Core for us to discuss - you said "Well, NCLB kinda did that too!!!" and then went back to the conspiracy stuff again. That tells me that you really don't want to discuss Common Core itself....you want to talk about conspiracy theories. I don't. So....... we're done here. Let me know if you want to get back to the facts - research it on your own - post a video or article that you think we should discuss. I'm all ears.
 
Why did you care about NCLB?

NCLB mandated state-wide testing according to certain standards. The feds can't tell the states which state standards to meet. Furthermore it created state standards but didn't give the states sufficient funds. Furthermore early on it gave the military access to student records for god knows what reason. This actually led to recruiters stalking children. Lastly it set a precedent of expanding federal power.

The Common Core sets a federal standard with a theoretical federal testing as opposed to state testing. While ideally I'd rather not have the feds involved so much, NCLB set a new precedent (which is one of the reasons why I opposed it). Now that the cat's out of the bag might as well try and make it work. Federal testing across all states using a standardized education system is the way to go as opposed to the feds trying to mandate 50 different standards.
 
And I posted a fact from the video about Common Core for us to discuss - you said "Well, NCLB kinda did that too!!!" and then went back to the conspiracy stuff again. That tells me that you really don't want to discuss Common Core itself....you want to talk about conspiracy theories. I don't. So....... we're done here. Let me know if you want to get back to the facts - research it on your own - post a video or article that you think we should discuss. I'm all ears.

Yes. That is a fact. NCLB did the same. Are you upset about that?

I went back to discussing the video you posted explaining that I saw no facts about CC and asked you again to present some from the video, since that is your source. Plain and simple. I don't understand why that is a problem. I want to discuss the video you posted since you claim there are facts relevant to CC.
 
Yes. That is a fact. NCLB did the same. Are you upset about that?

I went back to discussing the video you posted explaining that I saw no facts about CC and asked you again to present some from the video, since that is your source. Plain and simple. I don't understand why that is a problem. I want to discuss the video you posted since you claim there are facts relevant to CC.

your assessment of that video is accurate
that diatribe offers no factual information about common core to illustrate why the new approach should be avoided
 
Yes. I too have concerns with the math standards. One of the things that bothered me was the fact that children have to construct in writing a step by step process of how they arrived at an answer. Just putting the correct answer isn't enough and they would lose points. That off that bat lowers math scores for children who may have trouble verbalizing each step and then writing them. I have a boy in my room who is a math whiz but has a hard time with language skills. It doesn't seem fair he may show up as not proficient in math for a weakness in his language skills.

When I was in school 40 years ago, one could lose points for not showing how they calculated their answer.
 
When I was in school 40 years ago, one could lose points for not showing how they calculated their answer.

Showing the equation and explaining it in a step by step manner is not measuring the same skill set.
 
Showing the equation and explaining it in a step by step manner is not measuring the same skill set.

So you're saying the new standards require the student to write the equivalent of a mini-composition that explains how they got the answer, and not just show the intermediate formulas?
 
So you're saying the new standards require the student to write the equivalent of a mini-composition that explains how they got the answer, and not just show the intermediate formulas?

Yes, exactly. They have to "construct" responses which requires plenty of language/verbal skills. My fear is students in the past who may have struggled in language processing skills but would shine in nonverbal spacial/abstract reasoning mathematical skills will not get the true credit they deserve for such skills.
 
Yes, exactly. They have to "construct" responses which requires plenty of language/verbal skills. My fear is students in the past who may have struggled in language processing skills but would shine in nonverbal spacial/abstract reasoning mathematical skills will not get the true credit they deserve for such skills.

Well, that's a whole different matter. I know there's an effort to "integrate" the various areas of study into one another, and there's some sense to doing so, but this seems to be taking the matter wa-a-a-a-y to far.

However, I have to admit that I'm finding it hard to believe that this is required. Do you have any links to where the CC requires this?
 
Well, that's a whole different matter. I know there's an effort to "integrate" the various areas of study into one another, and there's some sense to doing so, but this seems to be taking the matter wa-a-a-a-y to far.

However, I have to admit that I'm finding it hard to believe that this is required. Do you have any links to where the CC requires this?

If I had a scanner, I would scan you the extended responses I'm correcting now. I think most people would be quite shocked. I will find you a link.
 
If I had a scanner, I would scan you the extended responses I'm correcting now. I think most people would be quite shocked. I will find you a link.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I think you're wrong. I'm just saying that I don't know that you're right.

However, true or not I still don't support CC. IOW, you don't have to knock yourself out posting a link, but if it's not too much trouble I would appreciate one.
 
Well, that's a whole different matter. I know there's an effort to "integrate" the various areas of study into one another, and there's some sense to doing so, but this seems to be taking the matter wa-a-a-a-y to far.

However, I have to admit that I'm finding it hard to believe that this is required. Do you have any links to where the CC requires this?

Yes, I agree it reasonable to have students begin to critique answers but not every student has that skill because in order to critique something in writing you are using a separate skill set. To declare children not meeting expectations for mathematics due to poor language skills isn't fair IMHO.

Part a is designed to allow students an accessible entry into the content, asking them to sequence three large numbers using drag-and-drop technology. This technology enables students to test their ideas about number relationships before submitting their answer electronically. In Parts b and c, students must think deeply about what rounding means in terms of the sizes of numbers and their relationships to one another. Knowing the rules of rounding and place value is not sufficient for students to answer the questions and explain their thinking. Part b asks students to critique the work of others (MP.3), while Part c asks students to justify their conclusions (MP.3) and addresses both precise communication and flexible reasoning (MP.6). CCSSTOOLBOX.COM

The core standard example link was embedded in this link: Common Core critics argue that some of the standards are not developmentally appropriate for young students. Earlier this year I published this post by Edward Miller and Nancy Carlsson-Paige about how the standards smack in the face of what we know about how young children learn. Here’s is a new post with concerns about the developmental appropriateness of some Core math standards. This was written by Carol Burris and John Murphy. Why young kids are struggling with Common Core math
 
Yeah, that surpised me. While I do think kids should be encouraged to explain their answers in order to demonstrate and enhance their understanding, this goes too far, IMO

.....And where it goes too far is the expectation that a 9 year old student should be able to show proficiency with this kind of work. If the expectation is to develop this skill I would feel entirely different about the standards. At any rate, NY tried out the PARCC assessment based on CC and 70% of students failed. My fear is instead of having a national conversation whether this is developmentally appropriate for children to master at such a young age, it will shift to US schools are failures. Let's privatize more schools. Let's fire more teachers. Let's label our children stupid and lazy. And so it goes when something like this is so politicized.
 
Okay, let's start with Part 1 of the Stop Common Core video. I will list the facts about the origins of CCSS and whatever else comes up in the first video. Then I'll post it, you can comment on it, dispute the facts with your own links and research and we'll go on to the next video. Yes, this video was created by people AGAINST Common Core (hence, the name) so in the video there are references to personal opinions as to why it's been started and what the end result will be. We're not going to discuss opinions, but the hard facts about CCSS. As I said, please feel free to dispute any fact that you believe is false. We're all here to learn, yes?

1. Parents have no recourse to influence content standards. If parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, taxpayers feel as though a standard is too easy or too hard for students in K-12, they cannot change it. If their state has adopted Common Core, that standard must be taught and must be met by their students.

2. CCSS is a set of educational standards for English Language Arts and Math (and Science just came out as well) to ideally be adopted by all 50 states so that education will be standardized in America.

3. The writers of CCSS believe they have created rigorous standards which will produce students who are more prepared for college. It also allows for students to be compared state-to-state.

4. CCSS has currently been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia (that might have changed by now....not sure...)

5. The individual states did not help create the standards. They were written by Achieve, Inc, & The National Governors Association and the CCSSO - Washington D.C. trade organizations who were given no legislative grant of authority from the States to write standards.

6. The Gates Foundations has given the above groups $27 million to advance Common Core. The Gates Foundation plans to spend $150 million on CCSS.

7. Because the PARCC assessment must be given at the same time with every student on a computer, school districts will have to purchase and maintain PCs for every student.

8. The Race to the Top competition came out of the 2009 Stimulus Bill. In order to have a realistic shot at Race to the Top money, states had to agree to accept and implement the CCSS sight unseen.

9. Race to the Top applications went out in November of 2009 and had to be turned in by January 2010 -- a time when our country's economy sucked with little money to go around. Most state legislators weren't even in session when the states decided to apply for Race to the Top money.

10. The CCSS were released in 2010 and had to be accepted by state school boards by August 2010 - no involvement with state legislature.

11. The Department of Education was also offering an NCLB waiver to those states who accepted Race to the Top money and CCSS.

12. The national tests created for Common Core will be all computer-based. School districts will have to purchase and maintain computers for every student who has to take the national tests. This will be a substantial amount of money (especially for districts who barely have one computer per 30 kids.)

13. The Department of Education is paying for the national tests, but when the money runs out the states will have to pick up the costs. We don't know exactly what the cost to taxpayers will be in the end.

14. The PARCC assessment was created by progressive reformers ---- they aren't listed ---- we need to look those up.

15. The Smarter Balanced assessment was created by Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford Professor who opposes standardized testing. <<< ?? need to find out more about her
 
Okay, let's start with Part 1 of the Stop Common Core video. I will list the facts about the origins of CCSS and whatever else comes up in the first video. Then I'll post it, you can comment on it, dispute the facts with your own links and research and we'll go on to the next video. Yes, this video was created by people AGAINST Common Core (hence, the name) so in the video there are references to personal opinions as to why it's been started and what the end result will be. We're not going to discuss opinions, but the hard facts about CCSS. As I said, please feel free to dispute any fact that you believe is false. We're all here to learn, yes?

1. Parents have no recourse to influence content standards. If parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, taxpayers feel as though a standard is too easy or too hard for students in K-12, they cannot change it. If their state has adopted Common Core, that standard must be taught and must be met by their students.

2. CCSS is a set of educational standards for English Language Arts and Math (and Science just came out as well) to ideally be adopted by all 50 states so that education will be standardized in America.

3. The writers of CCSS believe they have created rigorous standards which will produce students who are more prepared for college. It also allows for students to be compared state-to-state.

4. CCSS has currently been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia (that might have changed by now....not sure...)

5. The individual states did not help create the standards. They were written by Achieve, Inc, & The National Governors Association and the CCSSO - Washington D.C. trade organizations who were given no legislative grant of authority from the States to write standards.

6. The Gates Foundations has given the above groups $27 million to advance Common Core. The Gates Foundation plans to spend $150 million on CCSS.

7. Because the PARCC assessment must be given at the same time with every student on a computer, school districts will have to purchase and maintain PCs for every student.

8. The Race to the Top competition came out of the 2009 Stimulus Bill. In order to have a realistic shot at Race to the Top money, states had to agree to accept and implement the CCSS sight unseen.

9. Race to the Top applications went out in November of 2009 and had to be turned in by January 2010 -- a time when our country's economy sucked with little money to go around. Most state legislators weren't even in session when the states decided to apply for Race to the Top money.

10. The CCSS were released in 2010 and had to be accepted by state school boards by August 2010 - no involvement with state legislature.

11. The Department of Education was also offering an NCLB waiver to those states who accepted Race to the Top money and CCSS.

12. The national tests created for Common Core will be all computer-based. School districts will have to purchase and maintain computers for every student who has to take the national tests. This will be a substantial amount of money (especially for districts who barely have one computer per 30 kids.)

13. The Department of Education is paying for the national tests, but when the money runs out the states will have to pick up the costs. We don't know exactly what the cost to taxpayers will be in the end.

14. The PARCC assessment was created by progressive reformers ---- they aren't listed ---- we need to look those up.

15. The Smarter Balanced assessment was created by Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford Professor who opposes standardized testing. <<< ?? need to find out more about her

That's a much better way of presenting the information than the woman in the video. Her presentation really does have an air of conspiracy theory.
 
5. The individual states did not help create the standards. They were written by Achieve, Inc, & The National Governors Association and the CCSSO - Washington D.C. trade organizations who were given no legislative grant of authority from the States to write standards.

The NGA is about as good as you are going to get with state concerns. Labeling it a "Washington D.C. trade organization" obscures the body of that organization.
 
Okay, let's start with Part 1 of the Stop Common Core video. I will list the facts about the origins of CCSS and whatever else comes up in the first video. Then I'll post it, you can comment on it, dispute the facts with your own links and research and we'll go on to the next video. Yes, this video was created by people AGAINST Common Core (hence, the name) so in the video there are references to personal opinions as to why it's been started and what the end result will be. We're not going to discuss opinions, but the hard facts about CCSS. As I said, please feel free to dispute any fact that you believe is false. We're all here to learn, yes?

1. Parents have no recourse to influence content standards. If parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, taxpayers feel as though a standard is too easy or too hard for students in K-12, they cannot change it. If their state has adopted Common Core, that standard must be taught and must be met by their students.

Their state can influence the curriculum in their state. They can reject CC.


2. CCSS is a set of educational standards for English Language Arts and Math (and Science just came out as well) to ideally be adopted by all 50 states so that education will be standardized in America.

Neither an argument for or against CC

3. The writers of CCSS believe they have created rigorous standards which will produce students who are more prepared for college. It also allows for students to be compared state-to-state.

Neither an argument for or against CC
4. CCSS has currently been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia (that might have changed by now....not sure...)

5. The individual states did not help create the standards. They were written by Achieve, Inc, & The National Governors Association and the CCSSO - Washington D.C. trade organizations who were given no legislative grant of authority from the States to write standards.

Neither an argument for or against CC

6. The Gates Foundations has given the above groups $27 million to advance Common Core. The Gates Foundation plans to spend $150 million on CCSS.

Neither an argument for or against CC


7. Because the PARCC assessment must be given at the same time with every student on a computer, school districts will have to purchase and maintain PCs for every student.

There's a relevant fact!!


8. The Race to the Top competition came out of the 2009 Stimulus Bill. In order to have a realistic shot at Race to the Top money, states had to agree to accept and implement the CCSS sight unseen.

States could reduse to accept and implement it


9. Race to the Top applications went out in November of 2009 and had to be turned in by January 2010 -- a time when our country's economy sucked with little money to go around. Most state legislators weren't even in session when the states decided to apply for Race to the Top money.

See above


10. The CCSS were released in 2010 and had to be accepted by state school boards by August 2010 - no involvement with state legislature.

see above


11. The Department of Education was also offering an NCLB waiver to those states who accepted Race to the Top money and CCSS.

See above and Neither an argument for or against CC

12. The national tests created for Common Core will be all computer-based. School districts will have to purchase and maintain computers for every student who has to take the national tests. This will be a substantial amount of money (especially for districts who barely have one computer per 30 kids.)

Again, an argument, but you've already stated this. So far, you're batting one in twelve


13. The Department of Education is paying for the national tests, but when the money runs out the states will have to pick up the costs. We don't know exactly what the cost to taxpayers will be in the end.

States do not have to accept CC


14. The PARCC assessment was created by progressive reformers ---- they aren't listed ---- we need to look those up.

Neither an argument for or against CC


15. The Smarter Balanced assessment was created by Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford Professor who opposes standardized testing. <<< ?? need to find out more about her

Neither an argument for or against CC

None of your arguments have anything to do with the quality of the standards. The only argument there is the cost, which states can avoid by opting out of CC.
 
Back
Top Bottom