• 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

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.

I think the problem is that the state legislature had no say. If you're going to adopt a new massive system for how students in your state are taught and assessed, shouldn't that be up to the representatives to decide?
 
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.

Then feel free to do your own research and post the videos and articles that you think would help the discussion.
 
I think the problem is that the state legislature had no say. If you're going to adopt a new massive system for how students in your state are taught and assessed, shouldn't that be up to the representatives to decide?

The people who decided this were either elected to their positions, or appointed by people who were elected.

If the people in that state are unhappy, they can vote and have the state withdraw from CC
 
Perhaps that's part of the problem.

Unless I am mistaken, your argument was that federalism was being ignored. However, I just demonstrated it was adhered to. It's just that the bodies in each state, which are granted the lead, vary. Furthermore, existing organizations which serve as rather legitimate liaisons between the individual states and the federal government were among your main targets.
 
Unless I am mistaken, your argument was that federalism was being ignored. However, I just demonstrated it was adhered to. It's just that the bodies in each state which are granted the lead change. Furthermore, existing organizations which serve as rather legitimate liaisons between the individual states and the federal government were among your main targets.

I'm a fan of keeping it simple. I don't think there should be these "liaisons" between individual states and the federal government. If the states want to change something, it should be up to the people in State legislatures who were voted to represent the taxpayers, not some group in D.C.
 
I'm a fan of keeping it simple. I don't think there should be these "liaisons" between individual states and the federal government. If the states want to change something, it should be up to the people in State legislatures who were voted to represent the taxpayers, not some group in D.C.

But public policy is anything but simple. Why should the NGA not exist? It's one of the strongest weapons states have against the federal government and provides a means of attempting to ensure that implementation of nationally-influenced public policy at the state level works as best it can by taking state concerns into serious consideration.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there should be these "liaisons" between individual states and the federal government.

It's just nutty to think that states should not, in any way, interact with the federal govt, even if the states want to do so.

If the states want to change something, it should be up to the people in State legislatures who were voted to represent the taxpayers, not some group in D.C.

It wasn't "some group in DC" that approved the implementation of CC in any state. It was the state itself.
 
Moving on to Part 2...

1. The U.S. Constitution leaves educational policy to the States. Because CCSS are national standards with nationalized testing, CCSS is in violation of 3 federal statues --- General Education Provisions Act, Department of Education Provisions Act and Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

2. CCSS is copyrighted. A state, school board, district, teacher may not change or delete anything. They my add a small amount of content - no more than 15% for any area.

3. If a parent or teacher feels as though something in Common Core isn't working, they cannot go to the school board, administrators or even the governor. Since CCSS are national standards, state or local government cannot change them.

4. We don't know who is part of the National Governors Association and the CCSSOF (the writers of the CCSS) <<< is that true?

5. One of the drafters of the math CCSS said the college that students will be prepared for is a community college (she doesn't name this person...)

6. The Common Core validation committee never found evidence that the CCSS are internationally benchmarked and as rigorous as those in countries whose students score highly on tests (as they once claimed).

7. The only mathematician (Dr. Milgrim?) on the validation committee said that it's almost a joke that a student will be prepared for university math after completing CC curriculum. Algebra 1 moves from 8th grade to 9th grade making it harder to reach Calculus by high school. Geometry is taught by experimental method << I have no idea what that means. He said by 8th grade, our students will be about 2 years behind those of the highest achieving countries.

8. Dr. Sandra Stotsky from the validation committee commented on the English Language Arts standards -- she said they were "empty skill sets" and "no accumulation of literacy knowledge". She's afraid the reading level that CCSS calls "college-ready" will be about 7th grade level. There's a large emphasis on technical books and non-fiction and less on literature. CC includes no British literature except a little Shakespeare (not sure if that's true of all CC curriculum).
 
It's just nutty to think that states should not, in any way, interact with the federal govt, even if the states want to do so.



It wasn't "some group in DC" that approved the implementation of CC in any state. It was the state itself.

Which is why I had some misgivings with Ravitch, whom I deeply respect, but also thought her concerns were with significant merit. I, for one, am immensely suspicious of CC's outcome across the states, along with the nation for many of the same reasons. However, I did wince a bit when she said, "They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association, both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. There was minimal public engagement in the development of the Common Core." By minimal we do of course mean the executive branches of 50 states in the NGA.

That being said, yes, I think it's a dramatic gamble.
 
4. We don't know who is part of the National Governors Association and the CCSSOF (the writers of the CCSS) <<< is that true?


I'm sorry, but anyone living in the internet age that makes these sorts of claims is generally not remotely doing their homework. We live in an era where we can get exactly that information, directly from the source, within a couple of keystrokes.

To the former: the NGA is a body literally made up of the State governors. There is also organizational staff and Chiefs of Staff.

Staff Directory

Current Governors

To the latter: You're looking at your state superintendents of schools and other partnerships, along with organizational staff.

CCSSO - Meet the Chiefs

CCSSO - Board of Directors

CCSSO - Leadership Team

CCSSO - Staff Directory
 
Moving on to Part 2...

1. The U.S. Constitution leaves educational policy to the States. Because CCSS are national standards with nationalized testing, CCSS is in violation of 3 federal statues --- General Education Provisions Act, Department of Education Provisions Act and Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

This is false


2. CCSS is copyrighted. A state, school board, district, teacher may not change or delete anything. They my add a small amount of content - no more than 15% for any area.

They can choose to not reject the entire program and set their curriculum however they choose to


3. If a parent or teacher feels as though something in Common Core isn't working, they cannot go to the school board, administrators or even the governor. Since CCSS are national standards, state or local government cannot change them.

They can choose to not reject the entire program and set their curriculum however they choose to


4. We don't know who is part of the National Governors Association and the CCSSOF (the writers of the CCSS) <<< is that true?


Does not argue for or against the standards. Just more conspiracy mongering


5. One of the drafters of the math CCSS said the college that students will be prepared for is a community college (she doesn't name this person...)

See above


6. The Common Core validation committee never found evidence that the CCSS are internationally benchmarked and as rigorous as those in countries whose students score highly on tests (as they once claimed).

Now there's an argument that relates to the actual standards!!


7. The only mathematician (Dr. Milgrim?) on the validation committee said that it's almost a joke that a student will be prepared for university math after completing CC curriculum. Algebra 1 moves from 8th grade to 9th grade making it harder to reach Calculus by high school. Geometry is taught by experimental method << I have no idea what that means. He said by 8th grade, our students will be about 2 years behind those of the highest achieving countries.

Now there's another argument about the actual standards!!


8. Dr. Sandra Stotsky from the validation committee commented on the English Language Arts standards -- she said they were "empty skill sets" and "no accumulation of literacy knowledge". She's afraid the reading level that CCSS calls "college-ready" will be about 7th grade level. There's a large emphasis on technical books and non-fiction and less on literature. CC includes no British literature except a little Shakespeare (not sure if that's true of all CC curriculum).

Again, now you're addressing the actual standard!!

However, these relevant points were not raised in the video you posted.
 
Part 3...

1. Race to the Top money also required states to build huge student databases with over 400 data points on each student (test scores, behavior, family history, religion, etc.) The US Department of Education is asking the states to turn over that data in exchange for grants. The US Department of Education is prohibited from collecting this data themselves so they're asking the states to give it to them. The Department of Education will share this information with the Department of Labor so that the federal government can track people preschool through their career.

2. Most states signed on without a thorough cost-analysis because they had very little time to decide (and while most state legislatures weren't even in session). The costs for assessments will be massive. A study concluded that states will be tripling and quadrupling the costs per student for CC and implementation of CC will be $16 billion minimum nationwide.

Where is all of this money going to come from?
 
However, these relevant points were not raised in the video you posted.

These relevant points were in the videos you chose not to watch.
 
I'm sorry, but anyone living in the internet age that makes these sorts of claims is generally not remotely doing their homework. We live in an era where we can get exactly that information, directly from the source, within a couple of keystrokes.

To the former: the NGA is a body literally made up of the State governors. There is also organizational staff and Chiefs of Staff.

Staff Directory

Current Governors

To the latter: You're looking at your state superintendents of schools and other partnerships, along with organizational staff.

CCSSO - Meet the Chiefs

CCSSO - Board of Directors

CCSSO - Leadership Team

CCSSO - Staff Directory

That's what I thought. Thank you.
 
These relevant points were in the videos you chose not to watch.

Yes, you're upset because we watched the video you linked to and criticized it and because we didn't watch videos that you hadn't watched either :roll:
 
When we talk about the people who developed this it becomes a huge issue with me. One would think something as important as education would have had various stakeholders involved like teachers, parents, administrators, students....the actual people who will be most affected by the action of reform. Many of these people weren't even invited to be part of it until after the fact. I can't help but think of the money trail and the motive behind much of this:

snip: http://santamariatimes.com/news/opi...ion/article_cd55e888-36e1-11e3-8859-001a4bcf8

The list of private interest is long and disturbing. There are enormous profits to be had from the sale of computer hardware, support and training, curriculum materials and e-books. But what seems to be attracting the most attention from private interests is the business of data-mining. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Foundation and Rupert Murdoch have funded one of the first corporations involved in data-mining — inBloom. In researching inBloom Inc., you will find the model for how foundations and other private interests align with government to support private, profitable endeavors through our public schools.

A report by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, “A Framework for a Multistate Human Capital Development Data System,” emphasizes the importance of a national data system. In the report, our children are referred to as human capital. On the final page of the report, it reads, “… our gratitude also goes to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which provided funding for this paper ...”
 
Extremely unlikely. I've seen worksheets like this before, all cobbled together by the right wing alarmists.

Actually it looks like our Reading Street worksheets. We have the title of the story at the top right shaded in gray. I bet that's where it came from.
 
When we talk about the people who developed this it becomes a huge issue with me. One would think something as important as education would have had various stakeholders involved like teachers, parents, administrators, students....the actual people who will be most affected by the action of reform. Many of these people weren't even invited to be part of it until after the fact. I can't help but think of the money trail and the motive behind much of this:

snip: http://santamariatimes.com/news/opi...ion/article_cd55e888-36e1-11e3-8859-001a4bcf8

The list of private interest is long and disturbing. There are enormous profits to be had from the sale of computer hardware, support and training, curriculum materials and e-books. But what seems to be attracting the most attention from private interests is the business of data-mining. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Foundation and Rupert Murdoch have funded one of the first corporations involved in data-mining — inBloom. In researching inBloom Inc., you will find the model for how foundations and other private interests align with government to support private, profitable endeavors through our public schools.

A report by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, “A Framework for a Multistate Human Capital Development Data System,” emphasizes the importance of a national data system. In the report, our children are referred to as human capital. On the final page of the report, it reads, “… our gratitude also goes to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which provided funding for this paper ...”

Yep. When I heard that the Gates Foundation was funding this - it all made sense. Of COURSE they want every single child in every single school to have a computer! :)
 
Yes, you're upset because we watched the video you linked to and criticized it and because we didn't watch videos that you hadn't watched either :roll:

I've watched the entire series, sangha. You didn't and continue to make comments that are knee-jerk and pointless. I'm not going to respond to you anymore until you start discussing this important topic like a man instead of a 12 year old.
 
I've watched the entire series, sangha. You didn't and continue to make comments that are knee-jerk and pointless. I'm not going to respond to you anymore until you start discussing this important topic like a man instead of a 12 year old.

At the time you posted it, you hadn't watched the whole series.

I watched three of them. After seeing the loony crackpot argument it was promoting, I came to the reasonable conclusion that there was no point in continuing

The only issue is why you posted a link to video that contained arguments that you are unwilling to defend.
 
Actually it looks like our Reading Street worksheets. We have the title of the story at the top right shaded in gray. I bet that's where it came from.

Talking about Reading Street, our district spend loads of money purchasing that program 5 years ago. We have since moved on to the Reader's Workshop model which again is costing loads of money for materials and training. During this economic downturn, people in our district were concerned of all the money it was costing. Very little was mentioned about how expensive this material and training cost. I bet people would be livid! The unfunded mandates keep growing.
 
Back
Top Bottom