• 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

Josie said:
Well, it looks exactly like our 1st grade Reading Street worksheets and 5th grade Reading Street has a story called "Hold the Flag High" so I'm assuming it's authentic. If it wasn't, there are tons of districts using this program and lots of 5th grade teachers out there. Have you heard of any 5th grade Reading Street teachers who say it's fabricated?
Click to expand...

No, I really don't know, but it is the sort of thing that anti public education bloggers like to invent in order to say, "Lookee, lookee, the public schools are hotbeds of liberal indoctrination."

But, it could be real too.
 
Josie said:
Except Deuce isn't correct. All curriculum has to be aligned to Common Core Standards if you're in one of the 45 states that has adopted them.
Click to expand...

How would such a thing be aligned? Can you align it with a skill set, using any content?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Chile also believed competition would be good for them. Perhaps, it was good in the sense that some children could escape schools where there was large pools of disadvantaged but it didn't take care of that "disadvantaged" problem. Their schools became more stratified not less. It also did nothing for aggregate academic outcomes.

"In sum, the central effect of the school voucher program in Chile appears to have been to facilitate the exodus of the Chilean middle class from public schools, without much evidence that it has improved aggregate academic outcomes." http://www.columbia.edu/~msu2101/HsiehUrquiola(2006).pdf
Click to expand...

I will do some reading on this, but Chile has had problems with communism, and dictatorship. So to simply isolate one variable in a society that is NOT about open and free choice-and then to claim that as a causative factor is a stretch.

But that is Chile-more importantly here and now-students in voucher programs, and even being homeschooled have significantly higher scores across the educational spectrum.
 
Boo Radley said:
You might find that the problem is more than just the schools, but the community. Many factors likely play into this and trying to narrow it to one is often a flawed approach.

It should also be noted that NCLB was always destined to rank all schools as failing schools. In fact, the best way to avoid that ranking was to dumb everything down so much that failure was impossible. This was hardly an elevation.
Click to expand...

To be fair, NCLB raised scores. Objective testing SHOULD be the standard, I dont know why college educated teachers would argue against this.
 
US Conservative said:
To be fair, NCLB raised scores. Objective testing SHOULD be the standard, I dont know why college educated teachers would argue against this.
Click to expand...

No, they really didn't. Not overall.

As for objective, it assumes that all learning is objective and mere memorization. That would be false. Such learning, while part of the process, is at the lower in of the learning spectrum.
 
US Conservative said:
I will do some reading on this, but Chile has had problems with communism, and dictatorship. So to simply isolate one variable in a society that is NOT about open and free choice-and then to claim that as a causative factor is a stretch.

But that is Chile-more importantly here and now-students in voucher programs, and even being homeschooled have significantly higher scores across the educational spectrum.
Click to expand...

Please do read into because you will find that Chile's voucher initiative was stated under Pinochet (yes a dictator but not a communist) as a free market plan to decentralize schools.

And, to comment on your second point, please provide evidence that schools taking vouchers have done a better job than public schools educating the disadvantage.
 
Common Core standards for high school Math are pushing in the direction of students
stating in words how to do a problem in algebra and geometry..
This is where I feel for my wife..I've helped grade some of her regular old math problems but their writing is quite indescribable right now..

Standardized testing in Illinois has the ACT on one day and a rigorous state test on day two, wiping the kids out..
I'd like to see all the pea-brains concocting this BS, such as retired admins double-dipping, to take these tests..
 
The first advice I got when I started teaching in 1976 was that a new way "to do things" would come up every 5 years or so..
Student Learning Objectives, SLOs back then, mean about as much as they do now, 37 years later..

In the early 1980's, along came the Madeline Hunter Theory of Learning..
It made us teachers "aware" of what we were doing..Be concious of what you're doing, like no **** man..

Obviously, these people weren't teaching my teenagers Chem/Physics..
I pulled every trick in the book to get their attention, for they learn nothing without paying attention..
 
Boo Radley said:
How would such a thing be aligned? Can you align it with a skill set, using any content?
Click to expand...

Yes, which I already said on the very first page. Common Core are the standards by which curriculum companies create curricula. The company creating the curriculum produces the content of the program based on the standards. Saying that a company's curriculum "isn't related to Common Core whatsoever" is ridiculous because all educational programs (math and language arts) are related to Common Core now.
 
Josie said:
Yes, which I already said on the very first page. Common Core are the standards by which curriculum companies create curricula. The company creating the curriculum produces the content of the program based on the standards. Saying that a company's curriculum "isn't related to Common Core whatsoever" is ridiculous because all educational programs (math and language arts) are related to Common Core now.
Click to expand...

I admit my work with core curriculum is limited. But my understanding was that it provided a standard and not content. So, say a writing class would work on the skill, but not have the topic dictated. Science would have a list if specific skills, but not the way to reach those skills. If I'm wrong about that, no teacher should accept merely being a reporter of curriculum.
 
NIMBY said:
Common Core standards for high school Math are pushing in the direction of students
stating in words how to do a problem in algebra and geometry..
Click to expand...

Then you get into the discussion of what exactly you're assessing. If a student is horrible at putting his thoughts on paper, but is a whiz at math, he's going to do horribly on those problems. Do we assess how he writes or if he came up with the correct answer or both? ??
 
Boo Radley said:
I admit my work with core curriculum is limited. But my understanding was that it provided a standard and not content. So, say a writing class would work on the skill, but not have the topic dictated. Science would have a list if specific skills, but not the way to reach those skills. If I'm wrong about that, no teacher should accept merely being a reporter of curriculum.
Click to expand...

Each curriculum program has the freedom (to a point) to determine the content. For example, the CCSS and PARCC assessment are going to assess non-fiction MUCH more than fiction. So companies like Pearson aren't going to have 50/50 fiction/non-fiction - it's going to be non-fiction heavy. First grade math CCSS doesn't mention counting money or using a ruler - so math curriculum companies are going to start creating and revising their programs to not include counting money or using a ruler in first grade.

The sentences on the Reading Street worksheet aren't something some CCSS bureaucrat told Pearson to put there - that was Pearson. But it all relates back to Common Core.

And if any teacher goes to her administrator and says, "Hey - I don't like this Common Core standard here. I don't think it's appropriate for my students to learn. I don't think I'm gonna teach it." Ya think that's gonna go over well? Also - no school in their right mind is going to eliminate any of them because then their students won't do well on those areas on the PARCC assessment which, of course, will affect what this is all about ----- $$$$$.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
You're all over the place
Click to expand...

In the second statement, I meant to refer to the headstart program. And now returning to that post, I cant edit it for some reason?

NCLB did indeed raise scores.
Improved test scores[edit]
The Department of Education points to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math:[15]

More progress was made by nine-year-olds in reading in the last five years than in the previous 28 years combined.
America's nine-year-olds posted the best scores in reading (since 1971) and math (since 1973) in the history of the report. America's 13-year-olds earned the highest math scores the test ever recorded.
Reading and math scores for black and Hispanic nine-year-olds reached an all-time high.
Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and black nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at an all-time low.
Forty-three states and the District of Columbia either improved academically or held steady in all categories (fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math). No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Not to nitpick-but higher scores are not the same thing as improved outcomes.
 
All NCLB did was start this unnecessary focus on "data points". Under NCLB, teachers began teaching a little and assessing a LOT. We had to adopt a "research-based assessment" that had to be given to every student in the class three times a year (a one-on-one assessment, by the way). Even the kids that you KNOW will score off the charts - you still have to take time that could be used to teach so that you can get their data points down.

Common Core is NCLB on steroids.
 
Josie said:
Then you get into the discussion of what exactly you're assessing. If a student is horrible at putting his thoughts on paper, but is a whiz at math, he's going to do horribly on those problems.
Click to expand...
It's a 3-year process in high school to teach them what seems to be four years of work for these tough standardized tests..
I once laughed at a school for going 8-12 and assumed they just had money problems..
I now am thinking that kids need grades 8-11 to prepare for these tests, which Illinois will never go back on..
Do we assess how he writes or if he came up with the correct answer or both? ??
Click to expand...

It looks like Illinois is building towards both, though slower on the writing of math..
My wife is now adding problems where kids have to explain how to do something: explain how to construct a perpendicular bisector..
After they just construced one with a compass on a previous problem but she doesn't link them..And they couldn't..
Also, they still have to do problems where they show their work, being graded on a Rubric..
Then there's the load of multiple choice, where known mistakes are factored in to the wrong answers..

I graded Chem/Physics problems my whole career using a rubric but didn't really use that word until it was invented..
It's not easy--you try to be fair with points off and be consistent..
I separate Math papers into piles for my wife based on common wrong answers and apply my science rubric to take off points..

Grading English papers in our subject on a rubric is something we're all supposed to do within the context of a yearly course, like math..
We have a really good writing rubric, but it is time-consuming and hard to get motivated to do, when that's not our bag in science and math..
We have at least two outstanding teachers in science who do a great job with lab reports and all that microsoft stuff I never learned..
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
All NCLB did was start this unnecessary focus on "data points". Under NCLB, teachers began teaching a little and assessing a LOT. We had to adopt a "research-based assessment" that had to be given to every student in the class three times a year (a one-on-one assessment, by the way). Even the kids that you KNOW will score off the charts - you still have to take time that could be used to teach so that you can get their data points down.

Common Core is NCLB on steroids.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying, but the fact is that NCLB raised performance.

If teachers were championing another program proven to do the same, id be all ears-but they aren't-they are arguing FOR the status quo, which is no good.
 
Josie said:
Each curriculum program has the freedom (to a point) to determine the content. For example, the CCSS and PARCC assessment are going to assess non-fiction MUCH more than fiction. So companies like Pearson aren't going to have 50/50 fiction/non-fiction - it's going to be non-fiction heavy. First grade math CCSS doesn't mention counting money or using a ruler - so math curriculum companies are going to start creating and revising their programs to not include counting money or using a ruler in first grade.

The sentences on the Reading Street worksheet aren't something some CCSS bureaucrat told Pearson to put there - that was Pearson. But it all relates back to Common Core.

And if any teacher goes to her administrator and says, "Hey - I don't like this Common Core standard here. I don't think it's appropriate for my students to learn. I don't think I'm gonna teach it." Ya think that's gonna go over well? Also - no school in their right mind is going to eliminate any of them because then their students won't do well on those areas on the PARCC assessment which, of course, will affect what this is all about ----- $$$$$.
Click to expand...

Mistake one is having a publisher involved.

They've lost their minds.
 
US Conservative said:
In the second statement, I meant to refer to the headstart program. And now returning to that post, I cant edit it for some reason?
Click to expand...

You are lying. Your quote, and the text preceding it, is clearly not about HeadStart

NCLB did indeed raise scores.


Not to nitpick-but higher scores are not the same thing as improved outcomes.
Click to expand...

And yet, you argue that high scores do measure performance

US Conservative said:
I hear what you are saying, but the fact is that NCLB raised performance.
Click to expand...

Again, you're all over the place
 
US Conservative said:
I hear what you are saying, but the fact is that NCLB raised performance.
Click to expand...

Maybe for some schools, but I think by the end there most schools weren't making AYP because they kept raising the bar every year.
 
Boo Radley said:
Mistake one is having a publisher involved.

They've lost their minds.
Click to expand...

Who else is going to produce million dollar programs for taxpayers to waste money on?
 
sangha said:
You are lying. Your quote, and the text preceding it, is clearly not about HeadStart



And yet, you argue that high scores do measure performance



Again, you're all over the place
Click to expand...

Calm down. :)

This statement: "
Another textbook case-no child left behind. At tremendous expense (that could be spend elsewhere in ways proven to improve outcomes) even the govt admits (after being forced to study, and then hiding the results for nearly 2 years) that NCLB DOES NOT IMPROVE OUTCOMES."
I meant to write in Head Start, thats what I was thinking, but I wrote in NCLB. Simply an error on my part.

Moving on-improved performance is not the same as improved outcomes-do you understand this distinction?
 
Josie said:
Common Core is NCLB on steroids.
Click to expand...

Wait till you see the NextGen Science standards coming out of the Northeast, where this plague of ideas eminates from..
You'll need to be flown to Boston to "hob-nob" with the big-shot administators on "electronic portfolios" for every student..
I call it "504 plans on steroids" for every single kid..
Do you have all that new-age terminology down like PLCs and moodles??

They're up to 80 hours of community service out East, changed in the middle of the stream for some high school grades..
Maine was famous for dropping out of the Science test of the NECAP with their kids getting slaughtered..
And Indiana just dropped out of a lot of Common Core, with the election of a Democratic School Supt..
Apparently, much good work may be getting flushed in Indianaon evaluations,
a real sticking point across the Nation ande causing real bad feeling in our district..
 
US Conservative said:
Calm down. :)

This statement: "
Another textbook case-no child left behind. At tremendous expense (that could be spend elsewhere in ways proven to improve outcomes) even the govt admits (after being forced to study, and then hiding the results for nearly 2 years) that NCLB DOES NOT IMPROVE OUTCOMES."
I meant to write in Head Start, thats what I was thinking, but I wrote in NCLB. Simply an error on my part.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt


Moving on-improved performance is not the same as improved outcomes-do you understand this distinction?
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. How does performance differ from outcomes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom