Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

So yes, maybe many schools DO require students to read in Science class... but I can tell you that also, there are plenty of schools that don't.

Then require reading for science. Requiring 60/40 non fiction to fiction is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's the summary. I read it already. It didn't include all the details.

No, that's because it's the summary.

It does, however, include the selection criteria (p. 3) and the eligibility requirements (p. 4), plus more detail about the selection criteria (pp. 6-11) and definitions (pp. 11-14).

Out of 485 points total, 40 points go for B1. Developing and adopting common standards.

The same as go for F2. Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools.

So it's as valid to say "The federal government is forcing us to send our children to charter schools!" as "The federal government is forcing the Common Core standards on our children!".

[Anonymous]

Go look at the programs that won the grants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So yes, maybe many schools DO require students to read in Science class... but I can tell you that also, there are plenty of schools that don't.

Then require reading for science. Requiring 60/40 non fiction to fiction is stupid.

The Common Core doesn't require 60/40 non-fiction to fiction. The Common Core standards distinguish between literary and informational texts. And what, specifically, is stupid? 60/40? Or any numbers at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go look at the programs that won the grants.

OK. Which programs won the grants? And what am I supposed to look at?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The federal government is already using CC as a means to control education in the states. It is called "Race to the Top".

How is the federal government controlling education in the states through "Race to the Top"? How much of "Race to the Top" are the Common Core standards?

I suggest you go to the DofED website and read Race to the Top. Getting federal money is totally tied to common core. It will only get worse.

Could you please tell me exactly where to look on the Department of Education website for the requirements for Race to the Top grant funding?

Actually, ideally, you would tell me exactly where to look, and you would summarize the requirements. "Totally tied to" is not really very informative.

So out of curiosity I opened a grant application form the race to the top website. It's 100 pages so I did a document word search for Common Core and it found no results. Funny how it's "totally tied" to Common Core without mentioning it once!

Thanks for wasting our time, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The federal government is already using CC as a means to control education in the states. It is called "Race to the Top".

How is the federal government controlling education in the states through "Race to the Top"? How much of "Race to the Top" are the Common Core standards?

I suggest you go to the DofED website and read Race to the Top. Getting federal money is totally tied to common core. It will only get worse.

Could you please tell me exactly where to look on the Department of Education website for the requirements for Race to the Top grant funding?

Actually, ideally, you would tell me exactly where to look, and you would summarize the requirements. "Totally tied to" is not really very informative.

So out of curiosity I opened a grant application form the race to the top website. It's 100 pages so I did a document word search for Common Core and it found no results. Funny how it's "totally tied" to Common Core without mentioning it once!

Thanks for wasting our time, PP.

Ah, but that merely proves how sneaky and perfidious the effort is. They're totally tying federal money to the Common Core AND THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP IT A SECRET!!!!!!!! Luckily we have the PP who is too clever to be fooled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And to the teachers out there - how much control do you want over your students? Do you believe that parents have no idea how to teach, what their kids need, and should simply shut up, like they wanted Mr. Baer to do, because he clearly has no right to be upset that his 9th grade daughter was assigned porn?

If you consider that "porn", then you must be even more unfamiliar with real actual porn than I am.

And if you think it's the fault of the Common Core that in 2007 a local school district put a book on its list of suggested reading, then I really don't know what to say.

Are you stating that CC does not have, on its list of recommended books, any book with graphic sexual material? hint: 'The Bluest Eve'

Yes, I am stating that the Common Core does not have, on its list of recommended books, any book with graphic sexual material. That is because the Common Core does not have a list of recommended books.

What the Common Core does have is passages from books that illustrate a given reading level. For Grade 11, one of these passages is one paragraph from "The Bluest Eye", by Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison. Here is that paragraph:

One winter Pauline discovered she was pregnant. When she told Cholly, he surprised her by being pleased. He began to drink less and come home more often. They eased back into a relationship more like the early days of their marriage, when he asked if she were tired or wanted him to bring her something from the store. In this state of ease, Pauline stopped doing day work and returned to her own housekeeping. But the loneliness in those two rooms had not gone away. When the winter sun hit the peeling green paint of the kitchen chairs, when the smoked hocks were boiling in the pot, when all she could hear was the truck delivering furniture downstairs, she thought about back home, about how she had been all alone most of the time then too, but that this lonesomeness was different. Then she stopped staring at the green chairs, at the delivery truck; she went to the movies instead. There in the dark her memory was refreshed, and she succumbed to her earlier dreams. Along with the idea of romantic love, she was introduced to another—physical beauty. Probably the most destructive ideas in the history of human thought. Both originated in envy, thrived in insecurity, and ended in disillusion. In equating physical beauty with virtue, she stripped her mind, bound it, and collected self-contempt by the heap. She forgot lust and simple caring for. She regarded love as possessive mating, and romance as the goal of the spirit. It would be for her a well-spring from which she would draw the most destructive emotions, deceiving the lover and seeking to imprison the beloved, curtailing freedom in every way.

Is that what you consider "graphic sexual material"?

(You can find it on p. 152 of Appendix B Text Exemplars and Sample Performance Tasks for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts & Literacy in History, Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, here: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_B.pdf )

i suggest you read the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
http://dianeravitch.net/2014/04/23/who-wrote-the-common-core-standards-here-is-a-list/

Here is a major part of the problem.

Please explain -- starting with what the problem is, specifically

My problem is the same as Ravitch's problem. How many classroom teachers were involved?

No, that's not a problem. That's a question. Is your problem that the standards are bad because classroom teachers were not involved in their development?

Not the PP, but you can go back to my long post and read what the TX Education Commissioner said - they wanted him to sign onto acceptance before the standards were even written. Would you sign a contract without knowing the terms? Now ask yourself why not.

OK, time for a fact check.

I went back to the long post and read what the former Texas Education Commissioner SAID, then checked the document that he was actually asked to SIGN.

Here's what he SAID:

"My experience with the Common Core actually started when I was asked to sign on to them before they were written. … I was told I needed to sign a letter agreeing to the Common Core, and I asked if I might read them first, which is, I think, appropriate. I was told they hadn’t been written, but they still wanted my signature on the letter"

Here's the text from the Memorandum of Agreement he was asked to SIGN:

Purpose. This document commits states to a state-led process that will draw on evidence and lead to development and adoption of a common core of state standards (common core) in English language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. These standards will be aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and be internationally benchmarked. The intent is that these standards will be aligned to state assessment and classroom practice. The second phase of this initiative will be the development of common assessments aligned to the core standards developed through this process.

(snip)

Develop K-12 Standards in English Language Arts and Math. CCSSO and the NGA Center will convene Achieve, ACT, and the College Board in an open, inclusive, and efficient process to develop K-12 standards that are grounded in empirical research and draw on best practices in standards development. We will ask participating states to provide input into the drafting of the common core and work as partners in the common core standards development process. This work will be completed by December 2009.

(snip)

The goal of this effort is to develop a true common core of state standards that are internationally benchmarked. Each state adopting the common core either directly or by fully aligning its state standards may do so in accordance with current state timelines for standards adoption not to exceed three (3) years.

This effort is voluntary for states, and it is fully intended that states adopting the common core may choose to include additional state standards beyond the common core. States that choose to align their standards to the common core standards agree to ensure that the common core represents at least 85 percent of the state’s standards in English language arts and mathematics.

The Memorandum of Agreement was asking states to commit to a process of developing the standards. They were asking states to sign on to the process, and to help in the drafting of the standards.

Signing this letter in no way obligated Texas or any state to adopt the eventual standards that were designed.

If states did, in the end adopt the standards and become "Common Core" states, the standards (more math and language arts) were meant to be the core of the state's standards -- up to 85% of the standards would be Common Core for math and Language arts. Science and Social studies of course would be up to states to design their own standards.

The purpose of this Memo of Understanding was to get the states interested in designing the Common Core State Standards, to sign up to do so.


So when Scott said "I was told they hadn’t been written, but they still wanted my signature on the letter." -- he completely misinterpreted the point of this Memorandum of Understanding. Completely. Because when people hear what he said, they interpret it this way: "I was told I had to sign off agreeing Texas would adopt all these standards, but they wouldn't let me actually read the standards, in fact they hadn't been written."

That plays into people's fears. That is a complete misrepresentation of the document he was asked to sign -- a document saying that his state was agreeing to develop the standards.

You are absolutely incorrect on this. But carry on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sample HW assignment for a typical middle school student:

40 minutes: read 2 chapters in a play (fiction) and fill out worksheet

30 minutes: read Unit 7: Magnetic Forces in science textbook and answer questions at back of book

30 minutes: read magazine article on current situation in the Ukraine for current events assignment; write summary

total: 100 minutes of reading

40% fiction
60% non-fiction

When materials for CC are developed by the same people writing the standards AND the same people creating the tests, including the SATs and ACT, you can easily see the potential for corruption of the highest level. This is why I say, you THINK as a teacher you will have control over how you teach the standards, but you will not.

The fact your only sources for anything you post is the standards themselves, is like referencing whitehouse.gov or anything Jay Carney says when you get your news. It's short-sighted and frankly, not terribly deep. You don't seem to want to look any deeper at all, which is rather robotic. More power to you - glad my children aren't involved with you in the schools in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
http://dianeravitch.net/2014/04/23/who-wrote-the-common-core-standards-here-is-a-list/

Here is a major part of the problem.

Please explain -- starting with what the problem is, specifically

My problem is the same as Ravitch's problem. How many classroom teachers were involved?

No, that's not a problem. That's a question. Is your problem that the standards are bad because classroom teachers were not involved in their development?

Not the PP, but you can go back to my long post and read what the TX Education Commissioner said - they wanted him to sign onto acceptance before the standards were even written. Would you sign a contract without knowing the terms? Now ask yourself why not.

OK, time for a fact check.

I went back to the long post and read what the former Texas Education Commissioner SAID, then checked the document that he was actually asked to SIGN.

Here's what he SAID:

"My experience with the Common Core actually started when I was asked to sign on to them before they were written. … I was told I needed to sign a letter agreeing to the Common Core, and I asked if I might read them first, which is, I think, appropriate. I was told they hadn’t been written, but they still wanted my signature on the letter"

Here's the text from the Memorandum of Agreement he was asked to SIGN:

Purpose. This document commits states to a state-led process that will draw on evidence and lead to development and adoption of a common core of state standards (common core) in English language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. These standards will be aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and be internationally benchmarked. The intent is that these standards will be aligned to state assessment and classroom practice. The second phase of this initiative will be the development of common assessments aligned to the core standards developed through this process.

(snip)

Develop K-12 Standards in English Language Arts and Math. CCSSO and the NGA Center will convene Achieve, ACT, and the College Board in an open, inclusive, and efficient process to develop K-12 standards that are grounded in empirical research and draw on best practices in standards development. We will ask participating states to provide input into the drafting of the common core and work as partners in the common core standards development process. This work will be completed by December 2009.

(snip)

The goal of this effort is to develop a true common core of state standards that are internationally benchmarked. Each state adopting the common core either directly or by fully aligning its state standards may do so in accordance with current state timelines for standards adoption not to exceed three (3) years.

This effort is voluntary for states, and it is fully intended that states adopting the common core may choose to include additional state standards beyond the common core. States that choose to align their standards to the common core standards agree to ensure that the common core represents at least 85 percent of the state’s standards in English language arts and mathematics.

The Memorandum of Agreement was asking states to commit to a process of developing the standards. They were asking states to sign on to the process, and to help in the drafting of the standards.

Signing this letter in no way obligated Texas or any state to adopt the eventual standards that were designed.

If states did, in the end adopt the standards and become "Common Core" states, the standards (more math and language arts) were meant to be the core of the state's standards -- up to 85% of the standards would be Common Core for math and Language arts. Science and Social studies of course would be up to states to design their own standards.

The purpose of this Memo of Understanding was to get the states interested in designing the Common Core State Standards, to sign up to do so.


So when Scott said "I was told they hadn’t been written, but they still wanted my signature on the letter." -- he completely misinterpreted the point of this Memorandum of Understanding. Completely. Because when people hear what he said, they interpret it this way: "I was told I had to sign off agreeing Texas would adopt all these standards, but they wouldn't let me actually read the standards, in fact they hadn't been written."

That plays into people's fears. That is a complete misrepresentation of the document he was asked to sign -- a document saying that his state was agreeing to develop the standards.

You do understand that everything you wrote is speculative, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use the search box at the top of the website. There is a lot of detail. Bottom line, teacher evaluation must be tied to student performance and common core standards must be adopted.

You can't give me the link? Why not?

Not that PP, but my direct impression is if you are not willing to so the homework the PP is asking you to do, then you have not researched this very well at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

If you want detail, there are many links to help you.

Here sweetie -- since you don't seem capable of finding the information to support you assertions, I will help you out, just this once.

The document you are looking for, as proof of your argument, is here

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

Now, go through it, figure out which page has the specifications you are asserting are being REQUIRED for Race to the Top finding.

Locate the page, locate the word REQUIRED (hint, that will be very hard to find, because it isn't there, but whatever) and copy it.

Okay?

Good luck!

She's a supporter of Common Core in the publics and teaches there. Don't expect too much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The federal government is already using CC as a means to control education in the states. It is called "Race to the Top".

How is the federal government controlling education in the states through "Race to the Top"? How much of "Race to the Top" are the Common Core standards?

I suggest you go to the DofED website and read Race to the Top. Getting federal money is totally tied to common core. It will only get worse.

Could you please tell me exactly where to look on the Department of Education website for the requirements for Race to the Top grant funding?

Actually, ideally, you would tell me exactly where to look, and you would summarize the requirements. "Totally tied to" is not really very informative.

So out of curiosity I opened a grant application form the race to the top website. It's 100 pages so I did a document word search for Common Core and it found no results. Funny how it's "totally tied" to Common Core without mentioning it once!

Thanks for wasting our time, PP.

So unless you find the words CC, that's all you have for your 'research'? Is that how you teach your students to research?

Think stimulus package. Now work from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And to the teachers out there - how much control do you want over your students? Do you believe that parents have no idea how to teach, what their kids need, and should simply shut up, like they wanted Mr. Baer to do, because he clearly has no right to be upset that his 9th grade daughter was assigned porn?

If you consider that "porn", then you must be even more unfamiliar with real actual porn than I am.

And if you think it's the fault of the Common Core that in 2007 a local school district put a book on its list of suggested reading, then I really don't know what to say.

Are you stating that CC does not have, on its list of recommended books, any book with graphic sexual material? hint: 'The Bluest Eve'

Yes, I am stating that the Common Core does not have, on its list of recommended books, any book with graphic sexual material. That is because the Common Core does not have a list of recommended books.

What the Common Core does have is passages from books that illustrate a given reading level. For Grade 11, one of these passages is one paragraph from "The Bluest Eye", by Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison. Here is that paragraph:

One winter Pauline discovered she was pregnant. When she told Cholly, he surprised her by being pleased. He began to drink less and come home more often. They eased back into a relationship more like the early days of their marriage, when he asked if she were tired or wanted him to bring her something from the store. In this state of ease, Pauline stopped doing day work and returned to her own housekeeping. But the loneliness in those two rooms had not gone away. When the winter sun hit the peeling green paint of the kitchen chairs, when the smoked hocks were boiling in the pot, when all she could hear was the truck delivering furniture downstairs, she thought about back home, about how she had been all alone most of the time then too, but that this lonesomeness was different. Then she stopped staring at the green chairs, at the delivery truck; she went to the movies instead. There in the dark her memory was refreshed, and she succumbed to her earlier dreams. Along with the idea of romantic love, she was introduced to another—physical beauty. Probably the most destructive ideas in the history of human thought. Both originated in envy, thrived in insecurity, and ended in disillusion. In equating physical beauty with virtue, she stripped her mind, bound it, and collected self-contempt by the heap. She forgot lust and simple caring for. She regarded love as possessive mating, and romance as the goal of the spirit. It would be for her a well-spring from which she would draw the most destructive emotions, deceiving the lover and seeking to imprison the beloved, curtailing freedom in every way.

Is that what you consider "graphic sexual material"?

(You can find it on p. 152 of Appendix B Text Exemplars and Sample Performance Tasks for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts & Literacy in History, Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, here: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_B.pdf )

i suggest you read the book.

I've read the book, thanks. I could read it another 100 times, and it still wouldn't be on the list of recommended books for the Common Core standards, because THE COMMON CORE STANDARDS DO NOT HAVE A LIST OF RECOMMENDED BOOKS.