Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This principal is talking about the New York state tests of New York state's curriculum. (The failings of which have been thoroughly described.) Here's a link to the comment:

http://testingtalk.org/response/disheartened-and-disgusted

Did New York state really mess up its implementation of the Common Core standards? Pretty clearly, yes.

Does this mean that, therefore, everything related to the Common Core is bad? Nope.

They cannot be separated if you want COMMON standards. So I guess the Feds will have to come in like the calvary and 'rescue' the publics, which is EXACTLY as designed. Don't kid yourself. That's why they got involved with dangling cash in the first place. It makes the states indebted to them.

Perhaps you didn't know that New York added a whole bunch of stuff to the Common Core standards? So that they are not, in fact, common standards.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what rescuing the federal government would be doing here. Perhaps you can explain.

If the states don't get their preverbal sh*t together in regards to implementation, the feds will declare it a disaster and they will have to come to the rescue and develop the specifics of how to teach the curriculum. And that's how you control the people.

That's proverbial. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core math standards for second grade:

1) A requirement that students understand place value, for instance, that “100 can be thought of as a bundle of ten tens -- called a ‘hundred.’”

2) That students be able to “add and subtract within 1000, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value … and relate the strategy to a written method.” Also that they “understand that in adding or subtracting three-digit numbers, one adds or subtracts hundreds and hundreds, tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose or decompose tens or hundreds.”

3) That they can “explain why addition and subtraction strategies work, using place value and the properties of operations.”

4) And that they can “represent whole numbers as lengths from 0 on a number line diagram with equally spaced points corresponding to the numbers 0, 1, 2, …, and represent whole-number sums and differences within 100 on a number line diagram.”

In general, being able to explain how you arrived at an answer – not just memorizing a formula – is also one of the standards’ key goals for students.

OK, you got me there.

Out of 26 2nd grade math standards for 2nd grade, ONE says that students need to be able to explain something.

Using place value,

So why is 27 + 22 = 49? Because 7 ones and 2 ones are 9 ones, and 2 tens and 2 tens are 4 tens.

using properties of operations

Why does 10 - 7 = 3?

Because 3 and 7 make 10.

FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's not the answer. We need at least three sentences on each problem.

Also, WHY does 3 and 7 make 10. SHOW me that 7 ones and 2 ones are 9 ones. You can say that, but can you SHOW me?

That's the PP's point....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, I'm sorry, you don't get any choices in our new totalitarian regime. You will take an engineering test in Chinese because that's what the regime has decided you must do. It doesn't matter that you don't want to be an engineer or have ever been taught Chinese. You must know the material anyway. There are no changes and no exceptions or exemptions.

You will sit in room for 10 to 20 hours and take an engineering test in Chinese. No excuses. Just work harder, read "closer." You will do this year after year, for at least 6 years.

?? You are really sounding unbalanced now.

And yet...I understood EXACTLY what PP is saying. You don't because you don't understand the true objectives of government-controlled education without choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, that is such bullshit. In this day and age of Wikis and ubiquitous information technology there's absolutely NO REASON why teachers couldn't band together and create collaborative open source textbooks, content and curriculum, put the textbook companies out of business and save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

That would put the Common Core people out of business.

Consider the politics behind Common Core, i.e. the feds have tied funding to the adoption of common core by states. Considering that was done, what is to stop the feds from financially enticing states to use the resources of the corporations in bed with them rather then open source? What the government gives, the government can take away...

Get the government out of our public schools, is what I always say.

Yeppers. For some reason, people think that the if the department of education was obliterated tomorrow, that no one would be educated in the future. This could not be farther from the truth.

Sure it could be farther from the truth. For example, it could be the idea that state and local government is not actually government.

(It could also be the idea that Martin Luther King Jr. was a subspecies of avocado: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/atgene-weingarten/2013/09/27/a964353e-6679-11e3-8b5b-a77187b716a3_story.html )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, that is such bullshit. In this day and age of Wikis and ubiquitous information technology there's absolutely NO REASON why teachers couldn't band together and create collaborative open source textbooks, content and curriculum, put the textbook companies out of business and save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

That would put the Common Core people out of business.

Consider the politics behind Common Core, i.e. the feds have tied funding to the adoption of common core by states. Considering that was done, what is to stop the feds from financially enticing states to use the resources of the corporations in bed with them rather then open source? What the government gives, the government can take away...

Get the government out of our public schools, is what I always say.

Yeppers. For some reason, people think that the if the department of education was obliterated tomorrow, that no one would be educated in the future. This could not be farther from the truth.

Sure it could be farther from the truth. For example, it could be the idea that state and local government is not actually government.

(It could also be the idea that Martin Luther King Jr. was a subspecies of avocado: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/atgene-weingarten/2013/09/27/a964353e-6679-11e3-8b5b-a77187b716a3_story.html )

According to the Constitution, state and local governments are indeed governments. The feds can only legally do what the Constitution dictates they can (despite Obama's pen and phone) and after that, the power falls to states and on down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the Constitution, state and local governments are indeed governments. The feds can only legally do what the Constitution dictates they can (despite Obama's pen and phone) and after that, the power falls to states and on down.

Let me know when the Supreme Court declares the Common Core unconstitutional. Although perhaps you also believe that judicial review is unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the Constitution, state and local governments are indeed governments. The feds can only legally do what the Constitution dictates they can (despite Obama's pen and phone) and after that, the power falls to states and on down.

Let me know when the Supreme Court declares the Common Core unconstitutional. Although perhaps you also believe that judicial review is unconstitutional.

He has pen and a phone....good to know you advocate putting laws into effect then daring the courts to rule against. Welcome to Venezuela

[Anonymous]

My SIL in a southern state has been ranting about common core for a while now- it's all Obama's fault, of course (despite our attempts to correct her on the program's origin), and kids aren't learning things in "the proper order." She's not a teacher, no how she proclaims to know this, I have no idea. But I've eventually come to the conclusion that she thinks it's too hard. Which is funny, because then you hear complaints here that its not rigorous enough. Just goes to show you how perspectives can differ across the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, that is such bullshit. In this day and age of Wikis and ubiquitous information technology there's absolutely NO REASON why teachers couldn't band together and create collaborative open source textbooks, content and curriculum, put the textbook companies out of business and save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

That would put the Common Core people out of business.

Consider the politics behind Common Core, i.e. the feds have tied funding to the adoption of common core by states. Considering that was done, what is to stop the feds from financially enticing states to use the resources of the corporations in bed with them rather then open source? What the government gives, the government can take away...

Get the government out of our public schools, is what I always say.

Yeppers. For some reason, people think that the if the department of education was obliterated tomorrow, that no one would be educated in the future. This could not be farther from the truth.

So then what? It doesn't sound like CC is being implemented well, but the concept behind it makes sense. If a kid is moving from Alabama to New York, shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation that they should be well prepared for their new school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that this is an accurate description. The outrage from the left doesn't come specifically from the teachers' unions; it comes from people who oppose corporations getting involved in public education (which includes standardized testing, for-profit charter schools, value-added evaluation systems, and so on), as well as people who believe that there shouldn't be any standards or requirements or homework or testing. And, really, the corporatization of public education preceded the Common Core, and making the Common Core go away won't make the corporatization go away.

If they are upset about corporations getting involved in public education then where have they been for the last 75 years given corporations have driven textbooks and curricula? They have been there all along.

Where have they been all this time when the biggest racket has been in massive expenditures in private sector contracts for school buildings, maintenance contracts, et cetera? I'm not sure I buy this sudden outrage.

I think that's unfair. A lot of this group of opponents has been at this fight since the late 1990s at least. And yes, corporations have always made money on schools, but there hasn't always been so much corporation involvement in school reform, specifically. Somebody's giving Michelle Rhee's organization an awful lot of money. Who?

The lefty opposition is correct that the educational corporations are pushing the Common Core -- and it's reasonable to assume that the educational corporations expect to make money off it, because otherwise why do it? And the Tea Party opposition is correct that the Obama administration is pushing the Common Core. But neither of these facts make the Common Core standards, themselves, bad.

This is true, but you cannot write a set of standards and then leave it at that. The devil is always in the details. I can write a set of broad specs for, say, a piece of software, but I can guarantee you that the way it's implemented, is going to make or break the product.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In addition, the school districts might tell me I have to use a certain junky curriculum, but if I can prove that my methods work better, I should be able to use them -- after all my kids test scores (and my job!) are on the line. I deserve the right to use materials that will work better than whatever junk they provide. (If the argument is the pearson written curriculum is bad)

You do deserve the right to X. That doesn't mean government will honor that right....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Common Core is totally untested. In states that have been using it and testing with it, like New York and Kentucky, about 70 percent of kids fail the standardized tests. They simply don't understand what they've been taught. When you factor in race or any kind of disability, the failure rate skyrockets. It's very language intensive, so if your child is a slow reader or has any other kind of language based learning disability, they're just screwed.


I was talking to a mom in another state. In her daughter's 6th grade class, out of 31 students, 23 failed.

Is it possible common core is just exposing that your children are not as advanced as you assumed?

Arne Duncan, is that you?

Not the pp, but I do education research for a living. It's absolutely true. Sorry you do not wish to hear it. This is why more challenging standards are needed. (Though I don't disagree that implementation has been a real sh*tshow in many districts. That's a huge problem.)

Just by way of a history lesson, so people can understand how we got here, NCLB gave states a huge incentive to dumb down their standards. States that didn't meet self-established performance goals got dinged. So, many states just set low standards so they wouldn't face the consequences. In many cases, this resulted in a dumbing down of some education systems and curriculum. This has been going on for the better part of a decade. We're so used to it by now that we can't even seen how far behind we really are -- until you look at kids in other countries. Then you realize that we simply have to do better.

What I don't like about Common Core is that it continues to place the emphasis on schools instead of parents. Parents who don't invest in their kids, who don't read to them, who don't contribute toward their education in and outside of class, who rely on the schools to do all of the educating, are the reason kids do poorly. I realize that it's hard for parents who are working two jobs, etc., and we as a society need to do more to support that group. But, there are plenty of parents who don't work two jobs who still think the school is responsible for educating and they just follow along. There are plenty of parents who work two jobs and still insist on driving their kids to excel in school too. In my opinion, it's our parenting that needs to change if we are to move the needle on achievement. Perhaps not this extreme, but a little more Tiger momming would not kill us.

Isn't it possible, since the implementation has been a real "sh*tshow", that the kids ARE smart but those who created the tests aren't?

Eight year olds? "Smart"? Or not? Isn't there more to life than that?

As for public officials, that's different. I expect them to make decisions regarding the education of children in a sober, deliberate, transparent manner. I expect competence. Even the proponent of the core standards on this thread admits that the practices, assessment tools, and curricula are lacking. So many frustrated and confused children. i hope they can learn basic skills over the summer. So much public money wasted!

Could not agree more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My SIL in a southern state has been ranting about common core for a while now- it's all Obama's fault, of course (despite our attempts to correct her on the program's origin), and kids aren't learning things in "the proper order." She's not a teacher, no how she proclaims to know this, I have no idea. But I've eventually come to the conclusion that she thinks it's too hard. Which is funny, because then you hear complaints here that its not rigorous enough. Just goes to show you how perspectives can differ across the country.

It has nothing to do with southern or northern. When you SIL says "it's all Obama's fault", that's because Obama has spoken of education in terms of Common Core curriculum, and has given financial incentives to states to adopt it. His administration is also in bed with the corporations developing the materials to support the standards.

If you think this was just a states effort, you have not been doing enough research on the issue. I suggest you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, that is such bullshit. In this day and age of Wikis and ubiquitous information technology there's absolutely NO REASON why teachers couldn't band together and create collaborative open source textbooks, content and curriculum, put the textbook companies out of business and save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

That would put the Common Core people out of business.

Consider the politics behind Common Core, i.e. the feds have tied funding to the adoption of common core by states. Considering that was done, what is to stop the feds from financially enticing states to use the resources of the corporations in bed with them rather then open source? What the government gives, the government can take away...

Get the government out of our public schools, is what I always say.

Yeppers. For some reason, people think that the if the department of education was obliterated tomorrow, that no one would be educated in the future. This could not be farther from the truth.

So then what? It doesn't sound like CC is being implemented well, but the concept behind it makes sense. If a kid is moving from Alabama to New York, shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation that they should be well prepared for their new school?

Sure, in theory. But when the implementation isn't working, then the children suffer. And big government is always very slow and stubborn about making change. Which is why the Constitution was designed to delegate education down to state, then local levels. Local school boards and teachers can change what's not working much faster than state and federal government. But that's not what's happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, in theory. But when the implementation isn't working, then the children suffer. And big government is always very slow and stubborn about making change. Which is why the Constitution was designed to delegate education down to state, then local levels. Local school boards and teachers can change what's not working much faster than state and federal government. But that's not what's happening.

That assembly of rich white men at the constitutional convention in 1787 was awfully foresightful, I guess.

Alternatively: what does the Constitution say about education? Not one word.