Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Oh look! I was right! You do believe that judicial review is unconstitutional!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Oh look! I was right! You do believe that judicial review is unconstitutional!

Is that what I said? Or did I say the way the law was created was a bypass to the Constitution. Think DOMA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So why is there a Department of Education on a Federal level ? My point exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So why is there a Department of Education on a Federal level ? My point exactly

What does the Constitution say about "homeland security"? What does the Constitution say about veterans? What does the Constitution say about most of modern life? If you want to go live in 1787, be my guest. I prefer living in a country where I am allowed to vote and to own property rather than be property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child was learning addition, subtraction, telling time & counting money last year as a second grade student in NYS. This year my third grader's math homework started with division problems that also required comprehension to extract all of the facts to answer the questions, then they expect the child to explain the answer, in detail, on a concept they weren't taught! This has been a tough year for my child. I have been told that she hates school & the most heartbreaking part is she feels stupid. I have been working with her on my own to teach her multiplication tables, and this is after an hour of homework. From my perspective, the curriculum bounces around too much and the teachers don't have enough time to focus on one topic before they have to move on to the next. The kids who don't learn as fast are getting steamrolled. The teachers are stressed out & are forced to worry about getting graded and potentially losing their job based on ratings. Most teachers I have spoke with said that all of the fun has been sucked out of teaching. They no longer have time to do the fun activities. Kids need to learn but they also still need to be kids. As a parent, I spend a lot of time on the 'engageny' website educating myself so I can help my child with her homework. It has been a frustrating year for the kids, the parents and the students.

I think they should have had a better implementation strategy, maybe a phased approach would have worked better. Perhaps if they started with the kindergartners and let the kids that were in the other grades continue with the old method this would have had a better outcome. So far, I am not impressed and I am upset that my child is essentially a common core guinea pig.

Not sure what the complaint is here? Second grade too easy and too big a jump to 3rd grade? Our district teaches "telling time and counting money" in K and first, addition and subtraction with manipulatives in k and as facts in first. Division is introduced in second along with multiplication. This has been the before the implementation of common ocre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Eh, I'm well aware of all that, never said I wasn't. You're kidding yourself if you don't think geopolitics are involved to a certain degree. If so someone is already anti-Obama (again, if you don't think this is more prevalent in the South, well, you haven't spent much time there!) it's easier to place the blame there rather than admit that the local/state governments also played a role in the origin and implementation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So why is there a Department of Education on a Federal level ? My point exactly

What does the Constitution say about "homeland security"? What does the Constitution say about veterans? What does the Constitution say about most of modern life? If you want to go live in 1787, be my guest. I prefer living in a country where I am allowed to vote and to own property rather than be property.

Homeland Security? I feel it is unconstitutional. Veterans? Might I suggest you READ the document? Creation of a military is in there. The benefits come from the contract they sign with the US Government.

The Constitution is not an antiquated document, nor is it a "charter of negative liberties". It is what separates us from tyrannical nations.

Oh, by the way? Voting and owning property are part of the freedoms afforded to you by the Constitution. YAY freedom!


http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/04/the-constitution-and-property-rights/#.U0bF2tx62ZY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, by the way? Voting and owning property are part of the freedoms afforded to you by the Constitution. YAY freedom!

The Founding Fathers did not provide for me voting or owning property in the Constitution. They did provide for people owning other people, though. YAY Founding Fathers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, by the way? Voting and owning property are part of the freedoms afforded to you by the Constitution. YAY freedom!

The Founding Fathers did not provide for me voting or owning property in the Constitution. They did provide for people owning other people, though. YAY Founding Fathers!

Did that change? And was the Constitution amended? And isn't that why the Founding Fathers allowed for amendments?

You can dodge and sway, but it's clear you have no real understanding of the document that governs this nation.

So I guess if a racist president comes into office, and decides to use his pen and phone to deny minority rights, that would be ok with you? Because that's the negative side of what you propose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, by the way? Voting and owning property are part of the freedoms afforded to you by the Constitution. YAY freedom!

The Founding Fathers did not provide for me voting or owning property in the Constitution. They did provide for people owning other people, though. YAY Founding Fathers!

Did that change? And was the Constitution amended? And isn't that why the Founding Fathers allowed for amendments?

You can dodge and sway, but it's clear you have no real understanding of the document that governs this nation.

So I guess if a racist president comes into office, and decides to use his pen and phone to deny minority rights, that would be ok with you? Because that's the negative side of what you propose.

What, exactly, am I proposing? The doctrine of judicial review? I didn't invent that. But it seems to have worked pretty well so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, by the way? Voting and owning property are part of the freedoms afforded to you by the Constitution. YAY freedom!

The Founding Fathers did not provide for me voting or owning property in the Constitution. They did provide for people owning other people, though. YAY Founding Fathers!

Did that change? And was the Constitution amended? And isn't that why the Founding Fathers allowed for amendments?

You can dodge and sway, but it's clear you have no real understanding of the document that governs this nation.

So I guess if a racist president comes into office, and decides to use his pen and phone to deny minority rights, that would be ok with you? Because that's the negative side of what you propose.

What, exactly, am I proposing? The doctrine of judicial review? I didn't invent that. But it seems to have worked pretty well so far.

That laws can be created outside the rule of law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That laws can be created outside the rule of law

The Supreme Court is not the rule of law? How about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So why is there a Department of Education on a Federal level ? My point exactly

What does the Constitution say about "homeland security"? What does the Constitution say about veterans? What does the Constitution say about most of modern life? If you want to go live in 1787, be my guest. I prefer living in a country where I am allowed to vote and to own property rather than be property.

Homeland Security? I feel it is unconstitutional. Veterans? Might I suggest you READ the document? Creation of a military is in there. The benefits come from the contract they sign with the US Government.

The Constitution is not an antiquated document, nor is it a "charter of negative liberties". It is what separates us from tyrannical nations.

Oh, by the way? Voting and owning property are part of the freedoms afforded to you by the Constitution. YAY freedom!


http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/04/the-constitution-and-property-rights/#.U0bF2tx62ZY

If you agree that creation of the military is in there then you have no choice but to also acknowledge that the Constitution also gives federal government a very broad mandate to "provide for the general welfare" and to do whatever it deems is "necessary and proper" - the "general welfare" language is part and parcel with, in the very same sentence as the one that talks about defense, which is used for the military. Article I Section 8 as well as the Preamble. Funny how conservatives focus on the military part but ignore the part about general welfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So why is there a Department of Education on a Federal level ? My point exactly

What does the Constitution say about "homeland security"? What does the Constitution say about veterans? What does the Constitution say about most of modern life? If you want to go live in 1787, be my guest. I prefer living in a country where I am allowed to vote and to own property rather than be property.

Homeland Security? I feel it is unconstitutional. Veterans? Might I suggest you READ the document? Creation of a military is in there. The benefits come from the contract they sign with the US Government.

The Constitution is not an antiquated document, nor is it a "charter of negative liberties". It is what separates us from tyrannical nations.

Oh, by the way? Voting and owning property are part of the freedoms afforded to you by the Constitution. YAY freedom!


http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/04/the-constitution-and-property-rights/#.U0bF2tx62ZY

If you agree that creation of the military is in there then you have no choice but to also acknowledge that the Constitution also gives federal government a very broad mandate to "provide for the general welfare" and to do whatever it deems is "necessary and proper" - the "general welfare" language is part and parcel with, in the very same sentence as the one that talks about defense, which is used for the military. Article I Section 8 as well as the Preamble. Funny how conservatives focus on the military part but ignore the part about general welfare.

I"m sorry, what? You're aware that the general welfare part of that is preceded by the levying taxes part to pay the debts. In other words, the Feds can levy and collect taxes to provide for the common defense AND general welfare of the United States, not OR general welfare. It makes a difference. That doesn't mean they can create any department they want and make the people pay for it. The military is specifically mentioned, i.e. defense. The other departments? Not so much.

Do some reading. Yes it is contentious, but it's not that hard:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304451/limiting-general-welfare-clause-andrew-c-mccarthy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That laws can be created outside the rule of law

The Supreme Court is not the rule of law? How about that.

I am not talking about the Supreme Court. I am talking about the man who says he can do anything he wants because he has a pen and a phone and the Constitution be damned!

Creating whatever laws you want, then challenging the courts to strike them down, is not the way to run a country. DOMA was a great example of that.