Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When people need to fudge data and lie about it to the public, these are real issues that can't be ignored.

Regardless, this thread is about CC.

So again, what format are the tests in, including SAT and ACT, since they will be changed to accommodate CC? How will that change private schools?

Remember, that the elite who send their kids to private aren't worried about ACT and SAT because their kids will be accepted to the college of their choice based on who they are, not what they score.

Actually, I've found this discussion very enlightening. People who oppose the Common Core are also climate change (and evolution?) denialists who think that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided and believe that whatever the question, the free market is the answer.

[Anonymous]

There are a couple of different factions who oppose Common Core, however it is definitely undeniable that a big segment of them at this point is precisely that regressive creationist, suppress-voter-rights, climate-denial crew of flat earthers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a couple of different factions who oppose Common Core, however it is definitely undeniable that a big segment of them at this point is precisely that regressive creationist, suppress-voter-rights, climate-denial crew of flat earthers.

It seems that most people who oppose Common Core really are opposing the one or two snippets of something labelled "common core" on some kids' worksheet. Or are opposed to one or two of the 26 mat standards for that grade (that require kids to explain their thinking). Or oppose the fact that New York State had a test they said was based on Common Core standards, that a lot of kids failed. Or, they are just uncomfortable with the idea of having ANY standards for kids, period.

People are "opposing" common core for a host of weird reasons that don't seem to have much to do with the actual common core state standards.

[Anonymous]

Here is a great example of why Common Core is creating such a stir. The approved Common Core worksheet and books are what are being used to teach our children, and yet, some are interpretations, often incorrect:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/17991-common-core-approved-textbooks-rewrite-second-amendment

ex: The second amendment is being re-written in some of these worksheets to indicate that our forefathers said that guns needed to be registered in order to meet the second amendment requirements. This is NOT true. Why not just teach the second amendment based on exactly how it's written, then further a discussion on how law has altered it, i.e. through registration, banning of certain weapons, etc.

There are many examples of things like this throughout CC.

[Anonymous]

"Approved" by whom?

And the Common Core doesn't have history standards.

(And "teach the second amendment based on exactly how it's written, indeed". If "our forefathers" had been better educated in punctuation, we could have avoided a lot of trouble. On the other hand, now I can add "gun absolutists" to the list of people (see the PPs above) who oppose the Common Core.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Approved" by whom?

And the Common Core doesn't have history standards.

(And "teach the second amendment based on exactly how it's written, indeed". If "our forefathers" had been better educated in punctuation, we could have avoided a lot of trouble. On the other hand, now I can add "gun absolutists" to the list of people (see the PPs above) who oppose the Common Core.)

They are being used in the publics. So clearly someone from the State did, right? Follow the Monty. Someone bought them.

Doesn't matter if CC has history standards or not. These are textbooks bought by the state for students to learn and are CC aligned. They are incorrect. And some of these incorrect statements are in the English grammar textbooks.

Why are you afraid to teach the second (as an example) as it's written and then have a discussion about how it has been interpreted throughout history, bringing in the Federalist Papers as fuel for thought?

[Anonymous]

Rear, that's follow the MONEY

[Anonymous]

I the auto correct. Lol. Done trying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a couple of different factions who oppose Common Core, however it is definitely undeniable that a big segment of them at this point is precisely that regressive creationist, suppress-voter-rights, climate-denial crew of flat earthers.

It seems that most people who oppose Common Core really are opposing the one or two snippets of something labelled "common core" on some kids' worksheet. Or are opposed to one or two of the 26 mat standards for that grade (that require kids to explain their thinking). Or oppose the fact that New York State had a test they said was based on Common Core standards, that a lot of kids failed. Or, they are just uncomfortable with the idea of having ANY standards for kids, period.

People are "opposing" common core for a host of weird reasons that don't seem to have much to do with the actual common core state standards.

It is the same thing with NCLB. Most people don't understand the length and breadth of that legislation and think it is just about tests. Most of NCLB was a rehash of the education legislation of the 1960's- tried and true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Approved" by whom?

And the Common Core doesn't have history standards.

(And "teach the second amendment based on exactly how it's written, indeed". If "our forefathers" had been better educated in punctuation, we could have avoided a lot of trouble. On the other hand, now I can add "gun absolutists" to the list of people (see the PPs above) who oppose the Common Core.)

They are being used in the publics. So clearly someone from the State did, right? Follow the Monty. Someone bought them.

Doesn't matter if CC has history standards or not. These are textbooks bought by the state for students to learn and are CC aligned. They are incorrect. And some of these incorrect statements are in the English grammar textbooks.

Why are you afraid to teach the second (as an example) as it's written and then have a discussion about how it has been interpreted throughout history, bringing in the Federalist Papers as fuel for thought?

Textbooks cannot be aligned to standards that do not exist.

And no, I'm not going to get into an argument about the meaning of a comma with a gun absolutist on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Approved" by whom?

And the Common Core doesn't have history standards.

(And "teach the second amendment based on exactly how it's written, indeed". If "our forefathers" had been better educated in punctuation, we could have avoided a lot of trouble. On the other hand, now I can add "gun absolutists" to the list of people (see the PPs above) who oppose the Common Core.)

They are being used in the publics. So clearly someone from the State did, right? Follow the Monty. Someone bought them.

Doesn't matter if CC has history standards or not. These are textbooks bought by the state for students to learn and are CC aligned. They are incorrect. And some of these incorrect statements are in the English grammar textbooks.

Why are you afraid to teach the second (as an example) as it's written and then have a discussion about how it has been interpreted throughout history, bringing in the Federalist Papers as fuel for thought?

Textbooks cannot be aligned to standards that do not exist.

And no, I'm not going to get into an argument about the meaning of a comma with a gun absolutist on the internet.

I'm not asking you to get into an argument. I'm asking you why you are opposed to exposing kids to the second amendment exactly how it is written.

[Anonymous]

And your tax dollars are buying these textbooks; if the state is buying textbooks because they are CC aligned and the material in them is incorrect, then you should be VERY concerned.

[Anonymous]

And according to the common core org website, it looks like History/Social studies is being lumped in with Language Arts:

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RH/6-8/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not asking you to get into an argument. I'm asking you why you are opposed to exposing kids to the second amendment exactly how it is written.

And I'm asking you when you stopped kicking your dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And according to the common core org website, it looks like History/Social studies is being lumped in with Language Arts:

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RH/6-8/

No. Those are not history standards. That is reading non-fiction in Language Arts. And why? Because Language Arts includes non-fiction.