Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'll keep your concern in mind when I criticize science textbooks for presenting "both sides of the debate" about evolution and human-caused climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'll keep your concern in mind when I criticize science textbooks for presenting "both sides of the debate" about evolution and human-caused climate change.

They should present both sides of the debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you don't have an answer. LOL.

[Anonymous]

A CORRECT retelling of History would be to talk about the Militia Act of 1792, passed by the Founding Fathers within 6 months of ratification of the Second Amendment, which provided extensive further clarification on the Second Amendment, making it clear that the intent of gun rights was in the context of a well regulated militia, which the US President had authority over. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe you could start a new thread about your thoughts on the second amendment. Not sure what this has to do with common core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are mistakes in text books all the time. Have you been crusading to fix them over the years or only the new ones that are "CC aligned?"

[Anonymous]

Saw a couple friends over the weekend who are teachers in Massachusetts. When I asked about CC, they shrugged and said it really wasn't that different from what they were doing before. But they could understand how parents/teachers living in states with previously less rigorous standards may be less enthusiastic about the changes (I'm the PP with a SIL in a southern state who is really against CC).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw a couple friends over the weekend who are teachers in Massachusetts. When I asked about CC, they shrugged and said it really wasn't that different from what they were doing before. But they could understand how parents/teachers living in states with previously less rigorous standards may be less enthusiastic about the changes (I'm the PP with a SIL in a southern state who is really against CC).

My brother and SIL live in MA and saw such a difference that they called me to ask about it. They tend not to follow this stuff and were very upset at what they were seeing, esp. in mathematics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw a couple friends over the weekend who are teachers in Massachusetts. When I asked about CC, they shrugged and said it really wasn't that different from what they were doing before. But they could understand how parents/teachers living in states with previously less rigorous standards may be less enthusiastic about the changes (I'm the PP with a SIL in a southern state who is really against CC).

My brother and SIL live in MA and saw such a difference that they called me to ask about it. They tend not to follow this stuff and were very upset at what they were seeing, esp. in mathematics.

It might do them well to follow the ACTUAL education discussion, instead probably just hearing the uninformed, conspiratorial FUD from the extreme right and left wings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A CORRECT retelling of History would be to talk about the Militia Act of 1792, passed by the Founding Fathers within 6 months of ratification of the Second Amendment, which provided extensive further clarification on the Second Amendment, making it clear that the intent of gun rights was in the context of a well regulated militia, which the US President had authority over. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

The statement spoke directly about the second amendment. So tell it as it's written. Then DISCUSS anything after, including more recent court cases than 1792 and how they have affected the 2nd. But the 2nd should not be paraphrased in a way that is not true at the outset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw a couple friends over the weekend who are teachers in Massachusetts. When I asked about CC, they shrugged and said it really wasn't that different from what they were doing before. But they could understand how parents/teachers living in states with previously less rigorous standards may be less enthusiastic about the changes (I'm the PP with a SIL in a southern state who is really against CC).

My brother and SIL live in MA and saw such a difference that they called me to ask about it. They tend not to follow this stuff and were very upset at what they were seeing, esp. in mathematics.

It might do them well to follow the ACTUAL education discussion, instead probably just hearing the uninformed, conspiratorial FUD from the extreme right and left wings.

I gave them the ACTUAL education discussion - it's all over the news as the initial testing comes in. The reality isn't living up to the hype, and they are mired right now in the reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are mistakes in text books all the time. Have you been crusading to fix them over the years or only the new ones that are "CC aligned?"

There are mistakes and there are re-writes. The latter falls into that category. There is nothing that indicates it's a mistake, like a spelling error, typo, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw a couple friends over the weekend who are teachers in Massachusetts. When I asked about CC, they shrugged and said it really wasn't that different from what they were doing before. But they could understand how parents/teachers living in states with previously less rigorous standards may be less enthusiastic about the changes (I'm the PP with a SIL in a southern state who is really against CC).

My brother and SIL live in MA and saw such a difference that they called me to ask about it. They tend not to follow this stuff and were very upset at what they were seeing, esp. in mathematics.

It might do them well to follow the ACTUAL education discussion, instead probably just hearing the uninformed, conspiratorial FUD from the extreme right and left wings.

I gave them the ACTUAL education discussion - it's all over the news as the initial testing comes in. The reality isn't living up to the hype, and they are mired right now in the reality.

If the "actual" was anecdotes and pictures of an inscrutable "Common Core Worksheet" - basically what we've seen on this message board - then you didn't give them the "actual".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw a couple friends over the weekend who are teachers in Massachusetts. When I asked about CC, they shrugged and said it really wasn't that different from what they were doing before. But they could understand how parents/teachers living in states with previously less rigorous standards may be less enthusiastic about the changes (I'm the PP with a SIL in a southern state who is really against CC).

My brother and SIL live in MA and saw such a difference that they called me to ask about it. They tend not to follow this stuff and were very upset at what they were seeing, esp. in mathematics.

It might do them well to follow the ACTUAL education discussion, instead probably just hearing the uninformed, conspiratorial FUD from the extreme right and left wings.

I gave them the ACTUAL education discussion - it's all over the news as the initial testing comes in. The reality isn't living up to the hype, and they are mired right now in the reality.

"Mired in the reality." Same here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some of us would LOVE to have Common Core include common standards for History, Geography and Economics, but I doubt that will ever happen.

It is hard enough to get the nation to agree on having standards in common, even in a relatively non controversial subject such as math. Imagine trying to get consensus in our nation about what every 5th grade should know about, say, the causes of the Civil War. Never, ever going to happen.

These are the Language Arts standards related to reading and writing in History for grade 6- they are NOT History standards. They are standards for using language in the subject of studying History:

Key Ideas and Details:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.1
Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.2
Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of the source distinct from prior knowledge or opinions.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.3
Identify key steps in a text's description of a process related to history/social studies (e.g., how a bill becomes law, how interest rates are raised or lowered).

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.4
Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary specific to domains related to history/social studies.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.5
Describe how a text presents information (e.g., sequentially, comparatively, causally).

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.6
Identify aspects of a text that reveal an author's point of view or purpose (e.g., loaded language, inclusion or avoidance of particular facts).

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.7
Integrate visual information (e.g., in charts, graphs, photographs, videos, or maps) with other information in print and digital texts.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.8
Distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.9
Analyze the relationship between a primary and secondary source on the same topic.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.10
By the end of grade 8, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 6-8 text complexity band independently and proficiently.