I agree. There is a gap somewhere. But, people who go into trade today still need better skills than they did 30 to 50 yrs ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The CC standards are a strait jacket. Schools can't change them, so they can't introduce more vocational tracks. And because they are national, even infiltrating into the GED and private schools, children and parents can't escape them.

This is incorrect. States can make changes.

Nope. They can add to them, up to 15 percent. Even if they weren't copyrighted, they can't take out of the bad standards because of the national tests.

Anonymous wrote:
PP. Sure, at the college or post secondary level, things have changed a lot, especially for technical training. But if you look at the K-12 CC, they are addressing reading, writing, and math skills that are not as specific as what you are thinking about (writing an argumentative essay based on research, working on explaining math concepts, etc.). These are things that have been taught for a long, long time---conceptual thinking. I just sent a son off to college. I'm pretty aware of what it took for him to get in there. At age 60, we are not completely out to lunch yet. I am still learning and I think you will be too (since high tech is ever changing). What is important is building a foundation and skills (at the K-12 level) so that you can continue to learn as you move forward. Thinking skills are important and I wonder how well the CC tests are assessing that. If 30% of students are passing in KY and the tests are reliable indicators of thinking skills, yes, we are in trouble.

Anonymous wrote:

We had some electrical work done in our house a year ago. The electrician owned his own company; older man. He was looking to hire more electricians, and he was willing to train them. But, most of the young adults who applied couldn't figure out fractions. He said he felt hopeless in this regard. He was overworked and wanted to retire and pass on his company to someone else, but things weren't looking good. So, even kids that are trade bound need better skills today.

He couldn't find anyone because they are all at college now. Going to college is the big push in high schools. More kids than ever are going to college both number wise and as a percentage of the graduates. There is a gap in the trades. Some kids may end up graduating college and then going into the trades because that is where there is money. It isn't real efficient though.

I can't decide if the poster who is so pro CC is working for the Department of Education or one of the publishers. It is clear that the person is not working in a school.

Anyway, I am almost 60 years old. I remember an Iowa test once every couple of years in grade school. I do not recall any standardized tests in middle school or high school. I did well on the SAT, went to college, got a master's degree and have had a long career (30+ years). I went to public schools the whole way through. I had good teachers (many of whom I still think about) and I was very well prepared for college. For the record, I was born into a lower middle class home.

I'm not saying that everyone I went to school with is living a miracle or anything, BUT I am not sure my generation suffered from not having standardized instruction. It seems like people started complaining about the whole public system starting in the mid 90's or so. It would be interesting to understand why that happened. Was the economy changing about then? Were there more poor students coming into the schools? Did instruction change and that caused a decline in learning? Is that when they changed from a vocational to a more academic focus in schools? Maybe it's when we lost a lot of manufacturing jobs and we believed that our future would be in the "smarter jobs"? I don't know. What I do know is that creating some standards and testing the heck out of them is probably not the whole answer (and probably not even half the answer).

There are school districts in this country that were doing fine before the whole standardization trend started to gain momentum. Of course there were schools that needed help too. The problem with the feds being involved in schools is that the brush gets painted too broadly and local schools that were doing well were made to suffer and pay for things they didn't need (and that didn't help). I believe this is why the Constitution left education to the states (and localities).

Now I believe that the federal government is overreaching. Not only are they overreaching, they are wasting a lot of money that could be put to use in ways that local governments know would help. If the idea is that "the locals are stupid and don't know how to educate", how in the heck are standards and tests going to make them smarter? The biggest influence is going to be the "stupid locals" on the kids, not some standards and tests. The "stupid locals" are a 24/7 thing for those kids. Of course, you might be underestimating the locals based on your own broad brush way of thinking.

Also, Pearson, McMillan, whoever . . . it doesn't matter. The point is that they have a profit motive that conflicts with a purely educational motive. Those places (and Pearson has stockholders) are going to do what is best for their bottom line and that is not necessarily what is best for students. That is happening all over unfortunately (our highway system seems to be the latest victim).

The good news is that the "stupid locals" are finally getting it and questioning these things. I don't think that's a bad thing. It's our messy democracy trying to work again. We might find a way out of this after all.


Um.. if you are 60, then the curriculum you studied under is out of date for kids in the 21st century. I don't work for either the publishers or DOE. I'm in high tech.

Anonymous wrote:

We had some electrical work done in our house a year ago. The electrician owned his own company; older man. He was looking to hire more electricians, and he was willing to train them. But, most of the young adults who applied couldn't figure out fractions.

Yet this older man (60ish I'm guessing) learned fractions. Sounds like he got a good education even though it was "long ago".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The CC standards are a strait jacket. Schools can't change them, so they can't introduce more vocational tracks. And because they are national, even infiltrating into the GED and private schools, children and parents can't escape them.

This is incorrect. States can make changes.

Anonymous wrote:

The CC standards are a strait jacket. Schools can't change them, so they can't introduce more vocational tracks. And because they are national, even infiltrating into the GED and private schools, children and parents can't escape them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The populace hasn't changed, though. Not everyone is Ivy league or even 4-year college material. That shouldn't make them worthless or ineligible for a high school diploma. But that's the situation Common Core is setting up. Those standards were written for the top 30 percent of students, not the general population. And that's about the amount of students passing the early tests, even in early adopter states like Kentucky after three years of testing.

I agree that it's a problem. I disagree that it's a problem that the Common Core standards are setting up. If the Common Core standards had never been invented, or if they disappeared tomorrow, there would still be a lack of vocational education and economic options for non-college-bound students.

The Common Core standards are not going to solve every problem in education, and this is one of the big, big problems that they are not solving.

We had some electrical work done in our house a year ago. The electrician owned his own company; older man. He was looking to hire more electricians, and he was willing to train them. But, most of the young adults who applied couldn't figure out fractions.

We had some electrical work done in our house a year ago. The electrician owned his own company; older man. He was looking to hire more electricians, and he was willing to train them. But, most of the young adults who applied couldn't figure out fractions. He said he felt hopeless in this regard. He was overworked and wanted to retire and pass on his company to someone else, but things weren't looking good. So, even kids that are trade bound need better skills today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great post: 9:36. Right on.

Disagree. Sorry, but times have changed. If you are 60, then there were a lot more manufacturing jobs and a lot less global competition for jobs when you graduated HS. Even when I graduated in the late 80's the competition wasn't as tough. Not the case anymore. It changed in the 90's when it started becoming apparent that the US kids were not doing as well globally compared to our counterparts, and today, even compared to some lesser developed countries.

It really bugs me when I see these types of posts.. "it was good enough for me, so it should be good enough now." No, it isn't good enough now. People that have this mentality have their heads stuck in the ground and don't see how much more competitive things have become, both in the workplace and in getting into colleges.

The populace hasn't changed, though. Not everyone is Ivy league or even 4-year college material. That shouldn't make them worthless or ineligible for a high school diploma. But that's the situation Common Core is setting up. Those standards were written for the top 30 percent of students, not the general population. And that's about the amount of students passing the early tests, even in early adopter states like Kentucky after three years of testing.

Anonymous wrote:

The populace hasn't changed, though. Not everyone is Ivy league or even 4-year college material. That shouldn't make them worthless or ineligible for a high school diploma. But that's the situation Common Core is setting up. Those standards were written for the top 30 percent of students, not the general population. And that's about the amount of students passing the early tests, even in early adopter states like Kentucky after three years of testing.