Skip to main content

View Diary: Principal Outlaws Teaching Of Holocaust Because of Common Core (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Apologist huh? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell, Iberian, rlb, IamGumby

    Looking for supporters? Let me google that for you.

    http://www.corestandards.org/...

    Many, many states and school districts have adopted it. Are there certain standards within common core you find unacceptable, or is that too specific of a question?

    •  Well-handled, reenactor. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reenactor

      I love these people who don't think they have to know anything about a topic to decide exactly what they think about it.

      It's like the Bush administration all over again; just do the ol' ideological gut-check.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 06:08:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes it is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg
      Are there certain standards within common core you find unacceptable, or is that too specific of a question?
      The "big picture" is that there are fundamental and deep problems with the very premise that underlies Common Core.

      For example, Common Core requires an insane amount of completely counter-productive testing.

      AND, I am firmly opposed to national standards.   Why should I be shackled to what goes on in states like these?

      •  you're wrong about the testing. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IamGumby

        From the FAQ on the common core site:

        Are there data collection requirements associated with the Common Core State Standards?
        No. Implementing the Common Core State Standards does not require data collection. Standards define expectations for what students should know and be able to do by the end of each grade. The means of assessing students and the data that result from those assessments are up to the discretion of each state and are separate and unique from the Common Core.

        http://www.corestandards.org/...

        Common Core doesn't include creationism, by the way. In fact, it's a set of standards that students are to meet, NOT a curriculum (i.e. exactly what they learn). Curriculum is determined usually at the school district level.

        •  On the other hand, ANSI would reject CCSS out of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OHdog
          •  I feel like we're Gish galloping here. (0+ / 0-)

            So a competing standards institute doesn't like them. What do YOU think, and more importantly, why?

            •  You didn't read the link, did you? (0+ / 0-)

              To sum up:

              They were written in a manner that violates the nationally and international recognized process for writing standards. The process by which they were created was so fundamentally flawed that these “standards” should have no legitimacy.
              OK?

              As for "a competing standards organization":

              The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has served in its capacity as administrator and coordinator of the United States private sector voluntary standardization system for more than 90 years. Founded in 1918 by five engineering societies and three government agencies, the Institute remains a private, nonprofit membership organization supported by a diverse constituency of private and public sector organizations.

              Throughout its history, ANSI has maintained as its primary goal the enhancement of global competitiveness of U.S. business and the American quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems and promoting their integrity. The Institute represents the interests of its nearly 1,000 company, organization, government agency, institutional and international members through its office in New York City, and its headquarters in Washington, D.C.

              ... ANSI promotes the use of U.S. standards internationally, advocates U.S. policy and technical positions in international and regional standards organizations, and encourages the adoption of international standards as national standards where they meet the needs of the user community.

              The Institute is the sole U.S. representative and dues-paying member of the two major non-treaty international standards organizations, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and, via the U.S. National Committee (USNC), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). As a founding member of the ISO, ANSI plays a strong leadership role in its governing body while U.S. participation, via the USNC, is equally strong in the IEC.

              Yeah. "Just another" competing standards organization.
              •  I know who they are. (0+ / 0-)

                And read the link too. Thank you for quoting it. Just wanted to hear what you think. I didn't say "just ", either.

                •  What do I think about what? (0+ / 0-)

                  The fact that you are promoting a set of standards that would not be certified by the "sole U.S. representative and dues-paying member of the two major non-treaty international standards organizations" due to such poor development processes? Is that what you would like to know what I think about?

                  I do notice you aren't addressing the point I made. Would you like to know what I think about that?

                  Try to be a little more clear and forthright.

                  •  Perhaps I missed the point. (0+ / 0-)

                    I thought your point was that a competing standards organization didn't like them. My response - sorry I wasn't clear - was "so what?" You quoted stuff from the article, I agreed those things were in the article. Is there a particular line of thinking you want to talk about? I'ts not enough just to tell me another body has some hate for it. You have something specific you want to talk about relating to this, I can. My lunch is over though so you'll have to wait a few hours.

                    •  No problem. My point, pretty clearly, was that the (0+ / 0-)

                      major standards organization in the country would not have certified the Common Core standards, because they were developed in such a manner as to belie all principles of open standards.

                      You are promoting those standards (CCSS) as a Good Thing.

                      If it's necessary, I guess my question would be, "Why are you promoting something that fails all ANSI certification standards as a Good Thing?"

                      I'ts not enough just to tell me another body has some hate for it.
                      If you are going to claim that ANSI is a small fish amongst organizations dedicated to standards, it's going to significantly reduce your credibility.
                      •  Okay. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        IamGumby

                        I'm not sure exactly what ANSI wants, although I got the gist of it. Here's the thing. I teach. The standards in my content area are actually excellent. They're well thought out, achievable, and obviously modeled directly on the standards produced by our two largest professional associations. It's only a draft we can look at now - our content area will roll out by the end of the year - but there was a public comment phase before the next draft.

                        So while I can appreciate your perspective, what affects my life more than what some standards body (no matter how illustrious) says about common core is whether I can see them work - and I can. Good thing too because we're two years down the road for implementation.

        •  Sorry. It IS a curriculum-- (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OHdog

          Test companies write scripted lessons to "prepare" for the test. Which is all that's left.

          I suggest doing research here.

          "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

          by zenbassoon on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:48:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IamGumby

            A standards document lists skills to be learned by a particular grade. That's what common core is.

            Curriculum designed by a company to be sold to districts, while it may be common core compatible, does not make common core a curriculum. Districts choose curriculum.

            There is no standardized test as a part of common core. Elsewhere on the thread I linked to a common core FAQ.

            Source: teacher with a couple degrees here.

            •  PARCC is the test everyone is going to go to. (0+ / 0-)

              "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

              by zenbassoon on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:31:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  If teachers say it's a curriculum, believe it. ^0^ (0+ / 0-)

              "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

              by zenbassoon on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:32:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If someone says that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                IamGumby

                They don't know the basic terminology of our profession. I call bullshit.

                •  Try again. Do your research: (0+ / 0-)
                  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has partnered with the Pearson Foundation, the world’s largest publishing company, to create a curriculum for the nation aligned to the CCSS.  According to the Gates Foundation’s press release, it will spend $20 million to develop resources aligned to the Common Core State Standards including:

                      Game-based learning applications
                      Math, English language arts and science curricula built into digital formats
                      Learning through social networking platforms
                      Embedded assessments.

                  Other participants is the effort are:  Educurious Partners, Florida Virtual School, Institute of Play, Reasoning Mind, Quest Atlantis, Digital Youth Network and EDUCAUSE.

                  The Gates Foundation expressly admits that its intention is to align learning tools with the Common Core State Standards and “to fundamentally change the way students and teachers interact in the classroom, and ultimately, how education works in America.”

                  Sources:

                  Gates Foundation Announces Portfolio of Innovative Grants to Develop New Teaching and Learning Tools that Support Teachers and Help Students
                  http://www.gatesfoundation.org/...

                  Foundations Join to Offer Online Courses for Schools
                  http://www.nytimes.com/...

                  Then there's this:

                  Follow The Money

                  From Common Core's OWN WEBSITE:

                  In December 2009, the Gates Foundation also made a grant of $550,844 to Common Core, Inc.,“to develop K-10 [English Language Arts] curriculum aligned to the Common Core standards,” which were still under development. According to data on the Gates Foundation website, it appears Common Core, Inc., was the first organization to receive grant money, in “2009 and earlier,” specifically to develop a curriculum based on the standards.

                  According to Common Core, Inc.’s website, “with the advent of the Common Core State Standards in 2010, we decided to begin designing a library of content-rich, standards-based curriculum materials. Two months after the standards were finalized, we released the Common Core Curriculum Maps in English Language Arts. The first truly CCSS-based ELA curriculum tool, these maps (now renamed The Wheatley Portfolio) are in use by tens of thousands of teachers nationwide.”

                  Although the Common Core State Standards were not released until June 2010, the bio for Common Core, Inc.’s president and executive director, Lynne Munson, claims, “In six short years Lynne has made Common Core… a noted provider of CCSS-based curriculum tools.”

                  "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

                  by zenbassoon on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:07:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  When you have the SAME standards and the SAME (0+ / 0-)

                  tests (PARCC), that means the CURRICULUM is the same also.

                  All test prep.

                  All the time.

                  Badass Teachers are not amused. ^0^

                  "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

                  by zenbassoon on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:08:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Your map shows states where creationism is taught. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        reenactor, Linda Wood

        Texas is the biggie on any map for anything to do with education. It has dominated text book publishers for decades and absolutely determined what the rest of the country even has available to purchase.  You can attribute the largest amount of the dumbing-down of textbooks and curricula to the influence of Texas.  It has hit science education particularly savagely.  

        Guess what?  Texas is one of five states to refuse to adopt Common Core.  

        Most of the other states are DELIGHTED to finally INCLUDE science standards for evolution and climate change in the Common Core.  It has been prohibitively expensive to get educational materials for those subjects because it's not taught in Texas.  Now, with 45 other states all needing textbooks and curricula that include evolution and climate change, educational publishers are actually creating them!  

        Even if it does nothing else besides rid our nation of Texas' stranglehold of stupidity on educational publishing, Common Core will be a welcome force just for THAT.  

        "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~Edward Abbey

        by koosah on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:00:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, but those topics don't happen to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OHdog

          be covered by common core . .. .

          Most of the other states are DELIGHTED to finally INCLUDE science standards for evolution and climate change in the Common Core.
          My point was more along the lines of "why should some states be tied to the totally dumbass states in any regard?"  
          •  These standards improve what they're doing . NT (0+ / 0-)
            •  How would you know that w/o testing (0+ / 0-)

              (which in other posts you claim is not required by Common Core - against all Common Sense and empirical observation).

              In any event, the reality in this type of thing is that they won't be pulled up, the better states will be pulled down.

              •  What an interesting perspective. (0+ / 0-)

                We do assessment all the time in education apart from massive end of the year tests. You might remember from your time in school. Yearly tests, usually mandated by states, are helpful benchmarks, but on of our least important indicators.

                I'm pretty sure you haven't looked directly at the standards, or you'd understand they're rigorous. Most educator's concerns go in the opposite direction I'm afraid, especially K5 and 1st grade.

                •  Also (0+ / 0-)

                  Concerning common sense - all this stuff is written down. You don't have to guess or have hunches about it. Poring through the thread, I've linked repeatedly. Search for common core FAQ for a start - always a useful place to begin. If you have any questions about what you see I'm happy to talk about it.

                  •  Well you repeatedly say there is no testing (0+ / 0-)

                    when Wikipedia makes it clear that there is:

                    Assessment[edit]

                    According to the Common Core State Standards Initiative website, formal assessment is expected to take place in the 2014–2015 school year, which coincides with the projected implementation year for most states.[28] The assessment is being created by two consortiums with different approaches.[29] The PARCC RttT Assessment Consortium comprises the states of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. Their approach focuses on computer-based ‘through-course assessments’ in each grade together with streamlined end-of-year tests. (PARCC refers to " Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers" and RttT refers to the Race to the Top.)[29] The second consortium, called the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, comprises 31 states focusing on creating "adaptive online exams.” Member states include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.[30][29] The final decision of which assessment to use will be determined by individual state education agencies. Both of these leading consortiums are proposing computer-based exams that include fewer selected and constructed response test items, unlike the Standardized Test that has been more common.

                    linik

                    That sounds ALOT like "testing" to me, so it seems like you have a 'hunch' that there isn't and have been putting that misinformation all over the comments for this diary.

                    Basically, if there wasn't it'd be a lot like states (or whatever level of government) creating a speed limit and then not doing any enforcement - it's just a bizarre scenario that you propose.

                    •  Standardized testing is a state initiative. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      IamGumby

                      Common core is simply standards. You're conflating them.  RttT is Arne Duncan's no child left behind. Did you notice that two different agencies make the most common tests?  Common Core is not both of them , it's something else. The tests are sold to states that want to assess the standards, but they are not the standards, and standards are not tests.

                      You didn't quite understand the  Wikipedia article. Sometimes a little knowledge can lead you astray.

                      •  I don't really care who makes the tests (0+ / 0-)

                        testing IS "expected" based on the Common Core standards.

                        Except that it is called "assessment" - an attempt at obfuscation, I suppose, that allows persons of your mindset to claim that there is no connection between Common Core standards and the testing the inevitably follows to evaluate whether those standards are being met or not.

                    •  Testing (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      reenactor

                      Well, first, you're assuming that "which test to use" means which of these two tests to use, implying that the common core forces school districts to use one or the other. And your assumption is wrong, as you would have noticed if you had read the very next sentence:

                      While some states are working together to create a common, universal assessment based on the Common Core state standards, other states are choosing to work independently or through these two consortiums to develop the assessment.
                      In other words, no one is required to give either of those tests.

                      Second, your analogy is entirely inapt. The speed limit is a law. The Common Core is not. Let me state this as clearly as I can: No one is being forced to participate in the Common Core. Those who do participate in the Common Core are not forced to use either of these tests.

                      Does the Common Core refer to tests? Yes, it does, because end-of-grade testing has been going on for just about as long as we've had schools. But "refer to" does not mean "require."

                      Since the Wikipedia article you quoted includes a list of the standards themselves, can you tell me precisely which of those standards you object to? And if your strongest argument is "they might lead to something bad," you don't really have an argument.

                      Reenactor is not spreading misinformation, but you seem to be. There are certainly valid arguments against the Common Core out there, but they don't include the ones  you're making here.

                      "Seeing Leela fly off the Hexadecapus and crash through the moon dome and survive inside a stuffed animal by breathing a balloon was a dose of reality." Farewell, Futurama--I will avenge you!

                      by IamGumby on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:45:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  In reality that is not true (0+ / 0-)
                        No one is being forced to participate in the Common Core. Those who do participate in the Common Core are not forced to use either of these tests.
                        There are financial incentives in place that basically make participation mandatory (either in Common Core or something equally nefarious).
                        No one is being forced to participate in the Common Core. Those who do participate in the Common Core are not forced to use either of these tests.
                        Again that is completely disingenuous - they don't have to use either of those two tests - but they do have to use a standardized test of some type.
                        Reenactor is not spreading misinformation, but you seem to be
                        I quoted directly from Wikipedia that assessment is required.  It seems like you two are trying to get away with some type of sophistry by making the point that assessment is NOT for all intents and purposes equivalent to testing.

                        It is.  I think any reasonable person would agree with that conclusion.

                        •  When I'm Engaging . . . (0+ / 0-)

                          . . . with someone who accuses me of sophistry and intentional lying, its time for the conversation to come to a close.

                          Did I say, "assessment is not for all intents and purposes equivalent to testing?" No, I said that NOWHERE in the Common Core as written is there a testing requirement.

                          Is your shocking assertion that "some sort of standardized testing is required" accurate? You betcha! It has been since NCLB. NCLB was implemented in 2001. Development of the Common Core began in 2009, so of course it assumes standardized testing, because schools that receive federal aid must adopt standardized testing. States have the option to design their own tests, and that's what my state has chosen to do. The requirement for standardized testing does NOT come from the Common Core; it predates it.

                          Do states adopting the Common Core receive financial incentives? You betcha! The incentives are from Race to the Top, and are doled out to any state that adopts "college- and career-ready standards." Some states adopt the Common Core, and receive the grant. Other states do not adopt the Common Core, and also receive the grant. Texas and Virginia rejected the Common Core, and are still receiving their RttT grants.

                          Now I'll restate my earlier comment: You called me a sophist and a liar. I'm done with you.

                          "Seeing Leela fly off the Hexadecapus and crash through the moon dome and survive inside a stuffed animal by breathing a balloon was a dose of reality." Farewell, Futurama--I will avenge you!

                          by IamGumby on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 06:51:44 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I NEVER accused you of intentional lying (0+ / 0-)

                            essentially, that accusation about me is just more sophistry on your part that proves my point - maybe you were trying to be ironic or something, who knows.

                            And about your Virginia and Texas "gotcha" comment, you may have missed when I said this:

                            either in Common Core or something equally nefarious
                            (with the part that you obviously missed in bold).
          •  Also, standards: (0+ / 0-)

            Most widely used science standards are these:

            http://www.nextgenscience.org

    •  Citing Common Core to Support Common Core? (0+ / 0-)

      Is not very good.  Is Colgate the best toothpaste ever?  Why, yes! If you ask Colgate.

    •  They are developmentally inappropriate. They do (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy, OHdog

      NOT take into account the cognitive development of a child.

      40,000 Badass Teachers are not wrong on this

      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

      by zenbassoon on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:45:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site