I see a great deal of negative comments in regard to Common Core here on the fire, various other forms of media, and from local people. Now I've been involved in the process on a district level, and I'm really not seeing a lot to be dissatisfied with other than that our particular MT version is poorly organized. The biggest complaint that I've heard from those involved is that it was implemented too quickly and the bugs aren't all worked out. Otherwise, the curricular content is virtually the same as what we had before. The curricular pacing is the only aspect of our curricula that we've had to adjust in any way. The SBAC test is online and has caused some districts problems if they lack bandwidth or available computers, but it will be much cheaper in the long run. Test results are expected to be much more useful in identifying areas of weakness in individual content areas. Where is all of this hype coming from? I just don't see it at all, and I'd be right there with every other dissatisfied individual if there were some sort of a push for a liberal slant to studies or a dumbing down of the curricula. Would someone please explain exactly why it is that you take exception to CC?
CC simply provides a baseline for what is taught. A quality school will exceed the requirements of CC in many cases, but can only go so far. One has to remember that a public school educates low aptitude children alongside those with high aptitude. AP classes and advanced electives are the means with which public schools are able to provide higher level learning in core subject areas. I'm not familiar with the gobbledegook you refer to, but I suspect that what you are hearing is your state's version of CC or possibly just that of an individual district. There is a lot of leeway when it comes to how CC is approached. I suspect everything that comes from this administration of being something heinous, like many here. With that in mind, however, all of the ridiculous things I've seen to date that have been attributed to CC, have been state or local efforts.
You seem to be a very sincere person and your inquiries indicate interest in acquiring useful knowledge. But, am thinking that your educational aim and expectations may be lower than you think.
You are interested in a public school situation and you are seeking "dissatisfiers" - not a very lofty aim - and that is the primary fault with CC or anything like it. One goal of CC is to avoid dissatisfiers and resulting dissatisfaction by those being cheated. The aim is a low common expectation so that many, many underachieving students, teachers, familes and schools will feel great because they are at, or even above, some acceptable "norm" while their outcomes actually are inferior.
So - all can feel good about meeting the "expectations" without acknowledging that the expectations are low and the results even lower. This is classic "dumbing down" to satisfy the teeeming masses who do not yearn to breathe deep knowledge, excellent skills and the ability to think critically. Those who know anything about Maslow's hierarchy of needs will tend to get the point.
Once again - you seem sincere and well-meaning and, although i have not read the posts previous to this, I would bet that you have been handed a load of critique and some bad gas along with it. Some people do care deeply about the future of their kids/grandkids and this country, and they will see through the watered down charade.
I do not know and therefore cannot critique the specific CC effort at your school, but I well know the pernicious and demeaning intent of such deleterious schemes. A lot of people will drink the CC Kool Aid - but I hope not any parent, student or school with whom I have any influence.
Take a moment and think about the greatest teachers, best students and finest schools you have known. Would they even give CC the time of day? There is NO SUBSTITUTE for excellence - the high satisfier - in teaching, learning and parenting. Why not expect and demand the best and ignore the jargon and poor excuses?
This went on too long, but there is nothing more important on here tonight - or almost any night.
So am I correct in the assumption that you feel that CC curricular goals and SBAC testing goals are lower than current standards? Are you at all familiar with the NCLB AYP standards and the difficulty that almost every school in the nation has had with meeting these standards 100%? CC prescribes even more intense standards than the NCLB testing did. You also must be aware that high achieving students aren't limited to learning only what is taught within the confines of an SBAC test. I explained all of this in depth earlier on in this post, so I won't repeat myself further, but you haven't presented any evidence of the heinous nature of CC. Show me within the CC literature, what is wrong with it. Cite a case of a liberal agenda being put forth by it. Don't simply tell me it's bad and will result in poorly educated children.
You are not alone in your apparent acceptance of CC, and I am not trying to argue you out of that. I merely replied to your posts, as requested. Please do not point to the notion that �schools� are not able to effectively achieve any particular set of arbitrary �standards� as any reason whatsoever for supporting another arbitrary set of standards.
In reply to your posts after this one, I never pointed to a "conspiracy" or came to this from a "conservative" position.
My analysis and comment is based on more than 50 years of work for educating people in public and private educational settings - as a teacher and then leader and then evaluator - doing the above in very rural K-9 schools, in rural and urban high schools and in colleges and universities.
Apparently you have not experienced two things simultaneously: 1. the benefits of local schools operating powerfully on their own at very high levels and with rigorous testing standards, as driven by the expectations of those who fund and manage the process; 2. the fact of increasing and pernicious federal intrusion since the 1970s.
Were you to have such perspective as a result of on the job experience, I believe that you would not see CC as some new and improved method thoughtfully based on "higher common standards and elevated learning expectations". Rather, I believe you would see it for what it is in the 30+ year progression wherein schools of all sorts across this country have been negatively affected by:
labor union activity,
diminished parental interest/ responsibility,
those who choose to become teachers because they can get paid and have more vacation time while easily dodging accountability and enjoying security (ask me about the opposite type),
gutless principals/superintendents who worship at the throne of political correctness and "don't make any waves" while playing the career ladder game,
the huge intrusion of the USDE/federal schemes/bureaucrats/etc.
and i could go on.
If you have not experienced the drift and have not seen the effects, you probably won't get the drift. In how many locations and for how long have you lived/taught/cared about public school education? As a result of that, do you truly believe that some governmental uniform scheme of standard curriculum and standard testing will be useful, let alone beneficial, to the students and families in the variety of settings and circumstances extant?
If it were funny and not so sad to hear, I would laugh at statements such as "the school always can supplement or go beyond" the expectations of CC. Great and even good schools ALWAYS have "pushed beyond" basic requirements for students prepared and willing to move beyond - so why is that something good about CC. If you have been awake to the developments, the overall outcomes of public education have fallen steadily and shamefully for almost three decades (see the list of reasons above) and that downturn is inversely proportional to the increasing intrusion of the federal government.
Do you really believe that, all of a sudden, we have a new concept or method that is going to reverse that downfall, and that this great success will be shaped and driven by federal action?
A wise person does not attempt to assess the shape/content/intent of CC as a stand alone concept. It must be assessed in terms of its context. Good schools help their students learn to see and analyze the bigger pictures, the concepts that drive movements, the values and mores involved in "new things". Excellent teachers working in excellent school environments supported by excellent taxpayers and parents make excellent education happen.
None of that intent can be found in CC. Kindly continue to think for yourself.
