Text book publishers will not likely make out on this like you may think. Textbooks are replaced on a schedule that is dictated by budget constraints. They will have to produce books that fit the CC curricula and schools will buy them, but not in greater quantities nor with more frequency than they would have otherwise.
Not sure what you're referring to with the Gates Foundation and software. Our CC testing, the SBAC test, is hosted on a secure server that the Montana Office of Public Instruction administers. The only money that I can see in CC core is for curricular experts in drawing up district level curricula to dovetail with the CC requirements.
Just a couple observations. I dont know a lot about CC. After this discussion, i am going to do a little research.
I do know this, it has been a pretty civil discussion, with only 1 resulting to name calling (which automatically makes me think he is wrong). Ranger1 has done a good job of asking and answering questions and many (not all) of the responses seem to be blaming questionable teachers/districts on CC.
What you do today is important, you are trading a day in the rest of your life for it.
I have made a point that common core in itself isn't bad. However, the instrument of its implementation with PLCs which can be good but still is driven by office politics within the different disciplines drives that LCM lowest bar standard. The bright kids hate it.
If the feds are in it, I smell a rat. Think of the power the feds have when they put out the Pravda curriculum and are in bed with the standardized test producers. If one wants to score well and go on to college indoctrination, a good score is paramount. Those who fall into line will be prepared for the govt test. In my gray haired life the education establishment has been on the wrong side of learning with great regularity. Anyone for the "open classroom"?
CC has been called by some, "Saul Alinsky for 6th graders". Teachers will soft sell the curriculum in front of parents. Michelle Malkin has been a dogged opponent of CC and the idiot Jeb Bush. Here is a link you might find interesting..........
many (not all) of the responses seem to be blaming questionable teachers/districts on CC.
Local teachers have about as much to do with Common Core as the Easter Bunny. Yeah, you really should read up on it.
For someone with nothing to do with CC, you seem awfully sure of yourself. Local teachers implement the curricula. If that teacher wishes to push an agenda, as many do, you may see things like books touting the achievements of Obama. From the admin./board level, you will see interpretations that may not be in keeping with the best practices. I still have yet to see any concrete proof of communist teachings being a part of this effort. I keep hearing about Saul Alinsky, not sure how tying curricula to a standardized test is in any way a radical idea. Nothing is dictated in CC that wasn't already a part of education, other than coordinated pacing and intentionalized methodology. Again, not perfect, but not a commie/radical effort to take over education. I'm totally open to being proven wrong - I'd really like to see some proof of all of the allegations.
Ranger, I do not like to see more power in the hands of the feds. LIke the IRS, it draws flies. Did you watch the Hillsdale vid? What do you think of its content? Honest question.
Nothing is dictated in CC that wasn't already a part of education, other than coordinated pacing and intentionalized methodology. Again, not perfect, but not a commie/radical effort to take over education. I'm totally open to being proven wrong - I'd really like to see some proof of all of the allegations.
You are correct, it is nothing new. The marxists took over the US edukashun system a long time ago. Dr. Mary Grabar knows a thing or two about marxists, her family suffered at their hands. She used to teach English at a commuter college in the Atlanta area. She's seen what "common core" and its predecessors produce, dullards. Currently she teaches at Emory University. Argue with her:
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.
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.
"A new study suggests that the literary genre of poetry is likely to become endangered in the Common Core-based English classroom due to the dramatic reduction in time spent on literary texts in favor of informational ones, a change that is implicitly mandated by the centralized standards."
"�A school�s poetry curriculum is not designed to teach skills that will help students get jobs,� Highfill says. �It is to �make minds, not careers.� When a mind is strengthened, so is the ability to secure employment.�"
"In examining the reasons Common Core appears to be hostile to poetry as a literary genre as it also focuses on transforming students into workers,....�
�The whole thrust of their standards is away from poetry and toward �informational� texts,�� the authors write. �Information can be managed. But poetry cannot.�
�Information for information�s sake befits a soulless drudge in a soulless world,� they add. �Poetry for poetry�s sake befits a fully mature human being, who is infinitely more than a worker or a voter.�" (emphasis added)
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
I have not done any research yet, but I dont believe that poetry is that important, period. A little, fine. But poetry is not high on my list of important life skills. In fact, the poetry major is most likely not a fully mature human being, but rather a liberal college professor.
I would applaud CC for de-emphasizing poetry. It is just not something that is important in my world, the world of my family, nor the world of my friends, colleagues, and acquaintences. And frankly, I take offense at the elitist attitude that since it is not important to me, I am a "soulless drudge".
What you do today is important, you are trading a day in the rest of your life for it.
All those required Philosophy courses (15 hours) I took when learning accounting seemed like an interesting but useless burden. Turned out to be some of the most important and useful courses in the whole four years. Learning a skill is not so important, a relatively small part of life. Learning to THINK and appreciate, evaluate and interact with the rest of life is. Even when practicing your skill. As the Jesuits would say, educate the whole person.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/nhqZTmxJ/Screen-Shot-2020-11-08-at-5-01-55-PM.png)
