How do you feel about Common Core education?

by nonjwspouse 107 Replies latest social current

  • Oubliette

    Here is a "not at all secret document" just released from Sacramento, California:

    California Adopts First Math Framework Aligned with Common Core - November 6, 2013

    SACRAMENTO—California teachers have new guidance from the State Board of Education as they continue implementing the California Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson announced today.

    The State Board of Education today approved the new Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools, which provides instructional guidance for teachers and administrators. The Framework provides grade-level explanations and examples of the standards for mathematics practice and content, integrating mathematical thinking and conceptual understanding with procedural skills and application.

    “The new Framework gives educators important new guidance and resources to teach students step-by-step the mathematics knowledge and skills they need to graduate ready for college and careers,” Torlakson said. “From teaching strategies to evaluation criteria, it will help teachers as they work to modernize education in California.”

    For example, the Framework provides guidance for educators on a range of topics, including instructional strategies to strengthen learning for every student, the qualities of effective professional development, technology for instruction and learning, criteria for evaluating instructional materials, assessment to improve instruction and learning, and inclusion of financial literacy into math instruction.

    “The new Framework helps teachers to have students apply mathematics to new and different content areas and contexts,” State Board of Education President Michael Kirst said. “The Framework moves beyond students just memorizing rules to solve math problems by asking them to make complex inferences, estimates, and models that are part of the Common Core.”

    The Framework provides a context for implementing the California Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, which were first adopted by California in 2010, and then modified in 2013. Standards describe what students should know and be able to do in each subject in each grade. Frameworks provide guidance for implementing the standards. Common Core is a state-led effort adopted by 45 states, so that all children—no matter where they come from or where they live—will receive a world-class education that is consistent from school to school and state to state.

    The newly adopted Framework was created by a committee of educators and math experts, most of whom are teachers in California classrooms, under the guidance of the state Instructional Quality Commission. The draft Framework was informed by public comment, before being presented to the State Board of Education for adoption. The Instructional Quality Commission unanimously recommended the Framework to the State Board of Education for adoption.

    The Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools is currently available in draft form on the California Department of Education’s Web site and will soon be updated to reflect its final adoption by the State Board of Education.

    # # # #

  • nonjwspouse

    Again a One size fits all education which is known to be a damaging thing, since they MUST teach to the lowest common denominator in order to keep all children on the same level.

    Do you realize that when ordering the books for common core ( mcGraw Hill) that there is a staggered ordering from gradde to grade and you are locked into either it;s 3 or 5 years after signing onto that specific program? This means it would be next to impossible to opt out of that program if it were not working for that school unless they are willing to lose the $$$ on textbooks to begin a new program.

    As I said once before it is an intiativ to take the school controlsaway from the states, and centeraliz it in the federal governemt. Does this not scare you? Who else in history have wanted to centeralize education in order to help control the public? Do you know?

    Another piece about following the money, and David Coleman.

  • Oubliette

    nonjwspouse: they MUST teach to the lowest common denominator in order to keep all children on the same level

    That simply is not true. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

    There is absolutely NOTHING in CCSS that prevents teachers from using differentiated instruction techniques to address the learning abilities of both children on the lower end of the spectrum as well as the gifted. In fact, as I have stated repeatedly, the CCSS as written actually allow teachers MORE FREEDOM to utilize whatever teaching methods work best for them as long as they are teaching their students the skills outlined in the standards for that grade level. Some students will acquire these skills at an advanced level, most will be proficient, some will be below basic and a (hopefully) smaller percentage will be below that.

    nonjwspouse: Who else in history have wanted to centeralize education in order to help control the public?

    Again, you demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge about the subject which worries you so much. Certainly "centralized control" has the potential for abuse. But the fact is that the US Federal government is prohibited by law from mandating curriculum, that is they canNOT impose subject matter content on the states and by extension to school districts and so on down the line to individual classroom. Only the states can decide on the specific content.

    I suggest you stop your paranoid rants and actually READ the CCSS. You will find that, rather than focusing on WHAT STUDENTS SHOULD KNOW, the focus is on WHAT STUDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO.

    It's all about teaching students how to think! What part of THAT frightens you?

    Here is an excerpt from the CCSS for 11-12th grade English Language Literarcy, Writing Skills, which describes what students in those grades should be able to do:

    • Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.

    Please tell me what part of any of that is a problem for you? It seems that you could benefit from these skills yourself. I certainly want all of my graduating students to possess all of these skills. Maybe if I had taught them to my children they would not now be stuck in a manipulative, mind-control cult.

    Here is another excerpt regarding the skills involved with conducting Research to Build and Present Knowledge:

    • Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the strengths and limitations of each source in terms of the specific task, purpose, and audience; integrate information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and overreliance on any one source and following a standard format for citation.

    Again, what, if anything, about that do you find objectionable?

    Please read the source documents and stop ranting about a subject which you clearly know little or nothing about.

  • Oubliette

    BTW, McGraw-Hill is only one publisher of textbooks, there are many. It is a fiercely competitive market. Sure they stand to make a lot of money from this. Students need textbooks. What a surprise!

    Even without CCSS, the fact is that textbooks need to be updated periodically, particularly in the sciences. Duh!

    You obviously are NOT a teacher. I assure you that we do not like teaching with out-dated textbooks.

    That being said, textbooks are VERY EXPENSIVE and school don't want to have to buy them too often. So when they do, they want to make sure that they contain high-quality curriculum.

    You keep ranting about monsters in the shadows but you have yet to positively identify a single one that is the result of CCSS.

    Sure, data-mining is a concern. But that is a reality of modern technological society. Kids have been taking standardized tests for decades. This is nothing new. If you don't want your kids to be tested you can opt out of the annual tests. Did you not know this?

    Also, you can home-school them. I'm not trying to be mean, but judging by your writing skills and reasoning abilities your children probably wouldn't fare very well. Teachers are highly trained and go through a rigorous internship before they are allowed to teach a kid how to add 2 + 2.

    How many years of formal training in subject matter content have you had? Have you studied Language, Math, Science, History and the Arts at a post-secondary level? How many university level courses have you taken on child-development? Best teaching practices? Curriculum development and implementation?

    Were you observed for a year on a daily basis by Master teacher? Did you have a doctorate level professor evaluate that internship and advise you on your strenghts and weaknesses? (All of this is required before a teacher--at least in my state--can be licensed).

    After you were hired for your first assignment, did you then have an on-site colleague serve as your mentor for another year, observing you on a regular basis and provide written evaluations that were submitted to the school administration and the county office of education? We you also evaluated by an administrator periodically to look for any weaknesses that might have been missed by all of the previous processes?

    Did you participate in a two-year long post-graduate program run the the state department of education to oversee all new teachers and ensure that they all were thoroughly familiar with and well-versed in all the best-practices known to the profession?

    I'm guessing the answer to all these questions would be, "No."

  • Berengaria

    Words fail.

  • BizzyBee

    My take-away from this thread:

    Right-wing fear-mongerers (such as Glenn Beck) do a poor job of preparing their constituents to participate in a fact-based debate.

  • nonjwspouse

    Another person I just found out who is interested in looking beyond the "marketing" of the common core.

    Federal involvement in our schools eventual curriculum, federal policy is NOT what we as free citizens want or need educationg our children.

    There is a lot going on behind the surface of Common Core but it is not yet investigated or revealed. Its easier just to "go with the flow" jump on the bandwagon of funding and feel good that it is a perceived improvement over NCLB.

    Obuliette, your personal attack did not go unnoticed. It is typical when your arguement is weak to resort to such baseless attacks on another person's intelligance or character. My computer keyboard with worn off character stickers might hinder my spelling. My over reliance on spell check and current poor eyesight also perptuates the laziness I have aquired over spelling. However, it has nothing at all to do with the subject of common core development and future direction. Let's try to keep on topic next time, mkay?

    I'll be back to the thread with more links.

  • Oubliette

    Well if Chuck Norris is against the CCSS then I guess they must be bad!

    Seriously, the arguments for or against a thing should be based on facts and not personality.

    nonjwspouse, I am sorry that you feel my posts were a personal attack on you. They were not intended to be, but I could certainly see what you might have taken them that way. If you re-read them I am certain that you will find that you are mistaken. for I never attacked either your "intelligance [sic] or character."

    I was most definitely taking note of the fact that--based on your posts--you seem woefully uninformed about the facts concerning what the CCSS are and what they are intended to accomplish. In general, the concerns you raise that have some validity (for example: data-mining) are not caused by the CCSS.

    In response to your comment to " keep on topic," let me just say this: I have responded with my thoughts about the CCSS based on two things:

    1. My many years of experience as a professional educator that actually works in secondary education, and
    2. I am a parent.

    You keep posting blogs and news articles that are all biased AGAINST the CCSS, most of which are written by people that are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

    I have repeatedly encouraged you to read the standards so you know what you are talking about. If you've done that, you have yet to comment in that regard. You ask about the standards themselves, but instead comment about the politics of government involvement in education. That's a bit of a rhetorical bait and switch.


    BTW, I'm sorry you have a vision impairment that makes spelling correctly difficult.

  • FadeToBlack


    Thanks for keeping us informed about this from the front lines. While I applaud the concept of teaching students to actually be able to think (as opposed to scoring high on a test) it seems like we are starting a bit too late. What would happen in the US if students were taught to think critically now? Why didn't we do this in the past? I would have loved to have taken a basic logic course (in retrospect, if you know what I mean) in High school.


  • nonjwspouse


    In general, the concerns you raise that have some validity (for example: data-mining) are not caused by the CCSS.

    This is why there need to be more investigation is the reasons BEHIND CCSS. I recognise some of the teaching componuntds are good. This kind of program would never fly it they were not. But the overall objective of this is about the federal government, and centeralized control over the education.

    The man behind the common core stated they goal was a 10th grade education for all children. Not a 12 year education. This is a step backwards, not forwads. it is reducing standards not increasing them.

    I also have a problem with testing all children at the same ages, and expecting them all to have the same abilities. Children learn at different paces, some slower, some faster, but in the end they can all learn the same 12th grade level education. The level which would allow a child who wishes to enter a 4 year degree to do so. Those who wish to enter into technical fields can do that. I am all for a school having vocational and technical courses in high school as well as the college bound courses.

    I am being called to chuck e cheese all the sudden. I'll finish more later.

    BTW it's cateracts that cause vision problems which naturally cause me to miss the bad spellings etc. Getting old sucks. Also, I do have an advanced degree.

Share this