Somehow news of Common Core has passed me by. Not sure how accurate this is but it seems pretty darn scary.

[dollarvigilante.com]

I don't know how this whole thing has passed me by. Thanks for the extra info.

But wait, there's more --

COMMON CORE READING COMPREHENSION ASSIGNMENT PUSHES GLOBAL WARMING

[www.breitbart.com]

A Common Core-aligned elementary school homework assignment in a Jefferson County, Colorado school district tells children that by 2512, Kansas will be an oceanfront state, that the “Smokey” Mountains [sic] will become the “Smokey” Islands [sic], and that a sharp decline in the human population will take place, all due to man-made global warming.

According to Complete Colorado, the assignment, labeled as “Common Core Comprehension Grade 5,” given at the Fremont Elementary School, is identified as a science fiction exercise in reading comprehension, but in “no part of the material, including a sheet of follow-up questions” is there “any critical thinking ‘pushback’ against the narrative provided in the exercise.”

The observation raises an irony, given that proponents of Common Core state that one of the main features of the new standards is that they encourage “critical thinking” over mere memorization of facts.

The assignment, published by Newmark Learning in a Common Core-aligned reading comprehension workbook, has the premise that a student from the year 2512, “Gif,” must create a hologram image of a student from the 21st century. Upon his arrival, the hologram student is shocked to see an oceanfront Kansas, and the explanation given by “Gif,” the “real” student from the future, is:

Well, by the early 21st century, people knew that the massive use of fossil fuel was heating up the planet. But people didn’t stop their destructive lifestyles. They just kept using up Earth’s resources. The ice sheets melted, and Earth’s crust shifted. Volcanic pressure burst through in places that never had volcanoes.

“Gif” adds, “In 2130, the oceans began to rise over farmland and cities. In 300 years, most of the eastern United States was covered with water. All that remains are the Smokey [sic] Islands – formerly the Smokey [sic] Mountains.”

The reading comprehension questions following the story include:

What caused all the problems on Earth?

What were the Smokey [sic] Islands before?

How could the problems have been avoided?

Children who complete this assignment are not being asked to consider a viewpoint and make their own decisions, they are instead surreptitiously instructed to parrot that point of view. Regardless of the assignment’s intent, this is a potent form of indoctrination because humans have a well-documented drive to bring their beliefs in line with their actions.

When children, who are trusting and vulnerable, find themselves transcribing the political message at the core of these stories, they are likely to accept those ideas in order to establish consistency of behavior and belief. Add to that the fact that children routinely learn by way of fantasy, and these stories begin to look like an insidious form of coercion.

Wow! What a bunch of wack-jobs (takes one to know one!). Not only are they feeding kids nightmares, they're feeding them BS nightmares.

I know Common Core is vastly unpopular, and I don't fully understand it.

These anecdotal stories you are reading in blogs appear to be local school board choices of material. I could be wrong, but from what I understand, Common Core does not dictate material.

Please see for yourselves. Read the English or math standards. I can't find dictated or mandatory material anywhere in the standards or on the site:

The standards:
[www.corestandards.org]

The home page:
[www.corestandards.org]

In opposition to the Government School curriculum, here's the Waldorf School opinion of Common Core -

Common Core and Your Child

[blog.sgws.org]

First of all, I try to post discussion starters with a certain bent. Not facts. That's why I placed a question mark at the end of the title in parentheses. Secondly, I don't have time to read through all of that. Can you point to a certain passage and page number which says that there's all kinds of flexibility allowed? Third, if it doesn't dictate material, why in the world would they name it "Common Core?" This implies that the core curriculum of this program is something that schools will have in common, hence "Common Core."

Seriously, thanks for posting that PDF but I just don't have time. It seems that if you've read it you could tell us where to directly head. That would be immensely appreciated.

swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know Common Core is vastly unpopular, and I
> don't fully understand it.
>
> These anecdotal stories you are reading in blogs
> appear to be local school board choices of
> material. I could be wrong, but from what I
> understand, Common Core does not dictate
> material.
>
> Please see for yourselves. Read the English or
> math standards. I can't find dictated or mandatory
> material anywhere in the standards or on the
> site:
>
> The standards:
> [www.corestandards.org]
> d-the-standards
>
> The home page:
> [www.corestandards.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2014 11:16PM by HH.

I kind of enjoy unbending things around here from time to time with facts.

My understand is "common core" having set standards that have to be met eat each level of teaching. I see it more as a level of accountability a teaching institution must meet.

No one has the time to read this stuff. We all rely on our news sources to tell us about it. But news organizations are no longer interested in informing. They just want to sway opinions and mold views. The only way to know for real is to make the time to read it. So I read some, and this is what I found.

This is directly from the "Common Core State Standards for: English Language arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and technical Subjects

[www.corestandards.org]
Page 6

"What is not Covered by the Standards:
The Standards should be recognized for what they are not as well as what they are. The most important intentional design limitations are as follows:

1. The Standards define what all students are expected to know and be
able to do, not how teachers should teach. For instance, the use of
play with young children is not specified by the Standards, but it is
welcome as a valuable activity in its own right and as a way to help
students meet the expectations in this document. Furthermore, while
the Standards make references to some particular forms of content,
including mythology, foundational U.S. documents, and Shakespeare,
they do not—indeed, cannot—enumerate all or even most of the
content that students should learn. The Standards must therefore
be complemented by a well-developed, content-rich curriculum
consistent with the expectations laid out in this document.

2. While the Standards focus on what is most essential, they do not
describe all that can or should be taught. A great deal is left to
the discretion of teachers and curriculum developers. The aim of
the Standards is to articulate the fundamentals, not to set out an
exhaustive list or a set of restrictions that limits what can be taught
beyond what is specified herein.

3. The Standards do not define the nature of advanced work for students
who meet the Standards prior to the end of high school. For those
students, advanced work in such areas as literature, composition,
language, and journalism should be available. This work should provide
the next logical step up from the college and career readiness baseline
established here.

4. The Standards set grade-specific standards but do not define the
intervention methods or materials necessary to support students
who are well below or well above grade-level expectations. No set of
grade-specific standards can fully reflect the great variety in abilities,
needs, learning rates, and achievement levels of students in any given
classroom. However, the Standards do provide clear signposts along
the way to the goal of college and career readiness for all students..."

There is more about what is NOT covered, but it is in two columns and the second column won't copy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2014 11:58PM by swimmer.

Okay so what you quoted sounds like they're attempting to create an across the board consensus in terms of what is taught. In other words, and as the program title implies, they're looking for public schools to have a common core curriculum. That sounds normal to me. What I'm trying to figure out is what influence does this program play in selecting textbooks and other informational sources. It seems to be hands-off in terms of how things are taught, but it clearly says that a certain knowledge must be attained. What is that knowledge and where does it come from? What are the "fundamentals?"

Don't take my word for it. Take a just few minutes and briefly scan this over. Tell me what you see:

[www.corestandards.org]

and this myths and facts page:
[www.corestandards.org]

HH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay so what you quoted sounds like they're
> attempting to create an across the board consensus
> in terms of what is taught. In other words, and as
> the program title implies, they're looking for
> public schools to have a common core curriculum.
> That sounds normal to me. What I'm trying to
> figure out is what influence does this program
> play in selecting textbooks and other
> informational sources. It seems to be hands-off in
> terms of how things are taught, but it clearly
> says that a certain knowledge must be attained.
> What is that knowledge and where does it come
> from? What are the "fundamentals?"

From what I see, there are "suggested" texts, yes. But NOTHING is required. Maybe it is "pushed" on a local level, but I don't see it in writing.

From the Libertarians -

What's wrong with Common Core is that it's the Centralization of the Education Curriculum -

Common Core: A Tocquevillean Education or Cartel Federalism?

[www.fee.org]

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 5/27/13: Common Core Nationalizes and Dumbs Down Public Schools - YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

More Bad News from Government-Run Education: The Corrosive Centralization of Common Core | International Liberty - Daniel Mitchell

[danieljmitchell.wordpress.com]

John Whitehead -

To Produce State Subservient Drones – LewRockwell.com

[www.lewrockwell.com]

Ron Paul

Kentuckians Against Common Core Standards: Rand Paul Responds to Question on Common Core...

[www.kentuckiansagainstcommoncorestandards.com]

John Stossel -

[www.creators.com]

**************
Again - Common Core is a production of Bill Gates - Tides Foundation -

[forloveofgodandcountry.com]

In fact, most of the creative work was done by ACHIEVE, Inc, a progressive non-profit group based out of DC which has received much of its funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Bill and Melinda Gates are super liberals). The truth is that the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation planned and funded all the development, did all the reviewing, and is now involved in the promotion of the Common Core, including selecting most of the figures on the various development committees.

So, we see that Common Core was not, in fact, created by the states. But 45 states so far (including NC in 2010) have adopted the Common Core standards, so that must mean that the initiative is a good thing, yes?"

Please show me where it dictates anything like that on the federal level in the actual texts. Suggested, sample, approved, and required have very specific different meanings.

The Common core standards text in the links I've given specifically uses the words suggested and samples. It does not list any "approved texts" or required texts.

Look for yourself, here are the appendixes:
[www.corestandards.org]

[www.corestandards.org] "Sample performance Tasks"
Read the first para of page 2.

[www.corestandards.org] "Sample of Students writing"


Again, you are being misled.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2014 02:08AM by swimmer.

Just because the appendixes you provide links to doesn't "list any 'approved texts or required texts, doesn't mean there are or are not any.

**********

Gates working with the Textbook Corporations -

Gates Foundation Invests $20 Million In Learning Tools To Boost Common Core Curriculum

[www.huffingtonpost.com]

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced Wednesday it would be investing $20 million to bring new national education standards into the classroom using game-based learning, social-networking and other approaches to capture the imagination of bored or unmotivated students.

The Seattle-based foundation is partnering with the nonprofit arm of one of the largest textbook publishers in the United States to create the new learning tools and offer some of the materials for teachers and school districts to use for free. It is also working with education game developers and an online public school in Florida for this project.

Judy Codding, the Pearson Foundation executive leading the course development team, said during a news conference that her organization already planned to be involved in developing new ways to help teachers adopt the new national education standards that will replace local learning goals in more than 40 states.

The partnership with the Gates Foundation offers the philanthropic side of the textbook company the money it needs to really innovate and try out new ideas that catch kids' attention, said Codding, former president and CEO of America's Choice, an education reform company acquired last year by Pearson.

"We can have all the best standards in the world, and we can have the greatest assessments, but if we don't motivate and engage kids, we can't win," she said.

The new learning tools that will be ready for teachers to use during the 2013-2014 school year will include video games that build proficiency in math, reading and science, as well as a new game platform that can be used for various subjects. Game developers and curriculum writers from around the world are involved in the project.

Wednesday's announcement also included a $2 million grant for Florida Virtual School, a statewide, Web-based school, to develop four digital classes based on the new standards. Two of the classes will be math-based and two will be literacy-based, but all will be encased within another topic such as engineering or natural sciences.

Vicki Phillips, director of the Gates Foundation's education program, said the grants announced Wednesday were only the beginning of the foundation's investment in curriculum development for the new national standards.

The foundation recently convened a meeting of game designers and curriculum writers to talk about how they can work together, and they will be working with teachers around the country to try out new ideas.

"We're learning a lot as we go," Phillips said. "It's going to be an exciting feedback loop."

She expects more nonprofit and for-profit companies will join them in the effort to design the way American kids will learn in the future.

***********

Would it be a leap to say Bill Gates is writing the textbooks and curriculum for Common Core?

That stinks to high heaven

Where does it say anything about requiring it's use? Just because they will make it available, does not mean the states have to use them. What wrong with some educational innovation as long as it's not forced?

Many textbook companies have curriculum packages available for schools, because many groups develop them. They run the spectrum conservative, liberal, religious, you name it.

I think it's great that a very wealthy person (liberal or concervitive) is using their money to benefit children. how can this be wrong?

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just because the appendixes you provide links to
> doesn't "list any 'approved texts or required
> texts, doesn't mean there are or are not any.
>

Umm... if it's not written in the text of law or the appendixes, then where is it?

This o b a m i n a t i o n (funny how that word wouldn't go through) completely makes questioning the finer point of - "Are certain books 'required'?" moot, as far as I'm concerned -

If State and Localities can 'choose' one out of a hundred books, but those hundred books are all written by Liberal Bill Gates Pearson Books at the Federal Level, I call that 'required reading' at the Federal Level.

************

Education Policies Led by Gates, Not States?

[news.heartland.org]

The world’s largest philanthropy has targeted education policymaking, sparking debate among education wonks and watchdogs over whether some of its activities cloak government actions and amount to lobbying.

“A lot of private foundations are making decisions that would normally be left up to a public institution that would be accountable to the taxpayers,” said Betty Peters, a member of Alabama’s state school board.

The three big education grant-makers are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation. Gates is by far the biggest. In total assets, Walton has $1.7 billion, Broad $2.2 billion, and Gates $37 billion, according to public documents.

Gates has steadily increased education grants, particularly for advocacy, said Sarah Reckhow, a political science professor at Michigan State University. That’s where 20 percent of its education grants went in 2010, she calculated, while money to schools dropped from 50 to 25 percent since 2005.

“Philanthropists, unlike teachers unions, they don’t have an obvious constituency,” she said. “Teachers unions represent teachers. Who does the Gates Foundation represent?”

Big Money Behind ‘Grassroots’
The Gates Foundation confirmed but did not return several calls and emails over three days requesting comment, but employees have publicly spoken on the topic. “Systemic changes” require political advocacy, Allan Golston, president of Gates’s U.S. program, told the New York Times in 2011. Gates funds myriad seemingly grassroots education groups, the Times article noted.

A recent example was a January legislative hearing on the Common Core, an initiative defining K-12 tests and curriculum requirements in 46 states. Gates has spent $163 million to develop the Core and corresponding curriculum, and to get lawmakers and business leaders to support it. Twenty-six of the 32 people who testified against a bill to withdraw Indiana from the Core are members of organizations the Gates Foundation funds.

“The Gates Foundation completely orchestrated the Common Core,” but when states actually implement the Core its will likely add to Gates’ mixed policy track record, said Jay Greene, who runs the University of Arkansas’ department of education reform.


(There's more to this article - a Must-Read if you want to get the Root of Common Core)

*************

And, BTW, other articles I've seen talk about how "corporations" are in charge of Common Core - I thought 'corporations' are the devil...

swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's great that a very wealthy person
> (liberal or conservative) is using their money to
> benefit children. how can this be wrong?

Because it's Indoctrination of School Children to a Political Ideology, that's how it's wrong.

And he's not using his money 'to benefit children', he's using his money to control and socially engineer the world and everyone in it.

******************

Swimmer, I guess you look for the good in others and I'm distrustful



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2014 02:41AM by KidRaw.

HH, You are referring to 1 document. There are 9 documents that are the standards for common core with over 600 pages. That is it, common core in it's entirety. From there each state customizes it's own standards. Those state standards are implemented locally, with local curriculum choices.

Here is the link again:
[www.corestandards.org]

The Washington post article was talking about a single high school in New York. It is about a single principle making bad decisions. Like many of the stories we've seen, it is local, anecdotal, and not directly from the common Core standards

How does it relate to any non-existent national requirements?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2014 03:38AM by swimmer.

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Because it's Indoctrination of School Children to
> a Political Ideology, that's how it's wrong.
>
> And he's not using his money 'to benefit
> children', he's using his money to control and
> socially engineer the world and everyone in it.
>
> ******************
>
> Swimmer, I guess you look for the good in others
> and I'm distrustful


So you think Gates and Microsoft want to take over the world or at least the minds of our children? Well, if windows is any example of their abilities, you have nothing to worry about!

Yes, I do look for the good in people and intentions, but, you know me well enough to know I'm all about facts.

I run a small business. Among other things, I'm a product designer/developer. I take inventors ideas and turn them into real, manufacturable, medical devices and consumer products. I spend hours researching materials and methods before I ever touch my CAD program to design something. My understanding or misunderstanding of the facts about theses designs can mean the difference between success and failure for my clients projects.

I tend to approach my other interests, including politics the same way. Research everything and filter out what is useful fact from hearsay. Use the facts, ignore the hearsay.

Pearson PLC is a very large corp with fingers in lots of pies. Probably way to much lobbying influence. I agree they are Monsanto type scary.

Edit: Call my mistakes whatever you want, I can't type or spell very well. That's why I edit so much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2014 04:28AM by swimmer.

You're also either a poor BS'er or a poor reader. Your understanding of that article was way off.

I'm assuming that the role of Pearson in Common Core is not included in the handbook on Common Core. See what I'm saying here? Your source does not begin to answer all the questions. That's where editorializing and blogging and real research (looking beyond what the govt. has fed you) comes into play.

swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pearson PLC is a very large corp with fingers in
> lots of pies. Probably way to much lobbying
> influence. I agree they are Monsanto type scary.
>
> Edit: Call my mistakes whatever you want, I can't
> type or spell very well. That's why I edit so
> much.

HH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, but I'm not going to read 600 pages of
> that. It's a guide, and for political safety, it's
> certainly not going to show the fine print or the
> negative consequences that have been arising as a
> result of Common Core (in many people's opinions).
> Does it consider the principal's argument that
> deriving American standards from Finnish standards
> might be flawed? That one size does not
> necessarily fit all? I think not. You're not even
> creating a counter to that assertion, and like I
> said before, I doubt that you're reading the
> articles that you discredit.
>
> [online.wsj.com]
> 02304020704579278060483138096
>
> principal not "principle" and the apostrophe is
> not used in the possessive its. These are not
> typos.
>
>
No apology necessary. Read all, none, or part. But please don't tell me some requirement is in there if you can't point it out. That would be considered hearsay!


Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, Bbt Here is the New York State Ed. Dept. Common Core site. I'm still not seeing it:
[www.p12.nysed.gov]

So this is what you say when I agree with you? That corp looks evil.

HH, I either ignore it or reply with a play on words when people call me names. If it's all the same to you, don't waste your time.

I did in fact only skim that article because I'm working tonight. You gave me a link, and that does deserve the respect of reading it thoroughly, and I didn't. Sorry, maybe later.

Tell me, do you have a better source then the actual text? I never said I blindly believe my government. Help me find a real source that shows where these are coming from required text that is required by the common core standards, and I gladly read it, and back down if it is true. All I'm saying is I can't find anyone who is posting any real verifiable requirements.

HH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're also either a poor BS'er or a poor reader.
> Your understanding of that article was way off.
>
> I'm assuming that the role of Pearson in Common
> Core is not included in the handbook on Common
> Core. See what I'm saying here? Your source does
> not begin to answer all the questions. That's
> where editorializing and blogging and real
> research (looking beyond what the govt. has fed
> you) comes into play.
>



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2014 05:04AM by swimmer.

Swimmer, I'd like to move beyond the 'those books are not required' argument to other aspects of Common Core.

Like the Washington Post article explained, there's the whole Math issue that's been a problem for a few years now - A convoluted way of teaching and learning math that's a problem for young students (as Waldorf believes) who's brains can't handle complex thinking like that yet.

(Don't have to read all the links unless you're interested in finding out more)

**********

It's Not Just Writing: Math Needs a Revolution, Too

[www.theatlantic.com]

A New Kind of Problem: The Common Core Math Standards

[www.theatlantic.com]

*********

Kindergarten gets tough as kids are forced to bubble in multiple choice tests
They don’t even know how to hold a pencil yet, but kindergartners are getting a taste of the tough side of education with Common Core standardized math tests.

[www.nydailynews.com]

*********

EPIC FAIL: Parents reveal insane Common Core worksheets

[dailycaller.com]

*********

How bizarrely complex can Common Core make simple arithmetic for America’s children?

[dailycaller.com]

**********

[twitter.com]

I don't understand why you tried to not only pretend that you had a grasp on an article that you didn't properly read but also tried to essentially write it off as useless bunk. I appreciate your admission, but I'm sure you'll understand that it's hard for me to directly invest time in discussion with people who have that approach. I also have things to do away from here.

swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So this is what you say when I agree with you?
> That corp looks evil.
>
> HH, I either ignore it or reply with a play on
> words when people call me names. If it's all the
> same to you, don't waste your time.
>
> I did in fact only skim that article because I'm
> working tonight. You gave me a link, and that does
> deserve the respect of reading it thoroughly, and
> I didn't. Sorry, maybe later.
>
> Tell me, do you have a better source then the
> actual text? I never said I blindly believe my
> government. Help me find a real source that shows
> where these are coming from required text that is
> required by the common core standards, and I
> gladly read it, and back down if it is true. All
> I'm saying is I can't find anyone who is posting
> any real verifiable requirements.
>
> HH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're also either a poor BS'er or a poor
> reader.
> > Your understanding of that article was way off.
>
> >
> > I'm assuming that the role of Pearson in Common
> > Core is not included in the handbook on Common
> > Core. See what I'm saying here? Your source
> does
> > not begin to answer all the questions. That's
> > where editorializing and blogging and real
> > research (looking beyond what the govt. has fed
> > you) comes into play.
> >

I was tired, I apologized, give me a break. Now, with that type of attack I have NO interest in reading it and debating further. So you no longer want to take the time to debate me? (if you can call it a debate) Am I supposed to feel insulted now, like I screwed up? Not gonna happen.

EDIT: It seems the only thing you've done with the links I posted is tell me you not going to take the time to read them. ?????


You guys are giving me LOCAL examples of with is being done with common core, not any national requirements. Which has been my only point all along.

Yes, the local administration of this looks totally clusterf'd, but that does not mean the federal government required the @#$%& ups. I'd say it looks like they gave them a concept that was too new, with the wrong type of guidance, but what do I know. I'm just a "pretending, poor reading, bad spelling, b.s.er."

I'll leave you guys now to go back to scoffing. Have fun.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2014 02:58PM by swimmer.

You're very polite but your politeness won't buy off the fact that you chose to pretend knowledge of an article that you hadn't read. This leads me to believe that you did not read any of the sources that you wrote off. Tiredness, how does that explain your lapse in truth? Geez dude you totally wasted my time when I had to point out that you had not read the article. That's frustrating.

I don't know how to discuss this with someone who sees the 600 page CC standards manual as the one real answer. You're relying on an instruction manual. That's like if I buy a tv and when I hit the power button it turns on but has a terrible picture. I complain about the picture, but you respond by saying, "Well, it says in the instruction manual that if you press the power button it should turn on and it did turn on; therefore, it works and there's nothing to complain about." So because the instruction manual doesn't address the poor picture quality, i.e. the product of the tv, that means that the tv is okay? It's an infuriating approach that I won't bang my head against.

HH,

Civil discourse and politeness used to be the accepted norm in debates. Now it’s considered a weakness to be capitalized on. Personal insults in a debate used to be considered a weakness of position, or a lack of confidence in a point. Now it’s accepted as the norm and applauded. That is a travesty for society and I choose not to practice it.

I can’t think of one single time in my life where insulting someone has elevated me, or helped a situation in any way. Conversely, I can’t think of one single time in my life where someone insulting me has elevated them, harmed me, or really helped their situation in any way. From my standpoint, it’s all a waste of time.

I joined this thread to engage in a civil debate about a single subject and nothing more. In all honestly, the way I see it what you think of me personally is none of my business.

Have a great day, and I mean that sincerely.

KidRaw,

Thanks for the links but this is just not what I consider fun anymore, and it’s not how I want to spend what little free time I have.

Enjoy yourself doing what you like to do!

Hey Swimmer,

I always enjoy debating with you, so I hope you drop by again sometime. Say hi to Appledate Sandwich