Common Core strikes again!
Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 5 months ago to Education
This is one more reason, among thousands, why Common Core needs to be eradicated. Not just tooled with. Struck down. Put in an incinerator. There is no logic to it, no possible way this is a rational method to teaching. I, for one, am disgusted and shaking my head over the sheep following blindly along.
That may be. My comment was specifically about why the US has a publically funded, compulsory education system. The laws, and resulting court opinions relate specifically to stopping the child labor and exploitation, and to "prepare citizens to participate effectively and productively in America’s political system.
We all have reasons for education, but the reason we have state funded, compulsory education ties to these.
Of course, that doesn't mean that others have not taken advantage of the system. Which is why you shouldn't confuse the education system with education. The state is responsible for the education system. I am responsible for my (and my childrens') education.
I think I would differ. I've always considered education's primary purpose, public or private. to be teaching a child how to learn. My learning didn't end at high-school, under grad, or graduate.
Your editorial continually refutes itself. In one comment you would refuse to hire someone based on his education specifically, then say you wouldn't use his education as a deciding factor. You say that someone should only be recognized for attainment of knowledge, yet you lambast the concept of identifying that attainment. You say that it's to expensive to teach individuals, then you say we should let individuals go at their own pace. You insist on rigid memorization yet you want critical-thinking.
You berate modern learning and suggest that moderns are idiots that are incapable of education, yet it was people of that very time frame who brought about the digital revolution. I daresay scientific innovation is evolving more rapidly than ever before. It is built on the giants who went before, but is being built by giants now nonetheless.
FYI - Job prep is education. No education = no preparation for a job.
It must be a bummer to feel so poorly about yourself and know you're a product of the thing you hate so much (unless of course you are 113 years old).
Personally, I'm for methods that actually result in learning, regardless of when they come about. For example, the Khan Academy is providing a very effective method for self education that is proving to be very successful.
But of course, computers are a 20th century invention, so you wouldn't want to use them anyway. Oh wait, but you actually used one to poste here....
The purpose is to allow children to develop the ability to sustain a living and read and write at least well enough to vote. This is the very reason John Adams stated the "whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it."
They don't teach bricklaying in school, nor should they. If I need a bricklayer, the last person I'm going to hire... the *very last*, is going to be a vo-tech graduate. Because, as with all the other educated idiots we're producing these days, there's far too much that has to be unlearned before he can be taught to do the job right.
Any consideration of the workforce with regard to the argument over education is a non-starter with me. No. Keep work out of it. I am not a cog in the great societal machine.
I am... therefore I learn.
If I had to base hiring solely on someone's education, I would only hire 113+ year old white American males, because that's about how far back I'd have to go to find someone who was actually educated the way we should be educated.
Take your common core, your OBE, your clever psycho-babble BS education theories of the past century and stuff them. The more we have tried to psychoanalyze learning, the more we've tried to be clever about what people already did well thousands of years ago, the less capable of critical thought people are.
In final answer to your question, you shouldn't freaking get an "A" unless you know the subject material inside and out! That ties your grade directly to your knowledge.
Thanks to the modern educational system, kids can barely decide, "yes I'll buy the purple shoes" without some authority telling them which decision to make, and scout hard to find some high school graduate who recognizes y=mx+b as the formula for the slope, let alone being able to identified the variables involved. And God forbid they should be able to derive the formula for themselves!
ANY educational theory with the word "common" in it is suspect, especially when it originates in government.
" The United States has, I suggest, fallen for that philosophy, hook, line, and sinker. And it's sinking us. Our educational system is accepting the philosophy of the convoy -- “Proceed at the maximum pace of the slowest member” -- with disasterous results. “Togetherness” is a fine idea... but not when it means slowing down the class to the pace of the high-grade moron that happens to be the slowest member. Mustn't drop the incompetent back a grade; it might damage his precious ego.
Yes? What's the resultant crawl doing to the egos of the stultified bright students?”
When a “Social Studies” teacher assigns three pages of text, for studying every two days, in a sixth-grade class... whose precious, incompetent ego is being protected? And at what cost?
And what's with this “Social Studies”, anyway? They used to call it Geography, and History, and Civics, make it three courses and require that the students learn something, or get dropped back a grade.
So it's a painful shock to a child to be rejected from his group! So what? If he's earned it, why should not he get a boot in the rear? He's going to get some rugged shockes when he gets out of that educational system!
Or... wait, maybe he isn't. They're certainly doing everything possible to make the real world of adult work just as cushioned and protected as that cockeyed educational hothouse. Advancement in a job isn't to be determined by individual ability, but by seniority. It isn't fair to advance a young man over twenty others who've been with the company for a dozen years of faithful service just because the young man happens to be a clear, quick, fruitful thinker, and accomplishes things, is it? Would it be democratic to let a young man develop his individual abilities like that, at the risk of injuring togetherness? No.. in our adult world of real work, we're rapidly installing the priniciple our schools have established; each individual must be promoted with his clas, incompetence to the contrary notwithstanding.
But the shock is coming just the same. Those nasty Communists in Russia have the idea that they can overtake the United States by setting the pace not at the convoy pace of the maximum speed of the slowest – but at the maximum speed a working quorum can maintain. Hard on the slower ones, of course... but it'll be even harder on other nations, won't it?"
- John W. Cambell, "Hyperdemocracy"
http://www.xtimports.com/text/Hyperdemoc...
Cause lots of kids have multiple moms these days, as dad and mom make babies, get divorced, marry others, make more babies, and so on.
In order to get a 6th grade education of that era nowadays, you need a college degree. One of the reasons I refrained from returning to college was because in order to learn what I wanted to learn I was forced to also waste the hours of my life learning unrelated bullshit I was not interested in learning, or knew better than the teachers already.
The problem is that Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, the speaker of that video, is talking about something she attributes to outcome based education, but is not really outcome based education. For example, she starts talking about minimum positive attitude as a measurement - that has nothing to do with OBE. Her real complaint is standards that she alleges people have created (I don't disagree with her on that) and conflates it on OBE. Likewise, right at the beginning, her purple shoe example is completely flawed. She was going through a sales cycle - not an educational cycle. A sales cycle is there to gain compliance - as in the purchase. An educational cycle is there to pass on knowledge, not compliance. Saying "Yes, I'll buy purple shoes" is completely different than demonstrating that a slope is calculated using y=mx+b. Compliance is not education. Either she knows that and was purposely misleading, or she didn't understand, in which case she is ignorant on the very subject of her presentation.
ON the subject of grades. Look at this from a logical standpoint (OBE doesn't eliminate grades either - that is another misattribution). Would you rather have someone work for you who got an A but doesn't know something, or someone who knows something regardless of a grade? How about the mechanic working on the jet engine your family is getting on. Would you rather know his grades, or that he knows how to properly maintain a jet engine.
The amazing thing is how many people will lemming-like follow anyone who they decide to align themselves with and completely turn off all reasoning. Do some research folks.
That is not the purpose of education, objectively.
That is the German model of schooling.
I will no more accept a future world of "Rollerball" than I will accept a future world of "1984".
Two examples: I asked one of my students [in High School] how it was; she said it was hard. I gave the the "you're kidding, right?" look, and she said "Yeah. I can do no work, turn in the paper, and get the A, or I can do 5 hours of work, learn something, turn in the paper and get the same A. I'm responsible for my learning, because they don't care."
2: I was working with 3 students on a series of readings and papers and discussions [the exact subject escapes me, but it doesn't matter]. They came to me, and said, "Isn't there anything we can do to please you? It seems like we work and work and think and write and you still aren't pleased!" I told them they had to watch their definitions - that I was always pleased with their work. What I was NOT, was satisfied. And they got it, they really got it. What good would a letter on a paper have done in their case? It would be meaningless.
You have to examine the methods, and the means, and the ends, not just the activity, and never, never, EVER believe that the same methods or materials are equally valuable for all students.
One of the 3 students graduated first in his class from Stanford. I told him I was pleased, and he laughed.
Did you actually read your comment? Because it is not logical. Let's look at it - you make two assertions. Your statement - it is fundamentally flawed because it increases the cost - cost would have nothing to do with whether the system works or doesn't work. The cost would pertain to it's ability to be implemented - such as it may work but it is unaffordable. BTW, that is not true. If you are under the age of 80 or so, you more than likely are the product of outcome based education - remember all the achievement tests, Standford 9 tests, ACT tests - they are all measuring individual achievement - or attainment of outcomes.
Let's take a look at the second part - it is flawed because it inhibits learning across the board. That's not accurate. The single largest study of the effects of OBE, the Eight Year Study, showed that such progressive education movements actually better prepared students for college. BTW, the Eight Year Study was before World War Two - not too progressive by today's standards.
I suggest that the "studies" you mentioned are websites critical of the CC standards rather than actual studies. But, I'm open minded. Post links to them. Let's see your materials.
FYI, in all honesty, I think your beef with OBE is actually not related to OBE but ancillary issues such as content and curriculum - which has nothing to do with OBE.
So how about it? Innocent until proven guilty - or just guilty? You condemn CC. You say it is counter productive and inhibits learning. Show your evidence. Be honest about your accusations. Let's see your case.
On the issue of discrimination, the question is what is more important - the feelings or perhaps even the well being of another person, or your rights to your property and yourself. As an Objectivist, I choose the latter as a matter of principle (and philosophy). I find it abhorrent to force another person, or be forced myself, to do what one does not want to do. I live for myself, not for the society. If my individual actions are not to the liking of someone else, that is their problem. The alternative is to have every one's likings be your (or my) problem, which is socialism, e.g., slavery. That is not to say that I like discrimination or condone it, but in an imperfect world, I choose the much lesser of the two evils. There really is no middle ground - every philosophy will eventually gravitate to its logical conclusion. Are you happy with the results that we now have? Are you happy with the direction of our society? Those are the results of the socialist philosophy which, in fact, is slavery. In the Soviet Union it was openly called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." We just more hypocritical and don't use that term, but the substance is the same.
of COURSE discrimination is a natural process. We discriminate every day. Why are you posting on this board instead of "Bob's Blog of Nonsense Poetry"? Because you only have so much attention to spare, and you value this website more than Bob's. Congratulations, you just discriminated.
Yes, we have the right to discriminate just as we have the right to determine the course of our own lives. There is no right to be free of discrimination. One must discriminate to live.
I will discriminate between my family and strangers. I will discriminate between my friends and my enemies. I will discriminate between honest men and thieves, between producers and looters and moochers. I will discriminate between my countrymen and foreigners. I will discriminate between men and women (e.g. I will never voluntarily perform oral sex on a man, while there are women out there I'd beg for the opportunity.) So I'm an evil discriminator. Just like everybody else.
Gee, I lost my source of income and my home... therefore I must be a victim of discrimination! Nobody owes me a source of income or a home. If I don't like the way someone else does business, in America, I'm always free to start my own... *unless the government legislates against it*.
If Common Core is truly the result of businesses trying to improve the American education system, then they need to realize that the system they've set up is counter-productive to that aim.
And no, discrimination is not a natural process, and should be forbidden in any and every public accommodation and business, not just in government. You say that the actions of a prejudiced employer only hurt him, but that's only half true. It hurts the person he discriminates against as well, much more so than it impacts the bottom line of his business. Sometimes a person who has been discriminated against is unable to find another job with anyone else, if discrimination against their particular group happens to be incredibly wide spread. Discrimination can cause a person to lose their home and source of income. If you think that doesn't harm them, then you're living in a fantasy world.
And no, people do not have a right to discriminate any more than they have a right to own slaves. There is no such thing as the right to discriminate. There is only the right to be free from discrimination.
Here's some information for you:
http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/05...
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/re...
http://aclu-co.org/sites/default/files/S...
It would be a good solution to save a lot of government waste.
Is it possible for government to distribute false information? Of course. But it's possible for false information to come from non-government sources as well, so you can't assume a source is automatically accurate simply because it's non-government.
So ultimately the question we have to ask is how do we distinguish "real" history from "fake" history? How do we know that the information we're being presented with is credible? What are your methods for verifying truthfulness and accuracy?
You're half right about who created it. Bill Gates was involved. Along with a number of other business leaders and university leaders. They are the initial primary customer of the schools - higher education and jobs. They identified that more and more American students are unprepared for work and college. So they identified a minimum standard to be prepared. Key word there - minimum. A minimum standard is only limiting to those who allow it to limit them. The CC doesn't preclude students from moving ahead.
Load more comments...