Common Core strikes again!
Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 4 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.
First hold to your values and vote accordingly.
Second supplement what your children learn and Teach them yourself. Parental responsibility is a huge factor and unless you accept that responsibility and live up to it the next generation will be lost.
It would be a good solution to save a lot of government waste.
Third to fifth graders usually learn about the Gettysburg Address; nine graders learner about specific battles. What actually is this article saying? Not enough facts.
And I learned about the Civil War, not from just hearing Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but learning about the events and reasons that started it in the first place.
Oh, and by the way, you may want to research your WWII history a little more. The US involvement was much more than getting pulled into it because of direct aggression.
People love to talk about education, but few really want it.
What I'm seeing is schools adopting CC along with someone's curriculum and some delivery methodology and lumping it all together so they can place the responsibility for the decision of the gubmt and not on themselves.
Again, go to the standard and show me the section where it says that guessing counts. I'd love to see it.
As far as you allusion to guessing, estimation is a valuable skill that does need to be taught, unfortunately most teachers I've run across don't really understand the process well and so misteach it when teaching addition.
FYI, I have done the research. I've shown you my direct sources. Now show me yours.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErL9zPHdH...
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.
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...
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).
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.
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".
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
First off, bother to read the CC standards before going off on how it's destroying the education system. Virtually all of the anti-CC material is attacking concepts that are not associated with CC. It's purely because Obama added CC to his Race to the Top program. If you look at CC's origin and process, it's an anti-NEA program. Business and university leaders (who are the target consumers of the education systems products - ie students) put it together - not government functionaries. As a matter of fact, the reason so many educators are against it, is because the NEA and current educational behemoth didn't create it.
Secondly, it is not a federal requirement. It is an option. And is only an option to get additional federal monies. It's not a mandate. And the funding doesn't require CC, but CC is just an option. There are states with their own standards that are getting the funding as well.
The lesson is taken out of context - and is not a history lesson. For those who bother to even read the standards, they'd know that the standards are only reading, writing and math. History and science requirements are only in relation to reading and comprehension. History and science are expected to be taught in addition. With that understanding, it's pretty easy to see the lesson is trying to understand the specific language of the address and not the context. Instead of listening to some teacher tell them what the address is supposed to mean, the idea is to teach them to read the words and understand them. That will enable them to understand the history, context and emotions of the address much better.
So how about using the reason and intellect that Rand revered and research for yourselves?
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.
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....
His comment about the LGBT community was especially ignorant and bigoted. No one is preventing bigoted parents from teaching their bigotry to their children. Rather, school administrators are merely trying to provide a safe learning environment for all their students, including the ones who are LGBT. If bigots like him had their way, tragedies like what happened in Anoka, Minnesota would happen in every city across America. Efforts to prevent such atrocities are completely justified.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...
He also vents unfounded fears about schools potentially not teaching about the holocaust (which is extremely unlikely), yet he seems to be totally unaware that homophobia was a big part of the holocaust.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805006...
As for not teaching what Communism leads to, that's never been a part of any school curriculum, at least as far as I'm aware. Schools teach about the roll the Soviet Union played in World War II, but an in depth discussion of what Communism actually is has never been part of the curriculum in the first place, so it's not possible to remove it, because it was never there to begin with.
Ultimately, he's overreacting to what amounts to nothing more than a rearranging of the order in which information is presented (present the Gettysburg Address first, and then teach about the Civil War afterwards). The schools are not removing any existing curriculum, just switching the order up a bit. Is it kind of stupid and pointless? Yes it is. But it is NOT the apocalyptic removal of curriculum he claims it is, and to present it as such is disingenuous.
If parents teach their kids the biblical view of homosexuality it does NOT mean they're teaching homophobia! Unless you're saying that all the things you like to say ('ignorant" "bigots") are teaching heterophobia....are you in favor of teaching heterophobia...because your word choices seem to reflect a hatred towards non LGBT supporters? Seems like you think we're all out to get you. WE'RE NOT. Schools should NOT be teaching things that override a parent's choice in what they want their kids to be taught...in ANY area...not just sexuality.
Maph, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErL9zPHdH...
and then tell me 'he's overacting"...and that it's not "apocalyptic". THEY ARE AFTER OUT KID'S MINDS!! Wake up dude! (If 'dude' is incorrect...I don't care, get over it.)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/lgbt/index.h...
As for being "heterophobic," stop and think about what you're saying for a moment. If a black man said that a Neo-Nazi was racist, would you accuse the black man of engaging in reverse-racism for making such a statement? Of course not. Such a statement would be true. The Neo-Nazi is racist. Your accusation of "heterophobia" makes about as much sense as that.
I'm not necessarily saying that schools should teach about homosexuality, but rather just that schools should provide a safe and positive environment for LGBT students and teachers. That doesn't necessarily have to include introducing LGBT topics into the curriculum. I was actually thinking more along the lines of anti-bullying policies and support networks.
Anyway, to get back to the topic of Common Core and the dumbing down of American education, my belief has always been that the dumbing down is accidental rather than deliberate, being caused by misguided politicians who really do have good intentions and are trying to save a degenerating system, but whose actions end up causing more harm than good.
Thank you for comparing heteros with Neo Nazis...you just made my point. And pssst...there is NO such thing as 'reverse racism'... racism is racism is racism. (Just like phobia is phobia is phobia is phobia.)
Here we go again with the words, 'misguided', 'accidental' (aka unintended consequences...when the end result has ALWAYS been GLARINGLY OBVIOUS!) Oh, and my favorite of all "good intentions". Maph, why do you buy into so much spoon-fed crap? "Good intentions" are nothing more than emotional rubbish. If you purposely don't follow ideas to there logical conclusion HOW can that be considered "good intentions"??? Just because the word "good" is in it does NOT make it GOOD.
Also, how do you "accidentally" revise history?
Can you even hear yourself??
And who's taking away parent's choice? I never advocated doing anything that would interfere with a parent's right to choose how they raise their children, so I don't know where're you're getting that idea.
And rewriting history can be done either accidentally or deliberately; accidentally if you don't do proper research or if you have a bad source. However, simply reorganizing the order in which information is presented doesn't qualify as rewriting if all the facts remain the same.
I know people say the path to Hell is paved with good intentions, but then I have to ask... what is the path to Heaven paved with?
If a school is reading "Sally has two Mom's" then THE SCHOOL is overriding parental choice. (It yes, this does happen!)
If it's highly educated people who are putting together curriculum then how in God's green acres are they "accidentally" getting history wrong? There is NO excuse. And reorganizing the order of history jumbles up events when chronological timing is important to the flow of understanding the domino affect of what happened next and why. Historical timelines should not be a puzzle.
I'd have to believe in Heaven for me to explain what the road to it is paved with.... However, the road to the gulch is paved with rigid principles.
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.
And history classes are always a puzzle, anyway. Do schools start teaching about the dawn of civilization first and then proceed sequentially from there, never skipping anything? No, of course not. If schools took that approach, students wouldn't start learning about American history until college. The claim that a sequence of events needs to be presented sequentially in order to be understood is simply untrue.
What is it about the public school system that you love so much? The brainwashing with emotional tactics? The lack of presenting brutal truth? What?? How do you feel about removing the N word from Huckleberry Finn? You okay with that too?
And public education was great before the Board of Education decided to implement outcome based education (which is affecting private schools as well). The problem is not with the fact that the education is public (that's a good thing), but rather with the fact that the federal government is requiring outcome based education.
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?
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...
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*.
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.
* There is no evidence to suggest the translations aren't accurate. Make some citations to back that up, please. What is the evidence and what passages are under consideration?
* No, the interpretation of many verses has not changed significantly over the centuries. I address your Sodom point below, but if there are many, by all means rattle off a few more verses that had a common interpretation of meaning centuries ago, and new ones today, and back this up with citations from experts in the field.
The subect of Sodom and homosexuality comes up in Genesis 19, wherein God sends two angels disguised as men into the city, prior to its destruction.
The man Lot takes these two men into his house, upon hearing they planned to spend the night sleeping in the public square. He insists this is a bad idea.
Genesis 19:4 - Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
Lot goes so far as to offer up his daughters to the mob, and they refuse the daughters.
Further, in the New Testament, Sodom is used as an example.
Jude 1:7 - Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
You bring up Ezekiel 16:49-50 in the context of changing interpretations of verses. But this passage was NEVER ABOUT homosexuality. This isn't a matter of changing interpretations where over the years better translation techniques or some such thing changed the sin of Sodom from homosexuality to arrogance and lack of concern for ones neighbors. Look - this is easy to understand. You can be evil in multiple ways, simultaneously. Ezekiel here is using the example of Sodom, (and also Samaria), to shame his countryman into better behavior. He is basically saying Sodom was also arrogant and unconcerned about people, just like his own peope are currently acting. He later writes in this passage: "Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you." He's associating them to Sodom in an area of common sin. That doesn't mean Sodom wasn't also big into practicing homosexuality, which the other passages clearly show.
Maph was discussing "the original Hebrew and Latin manuscripts" - that's the misconception I was trying to clear up. There are Latin Bibles for sure, and they are pretty darn old, but they aren't old enough to be considered primary source material for translations. The Latin versions themselves were derived from the original Hebrew/Greek.
If you go to the Wiki on KJV, the "Translation" section says they went back to the Greek and Hebrew, though it appears you should get "partial credit" for bringing up Latin - they did use the Latin Vulgate as a secondary help in developing this translation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_GNFQk-_...
She's 13; her sexual appetites shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. "Whore" and "cock-muncher" sound to me like the epithets of enemies, not comments on her sexual deviancy.
The bigotry is primarily on the side of those forcing the rest of us to accept the mental illness of some as normal and healthy.
Call me all the names you like; I will always be unwilling to call crazy "sane".
Instead of wasting time, money and resources dictating how people will interact with one another *based upon race, sexual appetites, or other irrelevancies*, they should focus on grinding the fundamentals into the children.
Schools *distort* the role the Soviet Union played in WWII... but they also teach about the October revolution. Why schools even mention the Soviet Union in regard to WWII when they can't even teach our kids the date of Pearl Harbor or its significance, I can't guess.
Rearranging the order in which information is presented... teach about Hiroshima and Nagasaki first, and Pearl Harbor last, and those mushy little minds will end up "feeling" (cause God knows they aren't being taught to think) that WWII was our fault and we were the bad guys.
Why is the Gettysburg Address even included? Are any speeches by Jefferson Davis included? Why not put the destruction of Atlanta first?
We know why; to indoctrinate the children in the yankee version of the Confederate War.
When my eldest brother was in school, my parents had to raise hell at his school, in the late 50s or early 60s, because they were teaching that it was the United Nations that won WWII, not the Allies. Now, there *were* attempts during the war to adopt the name United Nations, but it never caught on and was never used seriously during the war. And the U.N. didn't exist until after.
But, the textbook makers were trying to promote the idea, subtly, subconsciously, that the UN defeated Charlie Chaplin and his evil Nazi regime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DueSvcjn8...
Anyway, back on topic, I personally don't think the order in which information is presented is terribly important, and changing the order isn't likely to have an impact on anything one way or another. Now if the schools are using textbooks with information that is verifiably false, then yeah, that's obviously a big problem. But order is largely irrelevant, at least for the subject of history.