New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Common Core

I went to seven schools in five states, between kindergarten and high school graduation, so I got jerked around quite a bit by the lack of a coordinated national curriculum. I spent half my time bored out of my skull, getting redundant information, and the other half feeling like I must be a total idiot because I'm the only one in the class who is struggling with material.

That kind of state-by-state, or even county-by-county curriculum-setting made perfect sense when nearly all students spent their whole educational careers and maybe even their whole lives within a tiny geographic area. But in modern America, when so many travel so frequently and widely, it's just not a good way to do things. Plus, it results in high school diplomas that are largely meaningless to anyone who isn't local, since there's no way for an out-of-state university or employer to have a decent idea what kinds of things had to be learned to get that diploma.
Common core is too big to fail. That is the objection. Most curriculum are closer to each other than you'd imagine in k-6 and beyond that it is about math and reading comprehension. And what you argue for more effectively is base schools stateside. You were stateside, right?
 
I was giving my son (1st grade) various addition and subtraction problems while we were waiting for my DD to be done with dance. It was a few levels ahead of where he is in his work. They are still only adding and subtracting 10's in class and we were doing hundreds and thousands. And, this mom said to me.. that's really now how they learn it now, and I said, well, this is how I teach it. If it comes down to it... we may have to do the same route as my sister in law. Because, as much as our public schools are currently very good. I am really concerned about the dumbing down I am seeing and getting more and more concerned as we continue through school.
1922508_10152143072400914_313210801_n.png
 
just on NEW @ 5........7.5% of kis between 6 and 17 are on medications for some disorder or other and those on Medicaid more likely on meds than those not......IMO...explains why kids are shooting up schools these days, or is it COMMON CORE:
1922508_10152143072400914_313210801_n.png
liberalism at it's finest
 
What they did in Massachussets in the 90's apparently worked a wonderful turn around. What they are doing today in common core is antithetical to that is my understanding.
I believe Massachusetts has been kicking ass since well before the 90s. I could only find data back to 1992, but it seems consistent with that:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

Massachusetts was outperforming the nation by the same amount in 1992 as in 2013 for 4th grade reading, but has moved even farther ahead of the the nation as a whole for 4th and 8th grade math.

As for the idea that what they're doing is antithetical to common core, I hadn't heard that. Do you have more details?
 
Yep:

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/08/common-core-lesson-teaches-that-america-is-a-racist-nation/

just on News at 5..NC Senate fixing to kick Common Core to the curb.......
That's a Tea Party propaganda site. Do you have a link from a reputable news source? Note that the Daily Caller, a conservative site, has since reported that a school board member told them it was a donated b0ok in the library, and was never part of the curriculum or taught in any class:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/22/o...rth-graders-that-white-americans-are-racists/
 
Last edited:
Common core is too big to fail. That is the objection. Most curriculum are closer to each other than you'd imagine in k-6 and beyond that it is about math and reading comprehension. And what you argue for more effectively is base schools stateside. You were stateside, right?
I was stateside and attended some base schools and some off-base. Some bases aren't really big enough to justify their own schools.

Regardless, it's not just military brats who move around. In a country with so many large, multi-state corporations, lots of people get moved from state to state for work.
 
I believe Massachusetts has been kicking ass since well before the 90s. I could only find data back to 1992, but it seems consistent with that:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

Massachusetts was outperforming the nation by the same amount in 1992 as in 2013 for 4th grade reading, but has moved even farther ahead of the the nation as a whole for 4th and 8th grade math.

As for the idea that what they're doing is antithetical to common core, I hadn't heard that. Do you have more details?

Reform was undertaken in 1993.

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edreform/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/s...sachusetts.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=science


http://ideas.repec.org/a/teg/journl/v1y2005i1p1-36.html

Abstract
In June 1993, Governor William Weld signed into law the Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA). MERA greatly increased the state role both in funding public education and in guiding the local educational process. The state’s role changed to incorporate setting curriculum frameworks and holding schools accountable for student performance. Because MERA was designed to be a systemic reform of education, all of the various state activities and policies needed to fit together into a coherent whole based on state educational standards. This comprehensive set of reforms included the following elements. Increased State Funding for Public Education. MERA doubled state funding of K–12 education from $1.3 billion in 1993 to $2.6 billion in 2000. The achievement of this ambitious target has been a major accomplishment. A “Foundation Budget” for All Districts. MERA laid out the concept of a minimum budget necessary for each district to adequately educate all of its students. Poorer communities that were spending below foundation-budget levels would receive more than those at or above that threshold. By 2002, all districts were at or above foundation level. Revision of the foundation formula to more fully reflect actual spending needs is under consideration. Learning Standards. The legislation instructed the Board of Education to develop curriculum frameworks and other standards such as vocational standards, and to support local districts’ implementation of standards through alignment of curriculum and instruction. Frameworks have been developed in arts, English language arts, foreign languages, health, mathematics, history/social science, and science/technology/ engineering. Student Assessment. MERA required an assessment of student learning based on the frameworks and specified a competency determination as a requirement for graduation. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) has been developed and implemented for those purposes. MCAS tests have been administered in multiple grades in English language arts, mathematics, reading, science/technology/engineering, and history/social science. Students in the class of 2003 and beyond must perform at least at the “Needs Improvement” level in English language arts and mathematics to graduate. An Accountability System for School and District Performance. MERA required the state to hold schools and districts accountable for student performance and to provide remedies for persistent underperformance. This has proven to be quite a challenge for the state, with several changes of jurisdiction occurring. Over the past year, a “performance index” process has been developed based on MCAS scores and has been judged to be in compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Changes in Local Education Governance and Management. MERA included significant changes in the way schools and districts are run. School Committees’ power over personnel issues was reduced, with superintendents and principals given more authority. All schools were to have School Councils composed of parents, teachers, students, and administrators. Enhancing Educator Quality. A portion of state aid to local districts was earmarked for teacher professional development. Teacher licensure has been revised, and teacher tests for new teachers have been instituted. Ensuring Readiness to Learn Through Early Childhood Education Programs. Between 1996 and 1999, spending on early childhood education increased by 247 percent. Implementing Choice and Charter Schools. MERA expanded inter-district choice and authorized the state to approve charter schools—public schools exempt from local control and union contracts.
 
just on NEW @ 5........7.5% of kis between 6 and 17 are on medications for some disorder or other and those on Medicaid more likely on meds than those not......IMO...explains why kids are shooting up schools these days, or is it COMMON CORE:
1922508_10152143072400914_313210801_n.png
liberalism at it's finest
As I've mentioned before, serious school violence is actually down dramatically in recent decades, not up. So, now that you know that, do you attribute the dramatic improvement to kids being on meds?
 
I'm familiar with the reform. I was actually a big fan of Weld, despite him being a Republican. I thought it was a terrible shame that his own party demolished his career (Jesse Helms filibustered his appointment as ambassador to Mexico). But I think that even before those reforms were in place, Massachusetts was already out-performing the rest of the nation by a margin (as shown in those 1992 stats I linked to).
 
I believe Massachusetts has been kicking ass since well before the 90s. I could only find data back to 1992, but it seems consistent with that:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

Massachusetts was outperforming the nation by the same amount in 1992 as in 2013 for 4th grade reading, but has moved even farther ahead of the the nation as a whole for 4th and 8th grade math.

As for the idea that what they're doing is antithetical to common core, I hadn't heard that. Do you have more details?

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_...s/rappaport/workingpapers/testing_testing.pdf
 
I'm familiar with the reform. I was actually a big fan of Weld, despite him being a Republican. I thought it was a terrible shame that his own party demolished his career (Jesse Helms filibustered his appointment as ambassador to Mexico). But I think that even before those reforms were in place, Massachusetts was already out-performing the rest of the nation by a margin (as shown in those 1992 stats I linked to).
Where they beating Wisconsin or Minnesota?
 
I provided the NAEP link, showing the way student test performance improved since 1971, across all age groups and subjects, as well as each ethnic group. Here's a link on the Flynn Effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Here's the data on rising percentages with four years of high school:

HS%20Graduation%20Rates%2019402008.JPG


I don't see any sign that we've dumbed down education here. Instead, I see a sign that we're educating an ever larger portion of our population, with better test results to show for it.
What do today's tests include? Could today's kids pass what we had to pass? Are the same tests used?
 
What do today's tests include? Could today's kids pass what we had to pass? Are the same tests used?
My understanding is that the NAEP is intentionally benchmarked from year to year, to keep the difficulty level the same, since the whole point is to allow a long-term tracking of educational progress.
 
My understanding is that the NAEP is intentionally benchmarked from year to year, to keep the difficulty level the same, since the whole point is to allow a long-term tracking of educational progress.
Keeping the difficulty level the same is not a good argument. After dumbing down, what was once easy becomes difficult.
 
Keeping the difficulty level the same is not a good argument. After dumbing down, what was once easy becomes difficult.

And, therein lies the problem. Here is the thing.. when your school system is made up with kids from middle and upper middle class families. Who have time and money to invest int heir kids's education. Whose kids come to school ready to learn - not worry about where their next meal will come from or with a growling belly, they are going to on a day to day basis out perform most other systems.

So, what those kids can accomplish in any one academic year - exceeds what other systems can do. So, if we set the standard that X is what you have to accomplish every year - and we don't set it at the max of what hte best most well funded system can accomplish, we are lowering standards for that system. Period. Maybe at first they will surpass the expectations but over time they will drop down to doing what they have to do. And, if they literally can't teach the next level because that will interfere with the portabality of the education, they almost have no choice otherwise.

This year as part of common core... my son has come how with a few diagnostics... the things they MUST be able to do by the end of first grade - the minimum of what they have to know to start second grade on course. My son.. knew more than 90% of the required year of math by October. He knew 90% of the required spelling words by Christmas. Now.. do you think they were moving along to the next level of math with him - or do you think they were giving him a bunch of busy work so that they could keep the class on par together.. I can tell you.. they gave him a bunch of busy work. Thankfully at home, we have an enrichment book. At home, he is winding up his second grade enrichment book as he is closing out his first grade school year.

There is no choice in a system that ultimately seeks to evne out results... but to bring the high achievers down. Sure, it brings the bottom up. But, I don't think any system which restricts in any way the advancement of the top - is an equal trade just to help out the bottom.

connie
 
2 cents is all I have. I think older people should open their minds a bit, if they see that math is being taught differently when we were kids. When I was in high school the "affordable" calculators (like Texas Instruments) were just coming into the market and cost maybe $500-$600 in today's dollars. But, even it I did have that outrageous amount of money at my disposal, they weren't allowed in the classroom. Of course I'd learned to add, subtract, multiply and divide long before high school. But to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry and all that, I still had to solve all those long, boring, arithmetic equations on paper, at the same time. I'm absolutely certain that the drudgery of solving those equations that I already knew how to solve, detracted from my ability to focus on the higher order principles I was being taught.

Flash forward to today though.......electronic calculators are so ubiquitous that I wouldn't be surprised to find one in a box of "Cracker Jack". Shit....if one of my grandsons asked me for a calculator, I could pull open my desk drawer and let him choose from at least a dozen! (Oh...I forgot. There's a calculator on my phone, too!)

So....much as we might like to, I really don't think we can make an honest case that a kid HAS to learn to solve big-number and fractional equations, on paper. Therefore, I can see how some in the know, might choose to skip that step at the outset and maybe come back to it later, as time and interest allows.

Here's how I see it....it absolutely IS essential for a learner of math, to understand the fundamental concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and addition. For instance...take 15,634 + 7,256. It's essential for a kid to know that the sum will be a number greater than either of these two and it might help for them to quickly guess that it's around 20,000-something+.

But, assuming this equation is one part of a more advanced equation really.....is it necessary for the child to know how to arrive at the exact sum without a calculator?

Of course we used to say...."Yeah but, what if you need to solve an equation and you don't have a calculator?" But...c'mon...how often do YOU find yourself in a time and place today, where you needed a calculator and had no access to one? I still solve arithmetic questions with a pencil now and again. But to be honest, I only do so because I can, and I'm too lazy or it doesn't occur to me to pull my phone out of my pocket.


For me, this is similar to the questions we've been considering around "cursive". I think I can make a pretty good case for why it would be good, and useful, and illuminating for a child to learn cursive. But, is it absolutely necessary that a child learn cursive? I can't make that case.
 
And, therein lies the problem. Here is the thing.. when your school system is made up with kids from middle and upper middle class families. Who have time and money to invest int heir kids's education. Whose kids come to school ready to learn - not worry about where their next meal will come from or with a growling belly, they are going to on a day to day basis out perform most other systems.

So, what those kids can accomplish in any one academic year - exceeds what other systems can do. So, if we set the standard that X is what you have to accomplish every year - and we don't set it at the max of what hte best most well funded system can accomplish, we are lowering standards for that system. Period. Maybe at first they will surpass the expectations but over time they will drop down to doing what they have to do. And, if they literally can't teach the next level because that will interfere with the portabality of the education, they almost have no choice otherwise.

This year as part of common core... my son has come how with a few diagnostics... the things they MUST be able to do by the end of first grade - the minimum of what they have to know to start second grade on course. My son.. knew more than 90% of the required year of math by October. He knew 90% of the required spelling words by Christmas. Now.. do you think they were moving along to the next level of math with him - or do you think they were giving him a bunch of busy work so that they could keep the class on par together.. I can tell you.. they gave him a bunch of busy work. Thankfully at home, we have an enrichment book. At home, he is winding up his second grade enrichment book as he is closing out his first grade school year.

There is no choice in a system that ultimately seeks to evne out results... but to bring the high achievers down. Sure, it brings the bottom up. But, I don't think any system which restricts in any way the advancement of the top - is an equal trade just to help out the bottom.

connie

My little city's public high school routinely produces more national merit scholars than any other in the state. My two stepchildren on the other hand, were average as can be. I saw the work they were doing. It was average.....and they accomplished it averagely!

But....the fact of all those national merit scholars suggests to me that the opportunities are definitely there, for those who seek them. The same was true in my high school. A lot of kids took the minimum amount of math to graduate. My mother made me take a "college prep". level of math. And...note that I say "college"prep, not "math degree prep". Those kids that took the minimum, didn't hold me back. And then...there were students who DID take something a akin to a math degree prep. level. And....they weren't held back by me!
 
Back
Top