Common core in a nut shell for those interested. You may be alarmed!

[charcat13]

Data collecting:

 

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/06/technocratic_expansion_of_educ.html?cmp=SOC-SHR-FB&fb_action_ids=491641097531297&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

 

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/datamodel/eiebrowser/techview.aspx?instance=studentElementarySecondary

 

 

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/06/wiring_our_students.html

 

Tip of the iceberg.

[charcat13]

And this gets fun around page 50:

 

http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2013/02/OET-Draft-Grit-Report-2-17-13.pdf

 

ETA: Page 62 is interesting as well.

[dereksurfs]

And this gets fun around page 50:

 

http://www.ed.gov/ed...ort-2-17-13.pdf

 

ETA: Page 62 is interesting as well.

 

 

Where in the CCS does it say that any of this will be used? Please include the reference. Otherwise this simply falls unders the same category regarding general Gov't conspiracies and things to worry about vs. the topic of this thread. Maybe a new 'Gov't takeover' thread should be started instead to cover all these other topics. I'm not saying privacy is not important. However I just fail the see the relevancy here. More specifically I have to ask why things such mandatory preschool, data collection, etc... are even brought up and somehow all jumbled in as a part of CCS. It seems to do little more than create extra hype for blogs and talk shows so they can say 'see, its a huge conspiracy.'

[*Lulu*]

It is easy to say that CC is bad. It will dumb down our kids, it will cause massive educational deficits, it will turn our kids into communists, or it will destroy the American way of life are all sensationalist, attention grabbing, and capable of being turned into a sound bite.

 

The truth is more nuanced; it doesn't fit well on a bumper sticker and can't be easily boiled down to a sound bite for the evening news.

 

CC in and of itself is not evil; heck it isn't even close to the worst idea the department of Ed has trotted out in the past 10 years. As a matter of fact, I think the idea of a nationwide educational standard is positive. The problems people fear from CC, and those people are sharing they are already experiencing, are more about the state/local school administrations and thier implementation of CC than they are about CC itself.

 

That is the main reason I do not see CC as being the fix for education in America. Let's say I have a failing business where a moderate percentage of my employees are undertrained, a number of my assistant managers are close to running thier shifts like little fiefdoms, and an overwhelming majority of my managers are in thier positions based on who they know instead of thier abilities. I cannot reasonably expect to write up a new policy manual, hand it over to the same crew who has been running things into the ground, and see miraculous change in my bottom line. CC feels to me like handing a new policy manual to a group of employees that have already proven themselves ill equipped for the task they were hired to complete.

 

And lest anyone think I am slamming classroom teachers, I am not. The majority of complaints I am seeing about CC are decisions that happen outside of the average classroom teacher's control. I personally hold local and state buracrates and administrators responsible for the bulk of the problems we are seeing with our educational system.

[charcat13]

You might want to read this thread regarding data collection.

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/456968-did-anyone-read-this-regarding-data-collection-in-schools-thoughts/

I posted the Privacy Notice from Pearson's Inform program there. (post#6)

Between FERPA, Withholding Directory information and my school district only using the last 4 numbers of ssn, I think they will be fine.

 

http://www.bloomu.edu/registrar/FERPA

 

Federal and State Data Collection and Use.

 

As of January 3, 2012, the U.S. Department of Education’s FERPA regulations expand the circumstances under which your education records and personally identifiable information (PII) contained in such records—including your Social Security Number, grades, or other private information — may be accessed without your consent.

 

First, the U.S. Comptroller General, the U.S. Attorney General, the U.S. Secretary of Education, or state and local education authorities (“Federal and State Authoritiesâ€) may allow access to your records and PII without your consent to any third party designated by a Federal or State Authority to evaluate a federal- or state-supported education program. The evaluation may relate to any program that is “principally engaged in the provision of education,†such as early childhood education and job training, as well as any program that is administered by an education agency or institution.

 

Second, Federal and State Authorities may allow access to your education records and PII without your consent to researchers performing certain types of studies, in certain cases even when we object to or do not request such research. Federal and State Authorities must obtain certain use-restriction and data security promises from the entities that they authorize to receive your PII, but the Authorities need not maintain direct control over such entities.

 

In addition, in connection with Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems, State Authorities may collect, compile, permanently retain, and share without your consent PII from your education records, and they may track your participation in education and other programs by linking such PII to other personal information about you that they obtain from other Federal or State data sources, including workforce development, unemployment insurance, child welfare, juvenile justice, military service, and migrant student records systems.

[charcat13]

 

 

 

Where in the CCS does it say that any of this will be used? Please include the reference. Otherwise this simply falls unders the same category regarding general Gov't conspiracies and things to worry about vs. the topic of this thread. Maybe a new 'Gov't takeover' thread should be started instead to cover all these other topics. I'm not saying privacy is not important. However I just fail the see the relevancy here. More specifically I have to ask why things such mandatory preschool, data collection, etc... are even brought up and somehow all jumbled in as a part of CCS. It seems to do little more than create extra hype for blogs and talk shows so they can say 'see, its a huge conspiracy.'

 

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CoreFAQ.pdf

 

Page 5 talks about those who were involved in creation of CCS. Achieve Inc. is probably one of the more interesting.

http://www.achieve.org/achieving-common-core

 

http://www.achieve.org/P-20-data-systems

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roadrunner]

I don't understand how CC standards could be dumbing kids down. I think they are fine and from CA perspective not that different from what we already have (this is according to a nonpartisan MA based organization that compared those standards line by line).

Implementation? That's always the problem. I think NCLB had good intentions, but boy did we make a mess out of it. Even though the myth about the lack of literature has been addressed, our first grade teacher informed us during our parent teacher conference that she will be doing a lot more nonfiction reading beginning next year. I hope they figure this out eventually, because this isn't the intent of CC.

 

I also think the problem isn't that we aren't teaching lit or critical thinking (at least in our district). The problem is kids aren't doing assigned required reading to be able to think critically. I see faces of high schoolers, some members of my family. The majority (or a good chunk) of kids just don't care to learn.

[Tracy]

I also think the problem isn't that we aren't teaching lit or critical thinking (at least in our district). The problem is kids aren't doing assigned required reading to be able to think critically. I see faces of high schoolers, some members of my family. The majority (or a good chunk) of kids just don't care to learn.

 

 

The problem happens much earlier than high school. My dh is a high school teacher. Even in his honors physics classes, he get kids that just don't understand language, either spoken or written. He recently had a test question that began, "Which of the animals we talked about in class . . . ." He had a student ask if there was more than one answer, because it said "animals." I realize that this is merely anecdotal, but this is very typical of his students, and he has the best students in the school. I am not sure that CC standards can fix this.

[Corraleno]

This is a list of the informational texts in CCS 9th grade

 

Ok...the recommended levels of insulation makes me go :huh: I can see the life skill of learning how to read manuals, but really? Why not a complicated electronics manual or something?

 

Yeah, the insulation one makes me think the person compiling that list realized at the last minute that they needed one more document, and yelled "Hey, we need some kind of technical document example for 9th grade science — any suggestions?" and some guy in the next cubicle says "Well, we're reinsulating our house, maybe you can use this... <passes document over cubicle wall>..." lol

 

And of course that's the document, out of all those recommendations, that the panic-button bloggers and talk show hosts cite: "The Federal government is going to take all the literature out of English class and make our kids read EPA documents!" :willy_nilly:

 

I wonder why no one is screaming "The government is going to make our kids read de Toqueville's Democracy in America, and essays by Jefferson and Paine, and speeches by Ronald Reagan! It's liberal indoctrination designed to make us stupid!" :willy_nilly:

 

Not only do the majority of works on the CC lists fall into exactly the sort of categories classical educators cherish — Great Books, primary source documents, "living books," etc. — they're only recommended examples of the type of readings that should be added to the curriculum. Schools are free to choose whatever books and documents they want. But of course that's not going to rile people up and confirm all their conspiracy theories about the big bad government, so we'll just skip those minor details...

 

Jackie

[dereksurfs]

http://www.corestand...ets/CoreFAQ.pdf

 

Page 5 talks about those who were involved in creation of CCS. Achieve Inc. is probably one of the more interesting.

http://www.achieve.o...ing-common-core

 

http://www.achieve.o...20-data-systems

 

I'm not sure why you included the CC FAQ except to show there is no requirement for 'Data Collecting.' So the FAQ supports my point that it is *Not* required along with addressing other misconceptions.

 

The other links simply show the groups involved with the CC. So the implication is since these 'terrible people' helped with the CCS it must be a terrible thing as well. This is a classic smear campaign vs. considering the merits of the standard itself. Let's use reasoning skills when evaluating something versus demonizing the authors. Intellectual honestly requires more. The CCS is one subject while data collection is another. Each should be judged upon its own merits. In a separate thread on Data Collecting I would be happy to discuss the pros/cons of that further.

[Roadrunner]

Yeah, the insulation one makes me think the person compiling that list realized at the last minute that they needed one more document, and yelled "Hey, we need some kind of technical document example for 9th grade science — any suggestions?" and some guy in the next cubicle says "Well, we're reinsulating our house, maybe you can use this... <passes document over cubicle wall>..." lol

 

 

And of course that's the document, out of all those recommendations, that the panic-button bloggers and talk show hosts cite: "The Federal government is going to take all the literature out of English class and make our kids read EPA documents!" :willy_nilly:

 

I wonder why no one is screaming "The government is going to make our kids read de Toqueville's Democracy in America, and essays by Jefferson and Paine, and speeches by Ronald Reagan! It's liberal indoctrination designed to make us stupid!" :willy_nilly:

 

Not only do the majority of works on the CC lists fall into exactly the sort of categories classical educators cherish — Great Books, primary source documents, "living books," etc. — they're only recommended examples of the type of readings that should be added to the curriculum. Schools are free to choose whatever books and documents they want. But of course that's not going to rile people up and confirm all their conspiracy theories about the big bad government, so we'll just skip those minor details...

 

Jackie

 

and some guy in the next cubicle says "Well, we're reinsulating our house, maybe you can use this... <passes document over cubicle wall>

:smilielol5:

 

I know those are only recommended lists and honestly, I am worried schools will make classes as easy as possible (to make sure our precious children all get As) and bypass most of good reading. It's debatable if in this context "recommended" is a positive.

[MBM]

Same books and assignments, yes - up to 10th grade. Only students bound for a four year university attended 11th and 12th grade - that was a reward for doing well, as this was very selective.

 

Children with learning disabilities, however, attended special schools.

Gifted students had the opportunity to attend magnet high school starting in 9th grade with focus on STEM, modern languages, classical languages. Students gifted in music or athletics could attend specialized schools beginning in 6th grade.

ETA: There was one more specialized school for gifted students who were identified at the end of 2nd grade - basically one top student per class/school. They were collected and educated together starting in 3rd grade in a school with extended Russian instruction. I was fortunate to attend such a school.

 

This is all very interesting. With the exception of the last school you mentioned, this sounds somewhat similar to Italy's school system as well. Personally, I think the US would benefit by trying to emulate that type of school system. Also, even though the schools can be difficult, they teach in a way that seems healthier for the student. For example, the licei in Italy allow students to retake classes if they fail. It's no big deal for students to retake a class. I like that idea, too.

 

ETA: In fact, the people who had the MOST free choices and independence were the ones with the poor grades: if you have good grades and go to university and have a qualified job, these are all levers the regime could use against you. Refuse to do xyz (spy on your neighbor, sign a contract with the internal security service, denounce a friend)? Lose your place at uni, lose your job, lose your child's high school spot. OTOH, if you were a low worker in a factory, they had no leverage- what could they threaten to take away from you? Nothing. If you had no privileges (like education, or your child's educational opportunity), there was nothing they could take away.

 

That makes sense.

 

Again, no idea what they are trying to say. The most criticized thing about the West German school system would be the early selection and tracking (which I personally consider a strength, and which is now a feature in the common German school system.)

 

I wholeheartedly agree. I wish more schools here in the US would do the same.

 

I do not understand their definition of agency.

In any society, high performing students have more choices. If anything, that factor was mitigated in East Germany.

 

What is certainly true is that the communist system did not encourage independence and allow for free choices; this mentality certainly hampered many east Germans after the reunification. But again, this is not something that had to do with the school system, but rather with society as a whole, where people did not have many choices and did not have to make decisions, because things were decided for them.

 

Yes, it seemed to me that the authors were attributing too much fault to the East German school system. I know a little bit about the East German schools (we had an exchange student attend our high school whose family managed to leave E. Germany.). What the authors were saying didn't make sense to me. (Agency in this sense is a psychological term that has to do with actions -- the ability to act in one's own best interest. A closely-related term is self-efficacy which relates to our beliefs -- that we can successfully impact our world.) Anyway, the chapter that discusses East German schools stuck in my mind because the reasoning seemed off.

 

I appreciate the time you took to clarify this, regentrude. I find your explanations to be very helpful with the doubts I was having about the schools' roles.

[charcat13]

 

 

I'm not sure why you included the CC FAQ except to show there is no requirement for 'Data Collecting.' So the FAQ supports my point that it is *Not* required along with addressing other misconceptions.

 

The other links simply show the groups involved with the CC. So the implication is since these 'terrible people' helped with the CCS it must be a terrible thing as well. This is a classic smear campaign vs. considering the merits of the standard itself. Let's use reasoning skills when evaluating something versus demonizing the authors. Intellectual honestly requires more. The CCS is one subject while data collection is another. Each should be judged upon its own merits. In a separate thread on Data Collecting I would be happy to discuss the pros/cons of that further.

 

Hmm, never said anyone was "terrible". I merely pointed out the connection is there. Perhaps easing up on the condescension would lead to a more productive discussion.

 

My understanding is that the people involved with helping design the CCS were also involved in designing and implementing the means of measuring its' success (i.e. the SLDS, or data collection) That is the connection I see.

 

So no, the data collection is not "in" the standards because the standards are the goals. The data collection is a way of measuring the success or failure in meeting those goals.

[dereksurfs]

Hmm, never said anyone was "terrible". I merely pointed out the connection is there. Perhaps easing up on the condescension would lead to a more productive discussion.

 

My understanding is that the people involved with helping design the CCS were also involved in designing and implementing the means of measuring its' success (i.e. the SLDS, or data collection) That is the connection I see.

 

So no, the data collection is not "in" the standards because the standards are the goals. The data collection is a way of measuring the success or failure in meeting those goals.

 

 

Charcat13, sorry if my my post came across as condescending. That was not my intent. Rather I'm simply trying to get us to look at the CCS objectively, evaluating it's merits based upon 'it's content' rather than who is funding it, Data Collecting, mandatory Pre-School, etc... Unfortunately all these other things get lumped together when folks object to the CCS. This is also the way it is presented as part of a larger Gov't conspiracy. That's what I'm objecting to in these discussions. Basically its just a matter of staying on topic, considering the 'standard itself' rather than outlying issues such as political agendas/biases, guilt by association, etc...

[charcat13]

 

 

Charcat13, sorry if my my post came across as condescending. That was not my intent. Rather I'm simply trying to get us to look at the CCS objectively, evaluating it's merits based upon 'it's content' rather than who is funding it, Data Collecting, mandatory Pre-School, etc... Unfortunately all these other things get lumped together when folks object to the CCS. This is also the way it is presented as part of a larger Gov't conspiracy. That's what I'm objecting to in these discussions. Basically its just a matter of staying on topic, considering the 'standard itself' rather than outlying issues such as political agendas/biases, guilt by association, etc...

 

No problem. I don't think it's off topic but we can agree to disagree.

[Alessandra]

Charcat13, sorry if my my post came across as condescending. That was not my intent. Rather I'm simply trying to get us to look at the CCS objectively, evaluating it's merits based upon 'it's content' rather than who is funding it, Data Collecting, mandatory Pre-School, etc... Unfortunately all these other things get lumped together when folks object to the CCS. This is also the way it is presented as part of a larger Gov't conspiracy. That's what I'm objecting to in these discussions. Basically its just a matter of staying on topic, considering the 'standard itself' rather than outlying issues such as political agendas/biases, guilt by association, etc...

 

No problem. I don't think it's off topic but we can agree to disagree.

 

 

It is nice to see posters disagree so graciously!

[JennyCook]

I thought this might interest a few of you. It has links to sites created in many states who oppose common core. If you scroll to the bottom there is a link from the educational freedom coalition that looks like has a good list of curriculum and who is aligned, who isn't and why etc.

 

http://usagainstcommoncore.blogspot.com/

 

I haven't purused it a ton yet but it looks interesting.

 

Oh, and I should state that I realize the CC standards have nothing to do with mandatory preschool. Maybe I shouldn't have even mentioned that. It was just on my mind. The standards themselves, though I don't like them, are not my biggest concern.

[VinNY]

I thought this might interest a few of you. It has links to sites created in many states who oppose common core. If you scroll to the bottom there is a link from the educational freedom coalition that looks like has a good list of curriculum and who is aligned, who isn't and why etc.

 

http://usagainstcomm...e.blogspot.com/

 

I haven't purused it a ton yet but it looks interesting.

 

Oh, and I should state that I realize the CC standards have nothing to do with mandatory preschool. Maybe I shouldn't have even mentioned that. It was just on my mind. The standards themselves, though I don't like them, are not my biggest concern.

 

 

You state you haven't "perused" it so why blog it? It is your blog..at least I see your name and picture on the comments section and even a relative Autumn Foster Cook telling you to go girl. Link away but please be transparent about it.

[JennyCook]

 

 

 

You state you haven't "perused" it so why blog it? It is your blog..at least I see your name and picture on the comments section and even a relative Autumn Foster Cook telling you to go girl. Link away but please be transparent about it.

 

 

Holy Toledo! Try not to make assumptions people! I did NOT blog this. I have never blogged ANYTHING before! It didn't cross your mind that there may be more than one Jenny in this world? Besides, it says written by Jennifer, not Jenny. My BIRTH CERTIFICATE says Jenny, not Jennifer. I can't believe that assumption was even made....I have NO IDEA who Autumn Foster Cook is either. Do you know how common the last name COOK is? It's SOOO common that I don't even worry putting my real full name as my username. I used to work at the bank before I got married and there were three pages of Jenny Cooks that banked there just in my area. But regardless, I didn't see a last name anywhere. Maybe I missed it.

 

Some people are so close minded about this issue they feel the need to attack everything that is said by people who feel differently. All I wanted in starting this thread was to create a place where CC could be discussed. I haven't even piped in all that much. Because the theme seemed to keep reverting back to the standards which isn't my biggest concern. Can we at least try to be civil about things and respectfully state our feelings? If we are going to make assumptions...lets assume that people don't tell flat out lies in their posts. At that point I hadn't perused it yet. Which logically means I certainly didn't write it. I guess everyone in this world isn't honest, but I like to think most people are.

 

It looks like the educational freedom coalition is a recently formed group. But it's specific to HOMESCHOOLERS who are concerned. I have no affiliation with them in anyway. I just happened upon this link in researching. I feel very outnumbered here on the way I view CC but I'm totally fine with that, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But there are a few it seems, who may be interested in the information on the sites and links I found. Everyone here doesn't love common core.

 

http://www.theeducationalfreedomcoalition.org/

 

So, there ya have it. I'm smiling and moving on. :)

[JennyCook]

Here's another one that addresses privacy and educational testing, this guy seems to know his field well. He asks a lot of questions that should be answered.

http://commoncorefacts.blogspot.com/2013/03/common-core-mental-health-professional.html?spref=fb

 

For the record, I don't know him at all, even though we are from the same state.

 

 

[SarahW]

Holy Toledo! Try not to make assumptions people! I did NOT blog this. I have never blogged ANYTHING before! It didn't cross your mind that there may be more than one Jenny in this world? Besides, it says written by Jennifer, not Jenny. My BIRTH CERTIFICATE says Jenny, not Jennifer. I can't believe that assumption was even made....I have NO IDEA who Autumn Foster Cook is either. Do you know how common the last name COOK is? It's SOOO common that I don't even worry putting my real full name as my username. I used to work at the bank before I got married and there were three pages of Jenny Cooks that banked there just in my area. But regardless, I didn't see a last name anywhere. Maybe I missed it.

 

Some people are so close minded about this issue they feel the need to attack everything that is said by people who feel differently. All I wanted in starting this thread was to create a place where CC could be discussed. I haven't even piped in all that much. Because the theme seemed to keep reverting back to the standards which isn't my biggest concern. Can we at least try to be civil about things and respectfully state our feelings? If we are going to make assumptions...lets assume that people don't tell flat out lies in their posts. At that point I hadn't perused it yet. Which logically means I certainly didn't write it. I guess everyone in this world isn't honest, but I like to think most people are.

 

It looks like the educational freedom coalition is a recently formed group. But it's specific to HOMESCHOOLERS who are concerned. I have no affiliation with them in anyway. I just happened upon this link in researching. I feel very outnumbered here on the way I view CC but I'm totally fine with that, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But there are a few it seems, who may be interested in the information on the sites and links I found. Everyone here doesn't love common core.

 

http://www.theeducat...mcoalition.org/

 

So, there ya have it. I'm smiling and moving on. :)

 

 

:chillpill: :chillpill: :chillpill:

 

Seriously, anyone would think it was your own blog. You two share a name, share a cause, and share facial features and hair color.

 

And no, I don't think "Cook" is a very common last name at all.

 

On most forums people frown on posters "anonymously" linking to their own blog.

 

Yes, be civil, but there's no reason to get bent out of shape over what is a imminently understandable mistake.

[JennyCook]

Well, wouldn't it have been more civil to simply ask rather than stating something as fact that wasn't true? Maybe I do need to chill but Its not often I'm called a liar....

[VinNY]

In hindsight, Jenny I should have asked you if it is your blog rather than state it is your blog. The resemblance was uncanny so I apologize for assuming this was your blog.

[Heartsjoy]

I couldn't get the video to play and I stopped reading the comments because I have no stomach for rudeness, but I did want chime in why I am against CC. Years ago, our school district adopted the Connected Math/Investigations curriculum. When my math loving children began to complain, I did my research and found how the program was causing controversy everywhere it was being implemented. The district had spent over a million on the curriculum and was in no hurry to replace it until I contacted the math departments of Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton and got letters from all of them stating that the program was awful. The letter from Dr. James Milgrim from Stanford stating that the program was ok if the students just wanted to work at Burger King, but would never suffice if they wanted to enter the STEM fields finally persuaded our school district to dump the Connected Math program.

Fast forward to the CC, Dr. Milgrim was the only person on the standards committee for math to actually be an expert in the field of math. He is vehemently opposed to the final CC math standards. From what I have read, they sound like they are similar to Connected Math. You can read his testimony about it here: http://parentsacross...ndards-in-math/

 

From my understanding of the Language arts standards, they are just the opposite in being unrealistic to obtain, My niece's kindergarten class is using CC standards this year and she often has three hours of homework. She has spelling tests in which she has already had to learn to spell all of the months. She is expected to be able to write a paragraph with a topic sentence and supporting details by the end of the year--not exactly something that can be expected of all kindergarteners,

 

Kids are all unique. And classrooms and localities are unique too. A one size fits all is never, imo, a good approach.

 

 

 

Wow cc math puts US more than 2 years behind other countries by high school graduation. We were already behind. Great link above.