Is the New "Common Core SAT" Bill Gates' Doing? 273
theodp writes "'I want to explain why Common Core is among the most important education ideas in years,' wrote Bill Gates in a USA Today op-ed last month that challenged the "dangerous misconceptions" of those who oppose the initiative (pretty confident for a guy who conceded there wasn't much to show for his earlier $5B education reform effort!). 'The Gates Foundation helped fund this process,' acknowledged Gates in quite an understatement of his influence. Receiving $6.5M in Gates Grants was Student Achievement Partners, whose founder David Coleman was dubbed the 'Architect of the Common Core.' So it's not too surprising that at last week's SXSWedu, Coleman — now President and CEO of The College Board (no stranger to Gates money itself) — announced a dramatic overhaul of the SAT that includes a new emphasis on evidence-based reading and writing and evidence analysis, which the AJC's Maureen Downey calls 'reflective of the approach of the Common Core State Standards.'" (Read more, below.)
"And over at The Atlantic, Lindsey Tepe reports that the Common Core is driving the changes to the SAT. "Neither Coleman nor the national media," writes Tepe, "have really honed in on how the standards are driving the College Board-as well as the ACT-to change their product." In conjunction with the redesigned SAT, The College Board also announced it would exclusively team with Khan Academy (KA) to make comprehensive, best-in-class SAT prep materials open and free in an effort to level the playing field between those who can and can't afford test prep services. In a conversation with KA founder Sal Khan — aka Bill Gates' favorite teacher and a beneficiary of $10+ million in Gates Foundation grants (much earmarked for Common Core) — Coleman stressed that Khan Academy and CollegeBoard will be the only places in the world that students will be able to encounter free materials for the exam that are "focused on the core of the math and literacy that matters most." "There will be no other such partnerships", Coleman reiterated. Game, set, and match, Gates?"
Becuz (Score:2)
Re:Becuz (Score:5, Insightful)
But, seriously, we've only solved the universal literacy problem over about the last 50-150 years(depending on when you consider it "solved"), and it's made a huge difference for how well society functions. You can hand almost any American a book about how to do a well-paying job, and they could actually try and tackle it if they wanted. That didn't used to be true, at all. You can count on someone being able to heed a warning label on a product. The US highway system is easily navigable with just reading skills.
The difference between a literate and illiterate population is so huge that we can't even imagine trying to transition back. Most of our problems now hinge on how we go above and beyond basic literacy and math skills, not whether we do.
Re:Becuz (Score:4, Interesting)
But, seriously, we've only solved the universal literacy problem over about the last 50-150 years(depending on when you consider it "solved"),
Sadly, you are only correct if you are equating "the ability to read (anything)" as literacy. There are states where the functionally illiterate rate is staggering. The figures on the DOE sites are very misleading, since they consider the ability to read "basic prose" to indicate "literacy" - when in reality, the "deeper numbers" indicate "21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read.". The numbers are even worse if one expects an adult to read at what's considered an adult level - someplace decently over 50%.
and it's made a huge difference for how well society functions.
The true situation does indeed impact how well society (in this country) works. And we can see that ignorance, lack of education and lack of literacy driving some lunatic policies.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong, but I think you're disagreeing with a different point than I was making.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my brother "can read," but barely. He can indeed read road signs, so "basic" literacy is very, very valuable. But technical information, even in his own field, would glass over his eyes in 10 seconds. Anything important, like a letter from the DMV, he'll have to have somebody explain it to him, even though it is already dumbed down.
He graduated high school with average grades, too.
Re: (Score:3)
I want Bill Gates to do for American Education just exactly what he did for design of computer operating systems and for compound document management formats.
Because everybody knows that dollars are a surefire benchmark of brain power, so we have proof that Gates is an uncanny supergenius, who should now direct that dollar stream to blast any obstacle for his genius vision of how we should live, and be educated.
Public policy? Twaddle! Smart people with money. That's the cure for what ails society!
Re: (Score:2)
Public policy? Twaddle! Smart people with money. That's the cure for what ails society!
Yeah, well, so long as the public goes into a 4-Minute Hate every time some pundit says "wasteful spending", people with money (and they don't need to be smart) will be the only ones who pick up the ball.
Five words guaranteed to put a damper on anything: "Who's gonna PAY for it?"
Re: (Score:3)
On the bright side, he could be lobbying for MegaCorp1 merging MegaCorp2 by throwing money at absolutely everyone. Or lobbying for deregulation of otter shooting safaris, or something else completely brain dead. Good or bad, what he's spending his money on is not to improve his own situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Melinda and Bill Gates have three children: daughters Jennifer Katharine Gates (born 1996) and Phoebe Adele Gates (born 2002), and son Rory John Gates (born 1999)
Re: (Score:3)
Because everybody knows that dollars are a surefire benchmark of brain power, so we have proof that Gates is an uncanny supergenius,
Many people who are used to being the smartest person in the room say that they feel stupid when talking to Bill Gates.
I have a Tandy Model 102, which contains the last software written entirely by Gates. It's astonishingly good and has features years ahead of its time.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people who are used to being the smartest person in the room say that they feel stupid when talking to Bill Gates.
There are multiple possible explanations for that. One is the obvious one, that he is some sort of super-genius. Another is that they believe he is, but what he is saying sounds crazy, so they resolve that conflict deferentially by assuming it is going over their head.
If you're convinced the crazy guy under the bridge is a great poet, you'll likely find deep meaning in his rantings.
Gates' book is very good, and has important insights. He might be as smart as they say. But your argument is whack.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem being that Common Core is a step *away* from universal literacy.
Really? Putting aside on how you would actually create tests to assess reaching Common Core goals, what about the Common Core do you object to? Or is it simply a objection to any and all standardized testing (regardless of the material)?
The Common Core asks students to read stories and literature, as well as more complex texts that provide facts and background knowledge in areas such as science and social studies. Students will be challenged and asked questions that push them to refer back to what they’ve read. This stresses critical-thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills that are required for success in college, career, and life.
These Standards define what students should understand and be able to do in their study of mathematics. Asking a student to understand something means asking a teacher to assess whether the student has understood it. But what does
mathematical understanding look like? One hallmark of mathematical understanding is the ability to justify, in a way appropriate to the student’s mathematical maturity, why a particular mathematical statement is true or where a mathematical rule comes from. There is a world of difference between a student who can summon a mnemonic device to expand a product such as (a + b)(x + y) and a student who can explain where the mnemonic comes from. The student who can explain the rule understands the mathematics, and may have a better chance to succeed at a less familiar task such as expanding (a + b + c)(x + y). Mathematical understanding and procedural skill are equally important, and both are assessable using mathematical tasks of sufficient richness.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual "literature" chosen barely qualifies as such. From a reduced, ideologically derived vocabulary to a limited set of stories to choose from, it's as if George Orwell's Newspeak has stepped into our schools.
Re:Becuz (Score:5, Interesting)
Where to begin? Denial of reading the classics. The elimination of poetry and Shakespeare. Replacement with texts designed to limit vocabulary and more importantly, limit thinking. The almost assured dropout rate of at least 34% as the kids too stupid to achieve common core drop out from frustration and the kids too smart for common core drop out from boredom.
It's likely great for the 68% of the kids in the middle of the bell curve, but universal literacy is not going to be accomplished under it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your argument. I'm not sure how much I agree with its premises or data, but it's at least useful to reflect on.
Re: (Score:2)
wrong (Score:3)
what common core are YOU talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
so, to start with, the common core doesn't even have a required reading list, it leaves it open to schools to select.
ALSO, their 'sample texts' to help teachers out, do include plenty of classics! it SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS shakespeare in the wiki blurb!
so, you're doubly wrong. wtf, bro?
Re: (Score:2)
And thus, a step away from universal liturgy into ideological reduced vocabulary.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop lying, please.
Or stop being stupig; which ever applies.
"Tell what percentage of boxes are shaded - with no shaded boxes?"
that a legitmate quesiton. do you not know about the number zero? Are you from 500 BC?
\
" Abe Lincoln was a Democrat? "
Answer would be false, assuming there is such a question; which there isn't.
Of course, neither political party is anything like they were when Abe was around. In most issues they have swapped position.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an argument for why it's bad, not for why it stops universal literacy. Those two aren't the same, and you're projecting an opinion ("Common core is good") that I haven't presented. Is it okay that I want people to defend their bare assertions? I see no inherent reason why it's wrong, but that's different from seeing any reason why it's right.
Re: (Score:2)
And 78% of the test with a ruler and marking column C.
Re: (Score:2)
Because all of these tests are and were garbage ...
Except that Common Core doesn't mandate or provide any particular test. You appear to be completely ignorant of what Common Core actually is.
Because you can easily game 99% of the test with rote memorization.
Not true. First of all, there is no "test" for Common Core. Second, for many of standardized tests you can gain some advantage by learning the types of questions they ask, and memorizing things like vocabulary words. But the advantage is no where near "99%" and many things should be memorized: multiplication tables, the quadratic equation, Pythagorean theorem, etc
Gates foundation: not good for education (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem isn't that they have ideas and they spend money on getting those ideas to work. It's that the Gates foundation uses their "leveraging" plans for charity on everything, including more political stuff like education. So they give large gifts with the caveat that both that money, and an even larger chunk of public money be spent on doing things the way the foundation envisions.
This is great when it comes to eradicating diseases or building infrastructure, because once that's done, areas stay healthy and stable. When it's used on the already pretty-functional US education system, it turns into a "my way or the highway" situation and the plans being advocated by the Gates foundation aren't nearly as evidence based.
It's problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we fall further behind other first world countries, that's true, but we're ahead of where we were, (pretty) consistently, year-to-year. There's this imagined problem of the education system "going to shit" and requiring immediate and intensive treatment. To continue the medical analogy, we're more like an obese patient who is not currently suffering from any life-threatening conditions. The solution isn't (necessarily, that is. Evidence would help) cardiac surgery, but finding where we have the wors
Re: (Score:2)
It is more like,
People like his ideas, They read 1/2 of the recommendation, then they propose it to the government who only gets 1/2 of that proposal, who then under pressure implements it using 1/2 of the proposal. This may go down a few levels only leaving the Title "Common Core" as remaining.
Because there is this impression of the Failing Schools and we expect someone else to fix it.
However there are a few issues with that.
1. Many of the most successful countries with test results, have a school system
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, politics and school administrations only makes things worse. If we could find a way to do without both, while still keeping universal education, no one would complain.
What is a "vocational school?" (Score:2)
Many of the most successful countries with test results, have a school system where only the best continue on to more schooling the rest go to vocational schools.
I am not sure what a "vocational school" is in a post-industrial environment. I am not even sure any more what "best" means in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
Vocational Schooling or we call them apprenticeships.
In general training to do particular work that doesn't require a college degree to do such work.
A lot of this stuff our college system as absorbed into its structure (Usually in a 2 year degree) but it really shouldn't be.
Jobs such as:
Electricians, Plumbers, Mechanics, Barbers, Truck Drivers, Welders... would quality.
However other job professions which are covered in colleges could be done too. Like: Nursing, Day Care, even Programming, and other IT jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Because a college education is needed for a basic quality of life
No, it's not. I'm not going to deny that it can be difficult to find an employer who realizes that pieces of paper don't indicate that you know what you're doing, but it is, at least, possible. I'm one example of a person who found an employer willing to actually give me a chance and test my skills.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> it turns into a "my way or the highway" situation
Ah, I see, so THAT was the hidden message in the cover of the "Road Ahead" - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, I always thought it was "Please, run Bill Gates over."
Re: (Score:2)
When it's used on the already pretty-functional US education system
It is not and never was "pretty-functional"; it is and was abysmal, like every education system.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so education never did anything for anyone.
I mean, I'm not sure what you're comparing it to if "every education system" sucks. I hate to point out the obvious, but universal education was a transition point for society at large from some really terrible conditions. I'm sorry the real world is abysmal, but we don't live in a fictional universe where everyone is super-intelligent and knows everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so education never did anything for anyone.
Straw man.
That the situation could be worse does not mean it is good. I am saying that it could be vastly improved, and that, at the moment, while it serves some purpose, it's still bad.
Re: (Score:2)
About the common core, I'm not entirely sure what the criticism is. If you read the summary, [wikipedia.org] it looks like an improvement in both math and English.
Re:Gates foundation: not good for education (Score:5, Insightful)
The focus is on making sure kids understand math, rather than being able to solve problems.
If you "understand" math, but can't solve problems with it, then you don't understand math, or at least not anything useful about it.
Re: (Score:2)
But being able to follow a bunch of steps to solve a problem doesn't mean you understand it, so the focus *should* be to make kids understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I have with the math standards is that they are acting like kids can just naturally figure out things such as how to divide large numbers. And in some respects they can, but when kids figure it out for themselves they miss most of the simple methods and processes that can make solving the problem much much much much easier.
Kids now are stumbling around how to divide 536 by 5 and sometimes coming up with the right answer. But instead of then being taught a quick an simple method, long division,
Re: (Score:2)
The quick way is to break out a calculator. Teach kids how and why the math works, stop making them solve repetitive problems that don't even test their understanding of the material, and then give them calculators or computers where necessary.
Put it another way (Score:2)
Public Education should be just that, not a plaything of the 1%; not for ideological reasons nor for 30 pieces of silver to cover budget shortfalls.
$6.5M and $10M are small peanuts (Score:3)
Given the citation that an "earlier $5B education reform effort" didn't really do much, are we to believe that two small grants, $6.5M to David Coleman's company and $10.75M to Khan, somehow means that Gates single-handedly rammed the common core down everyone's throats against their will?
That seems hardly likely. Bill Gates may support the common core, but the notion that it's somehow a conspiracy that he masterminded with his wealth seems farfetched. If you look at reporting on the common core like this recent NPR article (http://www.npr.org/2014/01/28/267488648/backlash-grows-against-common-core-education-standards [npr.org]), you'll see quite a complex list of entities for and against common core. The Chamber of Commerce is for it, Glenn Beck is against it. There's a lot more in this fight than the Gates Foundation's $17.25M.
More like hundreds of millions of dollars (Score:3)
Follow the story link to the Gates Foundation Common Core grants, or check out this post from Diane Ravitch [dianeravitch.net]: "The Gates Foundation spent nearly $200 million to pay for the writing, review, evaluation, dissemination, and promotion of the Common Core standards. It is difficult to find a D.C.-based education organization that has not received millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation to promote the standards. Bill Gates believes in the Common Core standards...And he is not at all concerned that the standar
problems (Score:3)
First, the current SAT rules are that each student can select which test scores to submit to colleges. Many kids take SAT prep courses and then take the SAT multiple times, submitting only the best result.
Second, colleges seem to be reluctant to publish any sort of data on the correlation (or lack thereof) between SAT scores and college GPA or dropout rates. So how do we even know whether the SAT is a useful assessment tool?
Disclaimer: I'm a college-application anarchist who thinks all admissions departments should be taken out and shot, and applicants selected using the time-honored Staircase Method. [joannejacobs.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Do they (SAT) discriminate between "prepped" and "unprepped" testees? I'm skeptical because that would require extensive self-reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
Khan Academy Link (Score:3)
How much did BillG pay to "take" the SAT? $20M (Score:2)
Diane Ravitch [dianeravitch.net]: "The Gates Foundation spent nearly $200 million to pay for the writing, review, evaluation, dissemination, and promotion of the Common Core standards. It is difficult to find a D.C.-based education organization that has not received millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation to promote the standards. Bill Gates believes in the Common Core standards...And he is not at all concerned that the standards were never field-tested, even though Microsoft would never launch a new product line withou
Oops - Make that $200 Million (Score:2)
My bad.
Why all the fuss about Common Core? (Score:2, Interesting)
Common Core is a big thing in NY where I live right now, because the state just voted to suspend its implementation for 2 years. NY already has pretty high standards for high school graduation and, if I'm any indication as a product of it, the curriculum is pretty good too. That doesn't mean that all other states have the same standards, and it seems to me that Common Core was designed to bring all states up to a higher level. As an example, my previous job wanted me to move to Florida, so I played along an
Re:Why all the fuss about Common Core? (Score:4, Insightful)
"First off, getting stuck with a class of crappy students can cost you your job . . ."
No, that's not how the evaluations would work. The improvement of individual students could be tracked and evaluated against the standard.
"Once they receive tenure, they should no longer be subject to evaluation . . ."
That should not be true of anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
"First off, getting stuck with a class of crappy students can cost you your job . . ."
No, that's not how the evaluations would work. The improvement of individual students could be tracked and evaluated against the standard.
"Once they receive tenure, they should no longer be subject to evaluation . . ."
That should not be true of anyone.
Is it really fair to judge a teacher on a test that doesn't mean anything to the students? Also, most states only have one of these evaluative tests a year, so you're not comparing students to their own scores, you're comparing them to the scores of the previous year's class. So the class of crappy students certainly could cost a teacher their job if their previous class was much better.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, most states only have one of these evaluative tests a year, so you're not comparing students to their own scores, you're comparing them to the scores of the previous year's class.
If that's how the test is being interpreted, the administrators are idiots.
You have test results for each class from last year, look at the difference between those results and the results from this year. That gives you the change in test results as affected by the teacher under scrutiny.
This isn't quantum loop gravity, if your only argument against holding teachers to a standard is that the administration is too stupid to apply one correctly, then it's time to nuke the whole district and start over.
I agree that makes more sense, but I'm betting someone pointed out there's no way to evaluate kindergarten teachers that way. Also some amount of difficulty in tracking students that have moved around. The first approach is easier to implement. Still inferior, but much easier to actually do.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, most states only have one of these evaluative tests a year, so you're not comparing students to their own scores, you're comparing them to the scores of the previous year's class.
If that's how the test is being interpreted, the administrators are idiots. You have test results for each class from last year, look at the difference between those results and the results from this year. That gives you the change in test results as affected by the teacher under scrutiny.
This isn't quantum loop gravity, if your only argument against holding teachers to a standard is that the administration is too stupid to apply one correctly, then it's time to nuke the whole district and start over.
It's harder than it seems. First of all, it's the states who administer these exams, not the schools. The public schools have no choice as to how or when these exams are administered. Students are held to different standards during each school year so comparing them to their scores from the previous year doesn't make sense since the material isn't the same. Also, how do you evaluate teachers who teach non-core subjects such as music, PE, or computer science? The whole data driven movement in schools is fin
Re: (Score:2)
One answer - Common Core + No Child Left Behind = ways to screw over schools, teachers and children.
Remove the funding based on mandatory tests (i.e., NCLB) that have been proven to be gamed, and the ideas of Common Core might make sense to implement.
If NCLB is a pit trap, Common Core for many schools becomes the punji stakes hiding in it.
The problem with the education system (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Common Core: uniting the Right and the Left (Score:2)
But seriously, have you actrually read the standardds [corestandards.org]. There's nothing especially objectionable in them, and there is a lot to like. Implementat
Re: (Score:2)
Common core standards are, in fact, lower than the standards that were required by many states. New York voted to suspend it for two years to keep stricter standards. Indiana has a bill sitting on the governor's desk to completely step away from common core to utilize tougher standards.
A large reason common core has an allure is because of bad effects that came about from NCLB. It was causing a lot of schools to face sanction over kids not testing to standard (which is the state's standard) because they had
Where's Important Things Like Logic (Score:2)
The thing that bugs me about this attempt at reform isn't so much what they have done, but what they HAVEN'T done. There's things to like in the new standards, for sure. The math standards seem pretty decent (without studying them closely I can't say for sure; I wonder if possibly we're going TOO easy on our kids, I'd like to assume our kids can be smart if we push them and make some basic level of calculus-type mathematics part of the standard). The english standards are a bit harder to follow because they
Never mind you have to have money.. (Score:4, Informative)
Uhhh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Coleman stressed that Khan Academy and CollegeBoard will be the only places in the world that students will be able to encounter free materials for the exam that are "focused on the core of the math and literacy that matters most."
Does that throw up red flags for anybody else?
Why are we supporting an educational policy where a private corp gets to not only dictate who gets "scholastically approved" but also controls the flow of information used to prepare for said approval?
Way to slant it, there. (Score:2)
Common Core is not perfect. Not much is. But the language used in this post was well and truly slanted. I suggest that, in the future, you avoid politicking in your posting, and instead be an objective reporter of facts. Words like "acknowledge" strongly imply an associated guilt. Likewise, the rest of the OP's slant.
Original common core contributors won’t sign (Score:2)
There’s this one opponent to common core that made a presentation based entirely on quotes from people who originally contributed to and supported common core: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF16la1IiGI”. Originally it seemed like a good idea, but the cirricula kept getting watered down so badly that students wouldn’t leave high school with enough education to get into college. There are those who like to suggest that common core is now only about indoctrinating students with {liberal
Better Common Core than... (Score:2)
Better Common Core than allowing the fundamentalists and fringe groups to continue pushing crap like "Young Earth" ideologies as "just a theory" equivalent to evolution and the big bang.
If it weren't for all the wingnuts and fools in Texas and elsewhere pushing that kind of crap, there wouldn't have been a rebellion against their bullshit through standardization like Common Core.
A lot of misconceptions (Score:4, Informative)
There seem to be a lot of misconceptions and outright ignorance about Common Core here. Common Core is basically just a restructuring of when different subjects are introduced, and how much emphasis is placed on each area at each grade level. For example, in mathematics where previously you might have an algebra class one year, then a geometry class another year, then trigonometry another year, etc., this might get reorganized so that material from each of these courses is introduced at different times in what proponents claim is a more logical structure that achieves better results (and there does seem to be a lot of evidence to support it). So instead of Algebra in 7th grade and Geometry in 8th, you might get some parts of what was in the Algebra class in 6th grade, a little more in 7th, some more in 8th, while also being introduced to Geometry earlier and having that spread across multiple years. You end up in the same place (well, hopefully on average you end up a little more advanced by the end), but at any given point in their schooling students will be ahead of where they would have been under the past system in some areas, and behind in others - by design.
However, this rearrangement of coursework opens a can of worms, which is where most of the fighting comes in. Because things are introduced at different stages and in a different order, an entirely new curriculum is required. It is left to the states to decide what curriculum to use, and there are a lot of choices - much of it produced by commercial entities, some of it good and some of it really, really bad. This isn't a function of Common Core, per se, but merely a function of lots of groups taking advantage of a major re-write to try to get their product included in what is selected at the state or local level.
Likewise, since the order things are introduced changes, all of the standardized tests are no longer relevant - children might be learning some of what falls into "algebra" in the current system in the 5th grade, so a standardized assessment test would need to take this into account. Opponents latch onto this and complain that too much is expected of the students, because they are being tested on something "too advanced". Likewise, something that students previously learned in the 4th grade might not be introduced until the 6th - and again, opponents latch onto this because the standards have been "lowered". It's easy to cherry pick examples that go either way (which this comment section is rife with), because compared to what most of us experienced, it will feel "off".
The vast majority of the arguments against Common Core aren't actually about Common Core, rather they are about some of the curricula that have been developed to meet Common Core's structure. Just like there can be a fight every time a new science textbook is chosen in Kansas (or anywhere else), everyone is arguing over what the curriculum should look like, and it is all happening at once. So, lots of people trying to get their own political slant into the new curriculum, which is the same problem as always - it's just happening all at once across pretty much every subject.
Now, there are certainly objections or questions to ask regarding Common Core. For one, are the benefits of the rejiggering of subjects enough to outweigh the costs of introducing the system? What do you do about students who started with one system - can you transition them to the new standards effectively, or will we have several years worth of students with glaring holes in their education? And last (and probably the biggest question, and the one that has driven many one-time supporters to oppose common core), how do we ensure that the curriculum chosen by my school district/state/whatever is going to be effective and not just an amalgamation of commercial offerings selected through a combination of ideology, lobbying, and kickbacks - the educational outcomes are dependent on the effectiveness of the curriculum, and there is no guarantee that new ones being developed and offered will achieve that (and, for the reasons mentioned, a lot of reasons they might not).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the core that's the issue. It's the testing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's everything. While it would be fairly difficult to make the education system even more abysmal without trying to do just that, this isn't helping.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, this sounds like a false choice to me. Whether Common Core is good or bad is debatable, and I'm sure there are a lot of people willing to debate you on that. Do the SATs need to be changed? Yes. I could agree with that. But this doesn't mean that the changes suggested are the best way to go about it, or even if the changes are better than what we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is based on the assumption someone will only learn what is in the program, which is not necessarily the case. Students are free to go beyond what is given to them. For instance, decades ago when I was in school there was no programming classes, nevertheless I learned it by myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is based on the assumption someone will only learn what is in the program, which is not necessarily the case.
99% of the time, that's the case. You and I are the exceptions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And further, the common core is a set of general standards, not an actual curriculum. Teachers are allowed to choose works, questions, problems, and other material to teach those standards. They can also supplement by teaching things not on the common core standards.
BTDT (Score:2)
Doing things differently in every state is the way things have been done since the dawn of public education.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. States can't be counted on to do things better. It too easy for them to be corrupted by corrupt politicians, labor unions, large donors, mass ignorance of voters ect. Just look at all the attempts by states to remove evolution from text books or insert intelligent design.
If I were all powerful, I'd craft federal legislation that sets a national standard core curiculum, and set up a board that would review requests from states to opt out. If they wanted to expirament they could, but their plan would
Re: (Score:2)
Which of those factors adversely affecting state governments don't apply to te federal government? Moreover, if state X screws up, but state Y does a better job, people can point to X as screwed up and suggest they do things more like Y does. With a single federal standard that won't work. Sure you can do international comparisons, but they're far more difficult and less useful than state to state comparisons. Lastly, you can move to another state much more easily than you can move to another country.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they all apply, but have a lesser effect on the larger federal government. There isn't nearly as much oversight in corruption of state representitives or state senators as there is in DC. In several states, including the one I live in, most people couldn't name or point out their state reps in a line up. There is little to no reporting on what is going on or why in the state capital.
Your reasons why comparisions are good, are the reason why I would allow them, but they'd need to be reviewed first to en
Re: (Score:2)
Argument is BS you cant move so easy just for the good of the children? With a mortgage and living in debt move? Trash argument.
I've known people to do it. In fact I've known people to move to a lower cost of living area and get better schools for theirs kid (e.g. CA to CO). While the "we don't pay more than $27.50/yr in state and local taxes" places almost always have bad schools, places with a high cost of living don't necessarily have great schools.
Make the Feds regulate the state jokers!
Tell the fed jokers not to interfere with my state. The cost of living around here is outrageous, but at least the schools are good. I don't want Sen. Cracker pushing down the federal
Re: (Score:2)
It's not everyone "learns the same thing" but more of everyone must learn the basic minimum standard that has been proven as true. No one is saying education can't exceed it, but it must meet it for sure.
Re:The danger of commonality (Score:5, Funny)
Gates only supports the common core because it will create students stupid enough to buy Windows 9.
Re:The danger of commonality (Score:4, Funny)
Monoculture.
It worked for Windows security! Why not for American education?
Re:The danger of commonality (Score:5, Insightful)
It is indoctrination, pure and simple
Basic literacy and numeracy is indoctrination now? I think your tinfoil hat's a little tight.
Re: (Score:2)
Basic literacy and numeracy is indoctrination now? I think your tinfoil hat's a little tight.
The method to teach basic literacy and numeracy (I'd rather use basic math, but whatever) IS in fact indoctrination when you flat out toss past concepts in favor of new ones. Are you trying to say that before core competency came out that everyone else who learned the old methodologies exhibited problems of learning the material? Was there a problem that this new method tries to solve? It's my understanding (not fr
Re: (Score:3)
As a parent of a kid who's doing "Common Core math", I can tell you that "Common Core math" is horrible. They're not being taught to work with numbers but to estimate answers (652 X 7? Well, that's kind of like 650 x 10 which is 6,500. Problem solved!) and to draw diagrams (1.8 - 0.5 => [OOOOO] OOOOOOOO => 13 O's => 1.3!). Working with numbers is now the "wrong way" and gets marked incorrect even if you get the answer right with that method.
This is purely politicians and corporations working tog
Re: (Score:2)
That's to squeeze all the blood out of his brain. Blood is a sign of indoctrination into oxygen-dependency.
Your source is biased (Score:4, Informative)
Not going to discuss content, but if your entire sourcing is from the "Tea Party News Network", everything looks like liberal/socialist/marxist conspiracy.
You don't happen to have any non-biased news sources, or corroborating links do you?
Re:The danger of commonality (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please! You're talking about two idiot groups that make content aligned to Common Core as if CC was a plane and they provided the engines. All your examples show is that somebody looked at the standards and then wrote some political crap to try and sell. They were probably making the same crap aligned with individual state standards a few years ago. Do you think any school systems will actually buy it?
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap. Thanks for your link to the Tea Party News Network (TPNN), all is made wild-eyed clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Radical Math is just a private web site, and your link is showing a photo of some exercise, but there is no evidence that is from the government or from Common Core. The articles claims that that photo is related to Common Core, but no evidence is given. Would be nice to have a photo that shows the whole paper, with copyright and year.
Re: (Score:2)
Radical Math, by itself, has nothing to do with common core. Their existence predates CC by a few years at least.
That aside, integrating relevant real-world issues into math lessons seems like it would be a rather effective teaching mechanism. Not simply just because they engage certain students, but they make it possible to double-up and teach multiple integrated concepts more quickly - associative memory is much more powerful than rote memorization.
Aligning these materials to CC is just a rather smart m
Re: (Score:2)
I encourage anyone interested in supporting common core that actually has kids in school right now to look at some of the actual questions in the Houghton Mifflin books. We are teaching our kids to make up answers....
Obviously, if you think that, then the education system failed you.
Re:Dump Common Core (Score:5, Insightful)
rates per 100,000 young persons aged 15-19
country year Total
USA 2000 8
Japan 2000 4
China 1999 4
To be quite blunt, your entire argument seems to be that high standards and expectations are a bad thing. That, of course, flies in the face of the recently validated idea that high expectations lead to high performance [google.com]
When I was in third grade, we didn't write out the times tables, we wrote out every single number between one and a thousand in numbers and in letters by ones, one and ten thousand by fives, tens, and fifties, and one and one million by hundreds as homework. It took about a week. That is a form of rote memorization and it works.
You talk about Common Core producing "confused, bitter adults.. or the worker drones they really want", yet the current curriculum is based more on memorization and parroting back the "correct" answers and gives partial credit for utilizing the correct method even if the answer is wrong (that, by the way, boils down to "it doesn't matter what you get as long as you do things my way") rather than critical thinking which many say is a hallmark of Common Core [google.com]
It really sounds like your "bright" kid liked science and school when it was easier and as he has gotten older he has, like so many kids, started to dislike school and you are blaming Common Core instead of actually finding out why your kid doesn't like it. Maybe you should start spending more time with your kid and helping him with his studies, something called "being a parent", instead of making excuses.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, both my wife - who used to teach - and I help our son with his homework a great deal, in fact, every single night, and there is no way in hell he could complete it on his own if we didn't. Yes its called being a parent, which is a lot better than being a presumptuous douchbag citing "excuses".
He's not the only child in this situation either: Jillian is a friend's daughter in his same class, also very bright an
Re: (Score:2)
My stats are the most current I could find on such short notice and there was no information on India. But, what I notice is you offered NOT ONE SINGLE REFERENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS AT ALL, and that makes your entire post "irrelevant".
Re: (Score:3)
It's a disaster. It's pushing the majority of young children far too hard for their age
After reading a great deal about the countries who are improving their schools (in preparation for the schooling of my child), I don't think anyone should claim that our children are being pushed too hard. While we don't need to start pushing our children as hard as the South Koreans, our children are capable of far more than our schools give them credit for. But one reason it is hard to push our children to succeed is that they have parents at home validating that they don't even need to try and rise to th
Re: (Score:2)
Materials being online has little to do with the actual common core standards and more to do with the lack of money to buy textbooks. Here in the South, most states haven't bought new books since the economy crashed in 2008-09. Hence the reliance on online materials.