Showing posts with label Common core. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common core. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

GOVERNOR JINDAL WANTS OUT OF COMMON CORE

The Next Governor Who Wants Out of Common Core has Arrived – It’s Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal once supported the set of educational standards known as Common Core, which are being used to benchmark everything from school curricula to college entrance exams.

Now, he wants to withdraw the state of Louisiana from the Common Core standards, whether the state legislature approves measures to do so or the governor himself begins the withdrawal process.

The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has the story:

Gov. Bobby Jindal has said he wants to withdraw Louisiana from a consortium of states developing the assessment associated with the Common Core academic standards if the Louisiana Legislature doesn’t choose to do so on its own.

Eight state House members sent a letter to Jindal Monday afternoon asking him to nix a years-old agreement that has Louisiana helping craft the Partnership of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) test. The governor, who once supported Common Core and the PARCC, said he is in favor of the state’s withdrawal from the group developing the assessment at this point. Jindal also indicated that he hopes the anti-Common Core efforts currently brewing in the Legislature succeed.

Governor Jindal said the following in a written statement:

“We share the concerns of these [eight state] legislators and also of parents across Louisiana. We’re hopeful that legislation will move through the process this session that will address the concerns of parents or delay implementation until these concerns can be addressed. We think this course of action outlined in the legislators’ letter remains a very viable option if the Legislature does not act.”

Recall that Common Core was not passed through Congress, but was implemented via backdoor by state governors to circumvent parental input and obviate local control over educational content and testing criteria.

The Common Core website explains how it is a privately backed, copyrighted set of standards that has been adopted by a consortium of testing and textbook publishers.

It has been backed by wealthy financier Bill Gates, who also stands to gain from a data-mining arrangement in conjunction with InBloom. The New York Daily News described this project as a drive to “create a national database” of children’s education records.

No wonder Common Core supporters didn’t want a public debate over these issues – one can imagine the parental backlash. That delayed parental backlash is taking place now, and it has been putting pressure on governors like Bobby Jindal to take action.

In March, Republican Governor Mike Pence of Indiana was the first to lead the withdrawal of his state from the Common Core standards.

GOP Governor Mike Pence Makes Indiana the First State to Ditch Common Core

HT Breitbart

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

ARNE DUNCAN BACKING AWAY FROM COMMON CORE

Major Common Core Supporter Now Running From It

 By 

Arne-Duncan
Education Secretary Arne Duncan seems to want to turn back the hands of time to take back his staunch defense of Common Core, or at least make people forget about it. In testimony on Tuesday before the House before the House appropriations subcommittee, Duncan distanced himself from the Common Core State Standards that he has avidly defended in the past.

On June 25, 2013, Duncan delivered a speech at the American Society of News Editors Annual Convention in which he, according to a post at Ed.gov, “pushed back on attacks on Common Core Standards.” His speech is posted in its entirety and its focus is on defending what he believes to be the greatness of Common Core and claiming that the federal government had no role in its development. In fact, Duncan was such a strong advocate for Common Core that he said, “I believe the Common Core State Standards may prove to be the single greatest thing to happen to public education in America since Brown versus Board of Education—and the federal government had nothing to do with creating them.” 

His speech had topic areas that ranged from the great and positive things he believe Common Core would accomplish to accusing critics of misinforming the people; from praising those he describes as ‘responsible conservative voices’ who supported Common Core to a lecture on ‘the role of journalists’ which Duncan described as ‘telling truth from fiction.’

A little under five months later, Duncan would increase his inflammatory and demeaning rhetoric hurled at Common Core opponents by attacking parents who voiced concerns and complaints about these new standards. In November of last year, the Washington Post reported on the race baiting attack that Duncan used against parents in opposition to Common Core while speaking with a group of state superintendents. 

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan told a group of state schools superintendents Friday that he found it “fascinating” that some of the opposition to the Common Core State Standards has come from “white suburban moms who — all of a sudden — their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were, and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought they were.”

Education Week reports on Arne Duncan’s testimony in which he did an about fact and distanced himself from his previous support of Common Core.

In a hearing before a House appropriations subcommittee Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan defended the competitive grants built into his fiscal 2015 budget request, gave no substantive details about a proposed Race to the Top for equity contest, and continued to distance himself from the Common Core State Standards. Rather than sound the rallying cry in support of Common Core, Duncan said, ”I’m just a big proponent of high standards. Whether they’re common or not is secondary.”

The publication also calls Duncan out for his false claim that the federal government had no involvement with the development of Common Core by connecting the dots between Obama’s $4 billion Race to the Top program and the implementation of Common Core in many states throughout America.

But when it comes to competitive grants, the answer is more complicated than “zero.” The administration’s original $4 billion Race to the Top program awarded 40 points to states for developing and adopting common standards. All 12 of those winners have adopted the standards, and have not backed off. What’s more, a separate, $360 million Race to the Top contest to fund common tests was based on the premise that states needed help developing such assessments based on the common standards. But technically, aligning to the common core wasn’t required (you just probably weren’t going to win without it).

Duncan’s testimony, which didn’t contain such nuances, illustrates the fine line the department continues to walk between supporting states as they implement the common core, and not giving critics ammunition to cry “federal overreach.”

As with many within this Obama regime, people must not take what is said, even in sworn testimony, at face value. We have seen too many people in Obama’s regime lie under oath in order to provide cover for wrongdoing and attempt to avoid any repercussions whether criminal or at the voting booth.




Thursday, March 20, 2014

COMON CORE GARBAGE BILLED AS EDUCATION

To normal people this is outrageous. To uniformed people this is undetected. To liberals, this is education. Welcome to the new and improved Common Core Curriculum Standards provided by the so called professionals in your state, including GA, whose legislative session just voted to implement this kind of curriculum content (and this is ONLY the beginning). Only 5 Republican State Legislators voted to reject the Federally supported Common Core Standards in GA this week. (see list AT BOTTOM OF PAGE)). 

READ THE ARTICLE.  Irate Michigan Dad Exoses Daughter's Public School Biology Assignment That Asked Students to Determine a Child's Paternity Based on Blood Type of Various Men Mom Slept With (CLICK HERE FOR STORY)

 


____________________________
See results of the GA vote:
http://www.cwfa.org/georgia-house-ed-committee-strikes-down-sb-167/


GEORGIA HOUSE ED COMMITTEE STRIKES DOWN SB 167BY: CWA OF GEORGIA - 3/13/2014
 

The House Education Committee held its hearing on SB 167 on Wednesday, March 12, 2014. The committee voted on a new Senate substitute bill that was similar to the version that had passed out of the Senate last week. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass by a vote of 13-5.

SB 167 was like watching a ping pong game.  On Monday, March 10, the House Education Committee offered up their very weak substitute. We opposed this version of the bill. However, on Wednesday, March 12, the House decided not to take up their substitute version of SB 167, but to take up a Senate substitute per Sen. Ligon’s request. We supported this version. Therefore, the House voted down the stronger bill.  All this happened in a matter of hours on March 12.

The thirteen committee members who opposed SB 167 have now openly aligned themselves with Washington, D.C. bureaucrats, special interests, the Chamber and the education establishment against the children, parents and concerned citizens of Georgia. By opposing SB 167, the legislators said “yes” to continued participation in the national standards movement. It won’t be long before our children are subjected to national science, social studies, health and sex education standards.

These same thirteen have also said “yes” to the continued data-tracking on Georgia’s students. The Georgia Department of Education will now continue to develop, unimpeded, a longitudinal data tracking system that will track students from the cradle to the grave. Personally identifiable data collected by third parties, done so outside the bounds of any contract, as that which often happens in the virtual world of free educational software applications, is left totally unprotected. Student privacy is now a free-for-all and ready to be harvested by any vendor who chooses to do business in Georgia.

The influencers who had the chance to protect Georgia’s children chose to put politics over their progress. Common Core will do to our educational system what ObamaCare has done to the healthcare industry.

Would you please take the time to thank the five committee members who voted on the side of Georgia children?

Voted in favor of passing SB 167
Rep. Mike Dudgeon – R
Phone: 404-656-0298 | e-mail

Rep. Ed Seztler – R
Phone: 404-656-7857 | e-mail

Rep. Sam Teasley – R
Phone: 404-656-0177 | e-mail

Rep. Joyce Chandler – R
Phone: 404-656-0254 | e-mail

Rep. David Casas – R
Phone: 404-656-0254 | e-mail

Voted in opposition to SB 167
Rep. Tommy Benton-R
Rep. Amy Carter-R
Rep. Valerie Clark-R
Rep. Tom Dickson-R
Rep. Hugh Floyd- D
Rep. Mike Glanton-D
Rep. Wayne Howard-D
Rep. Margaret Kaiser-D
Rep. Howard Maxwell-R
Rep. Rahn Mayo-D
Rep. Alisha Morgan-D
Rep. Randy Nix-R
Rep. Willie Talton-R

Present and did not vote
Rep. Brooks Coleman- R (Chairman does not typically vote)

Absent and did not vote
Rep. Pamela Dickerson-D
Rep. Terry England- R
Rep. Jan Jones- R
Rep. Ed Lindsey- R
Rep. Kevin Tanner- R

- See more at: http://www.cwfa.org/georgia-house-ed-committee-strikes-down-sb-167/#sthash.rnOF4Wmh.dpuf

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

COMMON CORE PROPAGANDA BEGINS

Just a billions of dollars are being spent to promote a broken "Affordable Healthcare Act"  that over half of the nation does not want, the presses role out similar propaganda to try and convince Americans that their children make the best guinea pigs for educational reform that is labeled Common Core Curriculum Standards. 
Welcome to "Reform" school. 

http://o.dailycaller.com/all/2014-03-17-teachers-reveal-what-they-really-think-about-common-core

COMMON CORE'S ASSAULT ON COLLEGE CIRRICULUM

Copied from the link below:

OUR ESSAYS

common_core_blog.jpg

By Peter Wood

Changes in the SAT, announced on March 5 by the College Board, adjust the test to the ongoing decline in the nation's public schools. The new test lightens vocabulary and math and eliminates the penalty for bad guessing. The new SAT grows out of and accommodates the Common Core State Standards, the controversial set of K-12 standards adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia.

The Common Core's standards amount to an assault on the college curriculum. That's because colleges will have to adapt to what the Common Core teaches--and what it fails to teach. It teaches a mechanical way of reading that is poorly suited to literature, philosophy, history, and the rest of the liberal arts.  It also fails to teach the math students need to begin a college-level curriculum in the sciences.  

Complaints

The Common Core has aroused a broad-based and sometimes furious reaction among Americans across the political spectrum. The furor, however, isn't yet focused on what the Common Core does to a college education. Rather, the complaints focus on the immediate harm to students and to schools. The arguments against Common Core have proliferated almost beyond counting, but the short version is something like this: 

The Race to the Middle.  The Common Core promises higher academic standards in the nation's schools.  In some cases it will deliver on that promise, but in other cases, the Common Core actually lowers standards.  The whole thing is an experiment in social leveling.

Goodbye Local Control.  The Common Core transfers a lot of power over the nation's schools from local districts and state governments to the federal government.  The transfer is deceptive and probably illegal. The deception comes from the Common Core being sold as "voluntarily" adopted by the states. The illegality comes from statutory law that prohibits the federal government's involvement in creating school curricula.

Big Brother. The Common Core is designed to collect and aggregate an immense amount of data on individual students' academic performance. Critics worry that this will eventuate in detailed federal files on everyone who attends school. 

Other objections focus on the Common Core's utilitarian goals.  Common Core emphasizes "informational texts" at the expense of literature, promotes out-of-context reading, and significantly lowers expectations for students in math. The Common Core is designed to expedite the way students work, and it minimizes just about everything else schools might be expected to do, such as develop creativity, foster a fullness of mind, and strengthen character.

Common Core was sold to the states as a way to make students "college ready."  The sales pitch was that our nation's schools do a mediocre to poor job prepping students for the next leg of the journey to adulthood--the leg that will take them through Chem 101, English Lit, or whatever college "first years" now take. 

Like all good sales pitches, this one was grounded in truth. Our schools don't do an especially good job at preparing students for college.  As anyone (including me) who has taught freshmen at a "selective" college or university can attest, a great many students arrive at college with no capacity to write a short essay.  Many cannot reliably compose even a grammatical sentence.  Their knowledge of history and literature is generally many steps below what students twenty years ago brought with them, and twenty years ago was a big step down from twenty years before that. Preparation in mathematics and basic science has plummeted even further. 

That said, each semester a handful of students would turn out to be capable and disciplined writers who were pretty well-informed on the things we college teachers used to be able to take for granted.  Some are from elite academies or exceptional public schools.  But a growing number are homeschooled. 

So when Common Core's proponents announced that they were serious about remaking our public schools into places where students would graduate "college ready," the American public was primed to say, "It's about time."

Ready or Not

But a good sales pitch isn't the same as a good product.  As we have gotten to see the Common Core up close, it looks less and less likely to yield "college ready students" in the way we hoped. 

The Common Core will in all likelihood improve education for some students.  How many, what percentage, where, at what cost, and with what drawbacks?  The whole thing has been rushed into place so quickly that no one really knows. But a few things have become clear:

Locking In Mediocrity.  The Obama administration's way of fast-tracking the Common Core through state approval was the $4.35 billion "Race to the Top." To qualify to get into the competition for these funds, states had to agree in advance that students who complete a Common Core curriculum would be admitted to public colleges and universities as full-fledged students. Such students will be exempt from having to take remedial courses because, after all, the state has pre-certified them as "college ready."  What part of "college ready" do those professors not understand?  If the students aren't "ready" to write college essays, so much the worse for college essays. 

I doubt that the bureaucrats and state legislators who approved this stipulation gave a moment's thought to what this arrangement really means. Thanks to various "preference" programs in college admissions--for racial minorities principally but also for athletes and other "special interests"--colleges admit many students who are mismatched to the prevailing level of academic rigor. The usual recourse for these students has been an effort to repair the gaps in their learning through remedial courses, which are usually non-credit courses, i.e. they don't count towards graduation. They are on-ramps for students who are not yet ready for freshman courses. 

The Common Core, in a stroke, abolishes this option. If a college admits students who are mismatched, it will have no choice but to mainstream those students into regular courses. 

Colleges could decide not to admit such students at all or admit them and watch them fail. But given higher education's steely commitment to using college admissions to advance its ideas of "social justice," most colleges will simply lower academic standards across the board.  Note that this cannot stop with freshman year.  Once a college injects "underprepared" (i.e. incompetent) students into mainstream introductory courses and adjusts those courses to avoid embarrassingly high failure rates, the consequences will propagate through all the subsequent courses. 

Subterfuges will necessarily evolve.  Colleges will create or expand "honors" programs for students who meet what were formerly the basic standards.  Remedial courses will be relabeled as regular courses, even though everyone will know they are remedial. Untalented students will be shunted even more than they are now to soft majors in fields such as African-American studies, sociology, and women's studies. 

But such subterfuges will be targets for severe criticism by the academic left on the grounds that they discriminate. The emergence too conspicuously of a two-tier system would be denounced as racist, classist, anti-immigrant, and so on. The only viable choice for most colleges and universities will be to dilute the curriculum.  The Common Core is thus set to become a bulldozer aimed at leveling what remains of intellectual excellence in American higher education.

Remedial courses, I might add, have themselves become a blight in American higher education, but that's a topic for another day. 

Locking Out Liberal Learning.  The Common Core emphasizes how to glean information from the written word--and other media as well. The catchphrase that the Common Core uses for the written words that students will mine for information is "informational texts."  Think of the recipe on the back of the soup can for turning soup into a tasty casserole. But not all "informational texts" present themselves as instructions. "Information" can be gleaned from all sorts of texts, including picture books, novels, poems, YouTube videos, works of history, and speeches by notables such as Abraham Lincoln.  

The trouble is that if you see the written word as mainly a device for conveying information, you miss many other things that writing can do. It stirs emotions; it points to truths beyond itself; alternatively, it conveys lies; it may possess beauty or it may be ugly; it can cause us to ask questions that the text itself does not ask; it possesses implications; it belongs to and participates in a larger context; it taps into secret memories; it rallies us to public causes. 

The Common Core slights all of these purposes.  That is not to say it ignores them entirely. It gives some small space to mythology and literature--a space that retracts year by year as students progress through the Common Core. 

Why should this matter?  We should surely want students to be able to read recipes on soup cans and to extract important information from "texts."  That's a useful skill.  But it is a skill that, cultivated at the expense of a more well-rounded form of literacy, cuts students off from the foundation of a liberal education. Students who know how to read "informational texts," and to read every piece of writing as though it is an "informational text," are ill-prepared for Plato's Republic or Shakespeare's King Lear. Indeed, they are ill-prepared for Goodnight Moon. 

This gap between how the Common Core teaches students to read and the kind of reading required in a liberal education is especially worrisome at a time when colleges have to a great extent abandoned their old core curricula.  Students these days are lulled with the illusion that they can become "critical thinkers" by studying whatever catches their interest, rather than what their colleges have deemed the most important works. That whole do-it-yourself approach puts a premium on the capacity of college students to read with their eyes wide open and to get to places well beyond the "information" that a "text" lays out. 

With the Common Core, we will have the worst of both worlds: students who come equipped to read mainly for information and college curricula designed for students equipped mainly for independent intellectual synthesis. 

Watering Down Math.  Common Core defers the teaching of algebra to the 9th grade.  As a consequence, it will be difficult for schools to offer pre-calculus to students before they finish high school. There simply isn't enough time left in the curriculum to reach that level, and the Common Core poses other obstacles as well. Trigonometry is barely broached. Geometry follows an eccentric path. The result is that students who go to college hoping to study the physical sciences, computing, engineering, economics, and other math-heavy fields will be handicapped.  Or they will have to scramble before they get to college to supplement what their high schools offer. 

Some students will find their ways around these obstacles, but many won't, and that will leave colleges and universities with few good choices.  The likeliest path will be to reduce the rigor of their science programs to accommodate students who have to spend their first year catching up on mathematics that used to be taught in high school. 

Everybody acknowledges how important the STEM fields are for America's future--and few are more vocal about this than Bill Gates. One of the ironies of the Common Core is that its most lavish-spending advocate is contributing to the further erosion of our nation's strength in this area.  Perhaps it is no wonder that Mr. Gates is also a major supporter of increasing the number of H-1B visas for foreign nationals who have expertise in science and engineering. 

What Else?

The Common Core will not make an appreciable number of students more "college ready." It may smooth the way, however, for more students to be admitted to college. President Obama and Michelle Obama have recently ratcheted up the campaign that Obama announced back in his first address to Congress in February 2009--to make America the nation with the highest percentage of college graduates. The pitch that "everyone should go to college" has been a favorite of American politicians for a long time. It is, on its face, silly. To achieve anything like it would require obliterating academic standards and wasting untold trillions of dollars. But the phrase somehow strokes the national ego.

The Common Core feeds this fantasy and the illusions buried within, namely, that a college degree is a ticket to personal prosperity and that having lots of people who have college degrees necessarily makes the nation more competitive in the global economy. For reference: the nation that currently has the greatest percentage of college degrees in its population is that economic powerhouse, Russia. Moreover, the nation with the strongest economy in Europe--Germany--has about half the percentage of college-degreed people as the United States does.  

So the effort to grease the skids from public school to college is founded on a mistake.  But it is a mistake that Americans somehow cherish and won't easily relinquish.  We would go a lot further towards both a greater degree of personal prosperity and national competitiveness if we really did improve K-12 education--not with the idea of making our schools operate better as conveyor belts to our languishing higher education institutions, but with the idea of fostering a true spirit of educational achievement among students, parents, and teachers. I know.  Easier said than done. 

The task at hand, however, is to stop the Common Core before it can inflict more harm.  The battle will probably be waged over the issues I listed earlier--the race to the middle, goodbye local control, big brother--during the races for public office in which the Common Core becomes an issue.  But the Common Core is also an assault on higher education and as that becomes clear perhaps the strange coalition of opponents will grow stranger still.  I await the rallies where Tea Party activists unite in uncommon cause with English and History profs.

-----------------------------------------

Peter Wood is president of the National Association of Scholars. 


Monday, March 17, 2014

CALIFORNIA: Should Students Be Grouped By ‘Content Level’ Instead of By Grade?


A California school district is grouping students by “content level” instead of grade.

The model is based on the idea that students learn at their own pace and should advance when they have mastered the material.

So, is content-based learning a good idea?

Former high school academic dean Jedidiah Bila says the new plan means students have different lesson plans and more individualized learning.

“I think it challenges kids, I think it challenges teachers, and I think it keeps the classroom really interactive,” she said.

Amber Northern, Thomas B. Fordham Institute research director, disagreed. She said it’s a way for schools to “plump up their graduation rate” and said it threatens the integrity of the education system.

“I think with the right formula, this could be enormously successful. With the wrong formula, could it fail? Absolutely, but the system is failing now, so I think the desperation is ‘Let’s get in and try to switch things up and see what we can do’ because right now, kids aren’t doing so great in our educational system. So it’s worth a shakeup, in my opinion,” Bila said.

Watch the debate above.


Read more education stories from Fox News:

HS Student's Impassioned Speech Against Common Core Goes Viral

Obama’s New Math Curriculum Gives Kids Points for Wrong Answers?!



Thursday, March 13, 2014

GA SB 167, THE COMMIN CORE PING PONG MATCH AND THE PLAYERS


GEORGIA HOUSE ED COMMITTEE STRIKES DOWN SB 167

The House Education Committee held its hearing on SB 167 on Wednesday, March 12, 2014. The committee voted on a new Senate substitute bill that was similar to the version that had passed out of the Senate last week. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass by a vote of 13-5.

SB 167 was like watching a ping pong game.  On Monday, March 10, the House Education Committee offered up their very weak substitute. We opposed this version of the bill. However, on Wednesday, March 12, the House decided not to take up their substitute version of SB 167, but to take up a Senate substitute per Sen. Ligon’s request. We supported this version. Therefore, the House voted down the stronger bill.  All this happened in a matter of hours on March 12.

The thirteen committee members who opposed SB 167 have now openly aligned themselves with Washington, D.C. bureaucrats, special interests, the Chamber and the education establishment against the children, parents and concerned citizens of Georgia. By opposing SB 167, the legislators said “yes” to continued participation in the national standards movement. It won’t be long before our children are subjected to national science, social studies, health and sex education standards.

These same thirteen have also said “yes” to the continued data-tracking on Georgia’s students. The Georgia Department of Education will now continue to develop, unimpeded, a longitudinal data tracking system that will track students from the cradle to the grave. Personally identifiable data collected by third parties, done so outside the bounds of any contract, as that which often happens in the virtual world of free educational software applications, is left totally unprotected. Student privacy is now a free-for-all and ready to be harvested by any vendor who chooses to do business in Georgia.

The influencers who had the chance to protect Georgia’s children chose to put politics over their progress. Common Core will do to our educational system what ObamaCare has done to the healthcare industry.

Would you please take the time to thank the five committee members who voted on the side of Georgia children?

Voted in favor of passing SB 167
Rep. Mike Dudgeon – R
Phone: 404-656-0298 | e-mail

Rep. Ed Seztler – R
Phone: 404-656-7857 | e-mail

Rep. Sam Teasley – R
Phone: 404-656-0177 | e-mail

Rep. Joyce Chandler – R
Phone: 404-656-0254 | e-mail

Rep. David Casas – R
Phone: 404-656-0254 | e-mail

Voted in opposition to SB 167
Rep. Tommy Benton-R
Rep. Amy Carter-R
Rep. Valerie Clark-R
Rep. Tom Dickson-R
Rep. Hugh Floyd- D
Rep. Mike Glanton-D
Rep. Wayne Howard-D
Rep. Margaret Kaiser-D
Rep. Howard Maxwell-R
Rep. Rahn Mayo-D
Rep. Alisha Morgan-D
Rep. Randy Nix-R
Rep. Willie Talton-R

Present and did not vote
Rep. Brooks Coleman- R (Chairman does not typically vote)

Absent and did not vote
Rep. Pamela Dickerson-D
Rep. Terry England- R
Rep. Jan Jones- R
Rep. Ed Lindsey- R
Rep. Kevin Tanner- R


Thursday, February 20, 2014

COMMON CORE BACKLASH


Left-Leaning New York Backing Away From Common Core 'Disaster' http://www.newsmax.com/US/education-standards-new-york-common-core/2014/02/17/id/553214 via @Newsmax_Media

Common Core: Obama Education Plan Sparks Nationwide Protest http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-education-program-protest/2013/11/18/id/537228 via @Newsmax_Media

For teachers and schools, Common Core lacks Common Sense http://www.newsmax.com/Stossel/Common-Core-teachers-schools/2014/01/02/id/544788 via @Newsmax_Media

@joaneanna: Common Core: Obama Education Plan Sparks Nationwide Protest- Arne Duncan in denial http://t.co/f66USxPMQZ via @Newsmax_Media

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

COMMON CORE FOISTED ON KINDERGARTNERS

A very scary headline about kindergarteners

(By Matt McClain / FOR THE WASHINGTON POST)

Rob Saxton is Oregon's deputy superintendent of public instruction. Jada Rupley is the early learning system director within the state Department of Education. Together they wrote an op-ed in The Oregonian that was published online with this headline:

Kindergarten test results a ‘sobering snapshot’

What could possibly be sobering about test results from kindergarteners? What kind of tests are they giving to kindergarteners anyway?

It turns out that every public school kindergartener in Oregon was given a kindergarten readiness test last September to see how many numbers, letters and sounds they knew. The Oregonian reported that kids on average entered kindergarten knowing 19 capital and lower-case letters and seven letter sounds of at least 100 possible correct answers.

Kindergarten readiness tests are nothing new. What is is the ever-increasing focus on turning kindergarten, and now preschool, into academic environments with the aim of ensuring that children can read by the time they are in first grade. In fact, kindergarten is the new first grade when it comes to academics.

Saxton and Rupley wrote in their piece that the results of the testing of the kindergarteners in Oregon “provide a sobering snapshot of the skills our children possess as they enter kindergarten.”

A working paper called “Is Kindergarten the New First Grade? The Changing Nature of Kindergarten in the Age of Accountability,” by Daphna Bassok and Anna Rorem of the University of Virginia’s EdPolicyWorks, a center on education policy and competitiveness, notes that kindergarten has been transformed over the last decade, with academic skill-being taking center stage.

For some kids, learning to read in kindergarten is just fine. For many others, it isn’t. They just aren’t ready. In years gone by, kids were given time to develop and learn to read in the early grades without being seen as failures. Even kids who took time learning how to read were able to excel.

Today kids aren’t given time and space to learn at their own speed.

Writer Alfie Kohn wrote in this post about concerns he has about the new calls for universal early childhood education. Why? Because when people talk about “high-quality programs,” they often mean academic programs, meaning the academic focus is being pushed down to younger and younger kids.

Very few people are talking about the kind of education that would be offered -- other than declaring it should be "high quality." And that phrase is often interpreted to mean "high intensity": an accelerated version of skills-based teaching that most early-childhood experts regard as terrible. Poor children, as usual, tend to get the worst of this….

… The top-down, test-driven regimen of Bush's "No Child Left Behind" and Obama's "Race to the Top" initiatives in K-12 education is now in the process of being nationalized with those Common Core standards championed by the Times -- an enterprise largely funded, and relentlessly promoted, by corporate groups. That same version of school reform, driven by an emphasis on global competitiveness and a determination to teach future workers as much as possible as soon as possible, would now be expanded to children who are barely out of diapers.

That doesn't leave much time for play. But even to the extent we want to promote meaningful learning in young children, the methods are likely to be counterproductive, featuring an emphasis on the direct instruction of skills and rote rehearsal of facts. This is the legacy of behaviorism: Children are treated as passive receptacles of knowledge, with few opportunities to investigate topics and pose questions that they find intriguing. In place of discovery and exploration, tots are trained to sit still and listen, to memorize lists of letters, numbers, and colors. Their success or failure is relentlessly monitored and quantified, and they're "reinforced" with stickers or praise for producing right answers and being compliant.

This dreary version of early-childhood education isn't just disrespectful of children; decades of research show it simply doesn't work well -- and may even be damaging.

Bassok, one of the authors of the research paper mentioned above, noted that while there are fun and engaging ways to teach young kids academic material, she worries that so much emphasis will be put on learning to read that other things, like play and social interactions, will be lost.

It’s already been happening for years, and it appears to be getting worse. The end result will be kids who hate school even earlier than they do now.

Kids like to play. Kids learn from play. Why it doesn’t make sense to just let them play is beyond me.
–
Here’s a position paper on the testing of young children by Defending the Early Years, a non – profit project of the Survival Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) tax – exempt educational organization based in Watertown, Massachusetts. (Find more information at deyproject.org or write to geralynbywater@gmail.com.)

What is the problem?

Today, the majority of classrooms for preschool, kindergarten and primary age children are required to address content standards that prescribe what children are expected to learn. These standards are intended to insure that worthwhile subject matter is taught. Performance standards have been developed to find out if children have learned the prescribed content.

While standards are helpful for identifying valuable content, they can also have a negative impact on children and programs. Some of the problems with standards are that they are not always based on knowledge of how children grow and learn, and often do not take into account children's needs, capacities, cultures, and unique characteristics. Standards can lead to teaching of skills in ways that are not effective or meaningful, to the narrowing of the curriculum, and to less time for play and hands-on learning experiences that are important foundations for later school success.

It is useful to find out if children have learned the prescribed content, but the way this is most often done is through testing – which also can have a negative impact on children and programs. One of the major problems with the tests is that they are often not based on knowledge of child development and are therefore not suited to the developmental abilities of young children. Another problem is that tests can only measure a narrow range of knowledge and skills, so they often miss important objectives of early childhood education like creativity, problem-solving, and social and emotional development. Teachers who want children to do well on tests may eliminate worthwhile learning experiences, introduce skills too early, or narrow the curriculum in order to "teach to the test".

Research shows that children learn best when they have hands-on learning experiences, engage in structured play, experience facts within meaningful contexts, invent their own problems to explore and solve, and share their own solutions. The current emphasis on standards and testing has led many schools to over-focus on assessment at the expense of meeting children's developmental needs and teaching meaningful content. Play and activity-based learning have been disappearing from many early childhood classrooms, and – along with them – children's natural motivation and love of learning.

What could be done to address this problem?

Program practices:

1. Promote programs that are based on current research on how young children learn best.

2. Promote meaningful, hands-on learning experiences in classrooms for young children.

3. Work to ensure that teachers provide well-thought out educational experiences that demonstrate knowledge and respect for each child.

4. Work to ensure that children have literacy experiences that include storytelling, quality children's literature, and acting out stories rather than activities that isolate and drill discrete skills.

5. Help teachers skillfully build curriculum from what children can do and understand instead of direct teaching skills that are disconnected from children's understanding.

6. Encourage schools to respect the language and culture of children and their families, to encourage families to take ownership and to make sure that their history and experiences are included and valued.

7. Encourage schools to design schedules that provide ample time for families and school personnel to meet and work together.

8. Work to ensure that teachers who have specialized training in early childhood education are placed in classrooms for young children.

Assessment practices:

1. Encourage policies that protect children from undue pressure and stress and from judgments that will have a negative impact on their lives in the present and in the future.

2. Promote the use of assessments that are based on observations of children, their development and learning.

3. Work to ensure that classroom assessments are used for the purpose of improving instruction.

4. Support efforts to eliminate testing of young children that is not intended to improve classroom practice.

5. Eliminate labeling and ranking of children based on standardized tests.

What family members can do at home

1. Provide young children with space and time to play at home and in the neighborhood.

2. Read good quality children's books and limit screen time.

3. Resist reinforcing the school's agenda – drilling for skills – and replace it with opportunities for meaningful learning

RELATED: In their own words – Children’s six-word memoirs

Saturday, January 25, 2014

List of State and National Republican Organizations Opposing Common Core

Copied from article below:

Here is a list of state and national Republican affiliated organizations that have passed resolutions or otherwise opposed Common Core (a similar list was distributed  at the Republican Party of Florida annual meeting that took place on January 10th and 11th):

Republican National Committee (unanimous)
National Federation of Republican Women (unanimous)
State Federations of Republican Women
  • Alabama
  • Delaware
  • Georgia
  • Nebraska
  • Tennessee
  • Wisconsin
  • Arkansas
  • North Carolina
State Republican Parties:
  • Alabama
  • California
  • Georgia
  • Idaho
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Michigan
  • Missouri
  • Oregon
  • South Carolina
  • Utah
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin
  • Wyoming
U.S. House Republican Caucus Votes on Anti-Common Core Language in HR 5 (Student Success Act):

All Florida Republican members, except one who did not vote, supported a Sense of Congress amendment on states' rights being violated due to Common Core. All Republicans except 4 from the entire caucus supported this amendment.  221 of 234 House Republicans voted for the entire bill that contained multiple sections of anti-Common Core language.


Florida County Republican Executive Committees (This list may not be all inclusive.  We will update it as more information becomes available):
A

List of State and National Republican Organizations Opposing Common Core

Copied from article below:

Here is a list of state and national Republican affiliated organizations that have passed resolutions or otherwise opposed Common Core (a similar list was distributed  at the Republican Party of Florida annual meeting that took place on January 10th and 11th):

Republican National Committee (unanimous)
National Federation of Republican Women (unanimous)
State Federations of Republican Women
  • Alabama
  • Delaware
  • Georgia
  • Nebraska
  • Tennessee
  • Wisconsin
  • Arkansas
  • North Carolina
State Republican Parties:
  • Alabama
  • California
  • Georgia
  • Idaho
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Michigan
  • Missouri
  • Oregon
  • South Carolina
  • Utah
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin
  • Wyoming
U.S. House Republican Caucus Votes on Anti-Common Core Language in HR 5 (Student Success Act):

All Florida Republican members, except one who did not vote, supported a Sense of Congress amendment on states' rights being violated due to Common Core. All Republicans except 4 from the entire caucus supported this amendment.  221 of 234 House Republicans voted for the entire bill that contained multiple sections of anti-Common Core language.


Florida County Republican Executive Committees (This list may not be all inclusive.  We will update it as more information becomes available):
A

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Why Parents Object to Common Core Standards

(Copied from the link below)

Reasons to object to the implementation of Common Core (CC) standards are numerous. Critics object to the manner in which they were created, adopted and funded, and say they are unconstitutional and illegal. The standards themselves are complicated and some worry that CC is inferior to some current state standards and intends to indoctrinate rather than teach students. The creation of an invasive student and family online database is troubling, as is the massive cost of implementing Common Core, which will strain states and communities.

How Were Common Core Standards Created?

Common Core standards were not developed by and did not emanate from states. They were funded and developed at the behest of two Washington, D.C.-based trade organizations, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA), through their contractor Achieve, Inc., with generous funding from the Gates Foundation and other private philanthropies. Some Common Core developers have questionable motives and backgrounds. Common Core standardized test creator Linda Darling-Hammond was President Obama’s top choice for education secretary but was never nominated because of her controversial leftist leanings; she is a close associate of domestic terrorist turned educator Bill Ayers. (See book review in this Education Reporter) Common Core was developed in closed meetings, without public debate, by committees.

How Was Common Core Adopted by States?

State Governors or State Boards of Education signed on to Common Core standards before even seeing the standards, after being cajoled to do so and “bribed” by promises of federal Race to the Top (RTTT) grants by the Obama administration. Only some states received money from the competitive RTTT grants. States were also threatened with the loss of No Child Left Behind waivers if they did not align, which would have meant significant loss of federal financial support. State legislatures, which represent the public, were not involved in the decision to adopt Common Core standards. Neither was the U.S. Congress.

Illegal and Unconstitutional Federal Overreach

Nationalized education standards should be considered unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. The General Educational Provisions Act also prohibits federal overreach by prohibiting “any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States [from exercising] any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system. . . .”

Common Core severely limits local control of education. The standards are copyrighted by the CCSSO and NGA and licensed only to states. Federal dictates assure that 85% of academic standards in reading and math will strictly adhere to CC standards, leaving only 15% flexibility. With only 15% of the standards eligible to be altered by the local district, a state choosing to teach cursive writing instead of just the keyboarding mandated by CC would likely use up the entire 15% on this one change. Nationalized tests are more federal interference. These standardized tests will drive curriculum and textbooks.

Education standards could have been improved without federal intervention. According to Lindsey M. Burke of the Heritage Foundation:

States and local school districts can have success improving their standards and assessments without surrendering control to Washington. Increasing transparency of outcomes in a way that is meaningful to parents and taxpayers, providing flexibility for local school leaders, and advancing systemic reforms that include school choice options for families will go a long way in improving academic outcomes while at the same time preserving local control of education.

Invasion of Student and Family Privacy

Common Core calls for unprecedented monitoring, collection, and sharing of private student and family information. The Obama administration made changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), changing and reinterpreting laws to allow personally identifiable information such as name, address, Social Security number, attendance, test scores, learning disabilities, and family information to be recorded and shared with other agencies. This information will be available not only to the government, but also to researchers and private companies. The Gates Foundation, the Car-negie Corporation, and Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation funded and developed the CC database system and recently turned it over to a nonprofit corporation called inBloom, established for the purpose of controlling the information. There are security risks involved in the collection and storage of students’ data.

Parents and legislators were neither informed nor did they give permission for Common Core to allow private data about children to be collected and shared.

It is expected that Common Core will affect private schools and homeschoolers, not just in the materials available but that laws will be stretched to include them in the standards and the collection of personal data.

Higher Standards or Standards of Mediocrity?

Proponents of Common Core standards claim they will graduate students to be career- and college-ready. However, one of CC’s creators, Dr. Jason Zimba, admitted in March 2010 at a meeting of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education that “college ready” means ready for a non-selective two-year community college, not a selective four-year institution. The minutes of that Massachusetts meeting read: “Mr. Zimba said the concept of college readiness is minimal and focuses on non-selective colleges.”

The Common Core standards claim to provide “evidence-based rigorous content.” In reality the mediocrity and deficiencies of Common Core standards, which are not based on empirical evidence, are many and have been exposed by education experts.

Dr. Sandra Stotsky, the architect of Massachusetts’ excellent education standards, sat on the English Language Arts committee for Common Core and refused to sign off on the CC standards, saying “they were not internationally benchmarked or research-based.” She described them as empty skill sets that won’t prepare students for authentic college course work, and said, “there is absolutely no empirical research to suggest that college readiness is promoted by informational or nonfiction reading in high school English classes or in mathematics and science classes.” (See Education Reporter Focus, March 2013)

Professor R. James Milgram of Stanford University, the only professional mathematician on the Common Core Validation Committee, also declined to sign off on the CC standards. He has spoken against the standards in several states and testified in Indiana:

The Common Core [math] standards claim to be “benchmarked against international standards” but this phrase is meaningless. They are actually two or more years behind international expectations by 8th grade, and only fall further behind as they talk about grades 8 – 12. Indeed, they don’t even fully cover the material in a solid geometry course, or in a second-year algebra course.

Since Common Core delays the teaching of algebra from 8th to 9th grade, it will be nearly impossible for graduating seniors to complete calculus, a required course for admission to many four-year universities.

How Much Will Common Core Cost?

At a time when many states and school districts are struggling to stay afloat financially, Common Core demands that current textbooks be replaced with those aligned with the new standards, that teachers be retrained to teach in alignment with CC standards and CC standardized tests, and that schools fund technological updates necessary for every student to complete computerized testing, including purchasing additional computers and increasing broadband capacity.

Estimates to implement the standards and testing range from $12 to $16 billion. The fact that states cannot even figure out how much Common Core alignment will cost them is further evidence that they had no hand in developing the standards.

The Pioneer Institute report on “National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards” estimates that, for just the testing mandated by the federal government, the “annual cost of assessment for states participating in the consortia will increase by a total of $177.2 million each year. These are not one-time costs . . ., but ongoing operational costs that will be faced each year.” This estimate is an increase over previous standardized testing costs, not the full cost of the testing.

The Pioneer Institute estimates that California’s textbook and materials costs will be $374 million. California’s previous standards were judged to be as good as, if not better than, Common Core standards, so this is money that did not need to be spent. Many California taxpayers are left wondering why they will be paying for this.

It doesn’t go unnoticed by Common Core critics that Bill Gates, who makes computers, Sir Michael Barber’s Pearson PLC, the multinational publishing and education conglomerate, and other education industry giants who are champions of Common Core will profit handsomely from its implementation.

CC Predictions and Predicaments

Dr. Ze’ev Wurman, a mathematics standards and assessment expert and former U.S. Department of Education official, states:

I believe Common Core marks the cessation of educational standards improvement in the United States. No state has any reason left to aspire for first-rate standards, as all states will be judged by the same mediocre national benchmark enforced by the federal government.

Moreover, there are organizations that have reasons to work for lower and less-demanding standards, specifically teachers unions and professional teacher organizations. While they may not admit it, they have a vested interest in lowering the accountability bar for their members. With Common Core, they have a single target to aim for, rather than 50 distributed ones. So give it some time and, as sunset follows sunrise, we will see even those mediocre standards being made less demanding. This will be done in the name of “critical thinking” and “21st-century” skills in faraway Washington, D.C., well beyond the reach of parents and most states and employers.

Christopher Tienken, Ed.D, the editor of the Journal of Scholarship & Practice in his article “An Example of Data-less Decision Making” (Winter 2011) offers another reason all Americans should worry about the potentially devastating impact of Common Core:

Children do not have a seat at the policy-making table. Policy is thrust upon them, not created with them. They are helpless to defend themselves against poor decision-making. They do not have a voice. They have only the voices of the adults who are supposed to know better.


Tuesday, December 10, 2013

COMMON CORE DOCUMENTARY REVEALS THE HIDDEN AGENDA

Watch this trailer for a new film that exposes Common Core

Watch this trailer for a new film that exposes Common Core [VIDEO]

A new documentary film about Common Core promises to expose the faulty logic and pro-government agenda underlining the controversial national education standards.

The filmmaker, Ian Reed, interviewed dozens of Common Core’s supporters and opponents, but seems to come out heavily against the standards in the trailer for his film, “Building the Machine: A Film About the Common Core.” The trailer features interviews with notable critics of the standards, including education experts Sandra Stotsky, E.D. Hirsch and Joy Pullmann.

“The biggest misconception that Common Core proponents push on people is that there is any evidence that a system like Common Core will benefit children,” said Pullman, editor of School Reform News, in the trailer.

Initially conceived by a bipartisan coalition of moderate state governors, the standards were then embraced and pushed by President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. They are currently being implemented in most states, though they continue to receive significant pushback from both grassroot conservative organization and teachers unions. Critics of the standards claim they are untested, stress high-stakes evaluations, and erode local and state control over education.

The film will likely explore the Gates Foundation’s involvement in the standards. The foundation is a major underwriter of Common Core.

A 30-minute version of the film will get a limited release in February, followed by the release of the full version in spring.

Follow Robby on Twitter



Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, November 17, 2013

COMMON CORE: THE OBAMACARE OF EDUCATION

Protests widen against Obama-backed Common Core education reforms

A fierce battle in New York is the latest sign that populist resistance to the Obama administration-backed Common Core education reforms shows no signs of slowing — and that the opposition isn’t limited to red states.

Since 2010, 45 states have adopted the Common Core benchmarks for proficiency in English and math for schoolchildren at the end of each grade.

Critics say several states are experiencing buyers’ remorse after complaints from parents and scholars that the reforms are untested and poorly designed and put additional burdens on teachers and students. They also say Common Core represents a federal government intrusion into an area traditionally operated at the state and local levels.

Common Core, backed by $4.35 billion offered to states through President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, appeared to be overcoming opposition when it was implemented.

Now, however, backlash has been gaining force. Blogger Michele Zipp of The Stir last week said Common Core “is kind of turning into the Obamacare of education.”

Common Core opponents have organized a social media campaign to make Monday a “National Don’t Send Your Child to School Day” and have planned protests at local education administration buildings. A Facebook page for protesters had more than 5,500 supporters by Sunday.

Opposition to Common Core has been roiling in recent weeks since New York state Education Commissioner John King conducted a series of meetings that highlighted deep concerns about the reforms.

“We are abusing the children in the state of New York,” Beth Dimino, president of the Port Jefferson Station Parent Teacher Association, said at a forum last week at Ward Melville High School, according to an account on Patch.com.

Lana Ajemian, the head of New York's Parent Teacher Association, said standards have moved far too quickly for students to keep up. “It’s like the train’s pulling out of the station without everybody on board,” Ms. Ajemian told NBC New York during the public forum on Long Island.

Conservative education scholars have led opposition to Common Core reforms, but the resistance appears to have taken the Obama administration and the education establishment by surprise. The bipartisan National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers have led state-by-state adoption of the standards.

“Development of these standards was not driven by the federal government, but by the states,” wrote Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association. “Governors on both sides of the aisle, the business community, and most importantly educators, came together to ensure one thing: that students learn what they need to live a successful life in a 21st century global economy.”

Although adoption of Common Core was voluntary, states that rejected the standards were considered effectively ineligible for federal stimulus funds tied to President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative.

The four states that have rejected Common Core completely are Alaska, Nebraska, Texas and Virginia. Minnesota has accepted the English standards but not the math standards.

But much of the energy in recent months has come from opponents, who include an unusually broad mix of scholars, teachers, parents and state legislators.

In one of the first signs of resistance, the Republican National Committee unexpectedly adopted a resolution opposing Common Core. At its spring meeting, the RNC called Common Core an “inappropriate overreach to standardize and control the education of our children so they will conform to a preconceived ‘normal.’”

Under pressure from parents, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, sent a letter last month informing Education Secretary Arne Duncan that his state was leaving Common Core, citing a “federal intrusion in education policy.”

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, also a Republican, signed the Common Core Pause Bill this year to allow deliberation among state agencies until a consensus could be reached on governmental education.

In a move that sparked sharp debate within the American church, a group of 132 respected Catholic scholars and educators released an open letter last week calling on U.S. bishops to block the Common Core standards from being imposed on the Catholic Church’s extensive network of parochial schools.

“We believe that, notwithstanding the good intentions of those who made these decisions, Common Core was approved too hastily and with inadequate consideration of how it would change the character and curriculum of our nation’s Catholic schools ,” the letter said. “In fact, we are convinced that Common Core is so deeply flawed that it should not be adopted by Catholic schools which have yet to approve it, and that those schools which have already endorsed it should seek an orderly withdrawal now.”

Other states, including Alabama, have mixed feelings about Common Core.

“I am adamantly opposed to Common Core, and I hope the Legislature will do something about it,” state Sen. Scott Beason, Gardendale Republican, said last week. “There are some people who would like to avoid it one way or another. But I believe it’s one of the biggest issues facing the Republican Party, and this is a red state.”



Monday, November 11, 2013

COMMON CORE: ANOTHER TRAIN WRECK FED TO A NATION

With Common Core, Fewer Topics but Covered More Rigorously


If the new mathematics standards adopted by New York and 44 other states work as intended, then children, especially in the lower elementary grades, will learn less math this year.

But by cutting back on a hodgepodge of topics and delving deeper into central concepts, the hope is that the children will understand it better.

So, for Mayra Baldi, a kindergarten teacher at P.S. 169 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, that will mean focusing on numbers. “You have to deepen their understanding,” she said. “You have to get them to think more.”

Under the previous New York math standards, kindergartners were expected to learn to orally count to 20 and write the numbers from 1 to 10. Under the new standards known as Common Core, they are to count 100, both by ones and by 10s, and to write all of the numbers to 20. To make time for the additional numbers, the new standards drop rudimentary introductions to concepts in algebra and statistics.

“Historically, in American education, we have done every concept in the world a mile wide and an inch deep,” said Kate Gerson, a senior research fellow at the Regents Research Fund, a privately financed group that advises the New York education department.

The earlier New York standards also called for mastery of math knowledge. But, Ms. Baldi said, “It wasn’t realistic. Now each grade has a focus.”

Brian Cohen, the coordinator for science, technology, engineering and mathematics curriculum for the Skaneateles Central School District near Syracuse said that to adults, it might not seem a big change to extend counting to 20, but the numbers 11 through 19 are the hardest numbers for a kindergartner to grasp.

“When you say the number 14, you hear the ‘four’ before the ‘teen,’ ” he said. “So when kindergartners try to read and write the number ‘14”, they end up writing a ‘4’ and then a ‘1’ — 41 instead of 14.”

Previously, kindergartners could fulfill the standard by memorizing a list of numbers. Now they are to not only say “fourteen,” but also to know it is written as “14” and understand that it represents a group of 14 objects.

Excised from kindergarten lesson plans, for example, are exercises to identify and create repeating patterns, which were meant as a rudimentary introduction to algebra concepts. “That was a big shift for kindergarten teachers, who used to spend a lot of time on patterns, and now we’re giving all of that time to numbers,” Mr. Cohen said.

Before Common Core, every state had its own version of math standards. Four years ago, governors and state-level officials began an effort to come up with a uniform set of knowledge that students across the country would master, from kindergarten through high school. The result was the Common Core: one set of standards covering reading and writing, the other mathematics.

The Obama administration did not play a direct role in writing Common Core, but it offered a financial carrot — states that adopted the new standards were more likely to receive a slice of billions of dollars in education grants. While states were quick to sign on, some have had second thoughts, either because of concerns about the expense of new textbooks and teaching materials needed, or seeing it as a federal takeover of local education decisions.

In addition, in New York, many parents expressed consternation in August when scores fell sharply on new, more challenging state tests that were based on the Common Core standards.

But New York officials have no doubts. They say the new standards are modeled on the teaching strategies of countries, especially in Asia, that perform better on international comparisons.

“Countries who outperform us are countries that do not cover every single concept that is on those tests,” Ms. Gerson said. “They cover focused concepts. They cover central concepts.”

Ms. Gerson said the Common Core is also intended to end the “math wars,” in which educators and parents battled over whether the emphasis should be on mastering basic math skills or conveying deeper concepts. With fewer topics to cover, “It is not an either/or situation anymore,” she said. “It’s a real return and attention to memorization and recall, drilling around math facts.”

But then students are supposed to be able to figure out how to use their math knowledge to solve problems that go beyond traditional word problems.

New York, like many other states, has been making a transition to the new standards. This fall will be the first school year they are fully put in place in New York.

Ms. Baldi, who taught second grade for the previous four years at P.S. 169 and will teach kindergarten this year, said she had changed how she taught math. In the past, she said she used to present a math topic first before giving exercises for her students to solve. Taking heed of the Common Core’s instruction that “mathematically proficient students start by explaining to themselves the meaning of a problem and looking for entry points to its solution,” Ms. Baldi began to give a new problem “cold turkey,” without introduction or explanation, and let groups of students try to figure it out.

“I’m more of a facilitator, and I’m taking more of a step back,” she said.

Only after the students brainstormed their own solutions would she discuss the different ways of solving it. “I thought that they got a better understanding, because they got to tackle the problem on their own and got to hear from the other students,” she said.

The state has prepared teachers by holding workshops and posting a Web site of videos and documents describing the changing expectations.

In New York City, thousands of teachers, including Ms. Baldi, passed through the doors of Murry Bergtraum High School in Lower Manhattan this summer for one-day workshops to learn about the new teaching materials that most elementary and middle schoolteachers in the city will be using this year.

“It was clear, and the program seemed very clear,” Ms. Baldi said.

The whole process could repeat in the coming years with the newly developed Next Generation Science Standards, which similarly attempt to lay out a coherent, challenging framework for what students need to learn in the 21st century.


Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Common Core 2.0: Oregon’s “P20W” Project Goes Prenatal

Remember this term: P20W, because it is cloaked in intrusion and manipulation. The "core" of this concept is birth to death control by government. From uterus to workforce, Common Core's "Big Brother" concept tracks your every move. While we watch the federal government take over our healthcare our and education, what will be the next intrusion into the lives of free men and women of America? Is this what liberty looks like or are we staring down the barrel of a socialistic dictatorship?

This is taking place in Oregon now, but you can be assured, it is already in or soon coming to a State near you. Be alert!

READ THE ARTICLE:

Monday, September 30, 2013

IB AND COMMON CORE

Obama, The Petulant Child
by Erik Rush 

Posted in full with permission of the author and Dr. Garrow:

"It was the first time a sitting US Secretary of Education had visited Canada; and by all accounts, it was an exciting time for Canadian educators. In September 2010, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, a new broom in the Obama White House, visited Toronto, ostensibly to participate in an education conference."


"The Canadians are well under way in implementing the International Baccalaureate Programme (IB), which is what one might call the standardized socialist syllabus intended to indoctrinate students into the preferred worldview of liberal elites worldwide. It may then come as no surprise that in America, Common Core is being used as the wedge of sorts toward the implementation of the IB. While the rhetoric used to sell the IB and Common Core accentuates how wonderful the program is, and how much better students do educationally (which is far from being established), the real focus is on social engineering, data mining, and indoctrination."