Raymond Gerson teaches at Austin Community College.
Will Common Core Produce Students Who Become Common?
By Raymond Gerson
Words can become like seeds for self-fulfilling prophecies because of the power of expectation. So let’s take a look at the words “Common Core.”
One definition for the word “common” is “of no special quality.” In other words “ordinary.” According to Roget’s Thesaurus some synonyms for the word “common” are “commonplace, everyday, ordinary, humdrum, standard, mediocre, run-of-the-mill and a dime a dozen”. Some of the antonyms are “exceptional, uncommon, extraordinary, original, excellent, noble, noteworthy, valuable and rare”. At your “core” or essence and foundation which of these would you prefer to be?
Are the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) a one size fits all approach that will produce commonplace students and commonness? Shouldn’t the purpose of education be to develop the whole person and to awaken the unique potential within individuals? Isn’t standardization the antithesis of individualization?
Einstein said, “I believe in standardizing automobiles. I do not believe in standardizing human beings.” He also said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Most of Einstein’s greatest discoveries came from the use of his imagination.
Is a highly standardized approach to education working anywhere? Has it ever worked to try and standardize human beings? If we study highly standardized approaches to education in Chile, Sweden, China or in other countries it has not helped students to develop their imaginations, creativity and wholeness as human beings. In China leaders are now trying to change their educational system because it produced excellent test takers who could not think out of the box. In the U.S. we seem to be moving in the direction that China is trying to move away from.
Why do we not learn anything from systems that have failed? Why do we not learn from successful models like the one in Finland or from models like the one used by Montessori schools? Montessori schools have a one hundred year old model which not only improves test scores, but develops socialization, emotional intelligence and character. Maria Montessori said, “Our care of the child should be governed not by the desire to make him learn things, but by the endeavor always to keep within him that light which is called intelligence.”
The natural inclination of human beings is to grow and evolve. This growth needs nurturing, not force and harshly enforced standards. Positive influences are essential for the development of children’s brains and character. Supportive environments for children are important for lifelong physical and mental health. Brutal high stakes testing and prodding them to learn out of fear of failure will turn them off of learning and education. They will associate learning with lots of pain and emotional upset. Learning for children should involve a lot of play and be enjoyable. The fields of Neuro-Science and Child Development have revealed to us what is needed for human beings to develop into fully functioning human beings. Are CCSS and the accompanying testing aligned with what scientific studies tell us about child development? Are standardization and harsh learning methods the answer? In the wrong environment a flower will die and in the wrong learning environment or soil a child’s spirit will be broken. Children are not rats in a lab who need to be trained to run on treadmills or move through a maze. We can use behavior modification and train them this way, but what kind of adults and human beings will they become? Will they be able to think for themselves and function well in society? Will they develop good character qualities? It is unlikely. Gandhi said, “Education which does not mould character is wholly worthless.” And Martin Luther King put it this way, “Intelligence plus character-that is the goal of true education.”
The purpose of education is to draw out the best from our students. It should be about more than just making good grades on bubble tests and making money after graduation. It should develop a love for lifelong learning. Students need to be prepared to handle problems they will encounter, to live purposeful lives and to learn the value of making a positive contribution to others and society. Mr. Rodgers, who had a great love for and understanding of children said, “We human beings all want to know that we’re acceptable, that our being alive somehow makes a difference in the lives of others.”
Where is the kindness in making kids feel like failures, crushing their hopes and love of learning and destroying their intrinsic motivation to learn and turning them off of education?
Common Core has had little or no field testing. It has come primarily from top down leaders with little input from teachers in the field. Why aren’t the teachers and educational administrators across the nation consulted about what children need? Our schools have thousands upon thousands of wonderful teachers who care about students and know how to teach them. We have seen many examples lately where these dedicated teachers put their very lives on the line to try and save children from harm. Is anyone listening to these teachers who spend endless hours working for the benefit of their students?
Most of the people who are influencing these educational policies have their children in private schools that have nothing like Common Core, high stakes testing, hours of test prep drills, large classes, lack of support services and little time for teachers to actually teach students and collaborate with each other. And yet these leaders say these policies are great for other people’s kids. This kind of hypocrisy is systemic in our society and is prevalent in politics, business and other fields. There are leaders in every field who do not operate under the same rules and conditions that they want for the rest of us. Many people in our society are becoming fed up and sick of these dual sets of standards.
Those who are pushing high stakes testing, Common Core and other forms of standardization on our schools say that most schools in the U.S are failing. This is their mantra. Diane Ravitch, in her latest book Reign of Error, produces evidence to show that these claims are false except where there is poverty and segregation. There is a high correlation between low test scores and poverty. Otherwise more students are graduating from high school, less are dropping out and scores on international tests are good.
Scientists are warning us that there are several major problems including global warming which could lead to the eventual extinction of humanity and other species. Many young people who are the future are seeking solutions to this dilemma. According to Andrew Harvey, author of The Hope: A Guide to Sacred Activism, “the last and best hope for an endangered humanity is a world-wide, grassroots revolution of love-in-action.” This is the type of non-violent protest that was witnessed when Gandhi freed India from British rule.
Maria Montessori said, “Within each child lies the fate of the future.” As adults, parents and educators we have a responsibility to help our young people to develop into well functioning human beings. They are the ones who can create a better world if we give them the right start.
Students, educators and parents are beginning to resist and speak out against educational policies that they believe are unfair and unproductive. This is their right as citizens. They do not want to see standardized human beings who become common to the core.
It is my feeling and prediction that the CCSS and accompanying testing will be the eventual tipping point for a non-violent revolt by a massive number of students, educators and parents. This is why CCSS is either doomed to fail or will have to be significantly changed based on input from educators and parents. And those leading the charge for this revolt will most likely be lots of angry mamas.
References:
1. Einstein, Albert. Saturday Evening Post interview. 10/26/1929.
2. Gandhi, Mahatma. Inspiring Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi: Gandhi in Daily Life. Compiled by Anil Dutta Mishra and Ravi Gupta. Ashok Kumar Mittal. 2008.
3. Harvey, Andrew.The Hope: A Guide to Sacred Activism. Hay House. September 2009.
4. King, Martin Luther. The Purpose of Education. Morehouse College Student paper. The Maroon Tiger. 1947.
5. Montessori, Maria. The Absorbent Mind. Wilder Publications. March 2009.
6. Ravitch, Diane. Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. Knoph. September 2013.
7. Rodgers, Fred. The World According to Mr. Rodgers: Important Things to Remember. Hyperion. October 2003.
Copyright 2013. Raymond Gerson
Permission is granted to share this article for non-profit purposes if credit is given to the author.
Raymond Gerson is an adjunct professor of college transition/success and career exploration/planning courses for Austin Community College.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Mr. Gerson , great post and this is why we came up with our name. Proud to be “UnCommon” in California!
Agree
The comment sets up a false premise with word games. Sadly misleading, Common Core does not create the scenario mentioned here. Testing seems to be a common theme for every change made to education. Maybe that’s where all the focus should be, measuring progress in some other way.
But “hours of test prep drills, large classes, lack of support services and little time for teachers to actually teach students and collaborate with each other,” are problems instituted by state and local governments and boards. They are not a part of Common Core.
I am disappointed that even people here sound like low information tea party knuckleheads speaking in generalities and spewing hyperbolic warnings about the end of education.
Check out Race to the Top wiki: Common Core & testing to it were sold together. Add a national recession & consequent nationwide cuts to school budgets at every level & you get the scenario described, or will have it by 2015.
Teacher evaluations tied to test scores. Threats, punishment, and coercion cannot be the cornerstone of any educational reform movement. This is the root of the issue.
John, Even if the original intention of CCSS was good, the result has been less than acceptable. (See comments by Spanish and French Freelancer as well as NY Teacher.)
Ultimately, the textbooks adopted and the tests created by Pearson, have led or are leading to a scripted curriculum. I have experienced this type of curriculum for a reading program in The Buffalo Public Schools and it does not work. It doesn’t matter if it is the state or districts which call for this nonsense, right now the CCSS is a disaster.
So John, the intent is irrelevant, it’s the results which we are decrying. We are living it in NYS and it is not pretty. You refer to abstract, we are speaking of the reality. A lot of us have given specific examples of how the CC has changed education. Please listen to what we have to say.
And, other states, take heed and opt out.
Earth to John
Ray – Global warming, assuming that’s actually occurring, will not lead to the extinction of humanity. Get a grip.
Could easily. Ecosystems are a balancing act and mass extinctions are not uncommon. Humans are relatively frail compared to other species and can adapt to a point – but the next equilibrium may not include us. There is little argument in scientific circles that the climate is warming non-linearly. And human activity is the main cause. Ignorance and denial are not a solution. Waiting until it is too late is insanity.
Ray – Bless your Heart…do you live in a cave? Or were you listening to those voices in your head? Both Global warming and the US money driven economy are racing toward genocide. Which gets us there first is the question.
Citation?
Citation needed.
Here, for one:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323485704578258172660564886
Exactly Good info until they joined forces with the Eugenists http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/category/global-warming/
a thought http://savingstudents-caplee.blogspot.com/2013/12/is-stumbling-and-bumbling-good-thing.html Looking forward
The Next Generation Science Standards for high school not only teach that global warming is caused by humans (no room for debate) but it also provides solutions.
Children will be taught to think of solutions to global warming and the explicit example given by the standards themselves is that one solution to GW is “URBANIZATION.”
So all you suburbanites, get ready for the next generation to move you into the urban areas to save the planet.
And get ready to give up your own little slice of heaven because Agenda 21 doesn’t allow for private property in dedicated areas…..areas dedicated to animals and scenic views that are presently being defiled by human habitation.
The Common Core is designed to brainwash our children into thinking that being a global citizen is superior to being an American citizen in a sovereign country with a unique Constitution that delineates our God given rights. Our children will come to believe it is better not to have children “for the good of the planet.” So if you were thinking you might have grandchildren in the future….think again….and even if they decide to be renegades and try to have a child of two….they may find themselves sterile as Bill Gates has been working on sterilization schemes forever…..put something in the water, in the cereal, in the air, in the vaccines. He is a smiling devil that should be called out for all of his investments in “research.”
Citation?
Excerpts from Agenda 21, Chapter 7:
Adopting innovative city planning strategies to
address environmental and social issues
by:
i. Reducing subsidies on, and recovering the full costs of, environmental and other
services of high standard (e.g. water supply, sanitation, waste collection, roads,
telecommunications) provided to higher income neighbourhoods;
ii. Improving the level of infrastructure and service provision in poorer urban
areas;
d. Developing local strategies for improving the quality of life and the environment,
integrating decisions on land use and land management, investing in the public and
private sectors and mobilizing human and material resources, thereby promoting
employment generation that is environmentally sound and protective of human health.
(b) Strengthening urban data systems
7.17.
During the period 1993-2000 all countries should undertake, with the active participation of the business sector as appropriate, pilot projects in selected cities for the collection, analysis and subsequent dissemination of urban data, including environmental impact analysis, at the local, state/provincial, national and international levels and the establishment of city data management capabilities. 5/ United Nations organizations, such as Habitat, UNEP and UNDP, could provide technical advice and model data management systems.
(c) Encouraging intermediate city development
7.18.
In order to relieve pressure on large urban agglomerations of developing countries, policies and strategies should be implemented towards the development of intermediate cities that create employment opportunities for unemployed labor in the rural areas and support rural-based economic activities, although sound urban management is essential to ensure that urban sprawl does not expand resource degradation over an ever wider land area and increase pressures to convert open space and agricultural/buffer lands for development.
“And get ready to give up your own little slice of heaven because Agenda 21 doesn’t allow for private property in dedicated areas”
Citation?
The following is a direct quote from Agenda 21, which is a 300 page book you can buy on Amazon or read on the web. It discusses “urban sprawl,” which is their term for suburban and and even rural living. Since this publication, these same lunatics have gone on to publish the “Wildlands Map” which explicitly states that 50% of the land in the United States will be zoned for wild animals only, and there will be buffer zones around these wildlands, where human use will be restricted and controlled by international policies and “regional managers.”
I can’t wait to see the Common Core Science Standards when they are published. I can just imagine the propaganda and doublespeak our children will be subjected to.
7.18.
In order to relieve pressure on large urban agglomerations of developing countries, policies and strategies should be implemented towards the development of intermediate cities that create employment opportunities for unemployed labor in the rural areas and support rural-based economic activities, although sound urban management is essential to ensure that urban sprawl does not expand resource degradation over an ever wider land area and increase pressures to convert open space and
agricultural/buffer lands for development.
Dawn Hoagland: “Excerpts from Agenda 21, Chapter 7:…”
That doesn’t really support your assertion that “…Agenda 21 doesn’t allow for private property in dedicated areas….”
Everything in your excerpt is predicated on the word, “should”.
They’re recommendations, take it or leave it.
Second, at the outset, Agenda 21 was a voluntary, non-binding agreement. See http://www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/faqs/faq-iclei-the-united-nations-and-agenda-21#what-is-agenda-21
Any binding international agreement must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. I’m not aware of any such ratification of Agenda 21.
You’re blowing the importance of Agenda 21 beyond reason. But more to the point, I don’t see what Agenda 21 has to do with Common Core.
Bill Gates gives loads of money to the U.N. and affiliated institutions. He signed an agreement in 2004 with UNESCO, in which he initialed every page, where he states that he will use Microsoft to develop and promote a worldwide curriculum to disseminate UNESCO’s values. He owns stock in Pearson. Sir Michael Barber, the head of Pearson, is doing his best to get the CC into as many countries as possible even though it has been a disaster in England.
Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous of Brave New World fame) was the first Director General of UNESCO. He was also the president of the British Eugenics Society. Bill Gates and the British government co-hosted a commemorative meeting of the first (1912) International Conference on Eugenics in 2012 in London. Prince Phillip and Al Gore and Prince Charles and Bill Gates are all about depopulating the earth so that we will not use up all of the resources which should rightfully be used only by the British monarchy and a few loyal serfs. The Common Core is about cementing that concept into everyone’s brain. It is also about sorting, ranking and eliminating.
And if you think that Agenda 21 is just a non-binding treaty, what did you think Bill Clinton was doing when he created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development? He elevated this non-binding agreement to the cabinet level where the secretary of agriculture and the interior sat on that council along with people like Andrew Cuomo (which is why he is so damn determined to implement the CC and the data collection system.) Clinton’s Goals 2000. Dear Hillary. Look these things up and then ask me why I think CC has anything to do with Agenda 21 which is alive and well in every county sustainability plan in the country.
Common Core is Chapter 36 of Agenda 21. It is the required shift in values from American citizen to global citizen, from sovereign to subject, from free to enslaved. It discourages imagination and encourages regurgitation. It simplifies and mechanizes the life out of education. An essay to be read by a computer looking for word and sentence lengths is not an essay anybody really wants to write, is it?
Perhaps you haven’t seen the latest handouts provided to schools freely by Scholastic, CC aligned of course? The ones I have seen are aimed at K-2nd grade age children. They contain little word games with stories and pictures. The TV has been left on in the living room, but there is no person in the living room. Can you help figure out who this energy waster is? Is it mom? No, she went shopping. Is it sister? No, she is downstairs. It must be dad. He is in the kitchen now but he always turns on the TV when he is in the house. Tell dad not to be an energy waster. What kind of light bulbs do you have in your house? etc.etc. How to spy on your family. Next they will provide a phone number for reporting dad. 1984?
Agenda 21–Chapter 36
PROMOTING EDUCATION, PUBLIC AWARENESS AND TRAINING
A. Reorienting education towards sustainable development
Basis for action
36.3.
Education, including formal education, public awareness and training should be recognized as a process by which human beings and societies can reach their fullest potential. Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address environment and development issues. While basic education provides the underpinning for any environmental and development education, the latter needs to be incorporated as an essential part of learning. Both
formal and non-formal education are indispensable to changing people’s attitudes so that they havethe capacity to assess and address their sustainable development concerns.
Jim,
Global warming, assuming it IS happening (as do almost all scientist on the planet), will lead to massive hardship and at the minimum great discomfort and very likely extinction of humanity. Get a (scientific) clue.
Perhaps you would be fortunate and trolls like you might survive!
Take the time to read. Do not be fooled by the global warming propaganda machine. It’s only purpose is to enslave you with our own willingness to be taxed on carbon. If you think Obamacare is a nightmare…just wait till Al Gore can mandate that you pay him for every carbon unit you use. Wake up!
http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/category/global-warming/
Citation?
Or it could be that Common Core means that, while we are all unique human beings who should specialize to suit our talents, there should still be core knowledge that is common to everyone. That seems like a much more benevolent reading, but maybe that isn’t what we are going for here.
Having a core is important, but at what cost? What sacrifices will need to be made because student cannot pass a test? Not because they do not know the information, but because they cannot pass the test. Students are already removed from electives so they can double up on math and reading classes just so they can pass the test.
“Having a core is important, but at what cost?”
I think this is an interesting question and one worth wrestling with. It is also a question we cannot wrestle with if we misread what common core even means.
As a first stab at answering the question, I think we must first ask “How important is important?” From y vantage, it seems like an awful lot of people are willing to say that a common core is important, but they get awfully upset when a common core becomes mandatory. If it is optional, how important is it? I think that there is a huge debate that needs to be had about what minimum levels of literacy and numeracy are sufficient, but I am still baffled as to how some maintain minimum levels aren’t necessary.
Lastly, while imam extremely dubious about claims that passing a standardized test is indicative of content mastery, I find myself increasingly skeptical of those who claim their students have mastery of content but can’t produce it in any meaningful way. As someone who teaches at the HS level, I see far too many students who have severe content deficits when they arrive, regardless of the methods we use to allow them to demonstrate proficiency.
“Scientists are warning us that there are several major problems including global warming which could lead to the eventual extinction of humanity and other species.”
There is extremely little disagreement in the scientific community that global warming is happening. But you would find that there is plenty of disagreement in the scientific community over the consequences and the scale of change that could be anticipated. You would also find a line of research that suggests that humans evolved and survived because of their unique ability to adjust to climate change through the last ice age and the subsequent warming.
Clearly it is helpful to have a robust discussion about the future, but you probably want to be careful about taking a position of certainty on an issue for which there is plenty of room for disagreement, especially if the main point of the essay isn’t really even focused on global warming/climate change.
More on global warming: http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/category/global-warming/
Your link says nothing to refute the conclusion of global warming.
Only to argue through fallacy of guilt by association of ideas (eugenists, promoters of family planning, and those concerned with sustainability of Earth resources), with a touch of reductio ad Hitlerum.
It’s like saying that Charles Manson accepts that 1+1 is 2. Therefore if you also accept that 1+1 is 2, then your sanity, morals, and ability to reason must be called into question.
It’s an interesting and sometimes humorous use of fallacy, but ultimately is a waste of time in advancing meaningful discussion.
If you want to successfully refute the conclusion of global warming, then you need to rationally convince others that the data is being misread or misinterpreted, or is incomplete, and that possibly a more complete set of data would indicate otherwise.
If you want to successfully refute the conclusion that humans are an important contributor to global warming, you need to rationally convince others that clearly it is other processes at work and that any human contribution is negligible to non-existent by comparison.
Reblogged this on Timbered Classrooms… and commented:
Einstein said, “I believe in standardizing automobiles. I do not believe in standardizing human beings.” He also said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
Professor Gerson: Thank you for an article that helps point out a growing concern: We are creating children who will become mentally ill in their young adulthood as a result of the chronic stress and punitive test culture in elementary schools. We now see soaring rates of children in the Austin schools who are exhibiting signs of desensitization, anxiety, and depression that will result in mental illness for many. The “self punishing” thought disorders that begin around age 5 from an emphasis on performance are now known to lead to Narcissistic & Borderline PD. It will take parents and teachers uniting to stop this abuse because the politicians and school administrators are also exhibiting disturbed behavior that is not “normal”, but classic Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
I’m not a huge fan of testing, but you’re overdoing it here.
Global warming is now an official CULT. The same elitists who are pushing Common Core are the same ones worshipping at the alter of global warming.
When you look at the population controllers they are the same ones who are financially supporting Common Core (think Bill Gates)
AT some point you have to realize who is pulling the strings and STOP supporting them.
“Global warming is now an official CULT.”
Like the cult of gravity? or the cult of the cardiovascular process of the body? or the cult of evolution by natural selection? or the cult of a spherical Earth?
I understand that a lot of elitists who are pushing Common Core also worship at these altars, too. How do you propose that we should know which is a cult to accept or reject?
Ah, yes. Those of us who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming are just a bunch of dolts who deny science, eh? What a cogent argument.
You are denying the 31,000 scientists who refute anthropogenic global warming. You are relying on a misquote about 97% of all scientists agree…..when that was just propaganda with no truth behind it. The IPCC is a corrupt organization with one goal…..to tax the hell out of everyone for every carbon “unit” consumed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/12/six-things-we-learned-about-our-changing-climate-in-2013
You’ll know partially by which ones they are making money on. For instance Al Gore owns a carbon credit offset company…..so when he flies in his jet he just pays himself to ease his conscience and plant a tree in Brazil (supposedly). Bill Gates owns stock in Pearson and Monsanto besides being the funding machine for the marketing of the CC. What do Pearson and Monsanto have in common? They are both used to damage the next generation. Bill is a eugenicist through and through. How can you want to help people when you want to kill them at the same time? Welcome to the world of doublespeak of which Obama is king.
Dawn Hoagland: “You are denying the 31,000 scientists who refute anthropogenic global warming. You are relying on a misquote about 97% of all scientists agree…..when that was just propaganda with no truth behind it.”
If you want to argue the consensus issue, you cite a survey that I wouldn’t use. I think this one is more credible: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
As to the 31,000 scientists that you cite as refuting anthropogenic global warming, who are these scientists? The ones who work for petroleum companies?
Rather than argue how many experts are on your side or not, a more persuasive and scientific way to make your case is to explain why other sources are the likelier cause rather than CO2/GHG buildup. As a science teacher, that’s where I’d go.
There is an 856 page book, titled Climate Change Reconsidered The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, by Craig Idso and Fred Singer, published in 2009 as an answer to all of the ACC Koolaid drinkers.
It contains chapters with titles like, Global Climate Change Models and Their Limitations, Feedback Factors and Radiative Forcing, Observations: Temperature Records, Observations: Glaciers, Sea Ice, Precipitation, and Sea Level, solar Variability and Climate Cycles, Biological Effects of Carbon Dioxide Enrichment, Species Extinction, etc.
It offers a very thorough discussion of every aspect of the supposed support for ACC and supposed consequences of not reducing C02. I am not going to quote pages and pages of arguments here. It’s available.
At the back of the book is a copy of a petition signed by 31,000 scientists, 9,000 of which have PhD.s The petition reads in part “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” The purpose of the petition was to denounce the claim of ACC as “settled science” and to demonstrate there is no overwhelming consensus in favor of ACC but there is one against it. Unfortunately it gets no air play.
Dawn Hoagland: “You’ll know partially by which ones they are making money on. For instance Al Gore owns a carbon credit offset company…”
Petroleum and coal companies have far more to gain from supporting your position than would Al Gore or his carbon credit offset company.
The Heartland Institute, which is cited as a credible source in your Forbes link, is well-known as a think tank that generates a number of commonly cited papers skeptical of global warming. Though it does not officially release who its donors are, sources reveal that petroleum and coal industry companies have been big donors to Heartland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute#Funding
And by the way, the Heartland Institute supports many of the “reform” efforts that this blog (Diane Ravitch’s) notably criticizes: vouchers, privatization of education, “parent trigger”, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute#Education
As much as I am enjoying this AGW denialist cluster-mess, I figure it is worth contributing a few clarifications.
On the bogus 31,000 ‘scientists’:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html
On the ridiculous unreality of the Not-the-IPCC report:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1295
As a note, I think this conversation nicely highlights why some of us think common standards might be a net positive.
What it really comes down to is one question: Is the United Nations a corrupt institution or not? If it is then the IPCC Reports are corrupt pieces of political flim flam designed to hide the truth rather than reveal it.
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/09/26/the-un-has-become-a-squalid-corrupt-farce/
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-and-the-need-for-reform/
Brett Gilland: “As a note, I think this conversation nicely highlights why some of us think common standards might be a net positive.”
I was feeling less inclined to support Common Core until this discussion. Now I feel like Common Core Standards would be a very good thing for knowledge of how the federal government works. A better understanding of that would deflate all the Agenda 21 hysteria.
Dawn Hoagland: “There is an 856 page book, titled Climate Change Reconsidered The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, by Craig Idso and Fred Singer, published in 2009”
Thanks for the recommendation. I might check into it, though I remain suspicious of anything published by the Heartland Institute.
“I am not going to quote pages and pages of arguments here. It’s available.”
That’s too bad. It doesn’t lend to a very robust support of your argument to end it with, “read the book. I’m not going to talk about his ideas”.
Where do they get these people? DNFTT
More on the Eugenists pushing Global Warming: http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/category/global-warming/
I agree with the writer’s premises, but it’s unfortunate that the overclass and legislators are driven by data and results. Of course, the means of measurement and the determinations for outcomes is purely political.
The writer’s discourse is far more philosphical than scientific.
Not that human instinct doesn’t count.
Of course, most reformers lack any real reliable and valid data, and theirs is a movement of philosophy just as much.
But now that we are in the day and age of Gates and Murdoch, and the business template calls for counting and measuring and changing course, we find ourselves lost in a sea of very specific data, but our ability to be precise and measured is not as precise as the data itself. And our ability to catch up with all the data pales in comparison to the rate at which the data is collected and analayzed.
Numbers never lie, but people do when they spin the numbers a certain way to the public.
The writer calls for compassion and treatment of children as humans and not measurable instruments.
The cruelest irony is that the data obsession is absent in virutally all the little boutique schools the reformers send their children to.
FIghting crappy war campaigns is for other people’s children . . . . So too is the number crunching game in public education.
Other people’s children . . . . . . . .
Robert Rendo: quite so.
I think you would find a blog posting today by deutsch29 [aka Dr. Mercedes Schneider aka KrazyMathLady] dovetails quite nicely with your comments.
And as a special holiday treat—in the spirit of “The Nightmare Before Christmas”— is this money quote she provides from Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute:
“In truth, the idea that the Common Core might be a “game-changer” has little to do with the Common Core standards themselves, and everything to do with stuff attached to them, especially the adoption of common tests that make it possible to readily compare schools, programs, districts, and states (of course, the announcement that one state after another is opting out of the two testing consortia is hollowing out this promise).
But the Common Core will only make a dramatic difference if those test results are used to evaluate schools or hire, pay, or fire teachers; or if the effort serves to alter teacher preparation, revamp instructional materials, or compel teachers to change what students read and do. And, of course, advocates have made clear that this is exactly what they have in mind. When they refer to the “Common Core,” they don’t just mean the words on paper–what they really have in mind is this whole complex of changes. [Emphasis added.]”
Link: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/the-american-enterprise-institute-common-core-and-good-cop/
If you have any doubts about the acuity of his remarks, on his AEI page is this description: “Frederick M. Hess Resident Scholar and Director of Education Policy Studies” — rest assured, as a scholar and director he is the rheeal deal! Un apparatchik de primera línea! There’s not an optimist hastier than Rick Hess!
Link: http://www.aei.org/scholar/frederick-m-hess/
I am sure the quote by Dr Hess is quite exciting, but I strongly advise you to follow the advice of that Mexican superhero of yesteryear, El Chapulín Colorado: “Calma, calma, que no panda el cúnico” [a bit of mixed-up Spanish that basically means “calm down, calm down, nobody panic”].
After all, how many times do the edubullies actually direct our attention to the curtain, pull it aside, and show us that the booming voice is rheeally coming from, well, consider the source…
😎
P.S. For those challenged by the last paragraph, please view THE WIZARD OF OZ (Judy Garland version).
Always a thorough thinker are you.
Thank you, KTA . . . .
Well said…..as all of your posts
“Why do we not learn from successful models like the one in Finland or from models like the one used by Montessori schools? Montessori schools have a one hundred year old model which not only improves test scores, but develops socialization, emotional intelligence and character.”
The reason that “reformers” have not considered Montessori, except as a desirable education for their own children, is because it is a limited marketplace for corporations and educational investors.
But … we need more, bigger, better Core!
Because … all that extra apple is just waste. …
Diane:
This is a pretty weak piece. It is all cliché and polemic. The linking of education reform to global warming is totally unnecessary and a seriously bad rhetorical move. A few out of context quotations and a total lack of substance do not an argument make.
And tell me, King Bernie, what’s wrong with “polemic”?
Was there not enough empiricism and data in Mr. Gerson’s piece to convince you otherwise?
Education reform is exactly that: polemic.
The essayist was connecting some dots between how people have contended with global warming and how they might grapple with education reform.
We Americans are proud of our ability to incresaingly question authority when it needs to be questioned, debated, and argued over. We escaped many generations ago a monarchy that wanted otherwise.
Have you learned any lessons, Your Royal Annoyance?
Then you must have the same concerns for the entire deform movement based upon no evidence but backed by bloviating billionaire buffoons who know nothing about teaching and learning. Finally, we agree.
Gates quote: “We won’t know if this education stuff works for ten years.” Yeah, he said stuff. What an a$$.
Linda:
The beauty of a Federal System is that you can have multiple experiments and replicate the ones that demonstrably work. Ed Reform and ACA both failed by ignoring this basic reality.
At the same time there is obvious merit in developing a common set of education standards or expectations. The issue is not having a common set of standards but the content of those standards and how they are operationalized.
What this has to do with Global Warming, beats me
In the meantime it’s fun to experiment on other people’s children while yours are safely ensconced in a private school with: no CCS, no testing, no data mining, small class sizes and teachers non enslaved by edudiletanttes.
Bernie 1815,
We used to speak of the states as “laboratories of democracy,” where there were multiple efforts to improve education for all children. That is not what is happening now.
We do not need to seek out a common way of comparing student performance in different states. We already have it. It is called the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
We can even compare the performance of urban districts using NAEP.
Why every student in the U.S. should take the same tests (one of two funded by the federal government) and why those tests should be designed to be graded by computers makes no sense.
Diane and Linda:
I was agreeing with Linda that a massive experiment whose benefits cannot be determined for 10 years is a lousy bet. At the same time, any change in the education status quo can be disparaged as an “experiment on our children”. Massachusetts engaged in such an experiment almost two decades ago and now has a common curriculum and periodic standardized testing. NAEP data show that it has “worked”. I am unclear as to why the improvements it has achieved are deemed insufficient and require a change to the Federal System.
I wonder that too. Why are we in NYS chucking the standards which have been developed and refined over the past ten plus years, which are considered exemplary, for a set of standards that are subpar and unproven? And the promised money is actually less than needed to fully implement the program.
I say, chuck the whole thing and opt out.
Reblogged this on onewomansjournal and commented:
Totally agree! CCSS IS as I have said before…COMMON, BANAL, UNINSPIRED.
Reblogged this on Middletown Voice and commented:
“In China leaders are now trying to change their educational system because it produced excellent test takers who could not think out of the box. In the U.S. we seem to be moving in the direction that China is trying to move away from.”
As a teenager would say, “Nuff said”.
We need to stop being reactionary and chasing yesterdays vision for education and other systems that have failed in our new world. Our economic system has failed the masses and caused serious damage to the healthcare system, and we somehow think that it will serve our educational system? Who is behind the insanity?
Einstein also coined the phrase, or gets credit for the phrase, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.”
Great “stuff” as the billionaire says. Keep the conversations going! Thank you, thank you, Diane.
Agenda 21 is now called “sustainable development”. I think you have heard of it since it is on the lips and in the budget of every politician. Maybe you do not live in a suburban or rural area where the topic of purchasing “open space” with your tax dollars comes up often. Maybe you have not attended your Town Council meeting lately to hear about all of the sustainable projects that are going forward and all of the private ownership issues being trampled on. Hide your head in the sand if you want, but do not look down your nose at those of us who do attend meetings and do the research to know what is going on.
And if you think that David Coleman’s recommendation to read the Gettysburg Address to your class without any background or historical context discussion is “the way to level the playing field,” you are sorely mistaken.