In an unusual statement, 132 Catholic scholars wrote a statement highly critical of the Common Core, which they sent to every bishop in the nation. They urged the bishops not to adopt Common Core in Catholic schools and to withdraw it where it had been adopted. They conclude that the Common Core standards are designed as standardized workforce training, doing nothing to shape and inspire the hearts and minds of children.
Their statement says:
Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law
c/o University of Notre Dame, The Law School
3156 Eck Hall of Law, PO Box 780
Notre Dame, IN 46556
October 16, 2013
This letter was sent individually to each Catholic bishop in the United States. 132 Catholic professors signed the letter.
Your Excellency:
We are Catholic scholars who have taught for years in America’s colleges and universities. Most of us have done so for decades. A few of us have completed our time in the classroom; we are professors “emeriti.” We have all tried throughout our careers to put our intellectual gifts at the service of Christ and His Church. Most of us are parents, too, who have seen to our children’s education, much of it in Catholic schools. We are all personally and professionally devoted to Catholic education in America.
For these reasons we take this extraordinary step of addressing each of America’s Catholic bishops about the “Common Core” national reform of K-12 schooling. Over one hundred dioceses and archdioceses have decided since 2010 to implement the Common Core. 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. We believe that implementing Common Core would be a grave disservice to Catholic education in America.
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.
Why – upon what evidence and reasoning – do we take such a decisive stand against a reform that so many Catholic educators have endorsed, or at least have acquiesced in?
In this brief letter we can only summarize our evidence and sketch our reasoning. We stand ready, however, to develop these brief points as you wish. We also invite you to view the video recording of a comprehensive conference critically examining Common Core, held at the University of Notre Dame on September 9, 2013. (For a copy of the video, please contact Professor Gerard Bradley at the address above.)
News reports each day show that a lively national debate about Common Core is upon us. The early rush to adopt Common Core has been displaced by sober second looks, and widespread regrets. Several states have decided to “pause” implementation.
Others have opted out of the testing consortia associated with Common Core. Prominent educators and political leaders have declared their opposition. The national momentum behind Common Core has, quite simply, stopped. A wave of reform which recently was thought to be inevitable now isn’t. Parents of K- 12 children are leading today’s resistance to the Common Core. A great number of these parents are Catholics whose children attend Catholic schools.
Much of today’s vigorous debate focuses upon particular standards in English and math. Supporters say that Common Core will “raise academic standards.” But we find persuasive the critiques of educational experts (such as James Milgram, professor emeritus of mathematics at Stanford University, and Sandra Stotsky, professor emerita of education at the University of Arkansas) who have studied Common Core, and who judge it to be a step backwards. We endorse their judgment that this “reform” is really a radical shift in emphasis, goals, and expectations for K-12 education, with the result that Common Core-educated children will not be prepared to do authentic college work. Even supporters of Common Core admit that it is geared to prepare children only for community-college-level studies.
No doubt many of America’s Catholic children will study in community colleges. Some will not attend college at all. This is not by itself lamentable; it all depends upon the personal vocations of those children, and what they need to learn and do in order to carry out the unique set of good works entrusted to them by Jesus. But none of that means that our Catholic grade schools and high schools should give up on maximizing the intellectual potential of every student. And every student deserves to be prepared for a life of the imagination, of the spirit, and of a deep appreciation for beauty, goodness, truth, and faith.
The judgments of Stotsky and Milgram (among many others) are supported by a host of particulars. These particulars include when algebra is to be taught, whether advanced mathematics coursework should be taught in high school, the misalignment of writing and reading standards, and whether cursive writing is to be taught.
We do not write to you, however, to start an argument about particulars. At least, that is a discussion for another occasion and venue. We write to you instead because of what the particular deficiencies of Common Core reveal about the philosophy and the basic aims of the reform. We write to you because we think that this philosophy and these aims will undermine Catholic education, and dramatically diminish our children’s horizons.
Promoters of Common Core say that it is designed to make America’s children “college and career ready.” We instead judge Common Core to be a recipe for standardized workforce preparation. Common Core shortchanges the central goals of all sound education and surely those of Catholic education: to grow in the virtues necessary to know, love, and serve the Lord, to mature into a responsible, flourishing adult, and to contribute as a citizen to the process of responsible democratic self-government.
Common Core adopts a bottom-line, pragmatic approach to education. The heart of its philosophy is, as far as we can see, that it is a waste of resources to “over-educate” people. The basic goal of K-12 schools is to provide everyone with a modest skill set; after that, people can specialize in college – if they end up there. Truck-drivers do not need to know Huck Finn. Physicians have no use for the humanities. Only those destined to major in literature need to worry about Ulysses.
Perhaps a truck-driver needs no acquaintance with Paradise Lost to do his or her day’s work. But everyone is better off knowing Shakespeare and Euclidean geometry, and everyone is capable of it. Everyone bears the responsibility of growing in wisdom and grace and in deliberating with fellow-citizens about how we should all live together. A sound education helps each of us to do so.
The sad facts about Common Core are most visible in its reduction in the study of classic, narrative fiction in favor of “informational texts.” This is a dramatic change. It is contrary to tradition and academic studies on reading and human formation. Proponents of Common Core do not disguise their intention to transform “literacy” into a “critical” skill set, at the expense of sustained and heartfelt encounters with great works of literature.
Professor Stotsky was the chief architect of the universally-praised Massachusetts English language arts standards, which contributed greatly to that state’s educational success. She describes Common Core as an incubator of “empty skill sets . . . [that] weaken the basis of literary and cultural knowledge needed for authentic college coursework.” Rather than explore the creativity of man, the great lessons of life, tragedy, love, good and evil, the rich textures of history that underlie great works of fiction, and the tales of self-sacrifice and mercy in the works of the great writers that have shaped our cultural literacy over the centuries, Common Core reduces reading to a servile activity.
Professor Anthony Esolen, now at Providence College, has taught literature and poetry to college students for two decades. He provided testimony to a South Carolina legislative committee on the Common Core, lamenting its “cavalier contempt for great works of human art and thought, in literary form.” He further declared: “We are not programming machines. We are teaching children. We are not producing functionaries, factory-like. We are to be forming the minds and hearts of men and women.”
Thus far Common Core standards have been published for mathematics and English language arts. Related science standards have been recently released by Achieve, Inc. History standards have also been prepared by another organization. No diocese (for that matter, no state) is bound to implement these standards just by dint of having signed onto Common Core’s English and math standards. We nonetheless believe that the same financial inducements, political pressure, and misguided reforming zeal that rushed those standards towards acceptance will conspire to make acceptance of the history and science standards equally speedy – and unreflective and unfortunate.
These new standards will very likely lower expectations for students, just as the Common Core math and English standards have done. More important, however, is the likelihood that they will promote the prevailing philosophical orthodoxies in those disciplines. In science, the new standards are likely to take for granted, and inculcate students into a materialist metaphysics that is incompatible with, the spiritual realities –soul, conceptual thought, values, free choice, God– which Catholic faith presupposes. We fear, too, that the history standards will promote the easy moral relativism, tinged with a pervasive anti-religious bias, that is commonplace in collegiate history departments today.
Common Core is innocent of America’s Catholic schools’ rich tradition of helping to form children’s hearts and minds. In that tradition, education brings children to the Word of God. It provides students with a sound foundation of knowledge and sharpens their faculties of reason. It nurtures the child’s natural openness to truth and beauty, his moral goodness, and his longing for the infinite and happiness. It equips students to understand the laws of nature and to recognize the face of God in their fellow man. Education in this tradition forms men and women capable of discerning and pursuing their path in life and who stand ready to defend truth, their church, their families, and their country.
The history of Catholic education is rich in tradition and excellence. It embraces the academic inheritance of St. Anselm, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Blessed John Henry Newman. In contrast to such academic rigor, the Common Core standards lack an empirical evidentiary basis and have not been field-tested anywhere. Sadly, over one hundred Catholic dioceses have set aside our teaching tradition in favor of these secular standards.
America’s bishops have compiled a remarkable record of success directing Catholic education in America, perhaps most notably St. John Neumann and the Plenary Councils of Baltimore. Parents embrace that tradition and long for adherence to it – indeed, for its renaissance. That longing reflects itself in the growing Catholic homeschool and classical-education movements and, now, in the burgeoning desire among Catholic parents for their dioceses to reject the Common Core.
Because we believe that this moment in history again calls for the intercession of each bishop, we have been made bold to impose upon your time with our judgments of Common Core.
Faithfully in Christ, we are:
Institutional Affiliations Are for Identification Purposes Only
Gerard Bradley
Professor of Law
University of Notre DameRobert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Princeton UniversityAnthony M. Esolen
Professor of English
Providence CollegeAnne Hendershott
Professor of Sociology
Franciscan University of SteubenvilleKevin Doak
Professor
Georgetown UniversityJoseph A. Varacalli
S.U.N.Y. Distinguished Service Professor
Nassau Community College-S.U.N.Y.Patrick McKinley Brennan
John F. Scarpa Chair in Catholic Legal Studies
Villanova University School of LawRobert Fastiggi, Ph.D.
Professor of Systematic Theology
Detroit, MIDuncan Stroik
Professor of Architecture
University of Notre DameThomas F. Farr
Director, Religious Freedom Project and
Visiting Associate Professor
Georgetown UniversityMatthew J. Franck, Ph.D.
Director, Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution
Witherspoon InstituteRonald J. Rychlak
Butler Snow Lecturer and Professor of Law
University of Mississippi, School of LawV. Bradley Lewis
Associate Professor of Philosophy
The Catholic University of AmericaPatrick J. Deneen
David A. Potenziani Memorial Associate
Professor of Political Science
University of Notre DameE. Christian Brugger, D.Phil.
J. Francis Cardinal Stafford Professor of Moral Theology
Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary, DenverKenneth L. Grasso
Professor of Political Science
Texas State UniversityJames Hitchcock
Professor of History
Saint Louis UniversityMaria Sophia Aguirre, Ph.D.
Director of Economics Programs and Academic Chair
The Catholic University of AmericaFr. Joseph Koterski SJ
President, Fellowship of Catholic Scholars
Fordham UniversityFrancis J. Beckwith
Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies
Baylor UniversityThomas V. Svogun
Professor of Philosophy and Administration of Justice and
Chairman of the Department of Philosophy
Salve Regina UniversityScott W Hahn
Professor of Theology
Franciscan University of SteubenvilleEduardo J. Echeverria, Ph.D., S.T.L.
Professor of Philosophy and Systematic Theology
Sacred Heart Major SeminaryRyan J. Barilleaux, Ph.D.
Paul Rejai Professor of Political Science
Miami University (Ohio)Brian Simboli, Ph.D.
Science Librarian
Lehigh UniversityJohn A. Gueguen
Emeritus Professor, Political Philosophy
Illinois State UniversityG. Alexander Ross
Institute for the Psychological SciencesSuzanne Carpenter, Ph.D., R.N.
Associate Professor of Nursing
RetiredPatrick Lee
McAleer Professor of Bioethics
Franciscan University of SteubenvillePeter J. Colosi, PhD
Associate Professor of Moral Theology
St. Charles Borromeo SeminaryDr. Robert Hunt
Professor of Political Science
Kean UniversityMatthew Cuddeback, PhD
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Providence CollegeDr. Joseph H. Hagan
President Emeritus
Assumption CollegeJohn A. Cuddeback, PhD
Professor of Philosophy
Christendom CollegeDr. Michael J. Healy
Professor and Chair of Philosophy
Franciscan University of SteubenvilleThomas Hibbs
Dean of the Honors College
Baylor UniversitySusan Orr Traffas
Co-Director, Honors Program
Benedictine CollegeMichael J. Behe
Professor of Biological Sciences
Lehigh UniversityThomas R. Rourke
Professor of Politics
Clarion UniversityRobert H Holden
Professor, Dept. of History
Old Dominion UniversityPhilip J. Harold
Associate Dean, School of Education and Social Sciences
Robert Morris UniversityDavid T. Murphy, Ph.D.
Dept. of Modern & Classical Languages
Saint Louis UniversityW. H. Marshner
Professor of Theology
Christendom CollegeDavid W. Fagerberg
Associate Professor, Theology
University of Notre DameMelissa Moschella
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Catholic University of AmericaDaniel J. Costello, Jr.
Bettex Professor of Electrical Engineering, Emeritus
University of Notre DameBrian Scarnecchia,
Associate Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of LawThomas Behr
Assistant Professor of Comparative Cultural Studies
University of HoustonBernard Dobranski
Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of LawDaniel Philpott
Professor, Political Science and Peace Studies
University of Notre DameAnne Barbeau Gardiner
Professor emerita, Dept of English
John Jay College, CUNYC.C. Pecknold
Assistant Professor of Theology
The Catholic University of AmericaAnthony Low
Professor Emeritus of English
New York UniversityHeather Voccola
Adjunct Professor of Church History
Holy Apostles College and SeminaryRaymond F. Hain, PhD
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Providence CollegeCatherine Abbott
Professor of Mathematics
Keuka CollegeThérèse Bonin
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Duquesne UniversityDr. Francis P. Kessler
Prof. Political Science
Benedictine CollegeChristopher Wolfe
Co-Director, Thomas International Center
Emeritus Professor, Marquette UniversityCarson Holloway
Associate Professor of Political Science
University of Nebraska at OmahaStephen M. Krason, J.D., Ph.D.
President
Society of Catholic Social ScientistsLaura Hirschfeld Hollis
Associate Professional Specialist and
Concurrent Associate Professor of Law
University of Notre DameWilson D. Miscamble, C.S.C.,
Professor of History
University of Notre DameStephen M. Barr
Professor of Physics
University of DelawareD.C. Schindler
Associate Professor of Metaphysics and Anthropology
The John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and FamilyJeanne Heffernan Schindler
Senior Research Fellow
Center for Cultural and Pastoral ConcernsDavid L. Schindler
Gagnon Professor of Fundamental Theology
Pontifical John Paul II Institute, Catholic University of AmericaRev. Edward Krause, C.C.C.
Professor of Social Sciences, Emeritus
Gannon UniversityChristopher O. Tollefsen
Professor of Philosophy
University of South CarolinaPaige E. Hochschild
Assistant Professor of Theology
Mount St. Mary’s UniversityRobert C. Jeffrey
Professor of Government
Wofford CollegeRev. Anthony E. Giampietro, CSB
Executive Vice President and Academic Dean
Saint Patrick’s Seminary & UniversityDr. Roger Loucks
Associate Prof. of Physics
Alfred UniversityJ. Daniel Hammond
Professor of Economics
Wake Forest UniversityKenneth R. Hoffmann, Ph.D.
Professor of Neurosurgery
SUNY at BuffaloTimothy T. O’Donnell, STD, KGCHS
President Christendom CollegeThomas W. Jodziewicz
Department of History
University of DallasSr J. Sheila Galligan IHM
Professor of Theology
Immaculata UniversityMaura Hearden
Assistant Professor of Theology
DeSales UniversityRobert Gorman
University Distinguished Professor of Political Science
Texas State UniversitySteven Justice
Professor of English
University of California, Berkeley and
University of MississippiCarol Nevin (Sue) Abromaitis
Professor of English
Loyola University MarylandDr. Sean Innerst
Theology Cycle Director,
St. John Vianney Theological SeminaryRobert A. Destro
Professor of Law & Director
The Catholic University of AmericaRichard Sherlock
Prof. of Philosophy
Utah State UniversityAdrian J. Reimers
Adjunct Assistant Professor in Philosophy
University of Notre DameDr. Jessica M. Murdoch
Assistant Professor of Fundamental and Dogmatic Theology
Villanova UniversityMary Shivanandan, S.T.L., S.T.D.
Professor of Theology Retired
John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage & Family
at the Catholic University of AmericaAlice M. Ramos
Professor of Philosophy
St. John’s UniversityDennis J. Marshall, Ph.D.
Professor of Theology
Aquinas CollegeDennis D. Martin
Associate Professor of Theology
Loyola University ChicagoJanet E. Smith
Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics
Sacred Heart Major SeminaryLeonard J. Nelson,III
Retired Professor of Law
Samford UniversityCharles D. Presberg, PhD
Associate Professor of Spanish
University of Missouri-ColumbiaBrian T. Kelly
Dean
Thomas Aquinas CollegeMichael F. McLean
President
Thomas Aquinas CollegePhilip T. Crotty
Professor of Management (Emeritus)
Northeastern UniversityJames Matthew Wilson
Assistant Professor of Literature
Villanova UniversityR. E. Houser
Bishop Wendelin J. Nold Chair in Graduate Philosophy
University of St. Thomas (TX)Gary D. Glenn
Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus
Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois UniversityCynthia Toolin, Ph.D.
Professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology
Holy Apostles College and SeminaryVirginia L. Arbery, Ph. D.
Associate Professor of Humanities
Wyoming Catholic CollegeMaryanne M. Linkes, Esquire
Adjunct Professor
University of Pittsburgh & Community College of Allegheny CountyJames Likoudis, M.S.Ed.
Education writer
Montour Falls, NY 14865Dr. Emil Berendt
Assistant Professor of Economics
Mount St. Mary’s UniversityDavid F. Forte
Professor of Law
Cleveland State UniversityAnthony W. Zumpetta, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus
West Chester University (PA)Thomas D. Watts
Professor Emeritus
University of Texas, ArlingtonCatherine Ruth Pakaluk, PhD
Assistant Professor of Economics
Ave Maria UniversityCraig S. Lent
Freimann Professor of Electrical Engineering
University of Notre DameChristina Jeffrey, Ph.D.
Lecturer on the Foundations of American Government
Wofford CollegeRobert G Kennedy
Professor of Catholic Studies
University of St Thomas (MN)Holly Taylor Coolman
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Theology
Providence CollegeRaymond F. Hain, PhD
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Providence CollegeDavid Whalen
Provost
Hillsdale CollegeDavid M. Wagner
Professor of Law
Regent University School of LawJohn G. Trapani, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
Walsh UniversityTina Holland, Ph.D.
South Bend, IndianaJames F. Papillo, J.D., Ph.D
Former Vice President of Administrative
Affairs and Associate Professor in the Humanities
Holy Apostles College and SeminaryDr. J. Marianne Siegmund
Theo. Department and SCSS member
University of DallasDr. Daniel Hauser
Professor of Theology
University of St. FrancisJoshua Hochschild
Mount St. Mary’s UniversityWilliam Edmund Fahey, Ph.D.
Fellow and President
The Thomas More College of Liberal ArtsJohn C. McCarthy
Dean, School of Philosophy
The Catholic University of AmericaChristopher O. Blum
Academic Dean
Augustine InstituteChiyuma Elliott
Assistant Professor of English and African-American Studies
University of MississippiMark C. Henrie
Senior V.P., Chief Academic Officer
Intercollegiate Studies InstituteJeffrey Tranzillo, Ph.D.
Professor, Systematic TheologyCraig Steven Titus, S.Th.D/Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Director of Integrative Studies
Institute of the Psychological SciencesRev. Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D.
Executive Director
Catholic Education FoundationWilliam W. Kirk
Vice President for Student Affairs and General Counsel
Ave Maria UniversityCurt H. Stiles, Ph.D.
Professor of Business Policy
Cameron School of Business
University of North Carolina
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Wow!
Now, that is impressive.
Great example of stepping up to the plate for children.
Mozeltov & Bless you!
Knock my socks off…..another smackdown.
Gates and Coleman, what are you going to do?
Timely, so timely.
I just had a conference last week where I asked the teacher why my kindergartener is bringing so much homework home (6 pages the other day) and the answer was: Common Core.
It’s time to push back against the federal government and the state government who are trying to micromanage our teachers and schools.
No Child Left Behind was bad enough, this is worst.
So glad these leaders in the field of education have spoken up for our children around the country. A hundred thanks for this post. I will be sharing it.
MY child is in 2nd grade at a public school following the CC. He does not receive 6 pages of homework (and didn’t in 1st or K). The CC does not mandate how much homework is assigned.
You raise a good point, Concerned Mom.
Parents, children and teachers in better circumstances don’t face the accountability teeth of the CC$$, as much as lower income districts do. Their administrators might feel secure enough to resist the pressure. The mandate is to raise the test scores by any means necessary, or to face forced take-over by a state entity, which will award control of your school to some corporate partner who claims they’ll do that.
They may have difficulty believing schools on warning status could be forced to accept turnarounds, interventions and take-overs that include really toxic CC$$ products and services which (believe me!) mandate the homework children are assigned.
Tying teacher evaluations, and hence, tenure and careers on test scores is at the root of this. Some teachers feel a lot more pressure than others. Some districts are mandating that teachers use Engage NY modules through which lessons, activities, and HW are scripted.
When this all crumbles, crashes and burns, this will be the mantra: the districts didn’t manage it correctly and the implementation was poor. Once again, who do we blame: the frontline workers, the crappy teachers.
chemtchr,
Your points are a big concern for me. My child attends a Title 1 school where about 26% passed the reading/math composite this past year and traditionally performs below average on these tests. Before my state received a NCLB waiver, I was given alternative schools for my child to attend because our base school did not meet growth measures. My child’s school still uses a common sense approach to homework and it varies by teacher. I fear the powers that be will mandate more homework. If this interferes with my child’s outside play and Lego time, I am going to get cranky.
Also, it seems that some of the better performing towns, with less low income students, actually give more homework. Unfortunately, a lot of people expect good test results if they live in a town with “good” schools.
In some ways you point out precisely the problem with CCSS, concernedmom. Its advocates are quick to celebrate the fact that children all over the nation will finally get the same level of education. That’s the “great promise” of Common Core.
But in practice we see this isn’t so. When incidents pop up like that cited by Michelle LaRowe, or when the state of NY is cited for CCSS curricular units that are not developmentally appropriate, or when absurd testing regimens are presented for critique, those same advocates of Common Core leap up and say “The Common Core doesn’t mandate that kind of thing!!!!!!”
And therein lies the contradiction. The freedom of instruction that Core advocates like to use as a defense against the practical outcomes of CCSS implementation (like absurd homework loads, and inappropriately designed curricula, and test-after-test-after-test) negates their own claim of the Common Core promise: that everybody gets the same; that no one is “left behind.”
If the CCSS offers sufficient freedom to allow practices that even its advocates admit are damaging, it also allows sufficient freedom to ensure that all kids are no longer receiving the same level of instruction.
And your alternative is??
“. . . leaders in the field of education. . . ”
They are not all in the field of education if by that you mean teacher prep education. Yes, from what I saw in reviewing the list of signatories they are all associated with institutions of higher learning.
By the way, I think it’s a good letter, too much religious stuff for my tastes but overall good.
Well they are Catholic scholars, hence the religious stuff.
I think their concern is to avoid parochial schools signing on to CCSS, which has started to happen in some places.
We are in a Catholic school. My child brings home both literacy homework and math pages. The other day between the 2 subjects he had 6 pages. I have an older child so I knew that this was not typical. The Catholic school is trying to abide by Common Core and using new workbooks this year to achieve this goal.
The marketing job/media blitz has been so complete that even some of the parochial schools have swallowed the hook line and sinker. They’d better spit it out quickly before they are put and the stringer and filleted.
put on not and
The Catholics understand what it means to be educated. I was educated for 12 years by the Dominican Sisters of St Cecilia in Nashville,TN. The mission of the founder of the Dominicans, St. Dominic, was education and the sisters took that mission very seriously. Every one of my St. Ceciia sisters had masters degrees, some had multiple masters degrees and PhD’s in education and related content. They made sure we had a fully stocked library, a drama program, an extensive visual arts program, fully equipped biology labs, individual and group music lessons. I’ll never forget the many days we asked our poet and teacher Sr Anthony, if we could stay in English class through lunch so we could extend the class discussions we loved.
We need more poets setting education policy!.
This letter could have been sent to Duncan and all State commissioners of Education but I suppose that they felt that the Bishops were the ones that really cared about Education!
Fabulous! Everybody needs to take such a stand!
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
The common core are a framework to help school systems build world class curriculum and deep learning. They are a map of minimal outcomes, common expectations and not high aspirations. The phony testing system attached to them and attempts to evaluate students and teachers with arbitrary cut scores are a greater threat to valuable learning.
Build a better curriculum and oppose the phony testing system.
Please tell Arne, Bill, David and Barack, good luck!
I used to think that, but as I’ve researched this topic more, I’ve found that it’s a package deal. The letter is correct—CCSS is about shunting the vast majority of American children into vocational training. As they did over a century ago, our robber barons and their academic enablers are trying to engineer American society in which a small cadre of aristocrats rule over a vast population of semi-educated workers.
This has nothing to do with “world class” standards, this is about class warfare. If you want “world class” standards, look at Massachusetts (before CCSSS) or Finland. At the least, prove CCSS is worth it by using a model program. The fact that the program is untested, national, coercive, and implemented by unconstitutional means, belies any claim of genuine concern for our children.
Robert, I am in general agreement with you. If they were simply standards that could be a baseline, I don’t think there would be much uproar (except for political objections). But tying these to tests is where people have the problems.
Tests that evaluate schools, districts, teachers and administrators enforce the standards in a punitive sense. I would have no problem teaching to these standards (in fact, I already do a decent proportion of what CCSS references) except for the fact that I will get evaluated on the associated tests. Which may be flawed, are purely experimental at this point, may be developmentally inappropriate and I can’t have access to. It’s like swinging at a pinata after being spun around and being evaluated on the first swing.
I totally agree with you. Focus our energies on changing the false assumptions about testing. The parents are with us on the testing issues. The state politicians are responding to parents. We can change this crazy testing and teacher evaluation system if we focus on the false standards being applied to children.
Duane, you’re adorable! “Too much religious stuff for my tastes but overall good.” I agree.
I’m a humanist (since age 11), but who among us humanists has been able to articulate the moral flaw in the CC$$ this well? Which humanist scholars even have the guts to raise a moral argument against the corporate demand that we turn our little children over to them, to be trained up in the virtues of corporate servility?
“Everyone bears the responsibility of growing in wisdom and grace and in deliberating with fellow-citizens about how we should all live together.”
“It is contrary to tradition and academic studies on reading and human formation. Proponents of Common Core do not disguise their intention to transform “literacy” into a “critical” skill set, at the expense of sustained and heartfelt encounters with great works of literature.”
“And every student deserves to be prepared for a life of the imagination, of the spirit, and of a deep appreciation for beauty, goodness, truth, and faith.”
“It nurtures the child’s natural openness to truth and beauty, his moral goodness, and his longing for the infinite and happiness. It equips students to understand the laws of nature and to recognize the face of God in their fellow man.”
I can’t find the quote online, but I remember reading that John XXIII said, “The moral voice in every human heart is the voice of God.” I would now turn that around, and ask secular humanists to open their human hearts, and listen to the people who describe their moral sense in religious terms.
Chemtchr,
I have brought up a number of ethical points concerning these standards, standaridized testing and the grading of students educational malpractices such as the unethicalness of using test scores for something other than what they were designed, the doling out of rewards and/or punishments because of the scores which seems to me to be discrimination much the same as race, ethnicity, gender, age, etc. . . .
On the moral side one can look at the Aristotelian/Kantian concept of not using people as a means but treating them as ends. I have been rereading Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia” and to have the “state” be the one using its citizens as a means (in the case of educational standards, standardized testing and the grading of students as the “data” to rate teachers) is especially egregious.
“I would now turn that around, and ask secular humanists to open their human hearts, and listen to the people who describe their moral sense in religious terms.”
And I turn your thought around on those religious folks to acknowledge that non-believers, free thinkers, and others who do not believe the same as any particular religion can and are as “moral” as those who choose to base/cloak their beliefs in a transcendent being.
A great read in talking of “morals” or what are considered “human good”for all is Andre Comte Sponville’s “A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues”
Duane, I realize you do make moral arguments in favor of educating all children for a full human life. It’s one of the many reasons you’re adorable. But you’re not a prominent humanist intellectual, are you? Most of those are tied up, trying to answer garbled pseudo-utilitarian crap by temporalizing with it.
And it’s been a while since we’ve seen a religious institution attempt to reconcile its divine mission of promulgating its own worldview with the rights of those who don’t share it. Here’s one very Catholic attempt:
” It even involves the cooperation of Catholics with men who may not be Christians but who nevertheless are reasonable men, and men of natural moral integrity. “In such circumstances they must, of course, bear themselves as Catholics, and do nothing to compromise religion and morality. Yet at the same time they should show themselves animated by a spirit of understanding and unselfishness, ready to co-operate loyally in achieving objects which are good in themselves, or conducive to good.”
PACEM IN TERRIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE JOHN XXIII
ON ESTABLISHING UNIVERSAL PEACE IN TRUTH,
JUSTICE, CHARITY, AND LIBERTY
APRIL 11, 1963
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html
“But you’re not a prominent humanist intellectual, are you?”
NAH, just a free thinker who looks for bits of wisdom in all places low or supposedly high. And prominents and popes may not be the place to look, talk about prominent, ol Billy Boy the Billionaire. Be that as it may a good source from Pope Leo XIII is Rerum Novarum from 1891. See: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
“Yet at the same time they should show themselves animated by a spirit of understanding and unselfishness, ready to co-operate loyally in achieving objects which are good in themselves [virtues], or conducive to good [virtues].” And Sponville’s treatise is a good place to start!
As far as I can tell, this letter is from a bunch of university faculty, the plurality of whom are law professors. How much weight should be given to a law professor’s opinions about elementary education?
As much as yours or anybody’s, but we aren’t weighing their faculty appointments. We’re listening to their argument.
I certainly agree that posters here should look at the merits of an argument divorced from both the conclusions reached and the personal characteristics of the poster. I look forward to the adoption of this standard by posters here.
Hmmmm … we might use the logic of your final statement to challenge Bill Gates, Arne Duncan, everyone at Pearson, Achieve Inc., Harcourt and so on. (You know: all those who so actively promote Common Core and daily pronounce its excellence.)
The letter above did NOT concern itself only with elementary education, as you suggest (for reasons of your own). Even if it had, however, I daresay most would be more inclined to trust an educator on ANY level with the assessment of curricula standards than, say, a politician or CEO.
The posters here often draw a bright line between educating 17 year old students and educating 18 year old students (or I Suppose 24 year old law students, but that does not often come up). That is the only way to argue that Pell grants are just dandy for 18 year old students but public funds should never be given to private hands in order to educate17 year old students.
Would you support the adoption of routine aspects of post secondary education like public funding of scholarships and loans to attend private schools, peer evaluation of teachers, and salaries that depended on perceived merit?
TE:
How well prepared are your students, on average, for your classes in terms of the basics? How quickly do they get up to speed? How many of them have had to take some type of remedial course?
The mean is misleading at my institution. The distribution of our students has fat tails. The best of our students are extremely good, better than you would have seen twenty or thirty years ago. The best of the best would do fine at any college or university.
On the other hand, about a third of our first year students must take remedial mathmatics. Even those who have passed the course or have qualified out might have a difficult time solving an equation for one unknown.
We have very open admissions. We have students who score 800 800 on the SAT sitting next to students who score 395 395. It makes it a challanging teaching environment.
I have talked a bit with economists who teach at fommunity colleges, and they report that the lowest performing students are much less academically capable than at my institution.
TE:
In some respects then it sounds like you are getting a sample of HS students, skewed a little above average in Math at least? It sounds like Milgram’s observation that CC is light on Algebra also applies to the current curriculum in your State?
What about on the reading and writing side?
CCSS-M isn’t light on Algebra. Milgram consistently makes this claim because Algebra isn’t mandated to start at 8th grade as he prefers. However, a recommended sequence for states/districts/schools/students that want 8th grade algebra is provided in Appendix A. He also complains regularly that the CCSS stop at Algebra 2, which is not adequate preparation for college level math. This is true, but misses the point that requiring everyone to study past Algebra 2 is an inappropriate minimum standard. In addition, the CCSS-M has recommended standards for those continuing on past Alg 2. But again, he doesn’t accept any standards that aren’t mandated as worthwhile.
Brett:
OK, but TE indicates that a significant portion of his college students need remedial math This may not be an issue of curriculum per se, but isn’t it an issue of HS graduation standards?
More students are attending universities than before and those new students are not as well prepared as the group that traditionally attends. This is one of the reasons that there has been such a large increase in the cost of student services in the last decade as will as an increase in remedial classes.
TE:
Apparently your program is not alone:
“The remedial numbers are staggering, given that the Cal State system admits only freshmen who graduated in the top one-third of their high-school class. About 27,300 freshmen in the 2010 entering class of about 42,700 needed remedial work in math, English or both.”
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_19526032
2012 numbers for CSU are here:
http://www.asd.calstate.edu/performance/combo/2012/Combo_Prof_Sys_fall2012.htm
An example of the math test. It certainly looks like no more than Algebra I.
Does this reflect an issue in California Schools or misplaced expectations at the College level?
My institution will admit any in state student who graduates in the top third of the class or gets a 2.0 average GPA in a set of academic courses or a 980 SAT score.
I am much less familiar with that part of the program. All students in my college are required to take up to three English classes. They can place out of some of it with an SAT score of 600 on the verbal exam, a 3 on the AP exam, and in some circumstances a 2 on the AP exam.
An insightful and well-argued letter is an insightful and well-argued letter no matter who produces it. The entire point is that knowledge is every human being’s birthright. We all stand to lose when the breadth of human knowledge is purposely curtailed in favor of minimum skills training.
Well said.
As much or more than Biil gates and the business-corporate supporters.
Given that their argument has much to do with “college readiness,” I would give a fair amount of weight to the opinions of university professors.
As for a plurality being law professors, that might be (I saw quite a few theology professors in the list); however, the list of signatures shows a wide variety of disciplines. Fewer than 10% of the signatories are law professors.
I find other arguments against CCSS more compelling, but this does show that the coalition against CCSS is broadening.
As a parent, I am so confused about the Common Core. I have teachers, great teachers who love it. My Kindergartner has an amazing 26 year veteran teacher and she loves it. The school is having “Parent University” on the Common Core. They will discuss how math will be done differently and why.
On the other hand, my middle schoolers were given laptops (for every student.) They spend 82 min a day in math and language arts. They get 82 min science or history (split between semesters) and an elective that changes every other day. I know all of this is because of the Common Core testing.
There has been a big coalition in this state to come out in support of the Common Core.
Any suggestions of questions to ask at “Parent University”?
Please show me the vetted research that shows that a “standardized” education like the CCSS will have better results than the non-standardized system of locally controlled public schools have had in making this the “greatest” country on earth!
Sorry, not a question but a command.
Ye, gads. Everyone whining about Common Core but offering no alternatives. Real standards at the federal level – all we need to do is look at the sick joke of history and biology text books being forced upon Texas children to understand that. Wisconsin has had common core for years and I find that my son’s education is _better_ than the joke I received as a result.
Every Child Left Behind has been damaging with it’s ludicrous testing that is designed to make schools fail. This remains, at it’s core, a program that is intended to damage if not destroy public education. Common Core helps to avoid that by providing real relevant standards for what children should learn. We need to get rid of the fake testing, the pretend caring about teacher evaluations and get on with teaching children what they need to know.
As for those things left out, as a Sunday school teacher, that’s what church and parents are for – NOT the schools of public education.
If the parochial school educators don’t want to follow that, they are welcome to take that step backwards. Personally, I will be grateful not to have to pay for that lessened education.
I like this letter. Why are Catholic schools adopting the CC? I wonder if they are also against vouchers?
Apparently, they’re adopting it for the same reason everybody else is. Bill Gates gave a few influential people in the Catholic education hierarchy money to do so, and others just went along.
Until now.
“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation paid the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) more than $100,000 to support teacher training and materials on implementing the Common Core school standards, The Cardinal Newman Society has discovered.”
There’s lot’s more.
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/2661/EXCLUSIVE-National-Catholic-Education-Association-Gets-Gates-Foundation-Grant-to-Promote-%E2%80%98Common-Core%E2%80%99-in-Catholic-Schools.aspx
Nice find. It’s scary how long a reach Mr. Gates has.
Most of the criticism of the Common Core I have read at this site has stated that the Common Core is too difficult. The bishop’s letter criticises it as not difficult enough.
the CC is not described as being “too difficult” it is the cut cit scores of the assessments that are too high and the assessments themselves as too difficult.
That’s funny. I’ve certainly posted my criticisms here, and read many others, and they’re on a much richer axis than “difficult -> not difficult”.
Maybe you’re not reading closely enough.
It’s not that it’s too difficult or too easy per se, it’s that it’s too standardized, one size fits all (as would be the case with any standards). It’s too difficult for some, too easy for others, and for many others, it simply doesn’t align with the developmental ways that kids tend to learn.
These Catholics are defending humane learning.
This letter, with it’s vision of truck-drivers discussing Paradise Lost and Ulysses, is a self-parody of the thinking of ivory tower academics.
Adult truck drivers are free to choose whether or not they want to discuss Paradise Lost. Educators are not free to choose, years beforehand, whether or not they will be capable of it.
Jim, what kind of nation are we living in when we begin making judgements about which children deserve to be exposed to rich literature? Imagine this being your children. Can’t you see how much we are going to be stifling creativity and sequencing the ability to think independently?
I’ve had occasion to take a ride with long-haul truck drivers a few times, and let me warn you, they’ll discuss ANYTHING at great lengt, including Ulysses. Don’t even get one started on Finnegan’s Wake.
Not that you’re elitist or anything.
The neglect of poetry in the common core is a scandal.
Agreed!
But don’t we need to at least add some of the Federalist papers and some other standard works in political philosophy in order to “equip young people for citizenship”? What should we take out to accommodate more poetry and citizenship education?
Harold – Never think about Ulysses when operating heavy macinery.
I’m glad, Jim, that you recognize that Ulysses is a poem.
“I am a part of all that I have met” — Tennyson, “Ulysses”
The Common Core is just that……..common, not first-class.
Exactly!
Dienne – Regarding your comment at 10:34 AM – Congratulaions! You’ve actually succeeded in making an intelligent and coherent comment.
Is this the racist Jim?
Jim has it on the nose. The authors of the letter quote Milgram, who thinks the CCSS math are too easy because they don’t require all students to take Alg 1 in 8th grade and don’t require any math beyond Alg 2 (though they do have recommended college prep standards laced throughout the HS math standards. They are the ones with asterisks). Apparently the authors share his disappointment that the CCSS are too flexible and don’t demand everyone hit the same high bar. We are also treated to the complaint that students should be reading primarily literary textss because non-fiction doesn’t inspire the soul. Apparently informational texts should be stripped from our schools.
And yet, the first dozen comments are the standard complaints that the CCSS asks too much of kids. Nobody can agree on why they don’t like CCSS. They just don’t. And if citing Milgram, who would prefer a hugely prescribed and much more ‘rigorous’ set of standards than the CCSS gets people on the bandwagon, then who cares if his pearl clutching is in direct opposition to mine?
So, this truck driver walks into a bar with 131 Professor of Law, Sociology, Catholic Legal Studies, Architecture, Religion and the Constitution, Church-State Studies, Nursing, Bioethics, Biological Sciences, Education, Classical Languages, Electrical Engineering, Comparative Cultural Studies, Peace Studies, Church History, Mathematics, History, Social Sciences, Government, Physics, Economics, Neurosurgery, History, English, Marriage & Family Life, Ethics, Spanish, Management, Literature, Political Science, Education , Economics, Electrical Engineering, American Government, Catholic Studies, Philosophy, African-American Studies, Theology, Psychological Sciences, Business Policy, and a science librarian.
What do they talk about? This is an American bar, right? Baseball.
Don’t dismiss them just because they are Catholic and you may not be. The great thing about a Catholic school education, I believe, is that they strive to educate the whole child. The CCSS comes from a man who says, “No one gives a sh** about what you think.” Would you rather live in a society (and have your own kids live in that same society) that cares what other individuals think and feel or one in which no ones cares about anyone else and everyone is striving to “achieve” and “succeed” more than the next guy?
Life is not a contest!! All the rhetoric about competing in a global marketplace is just that. There is a place in this life for competition- it’s just not all in the marketplace. Think of you and your children living in a world where people care about people. Please let’s teach and show our youth that we care what they think and feel, not just what they have accumulated (test scores, big salaries, possessions, power).
We shape our society by what we show we value. I hope this letter goes viral and sparks conversation about what it truly means to succeed in life.
Catholic monks kept learning alive during the dark ages. Don’t knock it.
Exactly.
bookworm 23 – I’m not sure if I’m for or agin “sequencing the ability to think independently” because I do not have the slightest clue as to what that phrase means.
Sorry, that was a typo….sequencing should have been SQUELCHING.
Frankly, I am still struggling to identify what is substantively problematic in the Common Core curriculum as a set of guidelines that articulate a progression of minimum requirements more or less by chronological age. Where I have found concrete discussions, the thrust tends to be that the existing CC guidelines are (a) poorly framed and (b) lack rigor. I would be interested if other readers here could point me to articles that are as clear and substantive as this one by James Milgram (mentioned in the posted letter) – though the article does not actually analyze CC:
Click to access msri-presentation.pdf
The example of a math problem that 3rd grade Russian children are expected to solve is helpful in establishing a benchmark (page 7).
Bernie,
Why do I feel as though I’m going on a wild goose chase when I read the article? We’ll see, though.
Duane:
I have no idea whether you will consider it a wild or tame goose chase. Milgram was on the Common Core research team and declined to sign off on the final compilation. Unless you are already intimately familiar with the content of the math guidelines for the Common Core, I am sure you will find this article informative since it builds on a research based perspective on learning Math. In another piece he wrote, he described the mass confusion of displacing the simple algorithm for addition that we all grew up with by something akin to a chapter out of Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica.
The CCSS are standards – not a curriculum. If they were just a set of “guidelines” we might be able to live with it. 70% of NY students (grade 3 to 8) did not get labeled as failures because their teacher received a flexible set of standards. RTTT required companion tests. The test we’ve seen so far have been off the charts ridiculous. Intentionally confusing, convoluted syntax, and developmentally inappropriate. RTTT also required that teacher evaluations be tied directly to student scores on said exams. When test results become punitive and tenure or even career are on the line, CCSS assessments become the de-facto curriculum.
NYTeacher:
So is the issue the tests and the guidelines are OK?
If teachers were free to use their professional judgment when implementing the CCSS most of us could probably live with them. The RTTT requirements compel teachers to “teach to the test”, Its been said that there’s nothing wrong with teaching to a test if its a good test. There in lies the rub. The tests we’ve seen so far have been written by either, completely incompetent test writers, or test writers with an agenda: to promote the false claim that America’s schools are failing. Test so difficult, so long, and so confusing that in some schools at some grade levels the passing rate was 0%.
Bernie, I am writing a book about “what is substantively problematic in the Common Core” in ELA. These so-called “standards” are astonishingly backward. They seem to have been written in almost total ignorance of the sciences of language acquisition and of best practices in the teaching of English. The CCSS in ELA are so amateurish that the task of spelling out what is wrong with them is a significant undertaking. There’s a lot to discuss there. But in a nutshell, the problem is this: the CCSS in ELA is best characterized as a list of every hackneyed misconception held by amateurs about reading, writing, speaking, listening, thinking, and the acquisition of grammar and vocabulary. There are a few good ideas in the Publishers’ Criteria document, but the “standards” themselves are a mess. If we had such “standards” for science, they would be telling teachers to instruct kids about the ether that fills space, about the phlogiston released by combustion, and about how moving bodies stop moving when they use up their inherent force.
Robert:
Can you write a post for here that provides some concrete examples?
If you have looked at it, how would you assess the Massachusetts ELA curricula?
Does it begin to seem that only those being paid to adopt the common core are choosing to do so?
(By paid, of course, I generally mean having adoption of CC attached to some sort of funding, like RTTT)
If CC is so wonderful, why all the coercion?
Only 12 states actually scored enough points in the RTTT contest to win federal funds. The other states were coerced into adopting the CCSS (and other RTTT criteria) because the DOE offered a waiver for the NCLB act requirements which had become impossible to meet (i.e. 100% proficiency for 2014).
I am not a fan of organized religion, but having been raised Roman Catholic (no longer am), I find it refreshing and a little hopeful that Catholics here are questioning policy and authority, something that in my mindest, is not such a Catholic thing to do . . . . .
Robert,
Having been a Catholic also, K-12 schooled, I’ve seen two polar extremes, the extremely conservative doctinaire Catholics and the liberation theology ones. So of the latter were/are quite questioning.
I was telling a friend who is Catholic, how disappointed I was in Obama because of RTTT and CC. She responded that I shouldn’t judge him based on one issue, and that she was far more interested in social justice issues. This will make for interesting conversation when we meet for our next walk
wonderful!!!
As a teacher in an Catholic School and a practicing Catholic, I am grateful to the Catholic Scholars for writing to each Bishop. I hope that the Archbishop in my Archdiocese pays attention. I hope that he shows the letter to my Superintendent and her Associate Superintendents. I hope that they stop and think about this rather than just implementing away as has been the case. Common Core is not developmentally appropriate for my 1st graders and if I made them do all the pages in that humongous Pearson Scott Foresman Language Arts workbook that is all we’d ever have time to do plus the amount of homework they’d have would be ridiculous. As it is, though, I have only used one page in it to date.
The CCSS in ELA is a recipe for mediocrity, not excellence. Kudos to these Catholic leaders for recognizing that!
I do not teach in a Catholic school but I am a Good practicing Catholic. I teach in a public school. However, I do feel the the common core teaches teachers to teach to the test, for good APPR scores. It does not give the students opportunity for critical thinking, social values, or how to just get along with each other as human beings. Instead they put each other down, call each other names and want
to fight with each other. They really do not have time for social interaction because every minute of every day has to be accounted for. There is no time to reward good behavior with a movie at the end of the week because we have to follow such a strict curriculum. I have been teaching for 29 years and only have one more to go and I’m sorry to say that I will be going. I am no longer a teacher, I am a paper pusher.
Cathy S. Buffalo NY.
More heard from Catholic sector — http://bit.ly/HVHZ0D – Question all the Bill Gates support.
Well said! I hope they listen and heed the warnings. I had heard the administration was attempting to bribe the Catholic church to come on over to Common Core. Afterall, there are thousands of children to indoctrinate and brainwash within their ranks. I was shocked to hear this church would consider it.
One thing I would differ with is that those in government who are promoting Common Core are not innocent. CC is a part of the UN agenda. It’s top down government run. It’s one of the legs, part of the octopus, that is Agenda 21-environmentalism (environaziism, I call it), stack and pack housing (no private property rights), etc., (This is the icing on their agenda for government schools. They know exactly what they’re trying to accomplish. The intent of this is to create good little socialists. Indoctrinate millions of children to comply. It’s taken years to finally realize and implement programs which cater to the different learning styles of children. CC is taking us backward. Years lost. A society of dumbed down people are at the mercy of government. Totalitarian regmes count on an ignorant people whom they can control. This is why the left is in favor and will not end illegal immigration. They promise immigrants handouts and in return expect their vote and other acts in order to gain further power and control. Socialism/Marxism/commuism/fascism/progressiveism/statism all seek to eradicate God from the minds of people. CC teaches that government is their family. Mother Earth is their god. It intrusively reaches into the home. The stated (heard at a NEA meeting in the 1980s) goal is to separate children from their parents, to train their minds away from the values of the home and God. Why do you think day care, kindergarten, is so “important” to the left. Why do you think they detest home schooling. The younger the child under their influence, the more the sponge will soak up. The more little foot soldiers they create.
I trust everyone will tell a few more people about Common Core and it’s intended goals to destroy our children’s minds, their future, and our homes and then act on it to remove it from our schools all over the country.
Meanwhile, Catholic educators across the country have embraced Common Core as excellent standards. But I suppose the lawyer and professor of architecture know better.
I opened this late today and have not had time to read the plethora of comments. However, at first reading I see among the singers the name Michael Behe, professor, who is a well known advocate of Intelligent Design. Sad that he can see the flaws in CC but is so far off the mark with evolution.
Best wishes Diane…hope you are out and about. Ellen
meant…Signers..of course…not Gregorian Chant singers.
When I was in school we learned to write clear, and concise. This article was written by someone who was not taught the same. -High School Class of ’97 University Alumni ’02
In small town prairie country first grade had been presented with a moral lesson on families – not their busniess at all. Social studies has told them that President Obama wants to give all chilren health insurance, how nice and good that is and ends with “The republicans are against this policy!” First grade! In Sophomore level in highschool – maybe half of vocabulary in English has sentences involving politics, political, politicians. In addition very little literature classics. Math is taught like a puzzle. One teacher with horse sense in 5th grade, goes through it all and then tells them to learn the classic way and concentrate on that. This has a lot of “brainwashing ideas” taught throughout! Awful, awful. Common Core sound like sound “reading, writing, arighmatic” – anything, BUT!
Schools here in the county I live in, seem to have the theory that the quicker children are not in the system the better off they are. Some students that can’t pass the test, are given special diplomas. These diplomas limit their opportunities for further education. Basically it creates students that could care less about learning, because it is too hard. Teachers do not have time to teach these students so they are thrown out the door. I think Common Core was created, so it will be easier to push slow learners out the door, and create a helpless society.