Common Core for Commoners, Not My School!

102 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. jcgrim says:

   March 23, 2014 at 12:06 pm

   Why did the reporter, Blake Farmer close the comments?

   Reply
   • Bob Shepherd says:

     March 24, 2014 at 1:10 am

     Here’s a possibility: The comments that spring most readily to mind when one hears of hypocrisy and elitism this raw are not in a register that is usually acceptable in public forums. I know that my first reactions was,

     $@&*$&&*$@#$@*(!$)()(!)(!!!!!&*$%*#&%&#()*($%()!!!!!!!!

     Reply
     • Bob Shepherd says:

       March 24, 2014 at 1:35 am

       And my second was a great guffaw.

2. Chiara Duggan says:

   March 23, 2014 at 12:09 pm

   I feel as if there’s a basic and fundamental disconnect with Common Core and ed reformers. It’s all “my child, my choice”, and has been for 30 years and now they spring national standards on all those conservatives who bought “my child my choice” to push ed reform. If one buys the whole notion of publicly-run schools its much easier to align the CC with that general philosophy. Conservatives never bought the whole idea. No wonder they’re mad.

   I’m not a conservative but I’m sympathetic to them. They’re right. This whole “choice” individualism, personalized learning ethos isn’t really hanging together ALONG WITH the hard sales job for national standards.

   Oh, well. Maybe they can all get vouchers as soon as those are in nationwide, which seems to be in the offing. Then they can switch back to “my child, my choice!” 🙂

   Reply
3. Mary Jardine Urrutia says:

   March 23, 2014 at 1:45 pm

   Is there a single “reformer” who actually sends their kids to a school that uses Common Core?

   Reply
4. Linda says:

   March 23, 2014 at 2:15 pm

   .
   The goal is to make the educational system so abhorrent, that Americans defund all of it.
   When money, earmarked for children, goes to (1) Microsoft and Pearson (2) to conservative Christian and Islamic schools, that are anti-woman, teach creationism, etc., and (3) to out-of-state charters, owned by hucksters, taxpayers will say no to all of it.
   The reputation of U.S. education is the victim of Tea Party venom, Gates rubrics, and think tank charlatans.

   For Melinda Gates, to propose, other people’s children learn in a bureaucratic, strict regimen while her own children are in a nurturing environment, like Lakeside, suggests to me, a moral lapse, at best.
   For Laura Arnold, to work against professional status for a career, held mainly by women, suggests callous disregard for an advanced culture’s hard-won principles.

   Reply
   • Harlan Underhill says:

     March 23, 2014 at 4:00 pm

     tea party movement should not be blamed. They’re on YOUR side, against the testing and the standardization. Get over them.

     Reply
     • Linda says:

       March 23, 2014 at 11:00 pm

       The Sourcewatch website establishes the connection involving Koch funding, Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party, and ALEC.
       The Center for Media and Democracy bravely exposes the sleight-of- hand funding used to bankroll efforts aimed at the subversion of our democracy. CMD should receive a Pulitzer prize and the gratitude of our nation.

     • Bob Shepherd says:

       March 24, 2014 at 1:20 am

       You and I are in agreement there, Harlan. People really need to understand who their friends are in this.

     • gitapik says:

       March 24, 2014 at 7:28 pm

       True

     • Johnny says:

       September 9, 2016 at 10:25 am

       Linda, Conservatives are against Gates and Statist Common Core.

     • dianeravitch says:

       September 9, 2016 at 11:15 am

       Johnny,

       What is your evidence that conservatives are against what Gates is doing to education?

   • artseagal says:

     March 23, 2014 at 8:12 pm

     @Linda.. beautifully said!

     Reply
   • Nancy says:

     March 24, 2014 at 7:01 pm

     Linda,
     Before you bring Tea Party into your comment, you should know something about the Tea Party.
     We are dead set against Common Core. Our children are not a group, they are each individuals, and need to be treated as such. They are not all winners. They must learn that some days they will win, and some days, they will lose. And, when they lose, they will learn to try harder.
     Bill and Melinda Gates provided a great product to the world, but have used their money to corrupt many things. I wish Apple products were cheaper, because if they were, I would never put another dollar into Bill Gates’ pockets. He is an evil, corrupt individual, who really has forgotten where he came from.

     Reply
   • richard says:

     September 9, 2016 at 10:28 am

     Harlan is right. Conservatives are against Gates and other social engineers who would use big government to force their wills upon us. (Liberals are not liberals anymore.)

     Reply
5. Chiara Duggan says:

   March 23, 2014 at 2:35 pm

   I’m not a teacher or an expert but I looked over the CC and I don’t object to it. I think national standards make sense. As far as the math, my fifth grader has been doing “number sense” math for years at his ordinary public school, and he likes math.

   I hate the testing, though, and like all the ed reforms of the last decade it will turn into a 100% focus on the test scores, because all of ed reform is grounded in test scores. They lose credibility with me when they insist it isn’t about test scores, because ALL they talk about is test scores. They make themselves liars every time they open their mouths. No one would believe it’s not about test scores. Of course it is. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be all they talk about.

   They set this whole ed reform theory on a foundation of test scores. It’s the nature of the thing they created. It’s like trying to remove the water from lemon-aide, dividing ed reform from test scores. It ain’t gonna work. The whole thing falls apart without the “data” they use to inform every decision, and that data is test scores.

   So, I’m dreading the CC although I might have been a natural ally. It’s a shame, really. I think it could have been done really, really well if they had prioritized and shown some discipline and focused on this ONE (huge!) thing instead of throwing a barrage of incoherent and underfunded demands at public schools, all at the same time. They don’t know how to say “no”. I think my local public school has seven “reforms” to put in this year. They’re just trying to keep their heads above water, I’m sure. No one could do all those things well and carefully and responsibly all at the same time. No one.

   Reply
   • Chris in Florida says:

     March 23, 2014 at 2:46 pm

     They never had a chance because they used the neoliberal strategy of being “the smartest people in the room” telling the rest of us commoners what to do without bothering to include us or ask us if we even wanted this. That’s also why they can’t understand the pushback.

     The primary grades standards are not developmentally appropriate. I’ve taught them for 2 years now to 1st graders. Funny thing is, like you Chiarra, I might have been a “natural ally” because I was alternatively certified as a teacher. I have a BA and an MA in English and the way I’ve always taught reading is not far off from some of the CCSS goals.

     The inflexibility, the refusal to listen to actual practitioners of teaching, and the tidal wave of testing attached to the standards destroyed my support.

     Reply
     • Chiara Duggan says:

       March 23, 2014 at 3:03 pm

       “The primary grades standards are not developmentally appropriate. I’ve taught them for 2 years now to 1st graders. ”

       Thanks. I only looked at the 5th grade on the California site, but all my kids went thru our public school and the 5th grader is the youngest. I might feel differently if I had a little kid.

       I’ll never understand it. What was the point of bashing public schools and teachers for 6 years while they knew they’d need to have teacher “buy in” to undertake such an ambitious program?

       Whether they’re neoliberals or not, that’s just dumb. My sense is they had to satisfy a whole group of ed reformers, all of whom were pushing their pet idea: charters, teacher measures, school closings, A-F grades for schools, CC, blended learning, and on and on, and they gave everyone every item on their wish list.

       I resent that. I think it’s irresponsible and weirdly egotistical and self-indulgent, for people who are always yammering about how “child centered” they are. Say “no”. Say “you can’t have that right now”.

   • Charlotte Vrooman says:

     March 23, 2014 at 7:22 pm

     Speaking as a former K-2 teacher, the CC standards at those grade levels are not developmentally appropriate.

     Reply
     • Louisiana Purchase says:

       March 23, 2014 at 10:45 pm

       There are some major problems even with older grades. My 14 year old son in 9th grade was doing the same concepts last year in math that my former students were doing at the same time in AP BC Calculus. A lot of 9th graders haven’t made the developmental jump to abstract reasoning yet, so pushing calculus concepts that young is really stupid and wrong. And why do most students need calculus concepts anyway?

     • Charlotte Vrooman says:

       March 23, 2014 at 11:58 pm

       Good point. I never got past geometry and I did just fine!

     • teachingeconomist says:

       March 23, 2014 at 11:28 pm

       I think there is a wide range of student development at 14, and we would do well to recognize the full range of abilities.

     • MathVale says:

       March 23, 2014 at 11:55 pm

       Depends how you introduce calculus concepts. I’ve demonstrated the concept of limits with something as simple yet fascinating as explaining why you cannot divide by zero to 5-6 th graders. They get it and love knowing WHY. I have introduced Hilbert’s Hotel and Cantor’s ideas of infinity to algebra 2 students. The idea of infinity fascinates high schoolers and leads to some great number theory discussions reinforcing their understanding of algebra.

       Remember in math we are compressing thousands of years of thought into 12 years. True, the ability to abstract comes with age (maybe 11-12 years old as the brain develops), but we can lay the ground work. Calculus as an extension of linear math. Geometry can mesh with algebra. Proofs can underlie irrational numbers. It is all related and important as a way of explaining our world. In fact, as a way of explaining other worlds.

       It is sad that CCSS is taking the excitement and heart out of math and turning it into a rote, dry, endless sequence of answers to questions. There is so much more.

     • Bob Shepherd says:

       March 24, 2014 at 1:37 am

       Beautifully said, MathVale!!!

   • MathVale says:

     March 23, 2014 at 11:37 pm

     If standards are a baseline and can be easily extended and revised, then they may be useful as one aspect of learning. Most standards I have ever dealt with in private business could be innovated upon and improved through practical use and refinement. Companies are free to ignore standards and introduce something better. Often companies use standards, but are quick to introduce their own versions for competitive advantage. Even Gates’ plug analogy breaks down as an example of standardization. There are many, many variations on the theme of delivering power to devices. Go into a hardware store and find an entire aisle for plugs. Some are are even so bold as to use USB to power devices or wireless chargers.

     The big misdirection here is the idea the standards are important. They are meaningless. The resulting tests are all that will matter. I suspect the tests will suffer from scope creep and lose focus. They will likely consume everything else in the classroom.

     Reply
     • Bob Shepherd says:

       March 24, 2014 at 1:33 am

       It is always a great pleasure to read your insightful posts, MathVale. Thank you.

6. KrazyTA says:

   March 23, 2014 at 3:35 pm

   Money quote from Ms. McQueen:

   “Currently, Lipscomb Academy draws from a variety of quality national and state standards selected by the school leadership and faculty to set a vision for what content, instruction and curriculum will be used at each grade level. This has proven to be effective; thus, I don’t anticipate any changes to this process now or in the future.”

   Accessed link above and provide again here: http://nashvillepublicradio.org/blog/2014/02/10/lipscomb-academy-chief-advocates-for-common-core-but-not-at-her-school/

   A resounding answer to Dee Dee’s rhetorical question to the self-styled “education reformers: “Have they no shame?????”

   When it comes to relentlessly pushing hypocritical double standards—an inferior one for OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN and another one, much superior, for THEIR OWN CHILDREN—the leaders of the “new civil rights movement of our time” have no shame whatsoever. *To forestall thoughtless responses to this: I of course mean that whether or not a particular rheephormista has a child in school right now, they act on behalf of their likeminded peers. Sad that I should even have to put this proviso in here.*

   And to address Linda’s comment: yes! It reminds me of the old saw about how to make “big” government abhorrent—just put “small” government people in charge of it. Just take LAUSD and John Deasy [please! a la Henny Youngman] with their iPad fiasco and consider that the vast majority of the public will misconstrue the actions of charterite/privatizer zealots in charge of public education as those of public school advocates. So voilá!—those horrid public schools are so wasteful and thoughtless and blahblahblah, we need charters and vouchers and privatization lickety split!

   So what can you say about the moral fiber of Dr. Ms. Candace McQueen?

   Not all the best observations were made by old dead Greek guys:

   “You have a nice personality, but not for a human being.” [Henny Youngman]

   😎

   Reply
   • Bob Shepherd says:

     March 24, 2014 at 9:31 pm

     LOL

     Reply
7. Old Teacher says:

   March 23, 2014 at 4:07 pm

   They planned on having us all quit or be fired because we might dare to challenge them. Next, they set up a wide variety of alternate certification pathways and hire TFA youngsters. They did not think that there would be any teachers left to push back, and the parents were expected to join in the teacher and school bashing. The reformers never thought they would need any teacher buy in, they planned, and still plan on, replacing us all.

   Reply
   • Emmy says:

     March 24, 2014 at 9:30 am

     “the parents were expected to join in the teacher and school bashing”

     Which was a stupid assumption because surveys consistently show that parents value their childrens’ teachers even if they also feel that American education is poor.

     Reply
8. Harlan Underhill says:

   March 23, 2014 at 4:20 pm

   I tell you, the public schools are gung ho for the CCSS. That commitment just feeds the push for privatization and vouchers. I don’t, however, think that that is the purpose, to make the public schools so yucky that every thing will shift to charters and vouchers. I think the reformers are serious about their propaganda that the CCSS will raise performance. I think they’re just stupid and incompetent, like the rest of the Obama administration about everything else, and the public schools are stupidly going along with it. The CCSS are the kool ade, and the cultists are happy to die to please their leader, even though it’s likely to get them fired from their jobs via VAM and bring about the demise of a responsible public school system as well.

   That’s why parental “opt out” holds promise. Yes, yes, yes. Go for it, parents.

   Reply
   • Old Teacher says:

     March 23, 2014 at 6:26 pm

     In many states the governors made the decision to sign on to the CCSS. In Nevada they certainly never asked the people in the schools or the parents. I will agree with you about the Obama administration in regard to this train wreck. States were blackmailed into accepting the CCSS or give up federal funds.

     Reply
     • 2old2teach says:

       March 23, 2014 at 7:54 pm

       Scratch that in many states…in all states.

   • Louisiana Purchase says:

     March 23, 2014 at 10:47 pm

     In Utah, the state board of education decided to adopt the standards over a weekend in June 2010. The decision was not publicized until afterwards, and there was no public comment. I keep pretty close tabs on government and schools and I didn’t even hear about it until it was too late. That’s not the fault of the public schools. That’s the fault of the decision makers who have never taught anywhere.

     Reply
   • Steve K says:

     March 24, 2014 at 7:33 am

     Harlan, you are somewhat correct. School district leadership is for the CCSS in many instances because they know the PARCC and SBAC tests are coming and they want all of their teachers on board so the test scores come in as high as possible (even if that means low in raw terms).

     Where you’re wrong is that teachers are NOT generally in favor of CCSS. As standards they’re okay. Not demonstrably better or worse than our current state standards here in Michigan. Just different. I already do a lot of problem-solving and writing in my history classes. It’s the tests that are designed to compel adherence.

     I’m not politically conservative on many issues but I agree with you on the CCSS stance in terms of opposition. Teachers are not big on CCSS in my school. I can tell you that with certainty. So please do not lump all public school employees into your comment.

     Reply
     • gitapik says:

       March 24, 2014 at 10:41 pm

       Everyone’s running scared. Principals, APs, and teachers. Gotta make the cut or you get cut.

       It’s not that the schools are for the CCSS. That misinformation, unfortunately, came from Randi telling the nation what she thought was right. As a result, the “reformers” have latched onto that endorsement as proof positive of the school’s pro CCSS stance.

       The reality is that people are trying to keep their schools open and their livelihoods intact.

9. Retired Tn Supt says:

   March 23, 2014 at 4:58 pm

   Incredible hypocrisy. How could she write something like that to parents and still advocate for CCSS. All public school parents should see this article. Teachers, parents and local communities involved in decision making about what is taught – great idea. But not the rabble in public schools, of course!

   Reply
10. Joe Nashville says:

    March 23, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    Wow… A few years ago, somebody dragged me to an “education” event that was organized by Lipscomb, and it consisted of a panel of “experts” consisting of Kevin Huffman and a bunch of business owners. All of the uninformed talk was in support of things that aren’t educationally sound (to say the least). Huffman even asserted that there is no difference between education and business. He also claimed, “Data is (sic) neutral.” That’s rather naive or (perhaps) disingenuous. Margaret Spellings was the keynote speaker, and she complained about people who wanted to abandon NCLB, while claiming that parents would have no way of knowing how their children are doing if tests aren’t given every year.

    I wondered how Lipscomb’s College of Education could put on such an event without being ashamed. Unfortunately, Dr. McQueen didn’t seem shy about drinking the corporate Kool-Aid when I was introduced to her.

    Reply
    • dianeravitch says:

      March 23, 2014 at 6:33 pm

      Joe Nashville, your comments may explain why Lipscomb School of Education was selected by the National Council on Teacher Quality (a very conservative advocacy group that opposes ed schools) as one of only four teacher-training institutions in the US to win four stars in its review of 1,300 institutions.

      Reply
11. Bridgeport, CT Teacher says:

    March 23, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    All of these things that have been taking place must be illegal in so many aspects. Can some Attorneys and others who care about children please do something on a national level and stop this nonsense before it is too late? Please!

    Reply
12. Gloria Mitchell says:

    March 23, 2014 at 5:52 pm

    “One of the blessings of being in the private schools sector is the opportunity to explore all possibilities within the community and culture in which you find yourself and to thoughtfully choose what fits your vision.” Sad that no one has seen fit to confer the same blessing on the public schools. It doesn’t sound like a particularly expensive one.

    Reply
13. deutsch29 says:

    March 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    This is priceless.

    Reply
    • Bob Shepherd says:

      March 24, 2014 at 1:26 am

      I have been sitting here shaking my head for half an hour. Priceless indeed. It’s Romney’s “those people” speech.

      Reply
    • Linda says:

      March 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm

      Thank you for the research provided at your site.

      Reply
14. Stephen Eric Bryden says:

    March 23, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    Some are more equal than others.

    Reply
    • KrazyTA says:

      March 23, 2014 at 9:06 pm

      Stephen Eric Bryden: although we’re not there yet, I sometimes wonder if George Orwell mistakenly put down the wrong date, or the typesetter had an bad day.

      Only off by 30 years.

      😎

      Reply
      • Bob Shepherd says:

        March 24, 2014 at 1:21 am

        This has been my reading of Ed Deform all along. They have read 1984 as a public policy manual.

    • Bob Shepherd says:

      March 24, 2014 at 1:05 am

      yup

      Reply
15. Lloyd Lofthouse says:

    March 23, 2014 at 9:41 pm

    Common Core is a program that was designed to fail and that’s why only the public schools are being pushed to implement this program. Common Core is a tool that will speed up the destruction of the public schools. No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top are the same thing.

    These programs have one goal—to make the public schools look like failures.

    Reply
16. Dee Dee says:

    March 23, 2014 at 11:39 pm

    This really takes the cake. unreal

    Reply
    • SchoolTeacherWannabe says:

      March 26, 2014 at 12:06 pm

      You have that so wrong! The #1 school organization that is pushing for Common Core is the National Catholic Education Association, followed by #2 the Association of Christian Schools International. It’s a scary day to be in a private school.

      Reply
17. Bob Shepherd says:

    March 24, 2014 at 12:57 am

    The Common [sic] Core [sic] is for the training of the children of the proles.

    Such training is not to be confused with the education to be received by the children of the members of The Party to Which You Are Not Invited (as in, “Great party at Burlusconi’s, heh?”)

    Reply
    • Bob Shepherd says:

      March 24, 2014 at 1:27 am

      cx: Berlusconi’s

      Reply
18. Bob Shepherd says:

    March 24, 2014 at 1:04 am

    There is a very, very important message in this, folks.

    This stuff is not for children of the elites. It’s for the barely trainable children of the rabble and for their teachers, who need to be replaced, as soon as possible, with software that will teach them to be obediently gritful however alienating the mind-numbing task they are instructed to do.

    Reply
    • Part of the Problem says:

      March 24, 2014 at 2:21 am

      “Gritful.” Bob, that is glorious.

      Reply
      • Bob Shepherd says:

        March 24, 2014 at 11:44 am

        Gritious?

19. Bob Shepherd says:

    March 24, 2014 at 1:06 am

    At some point the hypocrites don’t even try, any more, to keep up the pretense that anyone believes the Doublespeak.

    Reply
20. Bob Shepherd says:

    March 24, 2014 at 1:11 am

    This letter should go out to every parent in the United States. They need to know with whom they are dealing.

    Reply
21. Bob Shepherd says:

    March 24, 2014 at 1:24 am

    I’ve saved a copy of this letter from this woman. It’s the sort of thing that ends up disappearing from the website. It’s incendiary. Rarely does one see the hypocrisy and elitism of ed deform in such a pure, raw form. This is the equivalent of Romney’s “those people” speech.

    Reply
    • Emmy says:

      March 24, 2014 at 9:33 am

      You’re right. Thank you.

      Reply
22. Bob Shepherd says:

    March 24, 2014 at 1:32 am

    The same webpage has a link to another story reporting a poll taken in Tennessee. The results of the poll? The people of Tennessee either a) haven’t heard of the Common Core or, b) if they have heard of it, overwhelmingly disapprove of it.

    A little foreshadowing of what is to come nationwide.

    Reply
    • Retired Tn Supt says:

      March 24, 2014 at 6:58 am

      Looking deeper at these poll results in Tennessee, you will see the only two.political camps in the state:

      1. The group that knows nothing of CCSS is and will remain the majority of Tennesseans who pay no deep attention to what government is doing and have no interest or time to follow it. They are the values voters who have been duped into being what is now considered the moderate republicans. The Haslam, Alexander backers.

      2. The anti CCSS are the tea party radicals who not only hate CCSS but the idea of public schools or public anything. A growing group in the state legislature. There is even talk in this state of privatizing state parks!

      It will not be a Great Awakening of reason any time soon in my state.

      Reply
      • Bob Shepherd says:

        March 24, 2014 at 11:18 am

        Well, it’s a very good thing, Retired Superintendent, that there are ex-administrators who are aware of what is happening and speaking out about it. Warm regards, and best to all there in Tennessee!

23. Michael Fiorillo says:

    March 24, 2014 at 7:22 am

    This woman’s hypocrisy, based on a clear sense of who butters her bread and who she’s really working for, is indicative of the rampant opportunism in education today.

    All of these neo Stasi administrators are Gates’ willing executioners, until they start working at big money private schools; then, all of a sudden, they revert back to posing as caring reflective educators, since the parents there would never stand for the tedium and abuse public school students are subjected to.

    Reply
24. Linda says:

    March 24, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    Respectfully, you are right and, there is more to it. A research study showed a significant number of people who made it to the top, of an organization, were culturally different, from the rest of us, in 4 areas. One of the 4, was that they speak based on the role or position that they hold. The term hypocrisy has no meaning to them. That’s why they look baffled when we point it out. They assume that we know that they are only saying what someone in their role, would say, which has no relation to truth. You can see the advantage it would have in climbing the ladder. And, you can see why the emotion is absent in their conversations. In those offices at the top, they value the lack of emotion.
    It’s impossible to convince them with either evidence or by evoking their feelings, they’re impervious because the discussion is merely the dialogue from a role they’re playing.

    Reply
    • Retired Tn Supt says:

      March 24, 2014 at 4:45 pm

      That’s very interesting, but hopefully leaders will, to a greater degree in the future, be selected for strong values and beliefs about what is best for others, not self. You can quickly spot the places where good leadership selections are made. Unfortunately, in too many organizations, leaders are hired for what they know and fired after for who they are.

      Reply
      • Linda says:

        March 24, 2014 at 5:32 pm

        Your final sentence is thought-provoking.
        When I began my career at a university, the job, of the deans and presidents, was to facilitate the operation of a complex system and to lend academic and ethical stature to the institution. Their tenure was usually long. It was easy to steer the ship because professors were not university employees, they were the university.
        Currently, in my state, a disgraced former football coach, is under consideration for two public university presidency positions. What he brings to the table is the possibility he can raise money.
        Unspent endowments in the billions, aren’t enough for governors, boards of regents and trustees because their allies in the hedge funds look to privatize the universities, gaining access to the endowment money.
        With approx. 75% of college faculty already part-time employees and over 200 universities taking Koch money (the strings attached at Florida State were the most egregious), I admire your ability to hope for a better future.

      • Bob Shepherd says:

        March 24, 2014 at 9:35 pm

        in too many organizations, leaders are hired for what they know and fired after for who they are

        much wisdom in that observation!

    • Bob Shepherd says:

      March 24, 2014 at 9:33 pm

      Linda, that’s a fascinating take, I must say. Quite thought-provoking!

      Reply
25. gitapik says:

    March 24, 2014 at 10:30 pm

    Common Core for the Commoners. It’s cheaper.

    Best possible educational experience for the wealthy. It’s more expensive.

    This would make sense to someone who’s either very wealthy or profits from those with wealth. Social Darwinism.

    How many brilliant minds sprang from the poor and middle class that have attended our public schools? Those people will be left out in the cold under this version of Social Darwinism because they weren’t given that initial chance to grow and flourish.

    I understand why this article is funny, Diane. But I’m sure that what you’re really saying is that it’s so, so, so sad. It’s a stark reality and when we see it, it just smacks us in the face.

    Reply
    • teachingeconomist says:

      March 24, 2014 at 10:35 pm

      Is there any reason to believe this is true?

      Many of the criticisms of the CCSS presented here are that they are not age appropriate for typical students in public schools because they are too advanced. Wouldn’t that make them unusually well suited to the brilliant minds of the poor and middle class? Without “age inappropriate” material in classes, what is there for the brilliant student to do?

      Reply
      • gitapik says:

        March 24, 2014 at 10:54 pm

        Why yes, TE…there are many reasons to believe this is true.

        There are other reasons than “too advanced” for the colossal failure rate of our first round of CCSS aligned NY State tests, last year.

        You’re playing with words and ideas, here. I’m too tired to contest them. Have to get up tomorrow and continue to align my 5 year olds with autism’s lesson plans to the CCSS.

        I’m sure you’re right.

      • teachingeconomist says:

        March 24, 2014 at 11:01 pm

        In your post you are explicitly concerned with “How many brilliant minds sprang from the poor and middle class that have attended our public schools? Those people will be left out…”

        My post simply asks if there how many brilliant minds atrophy because teaching to the brilliant is, BY DEFINITION, age inappropriate?

      • 2old2teach says:

        March 25, 2014 at 12:33 am

        If we are bound by standards that say there is one and only one appropriate set of standards, with which you are all expected to align instruction and for which you will all be assessed, you are by definition teaching to one narrow strata of the student population. If however you are of the school that believes the standards should be used as a guideline to instruction which is informed and modified by student characteristics and needs, you should be able to answer your own question to your satisfaction.

      • gitapik says:

        March 25, 2014 at 6:55 am

        It seems that your post would presuppose that, because a test, curriculum, and/or standard is “hard”, that means it will be in the best interest of the brightest.

        “Hard” doesn’t always equate to “educational”. But if we decide that, in this case, it actually does (which I don’t, personally, believe); then do you believe that a proclivity towards learning is inherent? Can it be developed? Slowly for some and faster for others? What happens to the slower cookers in a system such as this? Not everybody processes information in the same way or at the same rate as everybody else.

        Your argument relies on the concept that the CCSS and aligned curriculum/tests are well conceived and designed by professionals in the field of education/psychology, build upon each other with good scaffolding, and, as such, are appropriately demanding to the student. There’s a lot of research to show that this isn’t necessarily the case.

        There are a lot more reasons for the failure of so many students than “the raising of the bar” (which is a highly debatable method of raising consciousness in itself). There were other reasons for the huge rate of failure in last year’s tests. The game is rigged to create failure and, thus, the need for “massive change”.

        Please take an hour of your time to watch this presentation. It says it much better than I can, at this time.

        Logically, what you say might be “correct”. But logic isn’t what always work when it comes to teaching children. And logic relies on the validity of the stepping stones that bring us to a conclusion or answer. Logic is what Bill Gates employs in his mastermind plan for our nation’s education system. It leaves many out in the cold. Please take a moment to watch the video.

      • teachingeconomisot says:

        March 25, 2014 at 9:37 am

        I think you have my argument slightly wrong. I want to distinguish between “hard” and “age inappropriate”. It seems to me that when one talks about “brilliant minds” of students, it is typically because they are able to do things (and likely enjoy doing those things) that would typically be beyond the reach of students at that age. A curriculum that is age inappropriate for most students is likely to be developmentally appropriate for these students because they are advanced for their age.

      • gitapik says:

        March 25, 2014 at 4:08 pm

        I see. Please give some time to that link. The CCSS is billed as being more “rigorous” and more in line with “critical thinking” than the current, “inferior”, state standards. There’s much to refute these claims and some of it can be seen in the presentation.

        I don’t believe that the CCSS and it’s accompanying curricula/tests are in the best interest of our kids. Regardless of intellectual level.

        (I wasn’t kidding when I said I have to align my 5 year old’s with autism unit and lesson plans with the CCSS, btw. It’s absurd in the literal sense of the word. There are no provisions for special ed in the CCSS.)

      • gitapik says:

        March 25, 2014 at 5:38 pm

        Some of what I’m saying is that “brilliant minds” don’t manifest themselves at any given time or age. There might be someone who, at age 6, is more interested in climbing trees and building lego houses than doing math work that’s actually geared towards 8 year olds.

        Being exposed to and forced to do this work at a time when most children are not ready for it could easily frustrate him/her to the point of not wanting to have anything to do with school, anymore. It can create self doubts. It can change the course of that child’s life and make it less likely that he or she will reach their maximum potential.

        I don’t think that every “brilliant mind” was born that way. Kids need love and nourishment in order to grow. Some reach their potential sooner than others.

      • teachingeconomisot says:

        March 25, 2014 at 10:12 pm

        And there might be someone at 6 that is more interested in doing math work that is actually gaged for eight year olds than climbing trees.

      • gitapik says:

        March 25, 2014 at 10:50 pm

        And that kid is being served already with the current system that we have in place. Without forcing those who aren’t ready to “keep up”.

      • teachingeconomist says:

        March 25, 2014 at 11:02 pm

        I don’t think that is at all clear that this sort of student is well served by the system we have in place. In my local school district, students who are able to do age inappropriate work skip grades, an unmixed blessing at best. Students in high school in my district do have the opportunity to take university classes at their own expense that will not count towards high school graduation, but how many students have a comprehensive research university located in their town?

      • gitapik says:

        March 25, 2014 at 11:29 pm

        Did you watch the video link I sent you? CCSS is not the answer to this problem.

        Skipping grades is an option that leaves out the obvious social needs of a younger kid. But it is an option that’s been successfully employed for generations. My mother was skipped twice. It wasn’t easy, but she turned out to be a fine, well adjusted human being. Advanced Placement is another possibility (not as advanced as what a kid 2 grades ahead would need, though). Gifted and talented classes are a strong option that requires exceptional teachers who know how to do more than just “give more work” to the student. It’s a very real option.

        Here’s my question: we see a need to address the needs of the brightest. How have they succeeded in the past (because we obviously have succeeded) (don’t believe the bs that we haven’t). If the past methods aren’t good enough, then how can the brightest best be served today in a way which does not destroy the needs of her/his slower to develop or less academically inclined peers? That’s a big question that, imo (my strong opinion) is not addressed by the CCSS and all of it’s associated trappings.

        I would strongly recommend that anyone watch the link I posted. I know it’s an hour, but the woman knows that of which she speaks.

      • teachingeconomist says:

        March 25, 2014 at 11:46 pm

        Certainly my middle child was reasonably successful because he had access to undergraduate and graduate classes at a major research university while still in high school, but that is typically not the case for most students either because of location or because they cannot afford the tuition.

        It is not my impression that we are discussing the suitability of the CCSS for all students in this thread. My motivation was your concern that the CCSS would be unusually bad for the brilliant minds that spring from the poor and the middle class. I do not think this is a concern, especially when it comes to mathematics, where students are very limited by the curriculum no mater if it is determined at the federal, state, district, or even building level.

      • gitapik says:

        March 26, 2014 at 6:20 am

        And your solution is…?

        What’s your opinion of the CCSS and it’s aligned curriculum/tests? Do you see an improvement, here? Perhaps we could come up with a different set of solutions based on the demographics and needs of your area.

        We have some of the top college graduates in the world in all areas of the academic spectrum. How did we do that?

        I ask you to watch the video.

        It’s my impression that we’re always talking about the needs of all the children in all of these threads. But if you’re still on that one, then I’ll say it again:

        The “brightest” don’t emerge on call at a certain age. An artificial “raising of the bar” will stifle the growth of many of these potentially great minds. A one size fits all, artificial “raising of the bar”, written by amateurs with minimal input from educators and psychologists (which is what’s happening) will make matters even worse.

        I don’t know what grade level and student population you serve, but I can tell you from personal experience that what’s happening in my area of special education and in the general ed K-5 areas in which many of my friends serve is a travesty.

      • teachingeconomist says:

        March 26, 2014 at 3:12 pm

        I believe the best way to address the diverse needs and desires of students is to allow students to find the classes that are most closely aligned with their needs and desires. In relatively densely populated areas, this is likely to lead to the creation of a variety of schools offering differentiated curriculum for the students and their families to choose from. For less densely populated areas, it is likely to require alternative delivery of some courses, most likely through using virtual courses for at least some of the student’s day.

        As for the question of CCSS being an improvement, the answer must be a comparison to what came before, so the answer is likely to be different in each state and depend on how the state has implemented the CCSS.

        The CCSS have been adopted by 45 states and DC, but looking through the posts and comments here, the CCSS are often discussed in the context of relatively few states. Tennessee, for example, is often the subject of CCSS postings, while the neighboring state Kentucky is not. Given that Kentucky was the first state to implement the CCSS, one might expect Kentucky to be the most posted about state, yet that is not the case. The only comment I remember from a teacher in Kentucky on this blog was very laudatory about the CCSS. Part of the reason for apparent contentment on the part of teachers with the CCSS in Kentucky may have been sensible implantation. This quote from the math standards document makes it very clear that the standards are not about curriculum or teaching methods:

        These Standards do not dictate curriculum or teaching methods. For example, just because topic A appears before topic B in the standards for a given grade, it does not necessarily mean that topic A must be taught before topic B. A teacher might prefer to teach topic B before topic A, or might choose to highlight connections by teaching topic A and topic B at the same time. Or, a teacher might prefer to each a topic of his or her own choosing that leads, AS A BYPRODUCT (emphasis is mine), to students reaching the standards for topics A and B.

        The link to the original document is here: http://education.ky.gov/curriculum/docs/documents/kentucky%20common%20core%20mathematics.pdf

      • gitapik says:

        March 26, 2014 at 8:05 pm

        The alternatives you’re suggesting, in the densely populated areas, would, I presume, be using public tax dollars for funding. Where do you see the present day public school system fitting into this equation?

        You’re right: we don’t hear about all the states. And I have little doubt that there are successful uses of the CCSS. I just haven’t seen or heard of them here in NY State. And I don’t “get” why schools with generations worth of extremely successful programs have to suddenly shift to what’s being pushed as “superior” when so much evidence points to the contrary.

      • teachingeconomist says:

        March 26, 2014 at 9:55 pm

        If there are successful implementations, it seems to me that the CCSS is not the root problem, it is the state education department. Do you think a badly functioning state education bureaucracy is likely to institute any standard, state or common, well?

      • gitapik says:

        March 26, 2014 at 10:27 pm

        I don’t know who the teacher from Kentucky was and, yes, I’d like to hear from educators from that and other states about their opinions of the CCSS. I’ve personally heard from plenty here in NY, VT, and VA, thus far.

        I think part of it might have something to do with the existing standards of a particular state. This is something that Gates and the writers of the CCSS are, supposedly, trying to rectify. They’re saying that the states need to have the same standards because some are lower than others. The idea is that schools throughout the country should be on the same page from day to day, week to week, etc. This would be very difficult to implement without a common core curriculum and test measurement system in place. Even with a system like this in effect, it would still be very, very, very difficult to successfully carry out.

        Also in relation to existing state standards: New York’s were (and still are) quite good. I thought we could have done more work with special education, but the standards have been tweakable in that regard and there were no accompanying tests with VAM attached to them to punish those of us who’s kids didn’t “cut the mustard”.

        So why should NY State have to change it’s standards? Because they’re “better” than, another’s? What’s that about? If Gates and Co really want to improve the educational system in states that, on paper, “fall short”, then why not offer to help those states and those states alone? Without threats of teacher firings and school closings? Why insist on changing what every state is doing?

      • teachingeconomist says:

        March 26, 2014 at 10:38 pm

        I think it is interesting that you have heard a great deal from teachers in two states that have adopted the common core state standards (NY and VT) and one state that has not adopted the CCSS (VA). Perhaps there is much more to hear from the other states (and The District of Columbia) that have adopted the CCSS and the states other than Virginia that have not adopted those standards.

      • gitapik says:

        March 26, 2014 at 10:51 pm

        I have friends and relatives who teach in VA. I hear from many people from other states who aren’t very happy with the standards through forums like this one. I also read how some people are ok with them but don’t like the strings attached. When I mentioned NY, VT, and VA, I was referring to personal, trusted friends and relatives who I’ve spoken with.

        Here’s an article that’s somewhat favorable of the CCSS, explaining Virginia’s ties to it and their quasi-implementation of them:

        http://www.schoolimprovement.com/common-core-360/blog/Virginia-and-the-Common-Core-Standards/

        We can hear from people from every state and that’s all well and good. But I ask again: why should a state like NY, with sound standards which were written and field tested by professionals in the field of education, be forced to adopt a new set of standard from an entity that had barely minimal involvement of K-12 education professionals in the writing process, no field testing, only allows a small percentage of modification, and claims it has a copyright on those standards?

      • teachingeconomist says:

        March 26, 2014 at 11:16 pm

        The Virginia reference was surprising because that state has not adopted the CCSS. Perhaps your friends and relations there were passing on the experiences of students and teachers that lived in states that had adopted the CCSS.

      • gitapik says:

        March 27, 2014 at 12:05 am

        The state of Virginia felt a need to improve upon their standards a decade ago, but didn’t feel there was a need to rely on an entity outside of their own state jurisdiction to do this.

        The teachers/relatives/friends I’ve been in contact with there agree with this. They want to continue to serve the kids in the best way they can. But they are not happy with the “nod” to the CCSS, itself, as a template to model themselves after. There are many who want nothing whatsoever to do with the CCSS and all the trappings that it it brings to the table. That’s one of the real problems I’m seeing with this whole rollout. The media (I know that sounds like “the villains”, but there’s a distinct element of truth to it, considering who controls much of the mainstream media) wants to paint a rosy picture of the CCSS to convince the public of the need. Whether a state buys into it or not.

        I am in close contact with people who’s religious and political beliefs and opinions are different than my own. They are close friends and relatives of mine. I love and trust them and their motives implicitly, despite our differences. We grew up together and they are fine human beings. One thing that we have completely in common is this aversion to the CCSS. For different reasons: yes. But when we discuss those reasons, we’re willing to listen to each other because we have that common mutual respect. And we learn from each other. That’s what it’s all about. There’s more than one argument against the CCSS.

        I’m tired. Gotta get my rest so I can give my best to the kiddies tomorrow. I’m glad we got around this, TE.

      • gitapik says:

        March 26, 2014 at 8:15 pm

        btw: I don’t agree that the CCSS doesn’t dictate curriculum. The tests that are being designed to align with the CCSS by the major players require a curriculum that best falls in line with them in order to insure the best results.

      • dianeravitch says:

        March 26, 2014 at 8:18 pm

        Gitapik,
        There is an axiom: What is tested is what gets taught. Of course tests will determine the curriculum.

      • teachingeconomist says:

        March 26, 2014 at 10:05 pm

        And Kentucky, the first state ti implement the CCSS, what is tested can explicitly a byproduct of what is taught. That is why the Walton charter school does very well with standardized tests by having their students raise chickens.

      • teachingeconomist says:

        March 26, 2014 at 10:01 pm

        It might be good to hear from teachers in Kentucky, especially because it was the first state to implement the CCSS. When the state says that a teacher might teach standard A and B as a byproduct of what they do, it is hard to say that the standards dictate curriculum.

      • gitapik says:

        March 26, 2014 at 8:33 pm

        So the promise that the CCSS won’t dictate curriculum is, to my view, a hollow one at best. CCSS developers and test/curriculum designers come in a nice, tidy, not so little package.

        About 6 years ago, a colleague and I were discussing a shift of creativity in the teaching profession from the classroom to the large curriculum design companies. So many of the PDs focused on how the teacher “…doesn’t have to do anything!”, as though this was a good thing. Things have gotten dramatically worse since that discussion.

      • teachingeconomist says:

        March 26, 2014 at 10:11 pm

        We are always responsible to others, so some amount of standardization is important. My students take classes after mine, and they depend on me to prepare them for the more advanced classes.

        It would be helpful to hear from teachers in a variety of states about the common core, and it would be helpful if those that comment here would be tolerant of those with alternative experiences.

      • gitapik says:

        March 26, 2014 at 10:29 pm

        I think I’ve been more than just “tolerant” of your opinions, TE. I wouldn’t have continued to read, consider, and comment on your replies if I wasn’t. But maybe you weren’t directing your comment to me?

      • teachingeconomist says:

        March 26, 2014 at 10:44 pm

        I was thinking about folks like poster nano who has repeatedly called me an Ann Rand rug sniffer (which I did not understand as a sexually demeaning insult until poster nano began calling me a Koch sucker) and other folks who have been bullied for posting heterodox opinions here.

      • gitapik says:

        March 26, 2014 at 10:55 pm

        I’m sorry for that and I respect you for sticking it out despite those slurs. I, personally, agree with some of Rand’s philosophy and disagree with other aspects. Regardless, please understand that I’m not in that camp of dismissing anyone with a viewpoint contrary to my own. The past couple of days have been trying for me, personally, but I’ve wanted to maintain this dialogue in order to see where it goes.

26. Charlotte Vrooman says:

    March 25, 2014 at 12:04 am

    Memo
    From: The 1%
    To: The 99%

    Re: Common Core Standards

    The Common Core is for you commoners.

    Reply