|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 29 2014 04:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2014 03:10 farvacola wrote:
Sure, there are plenty of Democrats who make similar errors for opposite reasons, but that's why a bit of nuance is required in discussing how the two parties collectively deal with education reform. The states that are most imitable when it comes to education inevitably include ideas and involvement from both sides of the aisle, such as Massachusetts or Virginia. Admitting so won't kill your conservative cred, I promise. Yes, nuance is required, but it is fairly clear that republicans are correct in that spending more money per capita on students is not the solution, which is a concept that is more or less lost on democrats at every level of politics (gotta have dat union money!). The issue is one of better marshaling the funds that are already available through a more equitable distribution of property tax proceeds, neutering administrative largesse, promoting administrative decentralization, and then promoting community outreach programs to reduce the extent to which students are being hampered by shitty home life factors. That last factor is the biggest as far as I am concerned. You can put a bunch of kids in a shitty school, and the ones with parents who actively engage their children vis a vis their education will still do fine.
You are 2/2 now on issues I mostly agree with you except at the edges.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-arrested-pointing-banana-cops-gun-article-1.2024758
Colorado man arrested after pointing banana at officers like a gun
"I immediately ducked in my patrol car and accelerated continuing northbound, fearing that it was a weapon," Officer Joshua Bunch wrote in the report, according to the newspaper. "Based on training and experience, I have seen handguns in many shapes and colors and perceived this to be a handgun."
Real talk:
1) These cops are paranoid as fuck
2) If this guy is black, he is a corpse and his estate is suing the cops
3) The language the cops used has been lawyered up so hard that if they do shoot an unarmed they always fall back "my training and experience"
|
If someone wants more blacks in law enforcement ya could always have a draft for law enforcement; that'd give an even distribution. Sure would be unpopular though.
|
Oh his answer stands on its own two legs. I gather you don't like it so well, but if you're open to being persuaded otherwise, I'm sure he'll help you.
My biggest concern is defeating this common core nonsense to keep the current educational system from sinking further (Secondary reporting on test results and rasmussen pollingaint pretty). Much of the reforms I sit behind and what's been pointed out already have yet to be discussed or implemented in any big way. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It'll take more than just political power to reverse such a culture as has existed for maybe the last half century. (And it'll take quite a bit more courageous conservative Republican leadership to make widespread gains in education for that matter)
|
On November 29 2014 14:26 Danglars wrote:Oh his answer stands on its own two legs. I gather you don't like it so well, but if you're open to being persuaded otherwise, I'm sure he'll help you. My biggest concern is defeating this common core nonsense to keep the current educational system from sinking further (Secondary reporting on test results and rasmussen polling aint pretty). Much of the reforms I sit behind and what's been pointed out already have yet to be discussed or implemented in any big way. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It'll take more than just political power to reverse such a culture as has existed for maybe the last half century. (And it'll take quite a bit more courageous conservative Republican leadership to make widespread gains in education for that matter)
As for Jonny's response I am skeptical of some of his points and my questions point to some concerns I have about thinking that what he described wasn't problematic or related to policies inside and out of education.
Seems reasonable enough. Provided...that we can use the same logic when replacing a key word,
It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous.
It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse economic modes that have been popular but disastrous.
Only seems fair then when we talk about policy that individual, small groups, or large numbers of Democrats support, but haven't or don't fix things over night, or in however long you think it is that Republicans have been trying but failing, or calling for in too few numbers, to implement their political desires on education, that we afford a similar leeway.
Is your main objection to Common Core that it requires that all schools teach a basic level of skills and knowledge, or is it more about who determines what that 'core' is?
Because if it's the latter, one doesn't have to focus on 'defeating' Common Core just agreeing on compromises.
|
On November 29 2014 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2014 14:26 Danglars wrote:Oh his answer stands on its own two legs. I gather you don't like it so well, but if you're open to being persuaded otherwise, I'm sure he'll help you. My biggest concern is defeating this common core nonsense to keep the current educational system from sinking further (Secondary reporting on test results and rasmussen polling aint pretty). Much of the reforms I sit behind and what's been pointed out already have yet to be discussed or implemented in any big way. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It'll take more than just political power to reverse such a culture as has existed for maybe the last half century. (And it'll take quite a bit more courageous conservative Republican leadership to make widespread gains in education for that matter) As for Jonny's response I am skeptical of some of his points and my questions point to some concerns I have about thinking that what he described wasn't problematic or related to policies inside and out of education. Seems reasonable enough. Provided...that we can use the same logic when replacing a key word, Show nested quote +It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. Show nested quote +It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse economic modes that have been popular but disastrous. Only seems fair then when we talk about policy that individual, small groups, or large numbers of Democrats support, but haven't or don't fix things over night, or in however long you think it is that Republicans have been trying but failing, or calling for in too few numbers, to implement their political desires on education, that we afford a similar leeway. Is your main objection to Common Core that it requires that all schools teach a basic level of skills and knowledge, or is it more about who determines what that 'core' is? Because if it's the latter, one doesn't have to focus on 'defeating' Common Core just agreeing on compromises.
Yes. Can someone please explain what problem people have with common core? On the surface it seems like a very reasonable idea, having some standards of education that ar supplied across all of the country. We have a similar thing in Germany with the KMK, where the education ministers of all the states come together and decide on a common course for education, and i don't think anyone complains about that.
Of course, we also don't have crazies who try to teach religious scripture as scientific fact, so that might help in making the whole thing a lot less controversial. There are actually not a lot of ideological problems with the subjects taught in school here, the main conflict (if there is any) is between "preperation for your future job" and "Bildung, common knowledge and being an educated citizen"
|
On November 29 2014 17:48 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2014 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2014 14:26 Danglars wrote:Oh his answer stands on its own two legs. I gather you don't like it so well, but if you're open to being persuaded otherwise, I'm sure he'll help you. My biggest concern is defeating this common core nonsense to keep the current educational system from sinking further (Secondary reporting on test results and rasmussen polling aint pretty). Much of the reforms I sit behind and what's been pointed out already have yet to be discussed or implemented in any big way. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It'll take more than just political power to reverse such a culture as has existed for maybe the last half century. (And it'll take quite a bit more courageous conservative Republican leadership to make widespread gains in education for that matter) As for Jonny's response I am skeptical of some of his points and my questions point to some concerns I have about thinking that what he described wasn't problematic or related to policies inside and out of education. Seems reasonable enough. Provided...that we can use the same logic when replacing a key word, It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse economic modes that have been popular but disastrous. Only seems fair then when we talk about policy that individual, small groups, or large numbers of Democrats support, but haven't or don't fix things over night, or in however long you think it is that Republicans have been trying but failing, or calling for in too few numbers, to implement their political desires on education, that we afford a similar leeway. Is your main objection to Common Core that it requires that all schools teach a basic level of skills and knowledge, or is it more about who determines what that 'core' is? Because if it's the latter, one doesn't have to focus on 'defeating' Common Core just agreeing on compromises. Yes. Can someone please explain what problem people have with common core? On the surface it seems like a very reasonable idea, having some standards of education that ar supplied across all of the country. We have a similar thing in Germany with the KMK, where the education ministers of all the states come together and decide on a common course for education, and i don't think anyone complains about that. Of course, we also don't have crazies who try to teach religious scripture as scientific fact, so that might help in making the whole thing a lot less controversial. There are actually not a lot of ideological problems with the subjects taught in school here, the main conflict (if there is any) is between "preperation for your future job" and "Bildung, common knowledge and being an educated citizen"
So far the biggest concerns I've seen from opponents of common core are in no particular order that: 1) States lose control (eg Creationism not allowed in science). 2) The core would be determined by someone they don't trust. 3) Generic fears about how the tests would impact the quality of education.
None of which seem like they need to be stopped all out. Seems more like we need to come to a reasonable compromise.
For instance there has to be some basic skills and knowledge everyone can agree everyone should at least be exposed to and we can start from there.
|
A little aside:
+ Show Spoiler +People who thinks objection to Common Core is based on "not being able to teach Creationism as science" are doing everyone a disservice. Come on now, purposely framing, or outright failing to comprehend, conservative objections to crappy, universal standards has nothing to do with it.
If you think it is, you are free to find some prominent conservatives who make that a cornerstone of their platform. All those conservative columnists and talking heads are really up in arms! They think we need more Creationism!
Truly a sign of ignorance or an unwillingness to engage honestly. I can forgive someone who isn't living here from not keeping up, but citizens who talk about politics should, I don't know, take some time to actually read from people who oppose it? Just because someone on TL isn't going to write you an essay doesn't mean one should throw up their hands. "I get all my opinions from the internet!"
Without that little jab (seriously, what is your obsession with creationism?) you seem to have a very rough outline of the issues. On second thought, nevermind I don't want to know.
When it comes to standards "everyone can agree on" I think that's being a little misleading. States have standards. The debate isn't about "having standards." It's about A) are they good, and B) should/can this be done on a federal level.
|
On November 29 2014 18:46 Introvert wrote:
People who thinks objection to Common Core is based on "not being able to teach Creationism as science" is doing everyone a disservice. Come on now, purposely framing, or outright failing to comprehend, conservative objections to crappy, universal standards has nothing to do with it.
If you think it is, you are free to find some prominent conservatives who make that a cornerstone of their platform. All those conservative columnists and talking heads are really up in arms! They think we need more Creationism!
Truly a sign of ignorance or an unwillingness to engage honestly. I can forgive someone who isn't living here from not keeping up, but citizens who talk about politics should, I don't know, take some time to actually read from people who oppose it? Just because someone on TL isn't going to write you an essay doesn't mean one should throw up their hands. "I get all my opinions from the internet!"
Without that little jab (seriously, what is your obsession with creationism?) you seem to have a very rough outline of the issues.
but when it comes to standards "everyone can agree on" I think that's being a little misleading. States have standards. The debate isn't about "having standards." It's about A) are they good, and B) should/can this be done on a federal level.
Are there really no other significant reasons?
It was an example. Not the only reason, just a significant one. If you want to pretend a lot of the opposition (on the individual voter level) doesn't have Creationism and like minded issues wrapped tightly in the common core debate because it only slips out of well trained rhetoricians mouths occasionally go right ahead. Replace it with abstinence only education if you want.
Or hell I'd be willing to replace it with one of the specific standards changing that would concern you or other conservatives personally? Because us non-conservatives really don't know? I did see one in EDIT: Danglers link about not reading Shakespeare in favor of more 'practical' reading but that sounds like something a conservative dad would tell their son is a good change?
Are you really suggesting there are no standards that would be sensible in every state from a federal level?
Shouldn't a kid get an education not customized for the state that they were born in, but one that gives them the relevant knowledge/skills to make it anywhere in the country?
Or is this one of those slippery slope arguments? Like there aren't any specific threats to anything (curriculum wise) now the worry is just mainly what could happen?
|
On November 29 2014 17:48 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2014 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2014 14:26 Danglars wrote:Oh his answer stands on its own two legs. I gather you don't like it so well, but if you're open to being persuaded otherwise, I'm sure he'll help you. My biggest concern is defeating this common core nonsense to keep the current educational system from sinking further (Secondary reporting on test results and rasmussen polling aint pretty). Much of the reforms I sit behind and what's been pointed out already have yet to be discussed or implemented in any big way. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It'll take more than just political power to reverse such a culture as has existed for maybe the last half century. (And it'll take quite a bit more courageous conservative Republican leadership to make widespread gains in education for that matter) As for Jonny's response I am skeptical of some of his points and my questions point to some concerns I have about thinking that what he described wasn't problematic or related to policies inside and out of education. Seems reasonable enough. Provided...that we can use the same logic when replacing a key word, It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse economic modes that have been popular but disastrous. Only seems fair then when we talk about policy that individual, small groups, or large numbers of Democrats support, but haven't or don't fix things over night, or in however long you think it is that Republicans have been trying but failing, or calling for in too few numbers, to implement their political desires on education, that we afford a similar leeway. Is your main objection to Common Core that it requires that all schools teach a basic level of skills and knowledge, or is it more about who determines what that 'core' is? Because if it's the latter, one doesn't have to focus on 'defeating' Common Core just agreeing on compromises. Yes. Can someone please explain what problem people have with common core?
I would also like to know. Asked earlier this week and got no replies. Tried googling, came up blank.
|
On November 29 2014 19:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2014 18:46 Introvert wrote:
People who thinks objection to Common Core is based on "not being able to teach Creationism as science" is doing everyone a disservice. Come on now, purposely framing, or outright failing to comprehend, conservative objections to crappy, universal standards has nothing to do with it.
If you think it is, you are free to find some prominent conservatives who make that a cornerstone of their platform. All those conservative columnists and talking heads are really up in arms! They think we need more Creationism!
Truly a sign of ignorance or an unwillingness to engage honestly. I can forgive someone who isn't living here from not keeping up, but citizens who talk about politics should, I don't know, take some time to actually read from people who oppose it? Just because someone on TL isn't going to write you an essay doesn't mean one should throw up their hands. "I get all my opinions from the internet!"
Without that little jab (seriously, what is your obsession with creationism?) you seem to have a very rough outline of the issues.
but when it comes to standards "everyone can agree on" I think that's being a little misleading. States have standards. The debate isn't about "having standards." It's about A) are they good, and B) should/can this be done on a federal level. Are there really no other significant reasons? It was an example. Not the only reason, just a significant one. If you want to pretend a lot of the opposition (on the individual voter level) doesn't have Creationism and like minded issues wrapped tightly in the common core debate because it only slips out of well trained rhetoricians mouths occasionally go right ahead. Replace it with abstinence only education if you want. Or hell I'd be willing to replace it with one of the specific standards changing that would concern you or other conservatives personally? Because us non-conservatives really actually don't know? I did see one in XDaunts link about not reading Shakespeare in favor of more 'practical' reading but that sounds like something a conservative dad would tell their son is a good change? Are you really suggesting there are no standards that would be sensible in every state from a federal level? Shouldn't a kid get an education not customized for the state that they were born in, but one that gives them the relevant knowledge/skills to make it anywhere in the country? Or is this one of those slippery slope arguments? Like there aren't any specific threats to anything (curriculum wise) now the worry is just mainly what could happen?
So this is another "some people say it, so it's a primary motivator." You present it like it matters. Polls have been turning against CC recently, and the "no" campaign isn't running ads for the Creation Museum. I'm more annoyed that Creationism is some sort of fall back crutch.
I'm not sure whether or not to be insulted (or at least pretend to be) by the insinuation that conservatives wouldn't want their kids reading classic works. The sciences are the main love of mine, but I rather enjoyed some of Shakespeare's stuff. I took classes that one could say had no point, considering my primary area of interest. And I enjoyed them!
But on a purely theoretical level, I don't see why having federal standards of this sort would help anything. Besides, start local.
Again, you question seems like it's the wrong one. Do you think states want to only teach their kids in, say Kansas, about all they exciting opportunities in Kansas?! /s
It's not a question of desire. This is the main thing I'm trying to point out with these posts- it's not like just dropping some one-size-fits-all set of standards on every state is going to improve everything. Teachers and schools don't want to send out kids that aren't prepared.
On November 29 2014 19:15 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2014 17:48 Simberto wrote:On November 29 2014 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2014 14:26 Danglars wrote:Oh his answer stands on its own two legs. I gather you don't like it so well, but if you're open to being persuaded otherwise, I'm sure he'll help you. My biggest concern is defeating this common core nonsense to keep the current educational system from sinking further (Secondary reporting on test results and rasmussen polling aint pretty). Much of the reforms I sit behind and what's been pointed out already have yet to be discussed or implemented in any big way. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It'll take more than just political power to reverse such a culture as has existed for maybe the last half century. (And it'll take quite a bit more courageous conservative Republican leadership to make widespread gains in education for that matter) As for Jonny's response I am skeptical of some of his points and my questions point to some concerns I have about thinking that what he described wasn't problematic or related to policies inside and out of education. Seems reasonable enough. Provided...that we can use the same logic when replacing a key word, It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse economic modes that have been popular but disastrous. Only seems fair then when we talk about policy that individual, small groups, or large numbers of Democrats support, but haven't or don't fix things over night, or in however long you think it is that Republicans have been trying but failing, or calling for in too few numbers, to implement their political desires on education, that we afford a similar leeway. Is your main objection to Common Core that it requires that all schools teach a basic level of skills and knowledge, or is it more about who determines what that 'core' is? Because if it's the latter, one doesn't have to focus on 'defeating' Common Core just agreeing on compromises. Yes. Can someone please explain what problem people have with common core? I would also like to know. Asked earlier this week and got no replies. Tried googling, came up blank.
No one answered because it's a complicated topic that not many people even here in the states know about. It kind of snuck it's way in while everyone was focusing on other matters.
|
Can I read your reply as saying that the problem with common core is that it is federal and nothing else?
|
On November 29 2014 19:48 Yurie wrote:
Can I read your reply as saying that the problem with common core is that it is federal and nothing else?
No. Other posters have pointed out some issues (as have I), but the fact that it's federal (and all the problems that brings) is only one reason to oppose it. My point in the above post was mainly to point out that the issue with education here isn't standards per se- no state wants to have a crappy education system. If it wasn't 3 am maybe I'd explain a bit more 
So, bullet points:
A) These standards need to be thoroughly evaluated to make sure they will actually improve things.
B) Who is in charge of setting these standards? This does actually matter.
C) We have a federal system- most things are controlled on the state level, if possible. Education is (and should be) the domain of the individual states. Imposing a national system could (and I contend would) have a negative impact.
|
To put it simply, complaints against the common core tend to fall into one of two categories. The first, as you might have guessed, revolves around fear mongering, a distrust of the federal government, and a wildly misled sense of local individualism; how dare the goverment institute a common core that won't allow a local school district to teach its students that the Earth is only 6,000 years old!
The 2nd is far more reasonable and deals with some of the more stilted aspects of the common core, namely math education. The common core brings with it a conceptual approach to math that is very different than the standard, that being one that emphasizes geometric and visual conceptualizations instead of repetitive, algebraic practice modalities. I'll admit that even I have trouble with stuff like the "number line" that the common core uses to teach long addition or subtraction. Nevertheless, there are plenty of common core proponents who are pursuing a more moderate approach to changing math education.
|
Still going with the Creationism thing, eh?
A couple of years ago a Calculus professor of mine was describing the "new way" of math they were teaching her children. She said it was stupid and overly complicated. A few years later and I learn it was Common Core. lol. The new way of doing math is hilariously backwards.
|
On November 29 2014 19:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2014 19:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2014 18:46 Introvert wrote:
People who thinks objection to Common Core is based on "not being able to teach Creationism as science" is doing everyone a disservice. Come on now, purposely framing, or outright failing to comprehend, conservative objections to crappy, universal standards has nothing to do with it.
If you think it is, you are free to find some prominent conservatives who make that a cornerstone of their platform. All those conservative columnists and talking heads are really up in arms! They think we need more Creationism!
Truly a sign of ignorance or an unwillingness to engage honestly. I can forgive someone who isn't living here from not keeping up, but citizens who talk about politics should, I don't know, take some time to actually read from people who oppose it? Just because someone on TL isn't going to write you an essay doesn't mean one should throw up their hands. "I get all my opinions from the internet!"
Without that little jab (seriously, what is your obsession with creationism?) you seem to have a very rough outline of the issues.
but when it comes to standards "everyone can agree on" I think that's being a little misleading. States have standards. The debate isn't about "having standards." It's about A) are they good, and B) should/can this be done on a federal level. Are there really no other significant reasons? It was an example. Not the only reason, just a significant one. If you want to pretend a lot of the opposition (on the individual voter level) doesn't have Creationism and like minded issues wrapped tightly in the common core debate because it only slips out of well trained rhetoricians mouths occasionally go right ahead. Replace it with abstinence only education if you want. Or hell I'd be willing to replace it with one of the specific standards changing that would concern you or other conservatives personally? Because us non-conservatives really actually don't know? I did see one in XDaunts link about not reading Shakespeare in favor of more 'practical' reading but that sounds like something a conservative dad would tell their son is a good change? Are you really suggesting there are no standards that would be sensible in every state from a federal level? Shouldn't a kid get an education not customized for the state that they were born in, but one that gives them the relevant knowledge/skills to make it anywhere in the country? Or is this one of those slippery slope arguments? Like there aren't any specific threats to anything (curriculum wise) now the worry is just mainly what could happen? So this is another "some people say it, so it's a primary motivator." You present it like it matters. Polls have been turning against CC recently, and the "no" campaign isn't running ads for the Creation Museum. I'm more annoyed that Creationism is some sort of fall back crutch. I'm not sure whether or not to be insulted (or at least pretend to be) by the insinuation that conservatives wouldn't want their kids reading classic works. The sciences are the main love of mine, but I rather enjoyed some of Shakespeare's stuff. I took classes that one could say had no point, considering my primary area of interest. And I enjoyed them! But on a purely theoretical level, I don't see why having federal standards of this sort would help anything. Besides, start local. Again, you question seems like it's the wrong one. Do you think states want to only teach their kids in, say Kansas, about all they exciting opportunities in Kansas?! /s It's not a question of desire. This is the main thing I'm trying to point out with these posts- it's not like just dropping some one-size-fits-all set of standards on every state is going to improve everything. Teachers and schools don't want to send out kids that aren't prepared. Show nested quote +On November 29 2014 19:15 Yurie wrote:On November 29 2014 17:48 Simberto wrote:On November 29 2014 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2014 14:26 Danglars wrote:Oh his answer stands on its own two legs. I gather you don't like it so well, but if you're open to being persuaded otherwise, I'm sure he'll help you. My biggest concern is defeating this common core nonsense to keep the current educational system from sinking further (Secondary reporting on test results and rasmussen polling aint pretty). Much of the reforms I sit behind and what's been pointed out already have yet to be discussed or implemented in any big way. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It'll take more than just political power to reverse such a culture as has existed for maybe the last half century. (And it'll take quite a bit more courageous conservative Republican leadership to make widespread gains in education for that matter) As for Jonny's response I am skeptical of some of his points and my questions point to some concerns I have about thinking that what he described wasn't problematic or related to policies inside and out of education. Seems reasonable enough. Provided...that we can use the same logic when replacing a key word, It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse economic modes that have been popular but disastrous. Only seems fair then when we talk about policy that individual, small groups, or large numbers of Democrats support, but haven't or don't fix things over night, or in however long you think it is that Republicans have been trying but failing, or calling for in too few numbers, to implement their political desires on education, that we afford a similar leeway. Is your main objection to Common Core that it requires that all schools teach a basic level of skills and knowledge, or is it more about who determines what that 'core' is? Because if it's the latter, one doesn't have to focus on 'defeating' Common Core just agreeing on compromises. Yes. Can someone please explain what problem people have with common core? I would also like to know. Asked earlier this week and got no replies. Tried googling, came up blank. No one answered because it's a complicated topic that not many people even here in the states know about. It kind of snuck it's way in while everyone was focusing on other matters.
If the problem isn't Creationism out of science, abstinence only education, or states providing educations that are more suited or based on their local priorities (this last one was Jonny's point, not mine, about why Red state schools are consistently the majority of the worst states for education, despite being controlled by the party who has the plan to fix education).
What standards specifically are you worried about? If you don't answer with some specific standards at this point I have to believe you don't have any.
Your last part is doing exactly what you accused me of. Presenting a disingenuous perspective of what standards alone are supposed to achieve.
dropping some one-size-fits-all set of standards on every state is going to improve everything.
Show me one instance of anyone anywhere saying anything remotely like that?
Pretty sure if it was only standards we were talking about there wouldn't be much left to argue. At least until you can show us a standard that is objectionable to you or any of the other conservative opposition's members (that I didn't already mention)?
|
On November 29 2014 20:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2014 19:40 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2014 19:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2014 18:46 Introvert wrote:
People who thinks objection to Common Core is based on "not being able to teach Creationism as science" is doing everyone a disservice. Come on now, purposely framing, or outright failing to comprehend, conservative objections to crappy, universal standards has nothing to do with it.
If you think it is, you are free to find some prominent conservatives who make that a cornerstone of their platform. All those conservative columnists and talking heads are really up in arms! They think we need more Creationism!
Truly a sign of ignorance or an unwillingness to engage honestly. I can forgive someone who isn't living here from not keeping up, but citizens who talk about politics should, I don't know, take some time to actually read from people who oppose it? Just because someone on TL isn't going to write you an essay doesn't mean one should throw up their hands. "I get all my opinions from the internet!"
Without that little jab (seriously, what is your obsession with creationism?) you seem to have a very rough outline of the issues.
but when it comes to standards "everyone can agree on" I think that's being a little misleading. States have standards. The debate isn't about "having standards." It's about A) are they good, and B) should/can this be done on a federal level. Are there really no other significant reasons? It was an example. Not the only reason, just a significant one. If you want to pretend a lot of the opposition (on the individual voter level) doesn't have Creationism and like minded issues wrapped tightly in the common core debate because it only slips out of well trained rhetoricians mouths occasionally go right ahead. Replace it with abstinence only education if you want. Or hell I'd be willing to replace it with one of the specific standards changing that would concern you or other conservatives personally? Because us non-conservatives really actually don't know? I did see one in XDaunts link about not reading Shakespeare in favor of more 'practical' reading but that sounds like something a conservative dad would tell their son is a good change? Are you really suggesting there are no standards that would be sensible in every state from a federal level? Shouldn't a kid get an education not customized for the state that they were born in, but one that gives them the relevant knowledge/skills to make it anywhere in the country? Or is this one of those slippery slope arguments? Like there aren't any specific threats to anything (curriculum wise) now the worry is just mainly what could happen? So this is another "some people say it, so it's a primary motivator." You present it like it matters. Polls have been turning against CC recently, and the "no" campaign isn't running ads for the Creation Museum. I'm more annoyed that Creationism is some sort of fall back crutch. I'm not sure whether or not to be insulted (or at least pretend to be) by the insinuation that conservatives wouldn't want their kids reading classic works. The sciences are the main love of mine, but I rather enjoyed some of Shakespeare's stuff. I took classes that one could say had no point, considering my primary area of interest. And I enjoyed them! But on a purely theoretical level, I don't see why having federal standards of this sort would help anything. Besides, start local. Again, you question seems like it's the wrong one. Do you think states want to only teach their kids in, say Kansas, about all they exciting opportunities in Kansas?! /s It's not a question of desire. This is the main thing I'm trying to point out with these posts- it's not like just dropping some one-size-fits-all set of standards on every state is going to improve everything. Teachers and schools don't want to send out kids that aren't prepared. On November 29 2014 19:15 Yurie wrote:On November 29 2014 17:48 Simberto wrote:On November 29 2014 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2014 14:26 Danglars wrote:Oh his answer stands on its own two legs. I gather you don't like it so well, but if you're open to being persuaded otherwise, I'm sure he'll help you. My biggest concern is defeating this common core nonsense to keep the current educational system from sinking further (Secondary reporting on test results and rasmussen polling aint pretty). Much of the reforms I sit behind and what's been pointed out already have yet to be discussed or implemented in any big way. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It'll take more than just political power to reverse such a culture as has existed for maybe the last half century. (And it'll take quite a bit more courageous conservative Republican leadership to make widespread gains in education for that matter) As for Jonny's response I am skeptical of some of his points and my questions point to some concerns I have about thinking that what he described wasn't problematic or related to policies inside and out of education. Seems reasonable enough. Provided...that we can use the same logic when replacing a key word, It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse economic modes that have been popular but disastrous. Only seems fair then when we talk about policy that individual, small groups, or large numbers of Democrats support, but haven't or don't fix things over night, or in however long you think it is that Republicans have been trying but failing, or calling for in too few numbers, to implement their political desires on education, that we afford a similar leeway. Is your main objection to Common Core that it requires that all schools teach a basic level of skills and knowledge, or is it more about who determines what that 'core' is? Because if it's the latter, one doesn't have to focus on 'defeating' Common Core just agreeing on compromises. Yes. Can someone please explain what problem people have with common core? I would also like to know. Asked earlier this week and got no replies. Tried googling, came up blank. No one answered because it's a complicated topic that not many people even here in the states know about. It kind of snuck it's way in while everyone was focusing on other matters. If the problem isn't Creationism out of science, abstinence only education, or states providing educations that are more suited or based on their local priorities (this last one was Jonny's point, not mine, about why Red state schools are consistently the majority of the worst states for education, despite being controlled by the party who has the plan to fix education). What standards specifically are you worried about? If you don't answer with some specific standards at this point I have to believe you don't have any. Your last part is doing exactly what you accused me of. Presenting a disingenuous perspective of what standards alone are supposed to achieve. Show nested quote + dropping some one-size-fits-all set of standards on every state is going to improve everything. Show me one instance of anyone anywhere saying anything remotely like that? Pretty sure if it was only standards we were talking about there wouldn't be much left to argue. At least until you can show us a standard that is objectionable to you or any of the other conservative opposition's members (that I didn't already mention)?
I've posted about my issues with it in this very thread. But it's 3 am, and I was trying to make a different point than the ones normally repeated.
Again, so nitpicky. Not literally everything. But my contention is that standards aren't the issue- while one of the primary arguments for Common Core is about standards. They are called standards- it's just easy to leave out the "standard" and abbreviate it "Common Core." That's the whole point. And they think that leaving a little bit for the states to "tweak" is just going to solve the state by state issues.
|
On November 29 2014 20:10 Introvert wrote:
Still going with the Creationism thing, eh?
A couple of years ago a Calculus professor of mine was describing the "new way" of math they were teaching her children. She said it was stupid and overly complicated. A few years later and I learn it was Common Core. lol. The new way of doing math is hilariously backwards.
From what I gather Common core covers what must be taught not how it must be taught. There are new techniques for teaching math (turns out a lot of people aren't actually "bad at math" they were just never taught it in a way that matched how they learn) but from what I have read and experienced at my old school is that they would not be required by the federal gov. but by local institutions if they chose.
If you have a independent/reliable source that says otherwise I would happily check it out.
There is real debate about different pedagogies and their effectiveness, but I think the universal opinion is that students benefit more from having more quality learning/teaching styles available not less.
I spent half a year studying the 'new way' they teach math. It's not what people think it is. It is just incredibly hard to have a discussion about it with people who have never actually seen what it is. It's really hard to describe but it certainly isn't complicated for the sake of it.
The best way I can explain it is that knowing that 9*9=81 isn't the same thing as knowing why it equals 81, and that's the difference. Teaching young students to memorize rules and their multiplication tables doesn't teach them why the rules work. That's a hard concept for most people to wrap their head around because they have been so conditioned. I bet anyone here can remember a math teacher who said something to the effect "you don't need to know why it works just how" or "you only need to know this stuff to get to the next class then you wont use it", which is probably what many people thought before reading it.
Turns out that's wrong... Well not entirely.. It doesn't matter to a specific teacher whether you understand the concepts or you can just mimic them. However, it does matter to those students future.If one needs to recall a previously learned skill and needs to apply it to a new situation, remembering a specific rule might not be enough. One may need to use the underlying principle instead of the rule. But if you were not taught the underlying principle just some 'trick' or 'technique' you'll be worse off (teachers commonly use what are referred to as 'trick questions' to separate those who learned the actual concept from those who just learned a trick/rule that works for textbook type questions.
For many of the more simple parts of math even when learning just the 'tricks' or 'rules' (rules that you find out later aren't actually 'rules', think how you learned division with remainders first [also confuses the crap out of kids]) can stumble onto the underlying principles most often through their own unguided exploration or from a parent. But this is out of sheer luck or as a result of opportunities that not all children have.
I don't disagree that having kids write their multiplication tables out 100 times and do flash cards, 'math races' and so on works to get many children to be able to tell you what the answer to a simple math problem is quickly, what it won't do is help them understand fractions much better. However if you understand the way multiplication works than multiplying fractions is the exact same thing as multiplying whole numbers. You don't need to waste a bunch of time learning 'rules' that aren't actually 'rules' but 'shortcuts' or 'tricks' that will get you the right answer for the textbook type questions but have a tendency to break down under other situations.
My professor could do a way better job as she had to defend it consistently against other professional math teachers, but by the end of my course she had moved my other professor about 90% away from the professor 's opinion that you mentioned to where he only disagreed on a few small things but largely embraced the new style (for new students at least, because it's really hard to break bad habits from how one learned math).
TLDR: Common core covers what must be taught not how. The new pedegogies that are an option are a much better way to learn for many students. Particularly the ones who don't respond well to memorization and regurgitation of 'facts'
EDIT:
I've posted about my issues with it in this very thread. But it's 3 am, and I was trying to make a different point than the ones normally repeated.
Shouldn't be hard to remember one of the standards you mentioned. I take your word for it but I don't remember seeing a standard that anyone has opposed specifically except the ones I mentioned. If I'm wrong I'd be pleased to find out.
Again, so nitpicky. Not literally everything.
You can't 'legitimately' nitpick and get upset about something labeled as an "example" and claim I was saying it was the only reason (when it wasn't what I said), then 'legitimately' complain about 'nitpicking' on a statement with no such label when I was referencing exactly what you said. Your nitpick can't be legitimate and then mine not and you still be consistent.
|
And the new how is bad, from what I've seen. People learn differently, but that doesn't make the new ways any good. I hope they are- I'm all for better methods.
Creationism is standard fare when one needs to delegitimise opposition. Pointing out that just about everyone who writes against CC doesn't use it is not nitpicking. I'm pointing out it's irrelevance. For some reason Creationism is now a crutch, as a talking point. Leftists use it more than conservatives. Just stop.
Edit: I'll just be blunt. It's a bad example and a bad talking point.
|
On November 29 2014 21:29 Introvert wrote:
And the new how is bad, from what I've seen. People learn differently, but that doesn't make the new ways any good. I hope they are- I'm all for better methods.
Creationism is standard fare when one needs to delegitimise opposition. Pointing out that just about everyone who writes against CC doesn't use it is not nitpicking. I'm pointing out it's irrelevance. For some reason Creationism is now a crutch, as a talking point. Leftists use it more than conservatives. Just stop.
Well left out of the TLDR was the fact that I actually studied the 'new way' in school. I can assure you I was as skeptical and pissy about it as anyone else, probably more than most, but by the end I finally got it.
That's not to say it can't be improved, but it's still in it's early stages, so it will get better over time. Another issue with it's implementation is that you have to unlearn almost as much as you have to learn if you have already been conditioned in the 'old way'. I think people with experience would say it's not something you should really try to use for high school students who learned the 'old way'.
The newer pedagogies are something you kind of have to know about before you can speak on it's effectiveness with any substance. Having actually learned about it and learned with it I can be at least one person who can say they hated it for about 5 out of the 6 months that I dealt with it, but I am now even more angry it's not how I was taught in the first place.
As for the Creationism part that's pretty much on you now. I am practically begging you for some/any of the specific standards you or conservatives in general would have an issue with (besides the ones I mentioned which you keep insisting aren't important but are the only standards known to anyone here that conservatives have issues with)?
EDIT: At this point I really want to replace it with a 'better' example, you know it's a 'bad' example of a standard conservatives oppose so how about a 'good' one please?
|
On November 29 2014 19:15 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2014 17:48 Simberto wrote:On November 29 2014 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2014 14:26 Danglars wrote:Oh his answer stands on its own two legs. I gather you don't like it so well, but if you're open to being persuaded otherwise, I'm sure he'll help you. My biggest concern is defeating this common core nonsense to keep the current educational system from sinking further (Secondary reporting on test results and rasmussen polling aint pretty). Much of the reforms I sit behind and what's been pointed out already have yet to be discussed or implemented in any big way. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It'll take more than just political power to reverse such a culture as has existed for maybe the last half century. (And it'll take quite a bit more courageous conservative Republican leadership to make widespread gains in education for that matter) As for Jonny's response I am skeptical of some of his points and my questions point to some concerns I have about thinking that what he described wasn't problematic or related to policies inside and out of education. Seems reasonable enough. Provided...that we can use the same logic when replacing a key word, It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse educational modes that have been popular but disastrous. It's one thing to have political power, it's another to reverse economic modes that have been popular but disastrous. Only seems fair then when we talk about policy that individual, small groups, or large numbers of Democrats support, but haven't or don't fix things over night, or in however long you think it is that Republicans have been trying but failing, or calling for in too few numbers, to implement their political desires on education, that we afford a similar leeway. Is your main objection to Common Core that it requires that all schools teach a basic level of skills and knowledge, or is it more about who determines what that 'core' is? Because if it's the latter, one doesn't have to focus on 'defeating' Common Core just agreeing on compromises. Yes. Can someone please explain what problem people have with common core? I would also like to know. Asked earlier this week and got no replies. Tried googling, came up blank.
One thing, a lot of people just plain don't know about what it is/does; and hate it without understanding it.
Some people think it's a federally based standard; when it's not. It was made by the states and their governors associations, with only a little bit of federal involvement.
The standards on Common Core are considerably higher than they used to be in some states (who had very low standards), so their kids come back with poor test scores and are upset, so the parents get upset and complain.
Some of this was poor management of the rollout, and not fully preparing people for the fact that the higher standards means peoples scores may look low for awhile while the teaching is adjusted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
