To the best of my knowledge, CC has no standardised tests associated with it. The state of Indiana has its own tests, the ISTEP. Other tests that kids have to take, at one time or another are the PSAT, SAT and ACT and AP tests. There are plenty of tests that students have to take or need to take, to advance academically. If the CC goals help to better prepare them for those tests then what's the big deal? In all the reading from non-paranoid and unbiased sources that I've found, I can't find anything really bad about CC. It's just another program to attempt to change things in the government schools for the better. It's certainly a step above Bush's No Child Left Behind. Add in the fact that it was crafted by the states themselves and their education heads and I find even less to yell about.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Common Core
- Thread starter GodFearinGunTotin
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
What if the child doesn't want to go into the field that the government has chosen for him because of his education. (Which will be chosen by the results of the child's earlier indications.) You know - a child may say: "I want to be a fireman when I grow up", or - "I want to be a doctor when I grow up", or - "I want to be a baseball star when I grow up", etc. What if what the child states he wants to be a (whatever) when he grows up doesn't agree with what the government wants to put him/her in? Then what? Also, what if they decide that a child will not be allowed to go to collegs if he/she doesn't fit in with what the government wants? They are trying to DICTATE what a person will do later in life. And, they have no right to privacy (nor do their parents). Please check into it further.
Nobody has mentioned anything along these lines. Not once has anyone said this is a job placement test. Where are you getting something so off-base? SAT and ACT are general aptitude. They say you are good at math, or English, or other broad categories like that. Colleges than look at those numbers to see if you are up to snuff for your chosen career field. If you fail the mathematics portion of the SAT it is obvious you aren't cut out for a math major. It doesn't funnel you into a career against your will.
You're right. THESE ^ don't. They do show the areas a student needs to work harder on and hopefully, that student can adjust his learning (or get help - not everyone learns the same way) and correct his weaknesses. But, Common Core is designed to "encourage" a child to go in the direction that works best for them (government/corporations) even if he/she doesn't want to go there. And, if a child doesn't "fit in", he/she won't get help with college expences (denied). Please check it out.
Not sure where you came up with this particular nonsense, but it's not part of Common Core. Nothing is picked out for kids, as far as a chosen profession is concerned. As it is today, people will be free to choose their own pathways. You're really stretching and making things up. There's nothing to check out.
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,563
- 149
It doesn't pick a field or push them in any direction. It sets a base requirement for graduation. In IN it's called core 40, 40 for the amount of credit hours required. A child can also opt out of it with permission from their parents and get a general diploma. Here is what it requires.
General
http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/curriculum/general-diploma-requirements-classof2016.pdf
Core 40
http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/curriculum/core-40-and-honors-rule-summary-12-7-12.pdf
The students (and their parents) pick and choose what classes will help them in the field they choose. It does set a minimum of which types of classes are required, ie 3 science, 3 math, etc.
Vlad the Impaler
Expert
I see a lot of disinformation about the common core in the media and a lot of anti-statist hype. Yes, this is coming from an anti-statist.
While a healthy dose of fear of government intervention is nice, but the efforts here to tie the common core to big government are misleading.
The common core has been reviewed and worked on in Indiana for over 2 1/2 years, and the material is not driven by government, but groups of localities and post-secondary institutions across states, including Indiana. Simply put, it's a baseline of what colleges agree are the needs for matriculation with input of educators across the country.
I've seen emotional "testimony" on a Heritage Foundation commercial of a teacher who says she taught three different classes in various ways to best meet each classrooms needs. I'm all for the Heritage Foundation, but the implication that a set of base standards are going to dictate HOW this woman teaches are totally misleading. There is nothing about this standard that dictates curriculum.
It's funny to see groups pointing to Indiana's current standard as one of the nation’s best as a reason to not change. The same foundation (Fordham) that made that distinction for Indiana years ago now says the common core is preferred. BTW, the Core Knowledge Foundation is not federally funded. It's biggest, by far, supporter is the Hunter Lewis Foundation and if you are familiar with his books you'll know that fiscal conservatism is a keystone of his writings. There's the "follow-the-money" for those that aren't doing their homework.
So if 47 states have adopted this, and colleges agree it is what's needed to ensure a college ready education, and Indiana and its localities are free to teach skills beyond the baseline.....What is the hold up? Bottom line is, our state reps finally woke up about this program and now are introducing law to block what educators have been doing to improve the educational system, in the name of smaller government. WTF is that? Talk about turning things on their head! I have written several letters to my State Rep, a "small government" Republican and asked her to get out of the way, just as the party line would like you to think they do.
My take is part of the people opposing this have no idea what they are talking about, and some are "experienced" (and like to remind you how long they have been around) educators who don't want anything to change. What's the definition of insanity? Lots of *****ing and very little offering of what's a better idea, and how to implement it.
I'd like my kids to be evaluated at this baseline, and taught beyond it. It started being implemented in my 3rd graders class this year. If stopped, where does that leave my kid among 47 states full of colleges agreeing?
While a healthy dose of fear of government intervention is nice, but the efforts here to tie the common core to big government are misleading.
The common core has been reviewed and worked on in Indiana for over 2 1/2 years, and the material is not driven by government, but groups of localities and post-secondary institutions across states, including Indiana. Simply put, it's a baseline of what colleges agree are the needs for matriculation with input of educators across the country.
I've seen emotional "testimony" on a Heritage Foundation commercial of a teacher who says she taught three different classes in various ways to best meet each classrooms needs. I'm all for the Heritage Foundation, but the implication that a set of base standards are going to dictate HOW this woman teaches are totally misleading. There is nothing about this standard that dictates curriculum.
It's funny to see groups pointing to Indiana's current standard as one of the nation’s best as a reason to not change. The same foundation (Fordham) that made that distinction for Indiana years ago now says the common core is preferred. BTW, the Core Knowledge Foundation is not federally funded. It's biggest, by far, supporter is the Hunter Lewis Foundation and if you are familiar with his books you'll know that fiscal conservatism is a keystone of his writings. There's the "follow-the-money" for those that aren't doing their homework.
So if 47 states have adopted this, and colleges agree it is what's needed to ensure a college ready education, and Indiana and its localities are free to teach skills beyond the baseline.....What is the hold up? Bottom line is, our state reps finally woke up about this program and now are introducing law to block what educators have been doing to improve the educational system, in the name of smaller government. WTF is that? Talk about turning things on their head! I have written several letters to my State Rep, a "small government" Republican and asked her to get out of the way, just as the party line would like you to think they do.
My take is part of the people opposing this have no idea what they are talking about, and some are "experienced" (and like to remind you how long they have been around) educators who don't want anything to change. What's the definition of insanity? Lots of *****ing and very little offering of what's a better idea, and how to implement it.
I'd like my kids to be evaluated at this baseline, and taught beyond it. It started being implemented in my 3rd graders class this year. If stopped, where does that leave my kid among 47 states full of colleges agreeing?
If you take any one of these, IB, Common Core, Agenda 21, etc. individually they are innocuous. However, when you take these parts and lay them out where they overlap and view the "big picture", you begin to see agendas and the "hype" starts to take on the eerie semeblance of a dark reality.
Common Core, in and of itself, seems harmless, even beneficial. The IB, likewise. Compound them with the overarching ideology of Agenda 21 and other like philosophies/ideologies, then one can begin to see the irrelevant "parts" fitting together into "machine" designed to turn a democractic society into a one willingly and flagrantly adopting socialism to a degree the general public has believed no longer possible.
Tell me I'm wrong, tell me I'm conspiracy nut. Fine. But the fact remains that innocent as any one part may be, the grand scheme is far more destructive then anyone believes it will ever be.
Common Core, in and of itself, seems harmless, even beneficial. The IB, likewise. Compound them with the overarching ideology of Agenda 21 and other like philosophies/ideologies, then one can begin to see the irrelevant "parts" fitting together into "machine" designed to turn a democractic society into a one willingly and flagrantly adopting socialism to a degree the general public has believed no longer possible.
Tell me I'm wrong, tell me I'm conspiracy nut. Fine. But the fact remains that innocent as any one part may be, the grand scheme is far more destructive then anyone believes it will ever be.
I'd have to research it a bit more but even if it's not by big .gov should I trust what educators and left wing liberal college academics think is important for my child to know (and I am an academic just not left wing)?
Vlad the Impaler
Expert
Some more food for thought, before folks get too wrapped up on why it's a big govenment scheme to indoctrinate your kids.
Agenda 21 link? Seriously?
Why conservatives should support the Common Core
Agenda 21 link? Seriously?
Why conservatives should support the Common Core
Incorrect. The standards are not complete. Only a portion of them are written. How did that work the last time? We have to accept the standards to find out what's in them?
Neither does socialism. Is that the standard you're going to settle for?
Incorrect. What standards have been completed were written predominantly by testing experts and developers. (IOW, these standards have nothing to do with learning, but are designed specifically to teach to a standardized test. That's not education.)
State governors had ZERO role in crafting the standards. States adopt the standards. States implement the standards. States have no other say about the standards.
You don't think local control is a benefit?
Ending educational welfare is the answer. But the next best thing is local control, yes. I completely agree that vouchers are just going to muddy the line between public and private.
You are better than this. Really? You think the adoption of different standards will actually result in performance improvement and better education for the students enrolled in schools that adopt them? Tell me you aren't being that naive.
They can show their support by hiring those graduates who are better qualified than their peers. The market will determine which standard/methodology is best when only those from particular cohorts are the ones getting the job.
I think the watering down of the standards themselves are lamentable. But that's been the case for the last 90 years of American education; I expect nothing less from the government schools. What you seem to be forgetting is that the content of the curricula will reflect the standards it must meet. Publishers have limited space. What will be sacrificed to meet those standards? Curricula is part and parcel of this discussion.
And you said yourself that such choice was limited by the publishers' offering. What happens when there's one standard and every thing looks the same?
The above quote is taken from National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Because that's all they do. Ask any teacher if there's any real learning that takes place if the child's only "educational" efforts are constantly and consistently geared towards a standardized test? And these standardized tests are a joke. Not only to the vast majority of privately educated students not have to take them (rendering their "necessary" and "valuable" labels suspect at best), but those who do (voluntarily or because of state requirements, they always perform better than their government-educated peers. Always. So explain to me again why a standard that teaches to a test that doesn't mean anything is important?
Moreover, how is it that we produced better educated children 100 years ago than we do today without these ridiculous standards?
It was not crafted by the states. Please stop spreading these lies. It was written by committees, the vast majority of whose members are testing developers and experts. The states themselves had very little say in the actual content of the standards. They just made the push for a single standard.
The Core Between the States - Innovations - The Chronicle of Higher Education
This link disputes your claims. The states had ZERO to do with the crafting of the standards other than coordinating the players. But nothing of the content was determined by the states. Furthermore, the vast majority of funding for the committees that did produce the standards came from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
and
You don't think that's it's just pure coincidence that the money behind the CC standards comes from an organization that is interested in singular educational control at the top level or that this organization is the farm team for federal educational employees. I mean, I suppose it's just too much to believe that the Obama administration randomly picked those former Foundation employees and that it had nothing to do with their advocacy for a single standard.
Actually, I had the same thought. Granted, it's a little bit out there, but it's not like there's nothing in history to support it. Just nothing in our history. But we aren't operating on our historical values anymore, are we? So it's not really all that hard to see where a federal education standard can lead to the government picking and choose careers based on student aptitude on these magical standardized tests.
Common Core is not the same thing as Indiana Core 40. Core 40 is an Indiana graduation requirement for government school graduates, and it is completely independent of the standards that exist. It has been around (in various forms and names) long before Common Core. And it only applies to government schools.
Common Core is not (yet) a graduation requirement. The two have nothing to do with each other.
---------------------------------------------
Here's the bottom line: CC does nothing to improve education. Nothing. The creation and implementation of standards have absolutely nothing to do with the education of a child. Standards are not the way to improve educational outcomes. Does anyone really think changing the standards is going to solve the 30% national drop-out rate?
The modern educational paradigm has been in "business" for 90 years. It hasn't worked. What's that definition of stupid again? And in light of the fact that nobody can concretely point to a single benefit to the student of these standards, I can see absolutely no reason why we should risk our parental and/or state/local sovereignty over education simply because it sounds like a good idea.
88, you're usually pretty sane, but this time you're off the rails. Not sure where you're getting your spurious info but you're just wrong in pretty much all the particulars. I know you have it in for government schools and that's your right, but you're just dead wrong. CC came from the Governors Association and the heads of the education departments of the states. They got people to craft CC. It's not a fed program. I'm afraid you've fallen for the hysteria of Malkin and the other bloviating heads.
Really? Then prove me wrong. Take every point I've made and find some evidence to dispute it. CC has a long and storied history and it did NOT start with the NGA.
As it is you've only succeeded at proving that something that I didn't say wasn't true. What an accomplishment!
I didn't say it was a fed program. I said it wasn't written by the governors/states. And it wasn't. They coordinated the standards development, but they did not write it. They did not control the content during authorship. It's fairly easy to confirm this yourself. From non-Malkin sources. In fact, much of the standards existed in skeleton form prior to the NGA picking it up and expanding it. So even if you were correct that the governors/states had direct control over the content, you'd only be partially correct since it existed prior to the NGA picking it up. THe NGA is not root origin of the CC content.
But I do contend that the feds are pushing this hard. Which begs the question: why? Even you can't minimize that with claims of tin-foil paranoia.
And you haven't addressed the bigger issue, the one that negates all of the other issues: do you honestly think that these standards will have one iota of effect on the performance of children in their education beyond their ability to score well on a test for which the standards were written?
So what purpose is there in a set of standards that won't do what it's purported to do?
The feds aren't pushing it, they're trying to gain the credit for it when that belongs to the governors association. I've already posted the links to CC's history and origin, look them up. As for CC not doing what it's said it might do, that's silly talk. All it is is a set of standards for pupils. It's up to the states to get them to or beyond that level. CC is certainly a step above NCLB and will, if performed to expectations, certainly serve to lift the current system up a notch or three. I have no problem with the fact that some of the parts of CC pre-existed it's inception. That's often the case with any program in any field. You find the parts that work or look like they're going to work and add them to the equation. You have no idea whether CC will or will not work, unless you're secretly a Gypsy fortune teller with a real crystal ball, and we all know what the odds of that are. The governors of the states and their heads of education, (Indiana's former and present, too) disagree with your assertions and they think it will serve its purpose and be an aid to students, not a detriment. I don't see any issues with CC, as it stands and it looks like it will do what it's designed to do, if the hysterics will shut up and let them get on with their jobs.
It would be a start if we could just develop students that are critical thinkers and can think for themselves. In one of the courses I taught I let them choose any topic from the book (it was related to health care programs/medical conditions/aging) for their final research project. This was a 300 level course and they lost their mind, without someone to tell them exactly what to write about and specific questions to be answered they were adrift. They had a little more direction than it sounds but it definitely took them out of their comfort zone.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here -
GodFearinGunTotinSuper Moderator -
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- indyblue
- abraham743
- Toole
- mike trible
- Steel and wood
- klausm
- L C H
- Timjoebillybob
- Knight Rider
- 22LRFan
- bwframe
- jrb1980
- d.kaufman
- MeltonLaw
- Winamac
- NHT3
- Romero Zombie
- Ark
- StukaJU87
- michael711
- rosejm
- indychase
- edporch
- drm-hp
- DoggyDaddy
- tradertator
- GodFearinGunTotin
- Cameramonkey
- Jdubbs
- billybob44
- PLANEMECH
- oze
- littletommy
- Scott58
- RangeJunkie
- Glock22
- melensdad
- whippo
- Gingerbeardman
- cbhausen
- wesnellans
- semperfi211
- Pin
- Zombie
- Joniki
- mgross28
- sixGuns
- SmolderOutdoors
- blainepoe
- darkkevin