Common Core – If the Unions Support it, There Must be Something Wrong.

[longknife]

TEACHERS UNION PREZ DELIVERS FIERY, THREATENING RANT AGAINST COMMON CORE OPPONENTS

I'm afraid that, while I am not an expert in the details of Common Core, the very fact that a union leader rants in support of it makes me wonder just how effective it is. Judge for yourself – watch video @

Read article @ Teachers Union Prez Delivers Fiery, Threatening Rant Against Common Core Opponents

 

[Kinte]

Yet another attempt to stunt the educational system because "Minorities" can't keep up. To them the whole educational system is "racist". These beasts can't be taught only trained, send them all to their own schools and see how that works.

 

[Carlsen]

.
The math it make it very difficult. After you work the problem then you must write paragraph how you get the answer. The social study it is multiculture. The multiculture this is destroy Europe now.


.

 

[JT8691]

As a high school English teacher I'm very familiar with Common Core. Most teachers (even the liberal ones) that I know don't really like Common Core (at least at my school).

 

[Jackson]

I don't understand why anyone would not want universal standards for schools.

What has happened is some states have lowered their standards and made the tests with lowered standards as well. Then publicized that their state met the state standards and how ell they had done. Well, their standards were so low that in relation to the rest of the states, their actual standards were abysmal.

We need standardization for the entire country. On another thread, I talked about the fact that many schools do not require students to write extemporaneously often. That is why we need Common Core.

 

[JT8691]

I don't understand why anyone would not want universal standards for schools.

What has happened is some states have lowered their standards and made the tests with lowered standards as well. Then publicized that their state met the state standards and how ell they had done. Well, their standards were so low that in relation to the rest of the states, their actual standards were abysmal.

We need standardization for the entire country. On another thread, I talked about the fact that many schools do not require students to write extemporaneously often. That is why we need Common Core.

The problem with standardizing everything is that it's a one show fits all scenario. Not every student plans on going to college. Some want to mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. and there's nothing wrong with that.

Different states, districts, schools, and classrooms have different needs. If you can adapt to your students and their needs.....your students are in for a world of hurt.

 

[PredFan]

I might be mistaken but I don't think I am; didn't I hear that the teacher's union is against common core?

 

[Jackson]

I don't understand why anyone would not want universal standards for schools.

What has happened is some states have lowered their standards and made the tests with lowered standards as well. Then publicized that their state met the state standards and how ell they had done. Well, their standards were so low that in relation to the rest of the states, their actual standards were abysmal.

We need standardization for the entire country. On another thread, I talked about the fact that many schools do not require students to write extemporaneously often. That is why we need Common Core.

The problem with standardizing everything is that it's a one show fits all scenario. Not every student plans on going to college. Some want to mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. and there's nothing wrong with that.

Different states, districts, schools, and classrooms have different needs. If you can adapt to your students and their needs.....your students are in for a world of hurt.

The common core is a general curriculum, not a college bound curriculum. You are assuming that is a higher standard, but it is not. Each high school should have two paths for students. The general curriculum and College Bound path for those preparing for college. The classes would be vastly different. But the Common core classes would be the same. For example, General math that college bound students take, but probably earlier in their school career and take more advanced math in High School. Whereas General curriculum students would probably take General math in their Jr. and Sr. years along with Practical Life Series and Vocational Classes.

 

[JT8691]

The common core is a general curriculum, not a college bound curriculum. You are assuming that is a higher standard, but it is not. Each high school should have two paths for students. The general curriculum and College Bound path for those preparing for college. The classes would be vastly different. But the Common core classes would be the same. For example, General math that college bound students take, but probably earlier in their school career and take more advanced math in High School. Whereas General curriculum students would probably take General math in their Jr. and Sr. years along with Practical Life Series and Vocational Classes.

Who told that every public high school has 2 paths? Yes it sounds nice but it's not realistic.

 

[bodecea]

I don't understand why anyone would not want universal standards for schools.

What has happened is some states have lowered their standards and made the tests with lowered standards as well. Then publicized that their state met the state standards and how ell they had done. Well, their standards were so low that in relation to the rest of the states, their actual standards were abysmal.

We need standardization for the entire country. On another thread, I talked about the fact that many schools do not require students to write extemporaneously often. That is why we need Common Core.

The problem with standardizing everything is that it's a one show fits all scenario. Not every student plans on going to college. Some want to mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. and there's nothing wrong with that.

Different states, districts, schools, and classrooms have different needs. If you can adapt to your students and their needs.....your students are in for a world of hurt.

You are correct, but that is not the current OFFICIAL expectations for students....the OFFICIAL expectation is that all students are college ready....even tho any thinking person would know that is not true. So....if everyone is expected to finish the race (get into college), the class must go at the pace of the slowest student.

 

[Jackson]

I might be mistaken but I don't think I am; didn't I hear that the teacher's union is against common core?

I thought it was, too and I am pleasantly surprised to hear it is not. We need standards and should not stand for poor or mediocre teachers or poor work from students.

 

[bodecea]

I don't understand why anyone would not want universal standards for schools.

What has happened is some states have lowered their standards and made the tests with lowered standards as well. Then publicized that their state met the state standards and how ell they had done. Well, their standards were so low that in relation to the rest of the states, their actual standards were abysmal.

We need standardization for the entire country. On another thread, I talked about the fact that many schools do not require students to write extemporaneously often. That is why we need Common Core.

The problem with standardizing everything is that it's a one show fits all scenario. Not every student plans on going to college. Some want to mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. and there's nothing wrong with that.

Different states, districts, schools, and classrooms have different needs. If you can adapt to your students and their needs.....your students are in for a world of hurt.

The common core is a general curriculum, not a college bound curriculum. You are assuming that is a higher standard, but it is not. Each high school should have two paths for students. The general curriculum and College Bound path for those preparing for college. The classes would be vastly different. But the Common core classes would be the same. For example, General math that college bound students take, but probably earlier in their school career and take more advanced math in High School. Whereas General curriculum students would probably take General math in their Jr. and Sr. years along with Practical Life Series and Vocational Classes.

That's "tracking" which is a dirty word in today's education field.

 

[Jackson]

The common core is a general curriculum, not a college bound curriculum. You are assuming that is a higher standard, but it is not. Each high school should have two paths for students. The general curriculum and College Bound path for those preparing for college. The classes would be vastly different. But the Common core classes would be the same. For example, General math that college bound students take, but probably earlier in their school career and take more advanced math in High School. Whereas General curriculum students would probably take General math in their Jr. and Sr. years along with Practical Life Series and Vocational Classes.

Who told that every public high school has 2 paths? Yes it sounds nice but it's not realistic.

It's what we need if we have Common Core. Like you said, Not every student fits into the mold. If we have just one standard, we are meeting the needs of half the students. Then we fail..

 

[Jackson]

I don't understand why anyone would not want universal standards for schools.

What has happened is some states have lowered their standards and made the tests with lowered standards as well. Then publicized that their state met the state standards and how ell they had done. Well, their standards were so low that in relation to the rest of the states, their actual standards were abysmal.

We need standardization for the entire country. On another thread, I talked about the fact that many schools do not require students to write extemporaneously often. That is why we need Common Core.

The problem with standardizing everything is that it's a one show fits all scenario. Not every student plans on going to college. Some want to mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. and there's nothing wrong with that.

Different states, districts, schools, and classrooms have different needs. If you can adapt to your students and their needs.....your students are in for a world of hurt.

The common core is a general curriculum, not a college bound curriculum. You are assuming that is a higher standard, but it is not. Each high school should have two paths for students. The general curriculum and College Bound path for those preparing for college. The classes would be vastly different. But the Common core classes would be the same. For example, General math that college bound students take, but probably earlier in their school career and take more advanced math in High School. Whereas General curriculum students would probably take General math in their Jr. and Sr. years along with Practical Life Series and Vocational Classes.

That's "tracking" which is a dirty word in today's education field.

Maybe it shouldn't be a dirty word. If it meets the individual needs of a student, it serves a purpose. Wouldn't you rather you son be in a school that operated that way than just one standard, you met it or not.

 

[bodecea]

I don't understand why anyone would not want universal standards for schools.

What has happened is some states have lowered their standards and made the tests with lowered standards as well. Then publicized that their state met the state standards and how ell they had done. Well, their standards were so low that in relation to the rest of the states, their actual standards were abysmal.

We need standardization for the entire country. On another thread, I talked about the fact that many schools do not require students to write extemporaneously often. That is why we need Common Core.

The problem with standardizing everything is that it's a one show fits all scenario. Not every student plans on going to college. Some want to mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. and there's nothing wrong with that.

Different states, districts, schools, and classrooms have different needs. If you can adapt to your students and their needs.....your students are in for a world of hurt.

The common core is a general curriculum, not a college bound curriculum. You are assuming that is a higher standard, but it is not. Each high school should have two paths for students. The general curriculum and College Bound path for those preparing for college. The classes would be vastly different. But the Common core classes would be the same. For example, General math that college bound students take, but probably earlier in their school career and take more advanced math in High School. Whereas General curriculum students would probably take General math in their Jr. and Sr. years along with Practical Life Series and Vocational Classes.

That's "tracking" which is a dirty word in today's education field.

Maybe it shouldn't be a dirty word. If it meets the individual needs of a student, it serves a purpose. Wouldn't you rather you son be in a school that operated that way than just one standard, you met it or not.

You misunderstand.....I am a proponent of "tracking"...but in today's education climate, it is considered a dirty word and you will not even get a serious discussion on it at schools.

 

[Jackson]

I don't understand why anyone would not want universal standards for schools.

What has happened is some states have lowered their standards and made the tests with lowered standards as well. Then publicized that their state met the state standards and how ell they had done. Well, their standards were so low that in relation to the rest of the states, their actual standards were abysmal.

We need standardization for the entire country. On another thread, I talked about the fact that many schools do not require students to write extemporaneously often. That is why we need Common Core.

The problem with standardizing everything is that it's a one show fits all scenario. Not every student plans on going to college. Some want to mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. and there's nothing wrong with that.

Different states, districts, schools, and classrooms have different needs. If you can adapt to your students and their needs.....your students are in for a world of hurt.

The common core is a general curriculum, not a college bound curriculum. You are assuming that is a higher standard, but it is not. Each high school should have two paths for students. The general curriculum and College Bound path for those preparing for college. The classes would be vastly different. But the Common core classes would be the same. For example, General math that college bound students take, but probably earlier in their school career and take more advanced math in High School. Whereas General curriculum students would probably take General math in their Jr. and Sr. years along with Practical Life Series and Vocational Classes.

That's "tracking" which is a dirty word in today's education field.

Maybe it shouldn't be a dirty word. If it meets the individual needs of a student, it serves a purpose. Wouldn't you rather you son be in a school that operated that way than just one standard, you met it or not.

You misunderstand.....I am a proponent of "tracking"...but in today's education climate, it is considered a dirty word and you will not even get a serious discussion on it at schools.

Parents have to come to the schools and look out for their child's best interests. "Scholars" can pick their educational jargon for the year or the publishers fad for the decade, but we want to see that the needs of our own are being met. The heck with the latest trends.

 

[JT8691]

MANY parents don't care how their children perform in school. Sad but true.

Parents have to come to the schools and look out for their child's best interests. "Scholars" can pick their educational jargon for the year or the publishers fad for the decade, but we want to see that the needs of our own are being met. The heck with the latest trends.

 

[longknife]

As a high school English teacher I'm very familiar with Common Core. Most teachers (even the liberal ones) that I know don't really like Common Core (at least at my school).

Please explain why.

 

[JT8691]

Please explain why.

As I've stated in posts above the idea of having a nationalized standard doesn't make sense. Different schools have different needs. Different regions/states have different needs. Most standards are written from adults FOR adults.

Money's attached to Common Core. It's not adopted for the actual principles. There's financial incentives.


Here's a "Myth" / "Fact" about Common Core on their own website:

Myth: The standards are just vague descriptions of skills and do not include a reading list or any other reference to content.

Fact: The standards do include sample texts that demonstrate the level of text complexity appropriate for the grade level and compatible with the learning demands set out in the standards. The exemplars of high-quality texts at each grade level provide a rich set of possibilities and have been very well received. This provides a reference point for teachers when selecting their texts, along with the flexibility to make their own decisions about what texts to use.



As an English teacher I promise you that when they say "The exemplars of high-quality texts at each grade level provide a rich set of possibilities and have been very well received. This provides a reference point for teachers when selecting their texts, along with the flexibility to make their own decisions about what texts to use." it's BS. Teachers have less control over what texts that wish to utilize (which is important).

Not only that but these "high-quality" texts the majority of the time are A) repetitive (VERY repetitive) B) tend to be a reading level WAY over the student's heads or too easy C) the instructions tend to be very ambiguous and confusing for the students D)

You may disagree with teachers politically (and believe me I do), but most of them I know legitimately want what's best for their students....and Common Core just isn't it.

 

[Jackson]

Please explain why.

As I've stated in posts above the idea of having a nationalized standard doesn't make sense. Different schools have different needs. Different regions/states have different needs. Most standards are written from adults FOR adults.

Money's attached to Common Core. It's not adopted for the actual principles. There's financial incentives.


Here's a "Myth" / "Fact" about Common Core on their own website:

Myth: The standards are just vague descriptions of skills and do not include a reading list or any other reference to content.

Fact: The standards do include sample texts that demonstrate the level of text complexity appropriate for the grade level and compatible with the learning demands set out in the standards. The exemplars of high-quality texts at each grade level provide a rich set of possibilities and have been very well received. This provides a reference point for teachers when selecting their texts, along with the flexibility to make their own decisions about what texts to use.



As an English teacher I promise you that when they say "The exemplars of high-quality texts at each grade level provide a rich set of possibilities and have been very well received. This provides a reference point for teachers when selecting their texts, along with the flexibility to make their own decisions about what texts to use." it's BS. Teachers have less control over what texts that wish to utilize (which is important).

Not only that but these "high-quality" texts the majority of the time are A) repetitive (VERY repetitive) B) tend to be a reading level WAY over the student's heads or too easy C) the instructions tend to be very ambiguous and confusing for the students D)

You may disagree with teachers politically (and believe me I do), but most of them I know legitimately want what's best for their students....and Common Core just isn't it.

Wouldn't a text be good if it is repetitive? I mean, if a math book introduced a concept on one page, you would want practice and review wouldn't you? Then B) if books in the content area are way over the reading level, it may be that standards of reading may have been too low, That is precisely why the standardization is needed. One the other hand, some schools have two basic reading series, one for the students on level and the other for those off level. Do you think that is the reason for the easy level? C) If the instructions are too ambiguous, go to another series. Or, that is the reason there is a teacher in the classroom, perhaps, to help with instructions?