Your opinion on common core

[IronFist]

Does it even work? According to the stats the results only worsened after the common core system got introduced. Really, was the old system really that bad? There so many things I can't get about it. Why are tests different in different states? Why can't we have a unified system without any tests? I don't think we really need them. It would be better to teach the children to study instead of testing them day after day.

[Green Line]

Im fine with it.  Children in Vermont and Texas arent as different as they think they are.  They will be fine taking the same exams.

[muon2]

Common Core is about states adopting standards for Math and English that are aligned with 21st century needs - an internet driven economy with readily available computers. Those standards changed the relative emphasis of topics in those two areas from what most states were using. The goal is to reduce the amount of remediation needed in college as well as provide students with basic skills needed in today's job market. States were not expected to have a 100% match to all the standards - 85% was considered sufficient for the program.

Common Core is not about how often students are tested. Part of the push in 2008 was from states looking for a waiver from No Child Left Behind, which does have testing requirements. Common Core was expected to generate a pool of questions that would meet the standards and save states money to independently develop questions to meet NCLB. States that adopt most of the standards can then utilize common testing services now provided by a number of private companies. Testing remains part of federal law through NCLB and the 2009 Race to the Top funds. Neither NCLB nor RTTT require Common Core, but it is designed to meet federal requirements if states use it.

[dead0man]

I guess I've never really cared enough to know what the big deal is about it...so, what are the arguments?  The only things I do know is that kids do standardized testing way more than they (we) used to, and that apparently a lot of teachers spend a lot of time preparing students for these tests.  It seems to me neither of those is a good thing, but I"m willing to be...ahem....schooled on the subject.

[muon2]

I guess I've never really cared enough to know what the big deal is about it...so, what are the arguments?  The only things I do know is that kids do standardized testing way more than they (we) used to, and that apparently a lot of teachers spend a lot of time preparing students for these tests.  It seems to me neither of those is a good thing, but I"m willing to be...ahem....schooled on the subject.

As I noted, the testing is a result of NCLB and RTTT, not from Common Core. Common Core is used to satisfy those federal programs because a state then gets more points of credit with the feds.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Clearly part of President Frank Marshall Davis's Marxist takeover of the American (RIP) school system.

Federal standards = literally Stalin

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Can't the country have a common core of standards without running children and teachers through the hoops of continuous exams and standardized tests? I support regulating the content and quality of curricica objectives across the country—it makes sense that all Americans should receive the same standard of education and have a similar basic skill set coming out of school. But why the tests after tests?

In the Ontario public school system we had the following standardized tests:

EQAO Grade 3: Math, Language Arts (no link with final grades)
CCAT Grade 4: Cognitive Abilities (?) (basically to identify gifted students) (no link with final grades)
EQAO Grade 6: Math, Language Arts (no link with final grades)
EQAO Grade 9: Math (score was partly tied with final math mark)
EQAO Grade 10: Literacy (required for graduation)

Teachers even argue that these tests are excessive. I certainly see no reason why any school system would want to have kids do more.

[Famous Mortimer]

Overall supportive, although individual lesson plans might be tweaked.

I'm very supportive of the concept of a national curriculum though. One even more stringent than Common Core.

Math and history are the same everywhere. There is no reason kids in Texas and kids in New York need to learn differently.

As far as I can tell, there are only two types of opposition: 1) Religious fundamentalists who are worried about evolution and gays 2) Teachers who don't want to be held to any standard and just want to be paid automatically. I guess there's a third group of people, parents like Louis CK who are mad that their kids are dumb and blame Common Core, although they would blame whatever the current regime was as long as their "genius" kids were failing under it.

[muon2]

Can't the country have a common core of standards without running children and teachers through the hoops of continuous exams and standardized tests? I support regulating the content and quality of curricica objectives across the country—it makes sense that all Americans should receive the same standard of education and have a similar basic skill set coming out of school. But why the tests after tests?

In the Ontario public school system we had the following standardized tests:

EQAO Grade 3: Math, Language Arts (no link with final grades)
CCAT Grade 4: Cognitive Abilities (?) (basically to identify gifted students) (no link with final grades)
EQAO Grade 6: Math, Language Arts (no link with final grades)
EQAO Grade 9: Math (score was partly tied with final math mark)
EQAO Grade 10: Literacy (required for graduation)

Teachers even argue that these tests are excessive. I certainly see no reason why any school system would want to have kids do more.

The test after test mentality grew out of a number of states in the 1990's where parents wanted more accountability for the education delivered by the schools. The tests weren't really about assessing the student progress, teachers were doing fine with traditional in-class tests. The issue was how to assess the school's progress when so many were demonstrably graduating children lacking basic skills.

The drive for school accountability went national with NCLB in 2001. It required tests with roughly the same frequency that your list in Canada does. Since RTTT required more accountability, the usual response was to test more frequently - every year in some cases.

[Torie]

I want to know and have documented just how much of a fail secondary schools are in the bulk of the lower SES districts. I don't care who it annoys and inconveniences. The kids count, not the teachers, not the administrators, not what is PC. None of that matters. Screw them all. And a bunch of teachers need to be fired. Where's Trump?

[Bojack Horseman]

Pre Tea Party: A bipartisan idea to improve education.
Post-2010: A Hitler indoctrination scheme by that Marxist because Jesus.

I think that's all I need to know to form my opinion.

[136or142]

Common Core is about states adopting standards for Math and English that are aligned with 21st century needs - an internet driven economy with readily available computers.

Doesn't fully fit here, but I wrote this yesterday elsewhere, and it does fit my view on what Math needs should be for all centuries:

I acknowledge that an understanding of algebra and even higher level math is an increasingly needed skill for some people to compete for jobs, but mathematics has an importance in daily lives.  Taking innumeracy as seriously as seriously as illiteracy is what matters to me.
 
Many (but not all)  logical fallacies, generalizations and stereotypes are a result of innumeracy, and mastering algebra isn't going to change that.  Mastering probability and statistics, likely wouldn't eliminate those things, but should reduce them considerably.

 "It is fashionable for people to decry the appalling illiteracy of this generation, particularly its supposed inability to write grammatical English. But what of the appalling INNUMERACY of most people, old and young, when it comes to making sense of the numbers that, in point of fact, and whether they like it or not, run their lives?"  Douglas Hofstadter http://www.innumeracy.com/

Most mathematicians and logicians agree with me that an understanding of numbers is far more important than being able to calculate algebraic equations.  Of course, an understanding of algebra is needed to grasp calculus where the solutions to so many math (and physics) problems are greatly simplified.

When it comes to mathematics curricula, by far the most hailed in the world is the Finnish Math Model: 

One of the goals for grades 3-5 students is this:
*know how to clarify the number of different events and alternatives and to judge which as an impossible or certain event.

http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/politeia/mathematics/finland.pdf

[ElectionsGuy]

Disgusting. All standards should belong at the local and school district levels.

[WVdemocrat]

Freedom policy.

[DC Al Fine]

Overall supportive, although individual lesson plans might be tweaked.

I'm very supportive of the concept of a national curriculum though. One even more stringent than Common Core.

Math and history are the same everywhere. There is no reason kids in Texas and kids in New York need to learn differently.

As far as I can tell, there are only two types of opposition: 1) Religious fundamentalists who are worried about evolution and gays 2) Teachers who don't want to be held to any standard and just want to be paid automatically. I guess there's a third group of people, parents like Louis CK who are mad that their kids are dumb and blame Common Core, although they would blame whatever the current regime was as long as their "genius" kids were failing under it.

I dispute this. History ought to have a local component as well.

[muon2]

Disgusting. All standards should belong at the local and school district levels.

Which would be fine 100 years ago when most people stayed in the area of the school they attended. Mobility is much higher now. How can an employer know what skills were taught in localities far away - what does that HS diploma mean? What is the impact of different standards on a child when their family relocates for employment? That's a common occurrence now, though it was much less common 50 years ago. Standards don't have to be identical, but there should be enough similarity that 5th grade has about the same level of core material in any state.

[Free Bird]

The standards themselves are insubstantial and weren't developed by education experts. They were developed by lobbyists. Local boards know what's better for kids than lobbyists. Giving power to local boards allows more accountability for parents, who are really the ones that matter with education. The only interstate agreement that should be with education is what NOT to teach, such as the Bible in public school.

[muon2]

The standards themselves are insubstantial and weren't developed by education experts. They were developed by lobbyists. Local boards know what's better for kids than lobbyists. Giving power to local boards allows more accountability for parents, who are really the ones that matter with education. The only interstate agreement that should be with education is what NOT to teach, such as the Bible in public school.

That's entirely false. The standards were developed by panels of educators in each of about 40 states in 2008-2009, then collated to find the common elements. I know because I served on one such panel (Math) in a state that was already using statewide standards for public schools.

The standards as released were free to be used by the states to the extent they wished and were not mandated. The feds through Race to the Top required adoption of the standards if they wished to maximize their point score to get a grant. This occurred during the recession and many states wanted the federal funds so they adopted the standards.

[Republican Michigander]

I oppose it, and more specifically oppose No Child Left Behind which I didn't support when Bush wanted it. The feds are not trustworthy or competent enough to run education. In addition, we elect school boards for a reason.

Education should be a state and (mostly) local issue. 

[Famous Mortimer]

Curriculum set by local school boards is ridiculous for a number of reasons.

1) Supposedly conservatives believe that the free market will make every school board strive to be the best it can possibly be. Clearly this is not the case though. We've had extreme localization compared to the rest of the Western world for years now and it has categorically produced WORSE results.

2) Even if localization did lead to every district having the best education system possible (again, it doesn't but just for the sake of argument), how would that be different from imposing those same best standards but from the top? The end result is the same. The only difference is that localization caters to conservatives' irrational knee jerk hatred of the central government.

3) If there was one standard, that would be one bureaucracy, as opposed to the hundreds of local bureaucracies we have now. National standards means less government. Conservatives literally don't even know why they oppose the federal government, it makes no sense, they just hear "federal government" and freak out without thinking.

[Blair]

Knowing nothing about it, it seems like an issue where opposition is only based on vague generalities about local control

[muon2]

Knowing nothing about it, it seems like an issue where opposition is only based on vague generalities about local control

And in many states that local control was governed by state standards long ago. These are still just state standards that can be adopted as is or amended as desired. The difference is that this time the states got together and said it would be nice if there was some basic set of skills that students graduating in WV or CA had to benefit benefit college admissions and employers, and skills at each grade to benefit moving families.

[Free Bird]

The standards themselves are insubstantial and weren't developed by education experts. They were developed by lobbyists. Local boards know what's better for kids than lobbyists. Giving power to local boards allows more accountability for parents, who are really the ones that matter with education. The only interstate agreement that should be with education is what NOT to teach, such as the Bible in public school.

That's entirely false. The standards were developed by panels of educators in each of about 40 states in 2008-2009, then collated to find the common elements. I know because I served on one such panel (Math) in a state that was already using statewide standards for public schools.

The standards as released were free to be used by the states to the extent they wished and were not mandated. The feds through Race to the Top required adoption of the standards if they wished to maximize their point score to get a grant. This occurred during the recession and many states wanted the federal funds so they adopted the standards.

Then why were only 2 education experts brought on board to develop them, and are now speaking out against them.

[muon2]

The standards themselves are insubstantial and weren't developed by education experts. They were developed by lobbyists. Local boards know what's better for kids than lobbyists. Giving power to local boards allows more accountability for parents, who are really the ones that matter with education. The only interstate agreement that should be with education is what NOT to teach, such as the Bible in public school.

That's entirely false. The standards were developed by panels of educators in each of about 40 states in 2008-2009, then collated to find the common elements. I know because I served on one such panel (Math) in a state that was already using statewide standards for public schools.

The standards as released were free to be used by the states to the extent they wished and were not mandated. The feds through Race to the Top required adoption of the standards if they wished to maximize their point score to get a grant. This occurred during the recession and many states wanted the federal funds so they adopted the standards.

Then why were only 2 education experts brought on board to develop them, and are now speaking out against them.

I have no idea what that is about. In IL there were two panels (Math and English) of two dozen experts that met for 6 months in 2009 to provide input on standards. The experts in IL were evenly split between higher ed professors and teaching leaders from high schools. Other states had similar panels to provide input on the standards. Do you mean the tests?

[Mister Mets]

I've got mixed feelings on it.

The goal is noble, and it is essential to hold schools to a minimal standard, especially since a free economy requires allowing people to move from one state to another.

Some elements of the implementaion were heavily flawed, and the result of errors that should have been forseeable (for example, a lack of anyone with any experience in K-2 education in the board of governors.)