Common Core: Educate Me!

[Mountain Man]

Good! Then you understand that companies do not have any financial incentive for designing an intentionally poor product. Especially when the product will directly affect the quality of that business, in the future, because it is being used to teach the students who will eventually be that company's employees. Again, even if we accept the claims that there exists a profit-driven aspect of the Common Core, that still does not support your conspiracy theories regarding the efficacy of the Common Core.

I never said they were intentionally making a poor product. This is another straw man coming from you. They could have the best of intentions, but they are still making a poor product by pushing through an untested and unproven educational program that is demonstrably bad -- a number of examples have already been provided throughout this thread, and you can easily find more if you have the gumption to look for it.

Regardless of intentions, if they really cared about quality, or if those in Washington who got their palms greased by Bill's Bucks really cared about quality then they would have said, "Do a pilot program in a handful of volunteer schools, then get back to us in two- or three-years after you've worked out the kinks and can prove to us that common core is viable." Instead it's like Obamacare: implement it now even if it makes things worse because you can always fix it later -- or at least that's what they tell us. Unfortunately, the rule in Washington seems to be that if something starts out good then it will inevitably become bad, and if starts out bad, it stays bad.

[Sparko]

Exactly what type of math teacher are you BP? Are you qualified for teaching K-12? Have you done so, and do you continue to do so?

Because my sister-in-law is an elementary school teacher and she has shown me some of the common core crap that they have to teach and the text books and your claims don't seem to align with what she has shown me. She has been teaching for about 20 years now. Before and after the common core.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I never said they were intentionally making a poor product. This is another straw man coming from you. They could have the best of intentions, but they are still making a poor product by pushing through an untested and unproven educational program that is demonstrably bad -- a number of examples have already been provided throughout this thread, and you can easily find more if you have the gumption to look for it.

The only example of real criticism of the Common Core came from the blogger that Epoetker cited. None of the other purported examples actually discussed anything contained in the Common Core standards.

Regardless of intentions, if they really cared about quality, or if those in Washington who got their palms greased by Bill's Bucks really cared about quality then they would have said, "Do a pilot program in a handful of volunteer schools, then get back to us in two- or three-years after you've worked out the kinks and can prove to us that common core is viable."

Which of the standards do you find to be "untested and unproven?" For example, do you think that these 3rd Grade standards are poor, untested, or unproven?

Source: Common Core

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.NBT.A.1
Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.NBT.A.2
Fluently add and subtract within 1000 using strategies and algorithms based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.NBT.A.3
Multiply one-digit whole numbers by multiples of 10 in the range 10-90 (e.g., 9 × 80, 5 × 60) using strategies based on place value and properties of operations.

© Copyright Original Source

If not, which standards are poor, untested, or unproven? Any from Kindergarten? Elementary grades? Middle School? High School? Do you find that any important standards have been omitted?

If none of the particular standards are poor, untested, or unproven, perhaps you take issue with their chronology. Which Elementary standards do you think should be introduced earlier? Which should be delayed until later? Which of the High School standards should take place first?

If none of the particular standards are poor, untested, or unproven, and the chronology of their introduction is not in question, then precisely what is it about the standards that you oppose?

[Pentecost]

The only example of Common Core I've seen was "How do you make 5+8=10" and the answer was you take 3 out of 5 then at it to 10 to get 13. It seems to be trying to get students used to circuitous thinking required for higher math. I really know nothing on this topic though, it just seems odd to argue that kids are too dumb to learn the cirriculum, when it's supposed point is to raise American students to international standards as Epoe's opening post was alluding to.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Exactly what type of math teacher are you BP? Are you qualified for teaching K-12? Have you done so, and do you continue to do so?

Because my sister-in-law is an elementary school teacher and she has shown me some of the common core crap that they have to teach and the text books and your claims don't seem to align with what she has shown me. She has been teaching for about 20 years now. Before and after the common core.

Missed this, earlier, sorry. I am a private teacher for K-12 math and English. I currently teach students from 4th Grade all the way through 12th, though most of my students are High Schoolers. One of my current students is in the 4th grade, and her curriculum uses the Common Core approved Houghton-Mifflin Go Math program. I've spent the last couple of weeks going over Division with her. My student's mother was very confused that the text introduces a number of methods for understanding division prior to introducing the more familiar long-division algorithm that we prefer. I've been able to elucidate these lessons for that confused parent, and I've had absolutely no difficulty in helping the student to comprehend any of the lessons (though, I do have that ever-present difficulty of getting her to show her work).

[Kristian Joensen]

If people are going to criticize educational standards, maybe it would be an idea to actually read them?

Here they are:

English Language Arts: http://www.corestandards.org/wp-cont..._Standards.pdf.

Mathematics: http://www.corestandards.org/wp-cont..._Standards.pdf.

[Epoetker]

I have certainly worked for demanding corporations. I spent five years working as a computer scientist for the world's largest independent regulator of electronic gambling and lottery systems.

Yes, because it's soooooooo serious if the Nevada Gaming Commission mis-times a slot machine.

I do also write a readable and well-regarded blog, though it does not focus particularly on the Common Core or education. I'm not sure what either of these have to do with anything, though, unless you're claiming that only formerly-corporate educators who maintain blogs about the Common Core are qualified to discuss the Common Core.

Had you been eager and willing to stand up for it, you would have addressed him first. Directly. And not taking every opportunity to...what was that attitude he described...

"...an opportunity to talk past the objection and reassure the larger audience"

Which is the basic structure of every single response to me so far. Indicating that you don't have a defensible position.

No. My voiced objections are to people spreading misinformation because they aren't actually attempting to understand the situation.

Mountain Man and ER's main complaint was in the execution, implementation, and enforcement of the standards, in a word, the situation. You were just whining about how we can't just calm down and look at the standards themselves. Which is it, or are you as unfocused as you are lazy?

I very clearly stated that I have no problem with people who actually know the Common Core standards and voice opposition based upon those standards.

I, too, like it when my enemy attacks only at my preferred choke point and never hits my flank.

For example, I've read complaints from one Geometry teacher regarding the Common Core's focus on using rigid motions to teach geometric concepts. That's a perfectly legitimate position, which actually addresses matters extant in the Common Core and which actually deserves to be considered thoughtfully. On the other hand, Mountain Man simply repeated misinformation about phantom Common Core grading standards,

They certainly are hard to pin down.

falsehoods about the number of teachers involved in the development of the Common Core,

Which we're to believe are falsehoods on the word of a man who has never posted anything of note in my forum before.

and conspiracy theories about the funding behind the Common Core.

Which your absolute lack of detail and description does no favors in helping to resolve. But don't worry, I can throw in some names, faces and resumes for open conspiracy theorizing on the Common Core side too:

And the pushback against this particular CCSS directive is growing. For example, self-described “small-town English teacher” Peter Greene likened assigning texts based on grade level “without regard for the student’s reading level” to “educational malpractice.” This pushback is backstopped by an entire industry built up over decades on the premise that students should be kept away from complex texts at all costs.

Now that's a conspiracy theory so idiotic and so well-entrenched that it's a wonder they let her near a computer at all.

Despite your protestations otherwise, my "proper opponent" is not someone who actually understands and opposes the Common Core. My proper opponent is the person who doesn't understand the Common Core but still spreads completely ridiculous propaganda to oppose it.

HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED INTO FIGHTING STRAW MEN.

You have completely misunderstood my goals, here. I'm not saying that the Common Core is perfect as it is, and that all opponents to it are in error. I'm saying that if you're going to oppose something, the least you can do is to oppose it honestly, by actually addressing the things which the Common Core delineates.

Educational standards are generally fad-driven, badly written, and randomly enforced as it is. Their content does not matter until you've addressed their context.

Good! Then you understand that companies do not have any financial incentive for designing an intentionally poor product.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure they don't.

Especially when the product will directly affect the quality of that business, in the future, because it is being used to teach the students who will eventually be that company's employees.

The CEO doesn't have to care about the future of his business if he cares more about his personal net worth and personal reputation that that of his company.

Again, even if we accept the claims that there exists a profit-driven aspect of the Common Core, that still does not support your conspiracy theories regarding the efficacy of the Common Core.

Anyone who rails blindly against "conspiracy theories" is highly likely to be a part of one himself, whether he knows it or not.

[KingsGambit]

I've heard that defense before -- "The problem isn't common core, it's how it's being implemented." -- but the problem with that argument is that the kind of screwy teaching that Sparko highlighted is not some isolated incident. If you look around, you can find example after example of that kind of nonsense, and the common factor is, appropriately, common core.

Just to be clear, as a whole, I do not support common core as I think it wastes time with needless bureaucracy and tries to solve nonexistent problems, but we know there are ineffective teachers everywhere and they would be as such with or without this legislation. Common core just happens to be the common factor this time by default because everybody is forced to use it.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes, because it's soooooooo serious if the Nevada Gaming Commission mis-times a slot machine.

Actually, Nevada and New Jersey maintain their own regulators for electronic gambling. The company I worked for handled hundreds of other jurisdictions, around the world, with offices on every continent but Antarctica. They work directly with all the major manufacturers, including Bally, WMS, Spielo, and Konami. They handle slot machines, lotteries, and Internet gaming. It's the world's largest regulator for a multi-billion dollar industry.

So, yeah, it's a pretty serious corporation.

Had you been eager and willing to stand up for it, you would have addressed him first. Directly. And not taking every opportunity to...what was that attitude he described...

"...an opportunity to talk past the objection and reassure the larger audience"

Which is the basic structure of every single response to me so far. Indicating that you don't have a defensible position.

You still don't seem to understand my purpose in participating in this thread. ER thinks that the Common Core standards don't spend enough time on proportional thinking, and are too targeted towards the higher end of student capability. That's a fine opinion, and one that he is well entitled to have. It's not one I share, but neither is it an uninformed opinion mired in baseless propaganda. As such, I had no reason to address it.

Mountain Man and ER's main complaint was in the execution, implementation, and enforcement of the standards, in a word, the situation. You were just whining about how we can't just calm down and look at the standards themselves. Which is it, or are you as unfocused as you are lazy?

Again, ER's main complaint was in the way the standards handle proportional thinking, and in the pacing of the standards, which he asserts will hurt weaker students. On the other hand, Mountain Man complained that the Common Core was altering grading, which it isn't; that the Common Core wasn't designed by teachers, which it was; and that the Common Core will be profitable, which is irrelevant.

They certainly are hard to pin down.

They don't exist. The Common Core does not delineate any standards for grading.

Which we're to believe are falsehoods on the word of a man who has never posted anything of note in my forum before.

No, you're to believe they are falsehoods based on the documentation listing the scores of teachers that developed the Common Core.

Incidentally, you might want to check out my Join Date and posting history. You seem to be under the misconception that I only joined this forum in order to participate in this thread. I joined this forum back in August due to my interaction with Nick Peters, and I have participated in quite a number of threads besides this one.

Now that's a conspiracy theory so idiotic and so well-entrenched that it's a wonder they let her near a computer at all.

I agree. Of course, since I never brought up Katherine Porter Magee or her claim, I'm at a loss as to why you think that it's relevant.

Educational standards are generally fad-driven, badly written, and randomly enforced as it is. Their content does not matter until you've addressed their context.

Preposterous. Their content defines their context. It's impossible to address their context in any meaningful way without addressing the content.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure they don't.

So, now you're claiming that every Apple OS offering post-Hypercard has been a poor product, and was intentionally designed to be a poor product? The discontinuation of a good product does not imply that all further offerings are intentionally bad products.

The CEO doesn't have to care about the future of his business if he cares more about his personal net worth and personal reputation that that of his company.

Ridiculous. His personal net worth and reputation are tied to the company. Companies that succeed bolster the net worth and personal reputation of a CEO. Companies that fail are detrimental to net worth and reputation of the CEO.

Anyone who rails blindly against "conspiracy theories" is highly likely to be a part of one himself, whether he knows it or not.

You have a fairly peculiar definition of "rails blindly."

[Epoetker]

Actually, Nevada and New Jersey maintain their own regulators for electronic gambling. The company I worked for handled hundreds of other jurisdictions, around the world, with offices on every continent but Antarctica. They work directly with all the major manufacturers, including Bally, WMS, Spielo, and Konami. They handle slot machines, lotteries, and Internet gaming. It's the world's largest regulator for a multi-billion dollar industry.

So, yeah, it's a pretty serious corporation.

Your primary source of funding is drunk people with disposable income who don't understand statistics. In such instances the semblance of seriousness is enough, the substance is for boring rubes. Much like your posts here, such people will have super-serious tones and an utter lack of any revealed information on how things work behind the scenes. This is fine for petty vices soaking up disposable income, not so fine for a common scheme of education that will have permanent effects on your kids.

You still don't seem to understand my purpose in participating in this thread. ER thinks that the Common Core standards don't spend enough time on proportional thinking, and are too targeted towards the higher end of student capability. That's a fine opinion, and one that he is well entitled to have. It's not one I share, but neither is it an uninformed opinion mired in baseless propaganda. As such, I had no reason to address it.

If you disagree with the opinion (and you've already minimized his concerns, showing your unwillingness to engage on the issue, a very bad thing in an educator) then give us information on why you disagree with it, in a boring old response format, that would hopefully educate us non-educators on the issues you run into teaching kids and your principles and occasional tricks for overcoming them. But no, you went straight to YOU CONSPIRACY THEORIST PROPAGANDISTS HAVE YOUR TALKING POINTS DETAILS FACTS WRONG RARR, as though Mountain Man was another company's PR team or something.

Again, ER's main complaint was in the way the standards handle proportional thinking, and in the pacing of the standards, which he asserts will hurt weaker students. On the other hand, Mountain Man complained that the Common Core was altering grading, which it isn't; that the Common Core wasn't designed by teachers, which it was; and that the Common Core will be profitable, which is irrelevant.

You have no basis for any of these claims, there are a zillion counterexamples anyone can pull due to the vagueness of the both the standards and the employment/teaching status of those in charge of implementing this program, and "the profitability of this program is irrelevant to its implementation" is a statement that would be laughed out of any court of law.

They don't exist. The Common Core does not delineate any standards for grading.

And 'best practices' are only guidelines that totally have no effect on your pay or employment status. Were you born yesterday or something?

No, you're to believe they are falsehoods based on the documentation listing the scores of teachers that developed the Common Core.

What does the word "architect" mean?

Incidentally, you might want to check out my Join Date and posting history. You seem to be under the misconception that I only joined this forum in order to participate in this thread. I joined this forum back in August due to my interaction with Nick Peters, and I have participated in quite a number of threads besides this one.

Have you managed to synthesize an actual political position from your life experience like the rest of us normal adults?

I agree. Of course, since I never brought up Katherine Porter Magee or her claim, I'm at a loss as to why you think that it's relevant.

When your attitude toward PROPAGANDISTS, CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, WRECKERS, and FOUL KULAKS matches that of a paid shill for Common Core exactly, I tend to take notice. You have that same servile ant smell.

Preposterous. Their content defines their context. It's impossible to address their context in any meaningful way without addressing the content.

Well, I'll be sure to deliver your Great Books of the Western World via railgun, then tell the judge that 'he never specified context, only content.'

So, now you're claiming that every Apple OS offering post-Hypercard has been a poor product, and was intentionally designed to be a poor product? The discontinuation of a good product does not imply that all further offerings are intentionally bad products.

No. Can you even, like, read anything that you aren't paid to? Because I'm really not going to spend time explaining the difference between a software product's content and its context.

Ridiculous. His personal net worth and reputation are tied to the company.

Exactly backwards. Microsoft owes its net worth and reputation to Bill Gates' hiring, design, vision, and creative redirection of antitrust laws, whose talent and profitability at doing so was not small! Such an individual was in fact historically great at designing copying massaging implementing OSes and I wouldn't let him near general education with a ten-foot pole. If I wanted people to design general educational systems for kids I'd call someone like Shigeru Miyamoto or the old MECC crew, or even the Khan Academy guy.

Companies that succeed bolster the net worth and personal reputation of a CEO. Companies that fail are detrimental to net worth and reputation of the CEO.

Autistic-level thinking that doesn't survive a moment of scrutiny. Leaders with any sort of organizing talent at the multi-million dollar level are considered valuable assets no matter what the eventual fate of their companies, and may be pulled for all sorts of other projects when they leave-even projects that they may not be tempermentally or organizationally suited for, like a nation's common educational standards.

You have a fairly peculiar definition of "rails blindly."

You only think it peculiar because you think talking nonsense in a super-serious tone of voice makes it sensible. It's a logical shortcut that may serve you well in the "gaming" industry, but you'll probably find that parents tend to consider their childrens' education a little less easily blown on the next big thing than their Vegas fund.

[Darth Executor]

Just to be clear, as a whole, I do not support common core as I think it wastes time with needless bureaucracy and tries to solve nonexistent problems, but we know there are ineffective teachers everywhere and they would be as such with or without this legislation. Common core just happens to be the common factor this time by default because everybody is forced to use it.

Could you elaborate? What nonexistent problems does it try to solve?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Your primary source of funding is drunk people with disposable income who don't understand statistics. In such instances the semblance of seriousness is enough, the substance is for boring rubes. Much like your posts here, such people will have super-serious tones and an utter lack of any revealed information on how things work behind the scenes. This is fine for petty vices soaking up disposable income, not so fine for a common scheme of education that will have permanent effects on your kids.

Your claims, here, are absolutely preposterous. The bottom-dreg customers of a service product have nothing to do with the level of knowledge, skill, and professionalism employed by the company providing the service, nor that of the company which designed the tools utilized by the service company, nor the regulators that inspect the tools created by that design company. You might as well claim that a Health Inspector doesn't have a serious job because McDonald's customers are gluttonous fatties.

If you disagree with the opinion (and you've already minimized his concerns, showing your unwillingness to engage on the issue, a very bad thing in an educator) then give us information on why you disagree with it, in a boring old response format, that would hopefully educate us non-educators on the issues you run into teaching kids and your principles and occasional tricks for overcoming them. But no, you went straight to YOU CONSPIRACY THEORIST PROPAGANDISTS HAVE YOUR TALKING POINTS DETAILS FACTS WRONG RARR, as though Mountain Man was another company's PR team or something.

Once again, I don't really have any problem with ER's opinion on the pacing and direction of the Common Core. If you would like me to discuss why I do not share his opinion, you are free to ask that. However, it is ridiculous for you to claim that I'm somehow avoiding the topic because I didn't provide a counter to claims that I think are perfectly legitimate.

On the other hand, Mountain Man was making claims which were not legitimate, therefore I responded to his claims. Even if I was in complete agreement with ER in his opposition to the Common Core, I would still have called out Mountain Man for his misinformation. Furthermore, you are the only person trying to speciously claim that anyone else in this thread is a paid shill. I've never even intimated that Mountain Man had some ulterior motive in his participation in this thread.

You have no basis for any of these claims,

I have no basis for these claims? The same ones for which I provided documented source material as a basis of my claims?

there are a zillion counterexamples anyone can pull due to the vagueness of the both the standards and the employment/teaching status of those in charge of implementing this program,

So far, the only one which has actually been provided is David Coleman. Again, if the Common Core actually delineates any standards for grading, it should be exceedingly simple to just point to those standards, since the entirety of the Common Core is available online, for free. And if there were indeed "no teachers" involved in the development of the Common Core, then one should be able to show that all of the people claimed to be teachers in the documents I provided were not actually teachers.

and "the profitability of this program is irrelevant to its implementation" is a statement that would be laughed out of any court of law.

I never said it was irrelevant to its implementation. I said it is irrelevant to its efficacy.

And 'best practices' are only guidelines that totally have no effect on your pay or employment status. Were you born yesterday or something?

Can you list any place where the Common Core recommends any grading system, even in a 'best practices' sort of way?

What does the word "architect" mean?

You realize that "architect" is an unofficial appellation given to Coleman by people outside of the Common Core Initiative, and not indicative of his official position and duties, right? Even if that wasn't the case, are you trying to claim that the only person involved in the development of a project is the architect? You must not know very many contractors, masons, electricians, or plumbers.

Have you managed to synthesize an actual political position from your life experience like the rest of us normal adults?

As a matter of fact, I have, though it's not clear what relevance you think this has to anything.

When your attitude toward PROPAGANDISTS, CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, WRECKERS, and FOUL KULAKS matches that of a paid shill for Common Core exactly, I tend to take notice. You have that same servile ant smell.

My attitude towards propagandists and conspiracy theorists is absolutely the same whether they are Jesus Mythicists or Ancient Aliens proponents or Common Core opponents or proponents of any other subject. Would you accuse me of being a "paid shill" when I correct people who are spreading misinformation about the moon landing or contrails?

Well, I'll be sure to deliver your Great Books of the Western World via railgun, then tell the judge that 'he never specified context, only content.'

You don't seem to have a very good understanding of what "context" means. If I were to order some history books from Amazon, that doesn't make UPS Ground the context of the history books. Similarly, if we are going to discuss the context of the Common Core, it's pretty silly to focus on incentives for adopting the Common Core.

Exactly backwards. Microsoft owes its net worth and reputation to Bill Gates' hiring, design, vision, and creative redirection of antitrust laws, whose talent and profitability at doing so was not small!

The two are directly proportional. Microsoft owes its net worth (at least, in part) to Bill Gates, and Bill Gates owes his net worth to Microsoft. This really isn't that difficult a concept.

If I wanted people to design general educational systems for kids I'd call someone like Shigeru Miyamoto or the old MECC crew, or even the Khan Academy guy.

Funny you should mention Khan Academy, since they actually support the Common Core.

Autistic-level thinking that doesn't survive a moment of scrutiny. Leaders with any sort of organizing talent at the multi-million dollar level are considered valuable assets no matter what the eventual fate of their companies, and may be pulled for all sorts of other projects when they leave-even projects that they may not be tempermentally or organizationally suited for, like a nation's common educational standards.

Perhaps you should apply that scrutiny rather than simply guessing at what it states. Let's say a company is looking to hire a new CEO, and Applicant A had previously been the CEO of a wildly successful company, while Applicant B had previously been the CEO of a company which flopped. All else being equal, which applicant do you think the company will hire?

Now, let's say we have another pair of CEO's who currently have equal net worth. However, five years down the line, CEO A's company continues to thrive and grow, while CEO B's company has faltered and failed. Which CEO's net worth would you expect to have grown at a greater rate?

You only think it peculiar because you think talking nonsense in a super-serious tone of voice makes it sensible.

No, I think it's peculiar because I'm the only one in this thread who has been supplying primary sources for his claims, and I'm the only one who seems to be at all familiar with the actual Common Core standards. Meanwhile, you continue to bandy about baseless accusations while flagrantly ignoring the actual Common Core standards. Perhaps you should take some time to actually read the standards which you find so distasteful before attempting to claim someone else is "railing blindly."

[Epoetker]

Your claims, here, are absolutely preposterous. The bottom-dreg customers of a service product have nothing to do with the level of knowledge, skill, and professionalism employed by the company providing the service, nor that of the company which designed the tools utilized by the service company, nor the regulators that inspect the tools created by that design company. You might as well claim that a Health Inspector doesn't have a serious job because McDonald's customers are gluttonous fatties.

The health inspector is a general-purpose job, certainly not limited to the McDonald's of the world. And you can eat McDonald's in moderation without getting sick or fat. And it's nice to have around if you're hungry and can't get anything else. And the McDonalds corporation has just as much interest in making sure its food is healthy as well as certified.

Once again, I don't really have any problem with ER's opinion on the pacing and direction of the Common Core. If you would like me to discuss why I do not share his opinion, you are free to ask that. However, it is ridiculous for you to claim that I'm somehow avoiding the topic because I didn't provide a counter to claims that I think are perfectly legitimate.

ER claimed that the standards were unrealistically and unevenly difficult (i.e., may not have been vetted by teachers who had actually been actively teaching today's crop of students) and the comments of MM and the rest were the same: either unrealistically easy or difficult (crazy) via obtuse and arcane thought processes. You then jumped in and whined about how everyone was not even reading the standards (that were already established as being badly written and randomly implemented and enforced-maximum deniability mode here!)

On the other hand, Mountain Man was making claims which were not legitimate, therefore I responded to his claims. Even if I was in complete agreement with ER in his opposition to the Common Core, I would still have called out Mountain Man for his misinformation. Furthermore, you are the only person trying to speciously claim that anyone else in this thread is a paid shill. I've never even intimated that Mountain Man had some ulterior motive in his participation in this thread.

You are the only person in this thread acting like a paid shill, i.e.: Jumping right into a discussion on how balky and confusing the latest educational fad is with a prepared speech on DO NOT BELIEVE THESE COMMON MYTHS, INTERNET CITIZEN!

I have no basis for these claims? The same ones for which I provided documented source material as a basis of my claims?

This isn't a university or an internal review, it's a debate forum. MY debate forum, with MY name on it. I expect claims to be short, to the point, and relevant to the discussion at hand, especially for people claiming to be experts.

So far, the only one which has actually been provided is David Coleman. Again, if the Common Core actually delineates any standards for grading, it should be exceedingly simple to just point to those standards, since the entirety of the Common Core is available online, for free. And if there were indeed "no teachers" involved in the development of the Common Core, then one should be able to show that all of the people claimed to be teachers in the documents I provided were not actually teachers.

Having established that at least one of Common Core's most vocal representatives has a tendency to alter her public profile at a moments criticism, no. However, your suspiciously specific direction to attack you at the point that's already probably been well-defended with weasel resumes from social media experts and online reputation management consultants has been noted and filed on your permanent record.

I never said it was irrelevant to its implementation. I said it is irrelevant to its efficacy.

Is there any relevant difference, in this case?

Can you list any place where the Common Core recommends any grading system, even in a 'best practices' sort of way?

Given that the not-standards themselves are written in Weaselese, why would I bother?

I was interested to realize that Common Core standards differ by subject in their willingness to acknowledge the below-level student.

So the math standards include some advice on what to do with kids who are behind and , like NCLB, has nothing new to offer: tutoring, algebra support, summer school. Yeah, thanks for the tip. None of them worked last time, either.

But the ELA standards largely refuse to acknowledge the reality of struggling readers—not even, I was a bit stunned to see, much recognition for English Language Learners, flatly rejecting the notion that they might struggle a bit and leaving any support to the states to figure out. Common Core’s refusal to placate the massive ELL lobby is telling, because in that case there’s going to be no recognition of native English speakers who simply aren’t smart enough to read at grade level, so English teachers, you’re screwed. Just kidding, because as we all know, standards throughout history have always called for kids to read at grade level, and teachers have and undoubtedly will continue to pick texts targeted to student ability whenever possible (it isn’t always). They’ve always done that, which begs the question why Fordham Foundation is acting like a wild hair has intruded someplace uncomfortable on the subject.

My conclusion: the big focus on “grade appropriate texts” and emphasis on teachers’ refusal to use the Common Core “exemplars” is just strategy. Common Core’s going to fail, so why not build the terrain for the inevitable blame game that’s coming by arguing that even now, at the beginning, teachers are ignoring Common Core by assigning texts their kids can understand, instead of grade-level texts.

Did you get all that? Did you click on all the links? Did you read all the standards in the exact words I provided that will totally and completely indemnify me for any legal action on the part of myself and the Common Core Corporation?

You realize that "architect" is an unofficial appellation given to Coleman by people outside of the Common Core Initiative, and not indicative of his official position and duties, right? Even if that wasn't the case, are you trying to claim that the only person involved in the development of a project is the architect? You must not know very many contractors, masons, electricians, or plumbers.

And Comrade Joseph Stalin was officially a clerk with a mere clerical position in the Communist Party USSR.

As a matter of fact, I have, though it's not clear what relevance you think this has to anything.

Rhetorical, Pythy.

My attitude towards propagandists and conspiracy theorists is absolutely the same whether they are Jesus Mythicists or Ancient Aliens proponents or Common Core opponents or proponents of any other subject. Would you accuse me of being a "paid shill" when I correct people who are spreading misinformation about the moon landing or contrails?

Yes, because that little rhetorical thing that you did there where you casually associated parents who were concerned about the implementation of this year's fad educational standards with the most fringe conspiracy theorists is exactly what a paid shill would do. You obviously have a ready contempt for the common man dealing with common everyday problems, so you're the perfect hire if someone wants to dress up and push through their nothing-burger project of the year.

You don't seem to have a very good understanding of what "context" means. If I were to order some history books from Amazon, that doesn't make UPS Ground the context of the history books. Similarly, if we are going to discuss the context of the Common Core, it's pretty silly to focus on incentives for adopting the Common Core.

Incentive has no relation to usage! Now I've heard everything.

The two are directly proportional. Microsoft owes its net worth (at least, in part) to Bill Gates, and Bill Gates owes his net worth to Microsoft. This really isn't that difficult a concept.

This sentence is an utterly foolish oversimplification. Bill Gates would have been a capable and intelligent individual fully capable of realizing a large net worth whether he had started Microsoft or not. Whether Microsoft itself can maintain its quality without him is another question entirely (signs point to no, let's see how Windows 10 turns out.)

Funny you should mention Khan Academy, since they actually support the Common Core.

Their heading on the site is "An uncommon approach to the Common Core," indicating that they know the score just as well as any of the teachers reference by the ER. Common Core is a big label on a mystery box, what you do with it is up to yoooooooooouuuuuuuuu......(so everyone in the know's just going to muddle through and eventually do things the way they used to.)

Perhaps you should apply that scrutiny rather than simply guessing at what it states. Let's say a company is looking to hire a new CEO, and Applicant A had previously been the CEO of a wildly successful company, while Applicant B had previously been the CEO of a company which flopped. All else being equal, which applicant do you think the company will hire?

The one best at grinding perfectly spherical cows on a frictionless lathe.

Now, let's say we have another pair of CEO's who currently have equal net worth. However, five years down the line, CEO A's company continues to thrive and grow, while CEO B's company has faltered and failed. Which CEO's net worth would you expect to have grown at a greater rate?

CEO B, who probably bled the company dry to fund his next big idea, or retirement.

No, I think it's peculiar because I'm the only one in this thread who has been supplying primary sources for his claims,

No, you're not. I did that as the opener.

and I'm the only one who seems to be at all familiar with the actual Common Core standards.

Which seem to exist or not exist based on how convenient it is for you. No thanks. If you can't pull relevant excerpts, organize data, address other sources directly, or provide a consistent position, your sources are useless in an argument.

Meanwhile, you continue to bandy about baseless accusations while flagrantly ignoring the actual Common Core standards. Perhaps you should take some time to actually read the standards which you find so distasteful before attempting to claim someone else is "railing blindly."

Perhaps you should take some time to acquire useful knowledge and experience about how the world actually works before jumping into a discussion on my forum and attempting to derail it according to a pre-written script.

[pancreasman]

Perhaps you should take some time to acquire useful knowledge and experience about how the world actually works before jumping into a discussion on my forum and attempting to derail it according to a pre-written script.

His forum? If it's his forum I'll see you around.

[Epoetker]

His forum? If it's his forum I'll see you around.

I give you about a week before you come crawling back.