American Politics

[Compdude787 916]

Sure would like to know that context in which that was given. Speaking as a teacher, there's all kinds of reasons that doesn't qualify as a 'test'. Seems more like something from a 'propaganda' class rather than a government class.

This is Common Core curriculum for you. It should be repealed immediately, because the federal government has no business telling teachers what they should teach. People should be able to develop their own political views, not indoctrinated with stuff that the school tells them about.

EDIT: Post 1000!

[Meg 368]

 

This is Common Core curriculum for you. It should be repealed immediately, because the federal government has no business telling teachers what they should teach.

 

 

 

There is a reason they are called the Common Core State Standards.    States have voluntarily adopted them.

[Compdude787 916]

This is Common Core curriculum for you. It should be repealed immediately, because the federal government has no business telling teachers what they should teach.

 

 

There is a reason they are called the Common Core State Standards.    States have voluntarily adopted them.

Regardless, accepting Common Core is required if states want federal funding for education. Regardless, it is still a nationwide uniform standard. If the state government really cared about students, they shouldn't accept this funding and implement Common Core indoctrination standards.

[CaptCity 4,919]

Hmmm... I've been teaching Common Core standards for two years and have been involved in developing curriculum for their use in our district for three, and I can say (at least in my experience) nothing like that so-called 'government test' has anything to do with Common Core. That looked like something someone incorporated at a very 'local' level. And, in certain areas, people have been telling teachers what to teach for a lot longer than what Common Core has been around. But don't get me started on that one... 

[Meg 368]

 

 

This is Common Core curriculum for you. It should be repealed immediately, because the federal government has no business telling teachers what they should teach.

 

 

There is a reason they are called the Common Core State Standards.    States have voluntarily adopted them.

 

Regardless, accepting Common Core is required if states want federal funding for education.

 

 

I'm not a fan of governments handing over funds, no strings attached.  There should be accountability of some sort regarding how the money is being used.  

 

I think the idea behind Common Core makes sense -- there are things that we all need to learn, like the alphabet, for instance -- but there seem to be some bizarre math approaches involved.

 

 

 

Regardless, it is still a nationwide uniform standard.

 

 

 

No . . . Texas, Virginia, Alaska, and Nebraska chose not to adopt Common Core.  Indiana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina adopted it but have since withdrawn.   Minnesota is going for partial adoption.  [link]

 

 

 If the state government really cared about students, they shouldn't accept this funding and implement Common Core indoctrination standards.

 

 

Clearly some states are not implementing it.

 

 

Hmmm... I've been teaching Common Core standards for two years and have been involved in developing curriculum for their use in our district for three, and I can say (at least in my experience) nothing like that so-called 'government test' has anything to do with Common Core. That looked like something someone incorporated at a very 'local' level. And, in certain areas, people have been telling teachers what to teach for a lot longer than what Common Core has been around. But don't get me started on that one... 

 

 

 It's always good to hear from someone who is actually involved.  Thank you for sharing.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

A common core for curricula in public schools would be a good idea if political bias could be excluded.  We don't have this in Canada as far as I am aware (been retired from teaching for 13 years now).  One of the problems we've always had is with out-of-province transfers, which sometimes finds students behind or ahead of the provincial goals.

[Duke87 1,070]

The real problem is it's a follow the money thing. The tighter regulations on education get, the worse education gets. Because the regulations are written to suit the interests of for-profit companies that make standardized tests and other special interests, not to actually improve education. You want to improve education, ditch the standardized tests, ditch the attitude that no child can fail, ditch the rules about how exactly a classroom must be managed, and just let the teachers do their jobs without all the freaking meddling. The teachers themselves know best how to teach their students, not some bureaucrabs in Washington, in their state capital, or even on their local board of ed.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

True, however I do believe in a set of learning goals for each grade/course in the public system.  No child should be advanced without achieving them.  Failing is part of life experience, and what better place to find out about it than in school.

 

I also believe in teacher evaluations, not based on the number of students passed, but on the number of students sent back to repeat a grade.  Too many fails warrants an evaluation of both the learning goals and the teachers.

 

I also do not believe in the idea of tenure for public school teachers.  Just because you've taught for n years is no reason to feel too secure.

[CapTon 592]

Common Core really just forces teachers to teach for the statewide tests at the end of the year or the end of the semester (for high schoolers) rather than teaching to actually educate kids. Isn't the objective to teach kids for the sole purpose of turning them into functioning and self-sufficient adults as well as giving them the knowledge that they need in order to improve society?

 

Not only that, but the curriculum forces teachers (specifically math teachers) to teach kids to do things the complicated way.

 

For example:

 

Take a look at this sequence: 2, 8, 3x+5.

 

If the sequence is arithmetic, what would x equal in order to get the next number? Simple enough question, right? Well, this is how they want you to solve it:

 

14=3x+5 : solve the equation.

 

Why not just have the kids think logically instead of forcing them through an equation which, half the time, they don't even understand?

 

Every teacher I have talked and every parent I have talked to agrees that Common Core is awful.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It really depends on the way the common core is put together.  Using the concept of learning goals is far better than dictating methods.  Learning goals simply state that this unit has the following goals, and these goals are examinable.  The goals should be stated as generally as possible.

 

From the implications by some of the posters here, it would appear that the common core is: a) not common; and b) far too detailed.

[Duke87 1,070]

For example:

 

Take a look at this sequence: 2, 8, 3x+5.

 

If the sequence is arithmetic, what would x equal in order to get the next number? Simple enough question, right? Well, this is how they want you to solve it:

 

14=3x+5 : solve the equation.

 

Why not just have the kids think logically instead of forcing them through an equation which, half the time, they don't even understand?

 

I *think* this is an attempt to get kids to understand algebra at an earlier age than they otherwise might by mixing it in with other stuff. Making it a two-step problem (figure out the next number in the sequence, then do algebra) also perhaps has some merit since it teaches kids to be able to solve problems with multiiple steps (which many real world problems are!). It may seem needlessly complex but it does serve some purpose. Whether it's a good question really depends on what grade you're trying to make the problem for. If this were on a sixth or seventh grade math test I wouldn't blink at it. If it were on a fourth or fifth grade math test I'd say that had better be for gifted students.

 

 

As for common core math in general, some of the methods are radically different from what parents learned in school, and I get the sense that this generates a lot of resistance because parents see it and go "what the hell is this?" without giving it a chance or making some attempt to understand it. Things like making tens may seem odd to us to do on paper but when you do mental math that is exactly how it is done, and teaching students to do it this way strengthens their mental math skills.

 

The traditional method of stacking numbers to do arithmetic is fine and dandy if you have a pencil and paper but in most real world situations you don't. So it really doesn't make too much sense to focus so much on this. In the world today you either do math in your head or via some sort of calculator. It's lovely to be able to add numbers on paper, but I can't remember the last time I did it and I do lots of math every day as part of my job.

 

Like it or not, things change quickly enough now that each generation lives in a radically different world from the one before it and requires different sorts of skills in order to get by in life. This makes successful education rather a moving target. I for one like the idea of schools actually trying to be current as opposed to being stuck teaching things which were useful 20 years ago but are already obsolete today.

 

 

 

Nonetheless, I do despise having prescribed methods of solving problems. It's fine and dandy to teach kids a specific way of doing something, but when it comes to grading an exam I would say so long as they get the right answer it shouldn't matter how they arrived at it. Let people do things their own way if they have their own way and it works. No need to stifle creativity. Saying "no kid, you can't solve the problem using that method, you have to use this one" is as stupid and ridiculous as saying "no kid, you can't write with your left hand, you have to use your right hand" (which schools used to do and have thankfully long since stopped!).

[CapTon 592]

Well you do make some good points, but I disagree.

 

I forgot to mention as well that much of the stuff taught at a younger age is taught time and time again as you go up through the ranks. It's as if you're not learning anything new, but rather being educated on things you already know.

[CaptCity 4,919]

Being a subject near and dear to my heart, reading through this is proving very interesting. Many of the comments raised are the same points I must address almost on a daily basis with students, parents, and even fellow teachers. I won't and don't want to belittle anyone's view by just saying "you just don't get it." No, that is definitely the wrong approach. I can only compare the goals of Common Core with what had occurred in the field of education in the 15 - 20 years prior to Common Core (in my little corner of the world, anyway) during the so-called 'standards movement' with all of its focus on specific standards and standardized testing - which started out as a good idea that was turned into a monster. Common Core hopes to unravel that beast and even attempt to undo some of the 'damage' done. Yes, it is different. Yes, it may seem more complicated. But one must consider the goal - to help students 'think' through a situation rather than regurgitate a procedure or formula. In my own experience, students often (very very often) simply want to use the most recent thing learned to find an answer (I call that the 'robot effect'). They don't know how to analyze situations to determine the best way to finding a solution. I look at it as not 'teaching' Common Core, but letting the students 'learn' through Common Core. The focus isn't so much on the 'what do you get' but on the 'how can you get it'. Using the above 14=3x+5 example. Sure it wouldn't be overly difficult to teach students how to find x using logic or even a series of steps. However, they would have a difficult time explaining what that equation actually means and when to use it

 

As in so many areas of life, we operate on a pendulum, and the pendulum is swinging. It's a big change, and sometimes change is scary. Okay, jumping down from my soapbox, now... 

[CapTon 592]

No, that is definitely the wrong approach. I can only compare the goals of Common Core with what had occurred in the field of education in the 15 - 20 years prior to Common Core (in my little corner of the world, anyway) during the so-called 'standards movement' with all of its focus on specific standards and standardized testing - which started out as a good idea that was turned into a monster. Common Core hopes to unravel that beast and even attempt to undo some of the 'damage' done.

I believe it is the other way around. Before Common Core, the main focus when teaching wasn't on the standardized testing, but rather on actually educating the students. When Common Core came around, this changed, and now teachers teach for the tests rather than teach for the students.

 

Unless you dive into a career involving computer science or some form of engineering, equations will not be used all that much to solve problems. Instead, people will use logic and common sense to determine what is necessary. Sure, they will most likely gather up knowledge they acquired from the math courses they took back in school and use that, and they will apply that knowledge to the problem and test to see if their logic makes sense.

 

Ever since Common Core was implemented in the states, students' test scores have dropped dramatically. And to think; the teachers are teaching for those very tests.

[Meg 368]

Interesting.   There can be different ways of arriving at an answer but I agree with Duke's point that the grade level is important.   Fifteen years ago they were asking first graders to explain what method they used to arrive at their answer.    Most kids that age can say "I counted on my fingers" or "I added it in my head" but can't give further details.

 

I agree that learning various methods of arriving at an answer is important.  Years ago, it was interesting watching people play Trival Pursuit.  Some people would rely strictly on memory and not try to figure out the answer if they didn't already know it.    Others would try to connect the dots.   Sample question:  "Which NFL team do the Embraceable Ewes root for?"   It doesn't matter if you have heard of the Embraceable Ewes or not.   All that is needed is knowlege of animals and NFL team names.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This doesn't pertain to the current discussion, but this made me a little angry:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/09/republicans-described-as-unwilling-to-help-poor-in-classroom-assignment-parent/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

Why? Its true. 

 

We can objectively measure that the GOP thinks that helping out poor people is a waste of money. Trickle down economics, their love for Ayn Rand, mandatory drug tests for people on welfare, their resistance to ObamaCare, hell, in one state they even suggested that if kids of families on welfare perform badly in school their welfare should be cut or reduced, literally using hunger as an incentive for children to perform better at school. Sorry, but there is just no other way around it, the GOP hates poor people. 

 

EDIT: this could easily be fake though. Given that its Fox News that reported on this, it wouldnt surprise if it turns out to be fake. 

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Regardless of the bad press they get, normal Republicans do an awful lot to help the poor outside of government channels.  They volunteer.  They donate money and supplies and time to charities and churches who help the poor.  Sure, you have your vocal minority of lunatic "Christians" like the Westboro Something-or-other morons, but I would be willing to bet that most Christian Republicans take the part of Jesus' teachings where he says to help people in need very seriously and they do a lot to do so.  They just do it in their own time on their own dime.  Now, this isn't all of them, there are the ones who think Ayn Rand was on to something, but I think that they're like the Westboro Something-or-others: just the loud, annoying, angry morons who get all the press.  Donating time and money and supplies isn't sexy and isn't going to make the news the way fighting Obamacare or shouting vapid platitudes about individualism does, but if you look past the news and the stupid internet comments and the "Our Side Is Better Than Them" propoganda, you're going to find that a lot of Republicans are actually people who care about other people and actually do do things in their free time with their extra stuff and money to help the poor.

 

See?  This is the exact thing that we should work tirelessly to not do: dehumanize and demonize the other side.  Not everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and not everyone who thinks about things differently from you is doing it because they actively hate the poor/people with different skin color/foreigers etc etc.  Thinking "I'm right and you're wrong and that makes you a bad person" is not the best way to go through life.

[CapTon 592]

 

This doesn't pertain to the current discussion, but this made me a little angry:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/09/republicans-described-as-unwilling-to-help-poor-in-classroom-assignment-parent/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

Why? Its true. 

 

We can objectively measure that the GOP thinks that helping out poor people is a waste of money. Trickle down economics, their love for Ayn Rand, mandatory drug tests for people on welfare, their resistance to ObamaCare, hell, in one state they even suggested that if kids of families on welfare perform badly in school their welfare should be cut or reduced, literally using hunger as an incentive for children to perform better at school. Sorry, but there is just no other way around it, the GOP hates poor people. 

 

EDIT: this could easily be fake though. Given that its Fox News that reported on this, it wouldnt surprise if it turns out to be fake. 

 

No, it is completely false.

 

Liberals push out all this crap about the GOP because they want change. And no, it's not change for the better. They want to change our country from a democracy to a class system like that of India's. They don't believe that Americans are capable of having the numerous rights and freedoms we have now.

 

And I don't know where you get your information from, but since when has Fox News turned into propaganda?

[Duke87 1,070]

Once more unto finer points. While the Reupublican party to varying degrees does not support government-run welfare programs as much as other parties might, that is not the same thing as saying "Republicans believe helping the poor is a waste of money". The political rhetoric that gets spewed often talks about budgets, yes, but deeper down the belief is not so much "helping the poor is a waste of money" as it is "helping the poor is not the government's job, it's the job of individuals and independent organizations". Now yes, not everyone practices what they preach when it comes to the latter part of that statement, but that is the general belief.

 

I agree with the parent here, this homework question clearly puts a demonizing spin on the Republican party.

[CaptCity 4,919]

 

No, that is definitely the wrong approach. I can only compare the goals of Common Core with what had occurred in the field of education in the 15 - 20 years prior to Common Core (in my little corner of the world, anyway) during the so-called 'standards movement' with all of its focus on specific standards and standardized testing - which started out as a good idea that was turned into a monster. Common Core hopes to unravel that beast and even attempt to undo some of the 'damage' done.

 

I believe it is the other way around. Before Common Core, the main focus when teaching wasn't on the standardized testing, but rather on actually educating the students. When Common Core came around, this changed, and now teachers teach for the tests rather than teach for the students.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Testing actually tests the prejudices of the test designer.  This has to be very carefully vetted to remove all bias.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Obama goes to war?

 

With a solidly Republican congress, what will happen with this?  Will the war-hawks finally get their way?

[Meg 368]

 

And I don't know where you get your information from, but since when has Fox News turned into propaganda?

 

 

Time was, several decades ago, people could turn on the news and get actual facts.    It was, for the most part, the truth even though it was probably not the whole truth.  Rarely did the audience get a sense as to how the newscaster felt about what he was saying.  (There were, of course, obvious exceptions.)

These days, it is difficult to get plain facts.   Most so-called news comes with a spin on it.  The spin varies, depending on who is telling the story.   That is not news; that is someone else’s opinion.   

Much of today’s so-called news is actually gossip.  But the news providers are looking for ratings and an audience so they dumb it down until we are talking about people who are irrelevant  (Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, any Kardashian, etc.) or they put a spin on it that will get people emotionally engaged.

Thing is, it is difficult to separate out the actual facts when the news program is focused on getting people emotional.   Usually the emotions are fear and anger.  Yes, there are things to get angry and afraid about but how about getting the facts first before throwing a tantrum.

Next time you watch a news program, stop and listen to what is being said and ask yourself if you are hearing a fact or if you are hearing someone’s opinion.

 

[CapTon 592]

 

 

And I don't know where you get your information from, but since when has Fox News turned into propaganda?

 

 

Time was, several decades ago, people could turn on the news and get actual facts.    It was, for the most part, the truth even though it was probably not the whole truth.  Rarely did the audience get a sense as to how the newscaster felt about what he was saying.  (There were, of course, obvious exceptions.)

These days, it is difficult to get plain facts.   Most so-called news comes with a spin on it.  The spin varies, depending on who is telling the story.   That is not news; that is someone else’s opinion.   

Much of today’s so-called news is actually gossip.  But the news providers are looking for ratings and an audience so they dumb it down until we are talking about people who are irrelevant  (Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, any Kardashian, etc.) or they put a spin on it that will get people emotionally engaged.

Thing is, it is difficult to separate out the actual facts when the news program is focused on getting people emotional.   Usually the emotions are fear and anger.  Yes, there are things to get angry and afraid about but how about getting the facts first before throwing a tantrum.

Next time you watch a news program, stop and listen to what is being said and ask yourself if you are hearing a fact or if you are hearing someone’s opinion.

 

 

Fox News present facts and then consults experts for their opinions. I will admit that Fox News does seem to be on more of a conservative side, but they do present both facts and opinions, and you are able to tell which one is which because they tell you that they're consulting experts for their opinions.

[Meg 368]

 

Fox News present facts and then consults experts for their opinions. I will admit that Fox News does seem to be on more of a conservative side, but they do present both facts and opinions, and you are able to tell which one is which because they tell you that they're consulting experts for their opinions.

 

 

 

If it’s an opinion, it is not news.  It is commentary.  As someone said earlier, if they changed the name to include the word “commentary”, it would be more accurate.

But let’s look at a specific example, a headline from the website:

Obama Builds Hamster Wheel for GOP on ISIS

Okay, so what does that mean?   You can’t tell from the headline.   That‘s probably an analogy of some sort.  The one thing it is NOT is a fact.  I will bet you all of the money that you have that Obama did not actually build a hamster wheel.    That is the writer’s opinion about whatever is going on.

This puts the reader in the position of wading through the writer’s opinion to get to the actual facts.  Which is difficult to do.   Especially since the writer seems convinced that it’s all about “us” versus “them”.    Problem is, in his equation the “them” isn’t ISIS.    I imagine that ISIS is having a nice giggle fit about how Americans squabble with each other.

So what, if anything, is being accomplished here?   No new facts are being presented.   No solutions are being offered.    It sounds like a kid whining that someone is picking on him.   

And, yes, I understand that things are a mess.  Whining about it and pointing fingers isn’t going to help.

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@Meg.  Don't you think with that attitude that Fox is really a conservative propaganda outfit?

 

@Capton.  Mostly I get my news from two sources, both somewhat tainted, but I have learned to read between the lines, and to compare other sources as well.  Generally my first take is from CBC's website, the second is BBC's website.  I occasionally watch PBS stations for news as they are likely to be less biased.  In that regard, I like TVO, the Buffalo and Detroit stations of PBS, with an occasional dip into either Boston or L.A. and sometimes Seattle.  All of these sources have some spin, but certainly less than many biased stations.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

I get my news by moderating these forums.  News networks exist to make a profit and really are only there for the TV version of clickbaiting and that doesn't really do it for me.  I don't really go for clickbaiting articles on the internet, either.  It's all the same outrages over and over again anyways.  I got tired of it about ten years ago and I've found that my quality of life is better when I don't have to watch the latest horrors on my TV.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Fox News present facts and then consults experts for their opinions. I will admit that Fox News does seem to be on more of a conservative side, but they do present both facts and opinions, and you are able to tell which one is which because they tell you that they're consulting experts for their opinions.

 

That doesn't mean its not propaganda. Propaganda doesn't necessarily mean the North Korean style of nonsensical blatant lying. It can be what Fox News does, by providing you with an extremely one sided view on the issues, and thus framing the discussion in a particular way. Its true, they bring in expert opinions, and they present facts. But each expert opinion is carefully selected so the opinions they will tell you are the opinions Fox News wants you to hear. And the 'facts' they tell you are either not facts or presented in such a way that they mirror the Fox News view. 

 

Take their example on ObamaCare. They hate it, but they still present facts on it. But all of those facts are put in a consistently negative context. Every fact that shows that ObamaCare might actually work and not be a bad thing is either ignored, or significantly downplayed, in order to keep the negative context intact. Take their take on the Ukraine crisis. Sure, they call in expert opinions, but all those opinions say that Obama sucks and that the US should escalate the conflict. They either ignore or downplay the expert opinions (of which there are a lot more by far more reliable experts) who say the US should focus on a diplomatic solution. 

 

In short, Fox News isn't giving you the news in a fair and balanced manner, its telling you a story and behind that story is a deeply conservative agenda. 

[AcmeSigns 97]

 

Fox News present facts and then consults experts for their opinions. I will admit that Fox News does seem to be on more of a conservative side, but they do present both facts and opinions, and you are able to tell which one is which because they tell you that they're consulting experts for their opinions.

 

That doesn't mean its not propaganda. Propaganda doesn't necessarily mean the North Korean style of nonsensical blatant lying. It can be what Fox News does, by providing you with an extremely one sided view on the issues, and thus framing the discussion in a particular way. Its true, they bring in expert opinions, and they present facts. But each expert opinion is carefully selected so the opinions they will tell you are the opinions Fox News wants you to hear. And the 'facts' they tell you are either not facts or presented in such a way that they mirror the Fox News view. 

 

Take their example on ObamaCare. They hate it, but they still present facts on it. But all of those facts are put in a consistently negative context. Every fact that shows that ObamaCare might actually work and not be a bad thing is either ignored, or significantly downplayed, in order to keep the negative context intact. Take their take on the Ukraine crisis. Sure, they call in expert opinions, but all those opinions say that Obama sucks and that the US should escalate the conflict. They either ignore or downplay the expert opinions (of which there are a lot more by far more reliable experts) who say the US should focus on a diplomatic solution. 

 

In short, Fox News isn't giving you the news in a fair and balanced manner, its telling you a story and behind that story is a deeply conservative agenda. 

 

Or maybe, just maybe, there are so many more horror stories about the Affordable Care Act that they hugely outnumber the 'good' stories? I would think that if the ACA was the god send they make it out to be that we would hear the unending stories of it's greatness on the nightly, mainstream media, news shows. And yet?

 

As for the comment a ways back, 'Given that its Fox News that reported on this, it wouldnt surprise if it turns out to be fake.' You are clearly set in your views of Fox news and I don't expect to change them, but perhaps you'll believe it's real by reading it at: http://www.educationnews.org/parenting/us-politics-quiz-rankles-wisconsin-parent/(this was the most unbiased site I could find that reported on it). Better yet, head over to gotoquiz.com and take the test for yourself.I did. Some very interesting questions in the quiz.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

With a universal medical care system, when it works well that is not news.  Only system failures are news.  Don't expect praise for the ACA, only complaints.  People who have had success with it have nothing to crow about.