The NGA is about as good as you are going to get with state concerns. Labeling it a "Washington D.C. trade organization" obscures the body of that organization.
That's a much better way of presenting the information than the woman in the video. Her presentation really does have an air of conspiracy theory.
I think the problem is that the state legislature had no say. If you're going to adopt a new massive system for how students in your state are taught and assessed, shouldn't that be up to the representatives to decide?
I think the problem is that the state legislature had no say. If you're going to adopt a new massive system for how students in your state are taught and assessed, shouldn't that be up to the representatives to decide?
That's up to the state. Not every state has the same adoption procedures.
https://sites.google.com/site/ncslccssupdate/home/ccss-adopting-states/adopting-agency
Perhaps that's part of the problem.
Unless I am mistaken, your argument was that federalism was being ignored. However, I just demonstrated it was adhered to. It's just that the bodies in each state which are granted the lead change. Furthermore, existing organizations which serve as rather legitimate liaisons between the individual states and the federal government were among your main targets.
I'm a fan of keeping it simple. I don't think there should be these "liaisons" between individual states and the federal government. If the states want to change something, it should be up to the people in State legislatures who were voted to represent the taxpayers, not some group in D.C.
Then feel free to do your own research and post the videos and articles that you think would help the discussion.
I don't think there should be these "liaisons" between individual states and the federal government.
If the states want to change something, it should be up to the people in State legislatures who were voted to represent the taxpayers, not some group in D.C.
It's just nutty to think that states should not, in any way, interact with the federal govt, even if the states want to do so.
It wasn't "some group in DC" that approved the implementation of CC in any state. It was the state itself.
It looks faker than a very fake thing with a degree in faux fakery. Is it real?
4. We don't know who is part of the National Governors Association and the CCSSOF (the writers of the CCSS) <<< is that true?
Moving on to Part 2...
1. The U.S. Constitution leaves educational policy to the States. Because CCSS are national standards with nationalized testing, CCSS is in violation of 3 federal statues --- General Education Provisions Act, Department of Education Provisions Act and Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
2. CCSS is copyrighted. A state, school board, district, teacher may not change or delete anything. They my add a small amount of content - no more than 15% for any area.
3. If a parent or teacher feels as though something in Common Core isn't working, they cannot go to the school board, administrators or even the governor. Since CCSS are national standards, state or local government cannot change them.
4. We don't know who is part of the National Governors Association and the CCSSOF (the writers of the CCSS) <<< is that true?
5. One of the drafters of the math CCSS said the college that students will be prepared for is a community college (she doesn't name this person...)
6. The Common Core validation committee never found evidence that the CCSS are internationally benchmarked and as rigorous as those in countries whose students score highly on tests (as they once claimed).
7. The only mathematician (Dr. Milgrim?) on the validation committee said that it's almost a joke that a student will be prepared for university math after completing CC curriculum. Algebra 1 moves from 8th grade to 9th grade making it harder to reach Calculus by high school. Geometry is taught by experimental method << I have no idea what that means. He said by 8th grade, our students will be about 2 years behind those of the highest achieving countries.
8. Dr. Sandra Stotsky from the validation committee commented on the English Language Arts standards -- she said they were "empty skill sets" and "no accumulation of literacy knowledge". She's afraid the reading level that CCSS calls "college-ready" will be about 7th grade level. There's a large emphasis on technical books and non-fiction and less on literature. CC includes no British literature except a little Shakespeare (not sure if that's true of all CC curriculum).
However, these relevant points were not raised in the video you posted.
I'm sorry, but anyone living in the internet age that makes these sorts of claims is generally not remotely doing their homework. We live in an era where we can get exactly that information, directly from the source, within a couple of keystrokes.
To the former: the NGA is a body literally made up of the State governors. There is also organizational staff and Chiefs of Staff.
Staff Directory
Current Governors
To the latter: You're looking at your state superintendents of schools and other partnerships, along with organizational staff.
CCSSO - Meet the Chiefs
CCSSO - Board of Directors
CCSSO - Leadership Team
CCSSO - Staff Directory
These relevant points were in the videos you chose not to watch.
Extremely unlikely. I've seen worksheets like this before, all cobbled together by the right wing alarmists.
When we talk about the people who developed this it becomes a huge issue with me. One would think something as important as education would have had various stakeholders involved like teachers, parents, administrators, students....the actual people who will be most affected by the action of reform. Many of these people weren't even invited to be part of it until after the fact. I can't help but think of the money trail and the motive behind much of this:
snip: http://santamariatimes.com/news/opi...ion/article_cd55e888-36e1-11e3-8859-001a4bcf8
The list of private interest is long and disturbing. There are enormous profits to be had from the sale of computer hardware, support and training, curriculum materials and e-books. But what seems to be attracting the most attention from private interests is the business of data-mining. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Foundation and Rupert Murdoch have funded one of the first corporations involved in data-mining — inBloom. In researching inBloom Inc., you will find the model for how foundations and other private interests align with government to support private, profitable endeavors through our public schools.
A report by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, “A Framework for a Multistate Human Capital Development Data System,” emphasizes the importance of a national data system. In the report, our children are referred to as human capital. On the final page of the report, it reads, “… our gratitude also goes to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which provided funding for this paper ...”
Yes, you're upset because we watched the video you linked to and criticized it and because we didn't watch videos that you hadn't watched either :roll:
I've watched the entire series, sangha. You didn't and continue to make comments that are knee-jerk and pointless. I'm not going to respond to you anymore until you start discussing this important topic like a man instead of a 12 year old.
Actually it looks like our Reading Street worksheets. We have the title of the story at the top right shaded in gray. I bet that's where it came from.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?